章节大纲

  • lesson content

    Argument from Revelation
    ::引文中的参数

    There is an argument to prove that god exists.  It is based upon sacred scripture.  It is based on the belief that god has revealed god’s existence to humans through the creation or inspiration of the text, which is then thought to be a sacred text. Humans experience the text directly and through that experience many believe that they have contact with the deity. Argument from Revelation consists of:
    ::有一种论点可以证明上帝的存在。它基于神圣的经文。它基于一种信念,即上帝通过创造或启发文本,向人类揭示了上帝的存在。 文本的创造或启发,然后被认为是神圣的文本。 人类直接地和通过经验体验文本,许多人认为他们与神有接触。 启示的论据包括:

    Sacred Texts-
    ::神圣的文字...

    • Inspired by the deity/intermediary
      ::受神灵/中间人的启发
    • Dictated by the deity/intermediary
      ::由神灵/中间人所描述
    • Written by the deity/intermediary
      ::由神灵/中间人撰写

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. The scriptures say that God exists. (Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.)
      ::圣经上说,上帝存在。 (《圣经》、《古兰经》、维达斯等)
    2. The scriptures are true because they were written by God or by inspired individuals.
      ::圣经是真实的,因为它们是上帝或灵感分子所写的。
    3. Who inspired these individuals? (God did)
      ::谁激励了这些人呢?
    4. God is the source and guarantee of truth
      ::真主是真言的源泉和保证,
    5. God Exists
      ::上帝存在

    This argument or proof is not accepted by rational careful thinkers as it has problems or flaws in it.  There are leaks in this "raft".  There are different sorts of problems with this argument.
    ::理性谨慎的思考者不接受这一论点或证据,因为它有问题或缺陷。

    Problems with the Argument
    ::与参数有关的问题

    Logical Problem
    ::逻辑问题

    Fallacy :   Classic circular argument
    ::误差:经典循环推论

    This argument assumes what it is trying to prove and thus is considered to be one of the poorest arguments of all those offered to prove the existence of God. Premise 2 and 4 actually contain the conclusion in it.  But the argument is supposed to lead you to the conclusion and not assume the conclusion within the premises.  You must accept that the book is from God in order to accept it as being truthful and accurate and then when you accept it as being truthful and accurate you read in it that there is a deity and so conclude that there is a God and that is what you needed to think in order to accept the book as being truthful and accurate in the first place.This circular reasoning would not convince a rational person who was not already a believer in a deity that three was a deity.
    ::这个论点假定它所要证明的,因此被认为是所有证明上帝存在的人中最穷的论据之一。第2和第4个假设实际上载有其中的结论。但这个论点应该引导你得出结论,而不是在前提内作出结论。你必须接受这本书是上帝写的,以便承认它是真实和准确的,然后当你接受这本书是真实和准确的,你在里面读到它的时候,你读到它是真实和准确的,有一个神,从而得出结论,有一个上帝,这是你首先需要思考的,以便接受这本书是真实和准确的。这个循环的推理不会说服一个理性的人,他不是不信神的神,而是三个神。

    Psychological Problem
    ::心理问题

    In addition today there are many people who refuse to believe that the texts are accurate descriptions of events that occurred long ago.  People are aware of the psychological phenomenon whereby people who repeat tales are inclined to exaggerate or otherwise distort what actually occurred.  Events might have been seen in retrospect as having been directed by a deity or as having some meaning in terms of a plan devised by a deity or as symbolic of the deity. 
    ::此外,今天还有许多人拒绝相信这些文字是对很久以前发生的事件的准确描述。 人们知道,那些重复故事的人倾向于夸大或以其他方式歪曲实际发生的事情的心理现象。 人们可能回想起来认为,这些事件是神的指使,或者在神所设计的计划中具有某种意义,或者作为神的象征。

    Textual Problem
    ::文字问题

    Finally, it is now known that what have been considered to be sacred texts were voted upon by the leaders of the religious movements.  Certain texts were excluded and others included by deliberate calculation of the practical results desired by those who had the power to declare the texts to be officially inspired or written by the deity.
    ::最后,现在人们知道,被认为是神圣的经文已经由宗教运动领导人投票表决,某些经文被排除在外,而其他经有意计算那些有权宣布经神灵正式启发或撰写经神灵正式启发或写成的案文的人希望取得的实际结果而列入的案文则被排除在外。

    The use of texts that are considered by some to be sacred are not likely to prove to the non-believer that they are sacred.  The use of the texts to prove to a non-believer that there is a sacred source for the inspiration to the authors of the texts is not likely to be convincing when there are alternative explanations for what was created so long ago.  Those alternative explanations having to do with human psychology and sociology are being accepted by steadily increasing number of people, including those who claim to be religious.  Most simply cannot believe that the reports contained with the scriptures are accurate or true and fewer and fewer can accept the texts as being directed by the deity.
    ::使用某些人认为是神圣的文本不太可能向不信者证明这些文本是神圣的; 使用这些文本向不信者证明有神圣来源激励作者的神圣来源,如果对如此早以前所创造的东西有其他解释,就不大可能令人信服; 与人类心理和社会学有关的替代解释被越来越多的人所接受,包括那些自称是宗教的人; 最根本的是无法相信经文所载报告准确或真实,而且很少或更少的人能够接受经文作为神的指引。

    Truth Problem
    ::真相问题真相问题

    What sacred text is the most sacred or the most true?   A) What version of the sacred text are we to use?  and B) the text reports events that cannot be true and cannot be verified and that can be falsified.
    ::什么是最神圣或最真实的神圣文本?A)我们应使用什么版本的神圣文本?和B)文本报告的事件不可能是真实的、无法核实的和可以伪造的。

    Variations in Sacred Texts
    ::神圣文字的变异

    If the Argument from Revelation or Scripture is thought to be acceptable by some then there is the need to explain why one scripture is preferable to another and how the other scriptures that contradict the preferred scripture are to be disproved or disallowed.
    ::如果有些人认为《古兰经》或《圣经》的辩词可以接受,那么就需要解释为什么一本《圣经》比另一本《圣经》更可取,以及与首选《圣经》相矛盾的其他《圣经》如何被反驳或拒绝。

    1. God must exist because the scriptures say so. (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Avestas, etc.)
      ::上帝必须存在,因为经文是这样说的。 (《圣经》、可兰经、维达斯、阿韦斯塔斯等)
    2. The scriptures are true because they were written by God or by inspired individuals.
      ::圣经是真实的,因为它们是上帝或灵感分子所写的。
    3. Who inspired these individuals? (God did)
      ::谁激励了这些人呢?

    So which sacred scripture is more sacred or more holy or more true: Bible, New Testament, Koran, Vedas, Avestas?
    ::那么,哪本神圣的经文更神圣,或更神圣,或更真实? 圣经、新约、可兰经、维达斯、阿韦斯塔斯?

    Read
    ::已读

    lesson content

    EPISD Informed Problem Solvers Goal
    ::EPISD 信息化解决问题者目标

    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  

    Variations in Texts of Western Religions
    ::西方宗教文本的变异

    What version is the official version of the "holy book"? Why What versions of these sacred scriptures are to be taken as the official  and the truthful versions?  In all three traditions of the West: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there are records to indicate that there were and are variations on the sacred texts.  In all three traditions a time came when the community needed to determine what the official version or the Canon would be.
    ::“神圣的书”的官方版本是什么?为什么这些神圣的经文的哪些版本将被视为官方版本和真实版本?在西方的所有三种传统中:犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教,都有记录表明在神圣的经文上存在和存在差异。 在这三个传统中,社区需要决定官方版本或卡农是什么版本的时候到了。

    lesson content

    Proofs for the Existence of God: The Ontological Argument
    ::证明上帝存在的证据:本体论辩

    Anselm's Onogicatol Argument
    ::Anselm 的Onogicatol 参数

    This is the  a priori   argument -- prior to considering the existence of the physical universe.  This is reasoning without bringing in any consideration of the existence of the universe or any part of it.  This is an argument considering the idea of god alone.
    ::这是一个先验的论据 -- -- 在考虑物理宇宙的存在之前。这是推理,没有考虑宇宙的存在或宇宙的任何部分。这是一个仅考虑上帝概念的论点。

    The argument is considered to be one of the most intriguing ever devised.  It took over 400 years for Philosophers to realize what its actual flaws were.  As an “ a priori ” argument, the ontological argument tries to “prove” the existence of God by establishing the necessity of God’s existence through an explanation of the concept of existence or necessary being .
    ::哲学家花了400多年才认识到它的实际缺陷。 作为“先验”的论调,本体论的论调试图通过解释存在的概念或必要的存在概念来“证明”上帝的存在,从而“证明”上帝的存在。

    Ontological Argument 
    ::肿瘤参数

     Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, first set forth the ontological argument in the eleventh century.  This argument is the primary locus for such philosophical problems as whether existence is a property and whether or not the notion of necessary existence is intelligible.  It is also the only one of the traditional arguments that clearly leads to the necessary properties of God, such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc. Anselm’s argument may be conceived as a “ reductiio ad absurdum ” argument.  In such an argument, one begins with a supposition, which is the contrary to what one is attempting to prove.  Coupling the supposition with various existing certain or self-evident assumption will yield a contradiction in the end.  This contradiction is what is used to demonstrate that the contrary of the original supposition is true.
    ::坎特伯雷大主教安塞尔姆(Anselm)首先阐述了十一世纪的肿瘤学论点,这一论点是诸如存在是否属于财产以及必要存在的概念是否可以理解等哲学问题的主要中心,也是明确导致上帝必要特性的传统论点中的唯一一种,如万能、奥姆尼科学等。 安塞尔姆的论点可以被视为一种 " redudiio ad marterum " 论点。 在这种论点中,人们首先提出一种与人们试图证明的情况相反的假设。用各种现有的某些或不言自明的假设来推断最终会产生矛盾。 这种矛盾是用来证明与原始假设相反的说法是真实的。

    There will be several presentations of this argument so that the reader will be able to develop an understanding.
    ::将对这一论点作若干陈述,以便读者能够达成谅解。

    lesson content

    EPISD Critical Knowledge and Creative Thinkers Goal
    ::EPISD 关键知识和创意思想者目标

    Form 1:  Anselm's Argument
    ::表格 1: Anselm 的参数

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    Anselm - the supreme being - that being greater than which none can be conceived (gcb), the gcb must be conceived of as existing in reality and not just in the mind or else the gcb is not that being greater than which none can be conceived.
    ::Anselm -- -- 至高无上者 -- -- 大于任何人都无法预想的程度(gcb),Gcb必须被视为现实中存在,而不只是在思想中存在,否则,gcb并不大于任何人都无法预想的程度。

    1. Suppose (S) that the greatest conceivable being (GCB) exists in the mind alone and not in reality(gcb1).
      ::假设(S)最有可能的情况是(GCB)仅存在于脑中,而不是在现实中(gcb1)。
    2. Then the greatest conceivable being would not be the greatest conceivable being because one could think of a being like (gcb1) but think of the gcb as existing in reality (gcb2) and not just in the mind.
      ::然后,最能想象到的不是最能想象到的,因为人们可以想象到一个像(gcb1)这样的人,而可以想象到(gcb2)的Gcb是现实中存在的(gcb2),而不仅仅在思想中存在。
    3. So, gcb1 would not be the GCB but gcb2 would be.
      ::gcb1不是GCB,而是gcb2。
    4. Thus to think of the GCB is to think of the gcb2, i.e. a being that exists in reality and not just in the mind.
      ::因此,对GCB的思考是想Gcb2,即一种存在于现实中,而不仅仅是在思想中存在的人。

    Form 2: God as Necessary Being
    ::形式2:上帝是必需的上帝

    Premises/Conclusion
    ::房地/结论

    1. God is either a necessary being or a contingent being.
      ::真主不是必要者,就是应变者。
    2. There is nothing contradictory about god being a necessary being
      ::上帝是必需的 没有什么矛盾的
    3. So, it is possible that god exists as a necessary being.
      ::因此,神的存在可能是一种必要的存在。
    4. So if it is possible that God is a necessary being then God exists.
      ::如果真主是必需的,那末,真主确是存在的。
    5. Because God is not a contingent being.
      ::因为上帝不是附身的
    6. God must exist as the necessary being.
      ::上帝必须存在 作为必要的存在。

    Anselm begins by defining the most central term in his argument - God. Without asserting that God exists, Anselm asks what is it that we mean when we refer to the idea of "God." When we speak of a God, Anselm implies, we are speaking of the most supreme being. That is, let "god" = "something than which nothing greater can be thought." Anselm's definition of God might sound confusing upon first hearing it, but he is simply restating our intuitive understanding of what is meant by the concept "God." Thus, for the purpose of this argument let "God" = "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived."
    ::Anselm 的开头是界定他论点中最核心的词句——上帝。安森在不声称上帝存在的情况下,问我们指的是什么?当我们提到“上帝”的概念时,安森暗示说,我们说的是最崇高的人。就是说,“上帝”就是“比任何事物都难以想象的东西。”安森对上帝的定义在第一次听到它的时候可能听起来有点混乱,但他只是否认我们对“上帝”概念的含义的直觉理解。因此,为了这个论点的目的,让“上帝”成为“最伟大的事物”。

    Within your understanding, then, you possess the concept of God. As a non-believer, you might argue that you have a concept of unicorn (after all, it is the shared concept that allows us to discuss such a thing) but the concept is simply an idea of a thing. After all, we understand what a unicorn is but we do not believe that they exist. Anselm would agree.
    ::在你们的理解范围内,你们可以拥有上帝的概念。作为一个不信教的人,你们可以争辩说,你们有一种独角兽的概念(毕竟,共同的概念是允许我们讨论这种事情的),但这个概念只是一个事物的概念。毕竟,我们理解独角兽是什么,但我们不相信它们存在。安赛尔同意。

    1.  Two key points have been made thus far: When we speak of God (whether we are asserting God is or God is not), we are contemplating an entity whom can be defined as "a being which nothing greater can be conceived.";
      ::到目前为止,已经提出了两点:当我们谈论上帝的时候(无论我们说上帝是上帝,还是不是上帝),我们正在考虑一个可以被定义为“一个没有什么比这更伟大的东西”的实体。
    2. When we speak of God (either as believer or non-believer), we have an intra-mental understanding of that concept, i.e. the idea is within our understanding.
      ::当我们谈论上帝时(既信真主,又不信真主),我们对这个概念有内在的理解,即这个概念在我们的理解范围内。
    3. It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality, then to exist in the mind alone
      ::在思想中和现实中存在,然后在思想中单独存在,是更大的

    Anselm continues by examining the difference between that which exists in the mind and that which exists both in the mind and outside of the mind as well. What is being asked here is: Is it greater to exist in the mind alone or in the mind and in reality (or outside of the mind)? Anselm asks you to consider the painter, e.g. define which is greater: the reality of a painting as it exists in the mind of an artist, or that same painting existing in the mind of that same artist and as a physical piece of art. Anselm contends that the painting, existing both within the mind of the artist and as a real piece of art, is greater than the mere intra-mental conception of the work. Let me offer a real-world example: If someone were to offer you a dollar, but you had to choose between the dollar that exists within their mind or the dollar that exists both in their mind and in reality, which dollar would you choose? Are you sure... At this point, we have a third key point established:
    ::Anselm 继续研究思想中存在的东西与思想中和思想外存在的东西之间的区别。 这里问的是: 在思想中单独存在、在思想中和现实中(或思想外)存在是否更大? Anselm 要求你考虑画家, 例如定义哪个更大: 艺术家思想中存在的一幅绘画的现实, 或者在同一名艺术家思想中和作为艺术的物理作品中存在的同一幅画。 Anselm 认为, 画既存在于艺术家的头脑中,也存在于真正的艺术之中, 也存在于作品中。 让我举个例子: 如果有人向你提供一美元, 但你不得不在他们思想中存在的美元或者在他们思想中和现实中存在的美元之间做出选择。 你确信吗? 在这一点上,我们有一个第三个关键点是:

    Have you figured out where Anselm is going with this argument?
    ::你知道安赛尔姆想说什么吗?

    1. If God is that than greater which cannot be conceived (established in #1 above);
      ::假若有比这更伟大的、不能被想象的事物,那末,真主必定是全能的;
    2. And since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (established in #3 above);
      ::由于在思想和现实中存在比仅仅在思想中存在更为重要(见上面第3节);
    3. Then God must exist both in the mind (established in #2 above) and in reality;
      ::那么上帝必须既存在于思想中(在上文#2中),也存在于现实中;
    4. In short, God must be. God is not merely an intra-mental concept but an extra-mental reality as well.
      ::简言之,上帝必须是上帝,上帝不仅仅是一个内在的概念,也是一个外在的现实。

    But why? Because if God is truly that than greater which cannot be conceived, it follows that God must exist both in the mind and in reality. If God did not exist in reality as well as our understanding, then we could conceive of a greater being, i.e. a being that does exist extra-mentally and intra-mentally. But, by definition, there can be no greater being. Thus, there must be a corresponding extra-mental reality to our intra-mental conception of God. God's existence outside of our understanding is logically necessary.
    ::为什么呢?因为如果真主是不能预知的,那末,真主必定在思想和现实中存在。如果真主不是在现实中存在的,也不是在我们的理解中存在的,那我们就可以想象一个更大的生物,即一个确存的、确存的和确存的。但从定义上讲,没有比这更大的生物。因此,我们对于真主,在思想中必须有一个相应的额外现实。真主的存在,在我们的了解之外,是必然的。

    Sometimes, Anselm's argument is presented as a Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). In an RAA, you reduce to absurdity the antithesis of your view. Since the antithesis is absurd, your view must be correct. Anselm's argument would look something like this:
    ::有时,Anselm的论据被作为《减少Ad Ad Absurdum (RAA) 》 ( RAA) 来表述。 在RAA中,你将你的观点的对立点简化为荒谬。 由于对立点是荒谬的,你的观点必须正确。 Anselm的论据会像这样看:

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. Either [God exists] or [God does not exist].
      ::要么上帝存在 要么上帝不存在 要么上帝不存在
    2. Assume [God does not exist] (the antithesis of Anselm's position)
      ::假定[上帝不存在](与安赛尔姆的立场对立)
    3. If [God does not exist] (but exists only as an intra-mental concept), then that being which nothing greater which can be conceived, is a being which a greater being can be conceived. This is a logical impossibility (remember criterion #3);
      ::如果[上帝不存在](但仅作为思想内的概念存在),那么,没有什么比这更能想象的了,那就是能够想象更大的生命。 这是合乎逻辑的不可能(记住标准3);
    4. Therefore, [God does not exist] is incorrect;
      ::因此,[上帝不存在]是不正确的;
    5. Therefore [God exists].
      ::因此,[神存在]。

    Clarifications:
    ::澄清事项:

    The argument is not that "If you believe that god exists then god exists".  That would be too ridiculous to ask anyone to accept that if you believe that X exists and is real, then X exists and is real.The ontological argument does not ask a person to assume that there is a deity or even a GCB.
    ::这不是“如果你相信上帝的存在,那么上帝的存在”的说法。 这太荒谬了,不能要求任何人接受,如果你相信X的存在和真实,那么X的存在和真实。 肿瘤学的争论并不要求一个人假设存在神或者甚至GCB。

    It asks anyone to simply think of the deity as the GREATEST CONCEIVABLE BEING and then it indicates that a being that exists in reality (outside of the mind) is greater than one that is just in the mind (imagination). So, the conclusion is that if you think of the GCB you must think that the GCB exists not just in your thinking (mind) but in reality (outside of your mind) as well.
    ::它要求任何人简单地把神当做最伟大的、最伟大的、可以生存的建筑,然后它表明,现实中存在的人(除了心智之外)比心智中存在的人(想象)要多。 因此,结论是,如果你想到GCB,你就必须认为GCB不仅存在于你的思维(心智)中,而且存在于现实中(心智之外)。

    It is greater to think of a being existing outside of the mind as well as in the mind so if you think of the GCB you must think that the GCB exists not just inside of the mind (imagination) but outside of the mind as well (in reality).
    ::更何况想到一个在思想和思想之外存在的人,所以如果你想到GCB,你一定认为GCB不仅存在于思想(想象)之中,而且(在现实中)存在于思想之外。

    Look at it this way: Anselm invites people to think about a certain conception of the deity, i.e., that of the GCB.  What Anselm did was to place into the concept itself the idea that the being must exist outside of the mind and in the realm of the real and not just inside the mind in the realm of imagination.  So you think of the GCB and what are you doing when you do that?  You must think that the GCB exists outside of the mind and in the realm of the real and not just inside the mind in the realm of imagination.  Why must you think that?  Because it you did not think that, then you would not be thinking of the GCB as defined by Anselm.
    ::这样看吧:安塞尔姆邀请人们思考神性的一个概念,即GCB的概念。安塞尔姆所做的是把一种观念放在概念本身中,即生物必须存在于思想之外,在真实的领域中,而不仅仅是在想象的思维范围内存在。所以你想到GCB,当你这样做的时候你在做什么?你一定认为GCB存在于思想之外,存在于真实的领域中,而不仅仅是在想象的思维范围内。为什么你必须这么想呢?因为你没有想到这一点,那么你就不会想到Anselm定义的GCB。

    It is like this:  Think of a triangle.  If you do you must think of a three sided figure lying on a plane with three angles adding up to 180 degrees.  Why? Because if you are not thinking of a three sided figure lying on a plane with three angles adding up to 180 degrees then you are not thinking of a triangle.  So IF you are to think of a triangle you must thnk of a three sided figure lying on a plane with three angles adding up to 180 degrees.
    ::像这样: 想象一个三角形。 如果你必须想到一个三个侧面图, 方位上有三个角度相加180度。 为什么? 因为如果你没有想到一个3个侧面图, 方位上有三个角度相加180度, 那么你就不会想到一个三角形。 所以如果你想到一个三角形, 你就必须想到一个3个侧面图, 方位上有三个角度相加180度。

    If you are to think of a GCB you must think that the being must exist outside of the mind and in the realm of the real and not just inside the mind in the realm of imagination. Why? Because if you are not thinking that the being must exist outside of the mind and in the realm of the real and not just inside the mind in the realm of imagination then you are not thinking of the GCB. In all of this it is only thinking.  Anselm proved what must be thought about the GCB given how the GCB was defined and not whether the GCB actually exists.
    ::如果你想到GCB,你就必须认为,在思想之外,在真实的领域中,而不是在想象力范围内,存在必须存在。为什么?因为如果你不认为,在思想之外,在真实的领域中,而不是仅仅在想象力范围内,存在必须存在,那么你就不是在想象力范围内,考虑GCB。在所有这一切中,这只是思考而已。Aselm证明,考虑到GCB是如何定义的,而不是GCB是否实际存在的,GCB必须思考什么。

    Form 3:   Modal Version of the Ontological 
    ::表格3:本体学模式版本

    Argument:
    ::参数 :

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. To say that there is possibly a God is to say that there is a possible world in which God exists.
      ::说可能有一个神是说, 有一个可能的世界 在那里,上帝存在。
    2. To say that God necessarily exists is to say that God exists in every possible world.
      ::说上帝必然存在 就是说上帝存在于每一个可能的世界
    3. God is necessarily perfect (i.e. maximally excellent)
      ::真主确是全能的,确是全能的。
    4. Since God is necessarily perfect, he is perfect in every possible world.
      ::因为上帝必定是完美的,他在每一个可能的世界中都是完美的。
    5. If God is perfect in every possible world, he must exist in every possible world, therefore God exists.
      ::如果在每一个可能的世界里,上帝是完美的,那么他必须存在于每一个可能的世界里,因此上帝是存在的。
    6. God is also maximally great. To be maximally great is to be perfect in every possible world.
      ::真主也是至高无上的。至高无上的,在每一个可能的世界里都是完美的。
    7. Therefore: “it is possible that there is a God,” means that there is a possible which contains God, that God is maximally great, and the God exists in every possible world and is consequently necessary.
      ::因此,“有可能有一个神,”意指一个包含上帝的可能,即真主是至高无上的,神存在于每一个可能的世界,因此是必需的。
    8. God’s existence is at least possible.
      ::上帝的存在至少是可能的。
    9. Therefore: as per item seven, God exists.
      ::因此:根据第七项,上帝存在。

    Form 4: Descartes Cartesian Argument for Existence of God
    ::表格 4: 笛卡尔: 笛卡尔: 笛卡尔为上帝的存在而争吵

    Argument
    ::参数参数

    Premises/Conclusion
    ::房地/结论

    1. If there is a God it is a perfect being.
      ::如果有上帝,那是完美的存在。
    2. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections;
      ::一个完美无缺的人拥有所有可能的完美;
    3. Existence is a perfection;
      ::存在是一种完美;
    4. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence. Simply, God exists.
      ::因此,上帝必然拥有生存的品质, 简单的说,上帝存在。

    Problems with the Ontological Argument
    ::肿瘤争论问题

    The problem with the ontological argument is NOT
    ::肿瘤学理论的问题不是

    1. that some people refuse to think of the GCB or
      ::有些人拒绝 想到GCB 或
    2. that some people have a resistance to a belief in a deity
      ::有些人对信仰神灵有抵抗,
    3. that some people just refuse to accept the deity
      ::有些人只是拒绝接受神灵

    No, the problem with the Argument is that it has FLAWS. It has a LOGICAL MISTAKE in it. What is that error in the argument?
    ::不,争论的问题是它有FLAWS。它有一个逻辑错误。在争论中,这个错误是什么?

    Conclusion of the argument is : Thus, to think of the GCB is to think of the gcb2, i.e. a being that exists in reality and not just in the mind
    ::论点的结论是:因此,想到GCB就是想一想Gcb2,即一种存在于现实中而不只是在思想中存在的生物。

    Immanuel Kant noticed that to think of the GCB is to think of the gcb2, i.e. a being that exists in reality and not just in the mind
    ::Immanuel Kant注意到,想到GCB 就是想一想Gcb2, 即一种存在于现实中的存在, 而不仅仅是在思想中存在的存在

    But to think of the gcb2 as a being that exists in reality and not just in the mind, does not prove that the gcb2 does actually exist in reality ONLY that a person MUST THINK that the gcb2 does actually exist in reality
    ::但是,将Gcb2视为现实中存在的一种存在,而不仅仅在思想中存在,并不能证明Gcb2在现实中确实存在,而只是一个人认为Gcb2在现实中存在

    But for Kant and many after him , the notion of "Existence" is not a predicate:  You cannot include it within the idea of the thing itself. You cannot think anything into existence by including existence as a property of that thing.
    ::但对于康德和在他之后的许多人来说,“存在”的概念并不是一种前提:你不能把它包含在事物本身的概念中。你不能把存在作为该事物的一种财产来思考存在。

      Guanillo's Counter - argument to Anselm's Ontological Argument
    ::Guanillo的辩词 - Anselm的本体论辩的论点

    1. The Most Perfect Island
    ::1. 最完美岛

    First : If by "God" we do mean "that than greater which can not be conceived," then the concept is meaningless for us. We can not understand, in any meaningful way, what exactly is meant by such words. The reality behind the term is completely transcendent to the human knower; 
    ::首先:如果用“上帝”来形容我们的意思是“比无法想象的更大 ” , 那么这个概念对我们毫无意义。 我们无法以任何有意义的方式理解这些词的确切含义。 这个词背后的现实是人类知识分子所完全超越的。

    Second: Even if we grant that the concept of God as "that than greater which can not be conceived" exists in the understanding, there is no reason to believe that the concept necessitates the extra-mental reality of God. After all, I can imagine the most perfect island, glorious in every detail, but there is nothing about my understanding of the island that forces us to admit the island exists.
    ::其次:即使我们承认上帝的概念“比无法想象的更大”在理解中存在,也没有理由相信这个概念需要上帝的超自然现实。 毕竟,我可以想象最完美的岛屿,每个细节都是光荣的,但对于迫使我们承认岛上存在的岛屿,我的理解却毫无意义。

    2. Existence is not a Predicate
    ::2. 存在并不是一种预断

    Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), offered what many believe to be a damning critique of Anselm's ontological argument. 
    ::Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) 提供了许多人认为 是对Anselm肿瘤学论的批评。

    Let us return to our discussion of unicorns and God. Anselm has argued that there exists a difference between the concept of "unicorn" as it exists intra-mentally and extra-mentally. If we claim that the "unicorn" is, we are somehow adding to the concept. We are endowing the concept with an additional predicate, i.e. the quality that it is. The point of Anselm's argument is that the predicate of existence can be demonstrated for the concept of "God." 
    ::让我们回到关于独角兽和上帝的讨论中来。 Anselm争论说,“ 独角兽” 的概念在精神内部存在和超感之间是有区别的。 如果我们声称“ 独角兽” 是, 我们就会以某种方式加入这个概念。 我们正在用另外一种前提来赋予这个概念, 即它的质量。 Anselm 争论的要点是, 存在的前提可以被证明为“ 神”的概念。

     Kant does not agree with Anselm's treatment of existence as a predicate. The concept of "unicorn" is not changed in any way if we claim that it is. Nor is the concept damaged if we claim that unicorns are not. According to Kant,"...we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is." If existence is not a predicate, then Anselm's argument has not demonstrated any meaningful information.  
    ::Kant 不同意Anselm将存在视为前提。 “独角兽”的概念如果我们声称是,它就不会有任何改变。如果我们声称独角兽不是,它也不会受到损害。根据Kant, ......当我们进一步宣布它的存在时,我们不会对它做最小的附加。”如果它不是前提,那么Aselm的论点并没有显示任何有意义的信息。

    Kant thought  that, while the concept of a supreme being was useful, it was only an idea, which in and of itself could not help us in our determining the correctness of the concept.  While it was a possibility, he felt that the “ a prior" stance of the argument it would be necessary to buttress it with experience.
    ::Kant认为,虽然最高地位的概念是有用的,但这只是一个想法,其本身不能帮助我们确定这个概念的正确性,虽然这是一个可能性,但他认为,这个论点的“先入之见”的立场是有必要用经验加以巩固的。

    For Kant what Anselm did was to prove that humans MUST THINK THAT a deity exists in reality and not just in the mind as an idea as the GCB but that does not mean that the GCB actually does exist in reality.  The idea of the GCB exists and the idea of the GCB as an actual being does exist but the reality or actuality of the GCB is not established based on the thoughts alone.
    ::对于康特来说,安塞尔姆所做的就是证明人类必须认为神在现实中存在,而不仅仅在思想中作为GCB的概念存在,这并不意味着GCB实际上确实存在。 GCB的概念存在,GCB作为现实存在的想法确实存在,但GCB的现实或现实并非仅凭这些想法而确定。

    Example:
    ::示例:

    1. You go home and look at the top of your dresser. You could use some money and as you look there you imagine seeing ten ten dollar bills.
      ::回家看看梳妆台的顶部 你可以需要一些钱
    2. You go home and look at the top of your dresser. You could use some money and as you look there you see ten Monopoly dollar bills.
      ::回家看看你的梳妆台顶部 你可以需要一些钱
    3. You go home and look at the top of your dresser. You could use some money and as you look there you see ten real dollar bills.
      ::回家看看梳妆台的顶部 你可以需要一些钱

    Which of the three is the greatest or best situation?  #3 is. But just thinking about #3 does not actually add any money to your total amount. This is Kant's point.
    ::这三种情况中哪三种情况最大或最好? # 3是。 但是仅仅想一想 # 3 并不等于增加任何金额。 这是 Kant 的观点 。

    Thinking about the GCB logically entails " thinking"  that the GCB must exist in reality and not just in the imagination. But thinking about the GCB as existing in reality and not just in the imagination does not prove that the GCB actually does exist in reality and not just in the imagination. It is just an idea about what exists.
    ::思考GCB逻辑意味着“思考”GCB必须存在于现实中,而不仅仅是在想象中。 但是,将GCB视为现实中存在,而不仅仅是想象中存在,并不能证明GCB实际上存在于现实中,而不仅仅是想象中。 这只是关于存在的想法。

    3. The Greatest Conceivable Evil Being
    ::3. 最伟大的可想象的邪恶

    As an “ a priori ” argument, the Ontological Argument tries to “prove” the existence of God by establishing the necessity of God’s existence through an explanation of the concept of existence or necessary being.  As this criticism of the Ontological Argument shows, the same arguments used to prove an all-powerful god, could be used to prove an all-powerful devil.  Since there could not exist two all-powerful beings (one’s power must be subordinate to the other), this is an example of one of the weaknesses in this type of theorizing. Furthermore, the concept of necessary existence, by using Anselm’s second argument, allows us to “define” other things into existence.
    ::作为“先验”的论据,本体论争论试图通过解释存在的概念或必要概念来证明上帝的存在的必要性,从而“证明”上帝的存在。 正如对本体论争论的这种批评所显示的那样,用来证明一个全能的神的同样的论点可以用来证明一个全能的魔鬼。 由于不可能存在两个全能的生命(一个人的权力必须从属于另一个人 ) , 这是这种理论化的弱点之一。 此外,必要存在的概念,通过使用安森的第二个论点,允许我们“消灭”其他东西的存在。

    The argument could prove the existence of that being more EVIL than which no other can be conceived just as easily as it supposedly proves the existence of the being that is the greatest conceivable being.
    ::这种论点可以证明存在这种比任何其他人想象的要容易得多的EVIL的存在,正如它认为它能够证明存在是最大的可以想象到的存在一样。

    Think of a being that is the most evil being that can be conceived.  That being must be conceived of as existing in reality and not just in the mind or it wouldn’t be the most evil being which can be conceived for a being that does not exist in reality is not evil at all.
    ::想象一个能被想象到的最邪恶的人。 生命必须被看成是现实中存在的,而不是仅仅在思想中存在,或者它不是现实中不存在的最邪恶的人。

    4. Empiricist Critique
    ::4. 经验学家的批评

    Aquinas, 1225-1274, once declared the official philosopher of the Catholic Church, built his objection to the ontological argument on epistemological grounds.
    ::Aquinas,1225-1274年,曾被宣布为天主教会的官方哲学家,他反对基于认知学理由的本体学论点。

    Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is a branch of philosophy that seeks to answer such questions as: What is knowledge?; What is truth?; How does knowing occur? etc. Aquinas is known as an empiricist. Empiricists claim that knowledge comes from sense experience. Aquinas wrote: "Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses." 
    ::思想学是知识的研究。它是一个哲学分支,它试图回答诸如知识是什么? 真理是什么? 真理是什么? 知识是如何发生的? 等等。 阿奎纳斯被称为经验学家。 经验学家声称知识来自感知经验。 阿奎纳斯写道 : “ 智慧中没有什么是非先入为主的。 ”

    Within Thomas' empiricism, we cannot reason or infer the existence of God from a studying of the definition of God. We can know God only indirectly, through our experiencing of God as Cause to that which we experience in the natural world. We cannot assail the heavens with our reason; we can only know God as the Necessary Cause of all that we observe.
    ::在托马斯的博学中,我们无法从研究真主的定义中推理或推断上帝的存在,我们只能间接地认识真主,我们只能通过体验真主而间接地认识真主,因为真主是我们在自然世界中所经历的。我们不能凭自己的理由而使天灭;我们只知道真主是我们所观察的万物所必须的。

    Concluding Summary:
    ::总结摘要:

    What it does prove:
    ::这确实证明:

    1. Anselm proves that if you think of the GCB you must THINK that it exists.
      ::安赛尔姆证明,如果你想到GCB 你必须认为它存在。
    2. Descartes proves that if you conceive of an ALL PERFECT being you must CONCEIVE (THINK) of that being as existing.
      ::笛卡尔证明,如果你认为一个完美的东西存在, 你必须把那个东西存在。
    3. Kant points out that even though you must THINK that it exists does not mean that it does exist. Existence is not something we can know from the mere idea itself. It is not known as a predicate of a subject. Independent confirmation through experience is needed.
      ::康德指出,即使你必须认为它的存在并不意味着它确实存在。 存在并不是我们从概念本身就能知道的东西,它不被称为一个主体的前提。 需要通过经验来独立确认。
    4. The argument does give some support to those who are already believers. It has variations that establish the possibility of the existence of such a being.
      ::该论点确实对已经信仰的人提供了某种支持,它有不同的规定,确定这种存在的可能性。
    5. The argument will not convert the non-believer into a believer.
      ::该论点不会将非信徒转换为信徒。

    Outcome Assessment
    ::成果评估

    This argument or proof does not establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity.  It attempts to define a being into existence and that is not rationally legitimate.  While the argument can not be used to convert a non-believer to a believer, the faults in the argument do not prove that there is no god.  The Burden of Proof demands that the positive claim that there is a supernatural deity be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that standard.  The believer in god can use the argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being.  The argument does not establish any degree of probability at all.
    ::这一论点或证据并不能证明超自然神的存在,它试图界定存在的存在,而这是不合理的。虽然这一论点不能用来将不信者转换为信仰者,但这一论点的错误并不能证明不存在神。证据的举证责任要求,关于存在超自然神的正面主张应当通过理由和证据来确立,而这一论点不符合这一标准。信仰上帝的人可以使用这一论点来证明存在超自然神的逻辑可能性,或者至少相信存在这种可能性并非不合理。该论点根本没有确定任何可能性。

    Suppose (S) that the greatest conceivable being (GCB) exists in the mind alone and not in reality (gcb1). Then the greatest conceivable being would not be the greatest conceivable being because one could think of a being like (gcb1) but think of the gcb as existing in reality (gcb2) and not just in the mind. So, gcb1 would not be the GCB but gcb2 would be. Thus to think of the GCB is to think of the gcb2, i.e. a being that exists in reality and not just in the mind.
    :伤心S) 假设最能想象到的(GCB)存在于一个人的脑中而不是现实中(gcb1),那么最能想象到的(gcb1)将不是最能想象到的(gcb1),而是认为Gcb是现实中存在的(gcb2),而不是仅仅在思想中存在。因此,gcb1将不是GCB,而是gcb2。因此,如果想GCB,那么Gcb2就是想象到在现实中,而不是在思想中存在的(gcb2),即Gcb2。

    Conclusion : The GCB ( Deity) exists
    ::结论:GCB(神)存在

    Problem with argument:
    ::有争论的问题 :

    1. ____Premises are false
      ::房地是假冒的
    2. ____Premises are irrelevant
      ::房舍无关紧要
    3. ____Premises Contain the Conclusion –Circular Reasoning
      ::载有结论的序言 - 环形理由
    4. _X_ Premises are inadequate to support the conclusion
      ::_X_房舍不足以支持结论
    5. ____Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support
      ::替代论点在同等或更大程度上得到支持的情况下存在。

    This argument or proof has flaws in it and would not convince a rational person to accept its conclusion.  This is not because someone who does not believe in a deity will simply refuse to accept based on emotions or past history but because it is not rationally compelling of acceptance of its conclusion.
    ::这一论点或证据有缺陷,无法说服理性的人接受其结论。 这并不是因为不相信神的人会基于情感或过去的历史而拒绝接受其结论,而是因为它没有理性地说服理性的人接受其结论。

    Proofs for the Existence of God: The Cosmological Argument
    ::证明上帝存在的证据:宇宙争论

    lesson content

    The Cosmological Argument
    ::宇宙争论

    This argument or proof proceeds from a consideration of the existence and order of the universe.  This popular  argument for the existence of God is most commonly  known as the cosmological argument. Aristotle, much like a natural scientist, believed that we could learn about our world and the very essence of things within our world through observation. As a marine biologist might observe and catalog certain marine life in an attempt to gain insight into that specific thing's existence, so too did Aristotle observe the physical world around him in order to gain insight into his world. The very term cosmological is a reflection of Aristotle's relying upon sense data and observation. The word logos suggests a study of something while the noun cosmos means order or the way things are. Thus, a cosmological argument for the existence of God will study the order of things or examine why things are the way they are in order to demonstrate the existence of God.
    ::这个论点或证据来自对宇宙存在和秩序的考虑。这个关于上帝存在的流行论点通常被称为宇宙论。亚里士多德,就像自然科学家一样,相信我们可以通过观察了解我们的世界和我们世界中事物的精髓。海洋生物学家可以观察和记录某些海洋生物,以便了解具体事物的存在,亚里士多德也观察他周围的物理世界,以便了解他的世界。宇宙论本身就是亚里士多德依靠感知数据和观察的反映。这个词的标志表明,在无宇宙意味着秩序或事物存在的方式时,可以研究某种东西。因此,关于上帝存在的宇宙论将研究事物的规律,或者研究为什么事物是证明上帝存在的方式。

    The Universe
    ::宇宙宇宙

    lesson content

     

    For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, as it could not have come from nothing.  There needs to be a cause for the universe.  Nothing comes from nothing so since there is something there must have been some other something that is its cause.  Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause.  Likewise with Motion, there must have been a First Mover.
    ::对亚里士多德来说,宇宙的存在需要解释,因为它不可能来自一无所有。需要的是宇宙的事业。没有什么来自一无所有,因为一定有其他原因。亚里士多德排除了无穷无尽的起因,从而得出了必须有一个第一原因的结论。与动议一样,必须有一个第一动因。

    This argument was given support by modern science with the idea of the universe originating in a BIG BANG, a single event from a single point.
    ::现代科学支持这一论点,认为宇宙起源于BIG BANG这个单一事件,而BIG BANG是一个单一事件。

    The Big Bang Cosmological Theory
    ::大爆炸宇宙理论

    lesson content

    EPISD Informed Problem Solvers Goal
    ::EPISD 信息化解决问题者目标

    St. Thomas Aquinas Cosmological Argument ( The Unmoved Mover )
    ::圣托马斯·阿基纳斯宇宙争论(未移动移动器)

    Thomas Aquinas offered five somewhat similar arguments using ideas of the first mover, first cause, the sustainer,  the cause of excellence, the source of harmony
    ::Thomas Aquinas利用第一推动者、第一事业、维持者、卓越事业、和谐之源的想法,提出了五种类似的论点。

    Here is a sample of the pattern:
    ::以下是图案的样本:

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. there exists a series of events
      ::存在一系列事件
    2. the series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused(necessary)
      ::一连串事件由起因而存在,而不是无起因(必要)
    3. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being
      ::必须存在必要条件,这是所有特遣队
    4. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of the whole series of beings
      ::一定有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必

    The Argument From Motion
    ::动议中的论点

    Aquinas had Five Proofs for the Existence of God . Let us consider his First argument, the so-called Argument from Motion . Aquinas begins with an observation: Of the things we observe, all things have been placed in motion. No thing has placed itself in motion.
    ::阿奎那斯有五种证据来证明真主的存在。让我们看看他的第一个论点,即所谓的运动辩论。阿吉那斯首先有一种观察:在我们所观察的事物中,一切事物都是在行动之中的。没有一件事物在行动之中。

    Working from the assumption that if a thing is in motion then it has been caused to be in motion by another thing, Aquinas also notes that an infinite chain of things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion can not be correct. If an infinite chain or regression existed among things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion then we could not account for the motion we observe. If we move backwards from the things we observe in motion to their cause, and then to that cause of motion within those things that caused motion, and so on, then we could continuing moving backwards ad infinitum . It would be like trying to count all of the points in a line segment, moving from point B to point A. We would never get to point A. Yet point A must exist as we know there is a line segment. Similarly, if the cause-and-effect chain did not have a starting point then we could not account for the motion we observe around us. Since there is motion, the cause and effect chain (accounting for motion) must have had a starting point. We now have a second point:
    ::Aquinas也指出,一连串无穷无尽的在动中和在动中发生的事情不可能正确。如果在动中和在动中发生的事情之间存在着无限的链条或倒退,那么我们就无法说明我们所观察到的动作。如果我们从我们观察到的在动中发生的事情向它们的原因倒退,然后到那些引起运动的东西内部的动因,等等,我们就可以继续从无穷无尽地向后移动。这就像试图计算线段中的所有点,从B点向A点移动。我们永远不会达到A点。但A点必须存在,因为我们知道有一个线段。同样,如果因果关系链没有起步点,我们就无法说明我们周围所观察到的运动。既然有运动,那么原因和效果链条(计算运动)必须有一个起始点。我们有第二个点。

    The cause and effect relationship among things-being-moved and things-moving must have a starting point. At one point in time, the relationship was set in motion. Thus, there must be a First Cause which set all other things in motion.
    ::被移动和移动事物之间的因果关系必须有一个起点。 在某一时刻,这种关系开始发展。 因此,必须有一个使所有其他事物都运转起来的“第一原因 ” 。

    What else can we know about the First Cause? The first cause must have been uncaused. If it were caused by another thing, then we have not resolved the problem of the infinite regression. So, in order to account for the motion that we observe, it is necessary to posit a beginning to the cause and effect relationship underlying the observed motion. It is also necessary to claim that the First Cause has not been caused by some other thing. It is not set in motion by another entity.
    ::我们还能知道什么?第一个原因一定是没有原因的。如果第一个原因是由另一个原因引起的,那么我们还没有解决无限回归的问题。因此,为了说明我们所观察的动议,有必要对所观察动议背后的原因和影响关系有一个开端。同样有必要声称第一个原因不是由其他原因引起的。它不是由另一个实体启动的。

    The First Cause is also the Unmoved Mover. The Unmoved Mover is that being whom set all other entities in motion and is the cause of all other beings. For Aquinas, the Unmoved Mover is that which we call God.
    ::第一个原因也是未移动的移动者。未移动的移动者,是使所有其他实体都动起来的,是所有其他生物的事业。对于阿基那,未移动的移动者,是我们所称为的神。

    For Aquinas the term motion meant not just motion as with billiard balls moving from point A to point B or a thing literally moving from one place to another. Another sense of the term motion is one that appreciates the Aristotelian sense of moving from a state of potentiality towards a state of actuality. When understood in this way, motion reflects the becoming inherent in the world around us. God as First Cause becomes that entity which designed and set in motion all things in their quest to become. In the least, it is a more poetic understanding of motion.
    ::对于Aquinas来说,“运动”一词的含义不仅仅是像球球从A点向B点移动那样的运动,或者从一个地方向另一个地方移动的东西。“运动”的另一种感觉是理解亚里士多德人的感知,即从一种潜力状态向一种现实状态转变。如果这样理解,运动就反映了我们周围世界的内在变化。作为第一事业的上帝变成了一个设计并启动一切事物的实体,它至少是对运动的更有诗意的理解。

    St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a theologian, Aristotelian scholar, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived.
    ::圣托马斯·阿奎纳斯(St. Thomas Aquinas)(1224-1274年)是一位神学家、亚里士多德学者和哲学家。 阿基纳斯被称为安杰利库斯(Angelicus)博士(天使医生 ) 。 阿基纳斯被认为是有史以来最伟大的基督教哲学家之一。

    Much of St. Thomas's thought is an attempt to understand Christian orthodoxy in terms of Aristotelian philosophy. His five proofs for the existence of God take "as givens" some of Aristotle's assertions concerning being and the principles of being (the study of being and its principles is known as metaphysics within philosophy). Before analyzing further the first of Aquinas' Five Ways, let us examine some of the Aristotelian underpinnings at work within St. Thomas' philosophy.
    ::圣托马斯的很多思想都试图从亚里士多德哲学的角度理解基督教正统教义。 他关于上帝存在的五个证据都“如所赐”了亚里士多德关于存在和存在原则的一些说法(对存在及其原则的研究被称作哲学中的形体物理学 ) 。 在进一步分析阿基那五法系的第一条之前,让我们研究一下圣托马斯哲学中一些亚里士多德教的工作基础。

    Aristotle and Aquinas also believed in the importance of the senses and sense data within the knowing process. Aquinas once wrote nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses. Those who place priority upon sense data within the knowing process are known as empiricists. Empirical data is that which can be sensed and typically tested. Unlike Anselm, who was a rationalist, Aquinas will not rely on non-empirical evidence (such as the definition of the term "God" or "perfection") to demonstrate God's existence. St. Thomas will observe the physical world around him and, moving from effect to cause, will try try to explain why things are the way they are. He will assert God as the ultimate Cause of all that is. For Aquinas, the assertion of God as prima causa (first cause) is not so much a blind religious belief but a philosophical and theoretical necessity. God as first cause is at the very heart of St. Thomas' Five Ways and his philosophy in general.
    ::亚里士多德和阿基纳斯也相信认知过程中感官和感官数据的重要性。亚基那曾经没有写过任何非先于感官的心事。那些在认知过程中优先考虑感官数据的人被称为经验主义者。经验数据是能够感知和典型测试的数据。与理性主义者安塞尔姆不同的是,亚基那斯不会依靠非经验证据(如“上帝”或“完美”的定义)来证明上帝的存在。圣托马斯将观察他周围的身体世界,并且从效果转向事业,将试图解释为什么事情是他们现在的样子。他将把上帝说成是一切事情的最终原因。对阿基那斯来说,把上帝说成是原始原因并不是盲目的宗教信仰,而是哲学和理论上的必要性。上帝的首要原因就是圣托马斯五路及其一般哲学的核心。

    One last notion that is central to St. Thomas' Five Ways is the concept of potentiality and actuality. Aristotle observed that things/substances strive from an incomplete state to a complete state. Things will grow and tend to become as they exist. The more complete a thing is, the better an instance of that thing it is. We have idioms and expressions within our language that reflect this idea. For example, we might say that so-and-so has a lot of potential. We might say that someone is at the peak of their game or that someone is the best at what they do. We might say it just does not get any better than this if we are are having a very enjoyable time. Aristotle alludes to this commonly held intuition when he speaks of organisms moving from a state of potentiality to actuality. When Aquinas speaks of motion within the First Way (the cosmological argument) he is referencing the Aristotelian concepts of potentiality and actuality.
    ::对圣托马斯五路具有核心意义的最后一个概念是潜力和实际概念。 亚里士多德观察到, 东西/ 物质从一个不完整的国家努力到一个完整的状态。 事物会成长, 并且往往会发展成一个完整的状态。 更完整的是, 事物就是一个更好的例子。 我们的语言中有反映这个想法的方言和表达方式。 比如, 我们可能会说, 如此如此如此, 具有很大的潜力。 我们可以说, 某人处于游戏的顶峰, 或者说, 某人是他们做的最好的人。 如果我们有一个非常愉快的时光, 我们可能会说, 它不会比这更好。 亚里士多德提到生物从一个潜力状态向现实转变时, 他提到这种常有的直觉。 当阿基纳说到第一道路(宇宙论)的动作时, 他引用了亚里士多利人关于潜力和现实的概念。

    Argument from Contingency
    ::应急理由

    English theologian and philosopher Samuel Clarke set forth a second variation of the Cosmological Argument, which is considered to be a superior version.  It is called the “Argument from Contingency”. 
    ::英国神学家和哲学家塞缪尔·克拉克提出了宇宙学争论的第二个变式,该变式被认为是一种优异的版本,称为“应急论据”。

      Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
      ::存在的每一生物要么是应急的,要么是必需的。
    2. Not every being can be contingent.
      ::并不是每一个人都能成为应急人员。
    3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
      ::因此,存在特遣队人员赖以生存的必要因素。
    4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
      ::我们所说的“上帝”是指一种必要的生物,而所有应急物品都依赖它。
    5. Therefore, God exists.
      ::因此,上帝存在。

    However, there are several weaknesses in the Cosmological Argument, which make it unable to “prove” the existence of God by itself.  One is that if it is not possible for a person to conceive of an infinite process of causation, without a beginning, how is it possible for the same individual to conceive of a being that is infinite and without beginning?  The idea that causation is not an infinite process is being introduced as a given, without any reasons to show why it could not exist.
    ::然而,宇宙争论中存在一些弱点,这使得它无法“证明”上帝的存在本身。 其中一个是,如果一个人无法想象无限的因果关系过程,没有开始,那么同一个人又怎么可能想象出无限的、没有开始的存在? 因果关系不是无限过程的观念是被引入的,没有任何理由说明为什么它不可能存在。

    Clarke (1675-1729) has offered a version of the Cosmological Argument, which many philosophers consider superior.  The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent.  Since not every being can be contingent, it follows that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend.  This being is God.  Even though this method of reasoning may be superior to the traditional Cosmological Argument, it is still not without its weaknesses.  One of its weaknesses has been called the “Fallacy of Composition”.  The form of the mistake is this: Every member of a collection of dependent beings is accounted for by some explanation.  Therefore, the collection of dependent beings is accounted for by one explanation.  This argument will fail in trying to reason that there is only one first cause or one necessary cause, i.e. one God .
    ::克拉克(1675-1729)提供了宇宙争论的版本,许多哲学家都认为这一版本是优等的。“来自应急的论据”审视了每个生物都必须是必需的还是应急的。由于不是每个生物都有可能是附带的,因此必然存在所有事物所依赖的必要因素。这是上帝。尽管这种推理方法可能优于传统的宇宙争论,但还是有其弱点。它的一个弱点被称为“组成法 ” 。错误的形式是:从属生物集合的每个成员都有某种解释。因此,从属生物的集合只能用一种解释来计算。这一论点将无法证明只有一个原因或一个必要的原因,即一个上帝。

    There are those who maintain that there is no sufficient reason to believe that there exists a self existent being.
    ::有人坚持认为,没有充分理由相信存在自我存在。

     Counter Argument:
    ::辩驳理由:

    1. If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (God).
      ::如果万物有缘由,那末,谁先造物主,谁是先造主的。
    2. If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big bang) again and again!
      ::如果第一个原因可以被认为是没有原因的,而必须永远存在,那么为什么不认为宇宙本身始终存在,永远存在,永远存在,经历一个永无止境的扩张和收缩周期,然后一次又一次的扩张(大爆炸)!
    3. Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of  any particular religion.  The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic.
      ::此外,即使一个人想承认存在这种人,宇宙学论点中根本没有任何迹象表明,人与人之间有任何特性,这种特性被射入任何特定宗教的神性概念中,第一个迁移者或第一个原因没有任何其他特征。

    If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
    ::如果需要有一个神,这是对所有现有事物需要原因的要求的例外,那么,考虑到它以不同形式表现出来,对所有存在的能量的总和,可以作出同样的例外。

    What the counter argument does is to indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
    ::反论的理由是,宇宙论理论的前提并不一定导致一个结论,即存在一个对宇宙的创造负有责任的人。

    So the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it.
    ::因此,宇宙论的论据既不是要求提供其结论真相的有效论据,也不是证明存在任何意识到宇宙存在或宇宙内任何事件的存在的任何生命的令人满意的论据。

     When a person asks questions such as :
    ::当一个人提出问题时,例如:

    1. What is the cause of the the energy or the force or the agent behind the expansion and contraction of the energy?
      ::能源的扩大和收缩背后的能源或力量或代理人的原因是什么?

    These questions are considered as "loaded questions" because they load or contain assumptions about what exists or is true that have not yet been established.  Why is it that the idea of a "force or agent" is even in the question?  Why operate with the assumption that there is such or needs to be such?
    ::这些问题被视为“重载问题”,因为它们包含或包含着关于存在或真实存在的、尚未证实的假设。 为什么“力量或代理人”的概念甚至出现在问题之中?为什么要假设存在或需要存在这样的假设呢?

    We do not know that there is a force "behind" the expansion and contraction. Energy might just expand and contract and there is no force at all other than those generated by the energy-gravitational force, electro-magnetic, strong and weak forces.
    ::我们不知道有“在”扩张和收缩之后的势力。 能源可能只是膨胀和收缩,除了能源强力、电磁力、强力和弱力产生的力量之外,没有任何其他力量。

    In another form this is the "who made God?" question or the "who made the energy?" question.  Such an approach to the issue of an explanation for the existence of the universe assumes that there must be an agency.  When the idea of an eternal and necessary agency is introduced it was done to provide a form for describing a being that some people wanted as the ultimate explanation - a deity.  The point of the counter arguments to the cosmological argument is that the idea of an eternal and necessary agency can as logically be expressed as energy rather than as a single being or entity.  If the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single entity then the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single process-energy.
    ::另一种形式是“谁创造了上帝?” 或“谁制造了能量?” 问题。这种解释宇宙存在的问题的处理方式假定必须有一个机构。当提出永久和必要的机构的想法时,就是为了提供一种形式来描述一些人希望作为终极解释的动物——神。对宇宙论论点的反驳论点是,永久和必要的机构的概念可以逻辑地以能源而不是单一的动物或实体来表达。如果非由原因认为是一个单一的实体,那么,非由原因的原因可以被想象成一个单一的过程能量。

    Here is another view of this argument and the rebuttal:
    ::以下是对这一论点和反驳的另一种观点:

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. there exists a series of events
      ::存在一系列事件
    2. the series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused (necessary)
      ::一连串事件由起因而存在,而不是无起因(必要)
    3. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being
      ::必须存在必要条件,这是所有特遣队
    4. There must exist the necessary being that is the cause of the whole series of beings
      ::一定有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必有必必要,必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必必

      Premises/Conclusion
    ::房地/结论

    1. RULE: Everything that exists must have a cause
      ::所有存在的东西必须有一个原因
    2. the Universe (multiverse) exists
      ::宇宙( 多元) 存在
    3. the universe (multiverse) must have a cause
      ::宇宙(多元)必须有一个原因
    4. The cause of the universe (multiverse) is GOD
      ::宇宙的起源是耶和华

    Rebuttal:
    ::阻断 :

    1. But what is the cause of God?
      ::但是,什么是上帝的事业呢?
    2. God has no cause but is a necessary being. God is an exception to rule.
      ::真主除必要的外,绝无应受崇拜的,真主是有归宿的。
    3. If God can be the exception then why not Energy?
      ::如果上帝是例外,那为什么没有能源呢?

    Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”
    ::克拉克的 " 应急理由 "

    Premises/Conclusion
    ::房地/结论

    1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
      ::存在的每一生物要么是应急的,要么是必需的。
    2. Not every being can be contingent.
      ::并不是每一个人都能成为应急人员。
    3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
      ::因此,存在特遣队人员赖以生存的必要因素。
    4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
      ::我们所说的“上帝”是指一种必要的生物,而所有应急物品都依赖它。
    5. Therefore, God exists.
      ::因此,上帝存在。

      Rebuttal:
    ::阻断 :

    Why not have that a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend is ENERGY itself that changes its form through time?  
    ::为什么特遣队人员赖以生存的必要因素不是ENERGY本身随着时间的推移而改变其形态呢?

    Read
    ::已读

    lesson content

    EPISD Critical Knowledge and Creative Thinkers Goal
    ::EPISD 关键知识和创意思想者目标

    •  
    •  

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument
    ::卡拉姆宇宙争论

    Premises:
    ::房舍:

    1. The universe either had a beginning or it did not.
      ::宇宙要么有开始 要么没有
    2. The universe had a beginning.
      1. Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events (see above).
        ::关于不可能将实际的无限事件系列加以翻转的理论论断(见上文)。
      2. The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.
        1. This is the most widely recognized theory of the universe.
          ::这是宇宙中最广为人知的理论

        ::宇宙的大爆炸理论假设了一个开始。这是宇宙中最广为人知的理论。
      3. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy).
        ::热力学第二定律。

      ::宇宙有了一个开始。 哲学上的论点是不可能将一系列实际的无限事件(见上文)转而发生。 宇宙的大爆炸理论假设了一个开始。 这是宇宙中最广为人知的理论。 热力学( 离心机) 的第二个定律( 离心机学) 。
    3. The universe is running out of energy.
      1. If it had an infinite past, it would have run out by now.
        ::如果它有无限的过去 它早就用光了

      ::宇宙正在耗尽能量。如果它有无限的过去,它早就用光了。
    4. The beginning of the universe was either caused or uncaused.
      1. The beginning of the universe was caused.
        1. Contra Hume, every event has a cause.
          ::反休姆,每个事件都有原因
        2. God is not an event.
          ::上帝不是一个事件。
        3. One might hold that some events, like quantum events, don't need causes.
          ::人们可能认为,有些事件,如量子事件, 不需要原因。
        4. If so, then this premise can be replaced with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
          ::如果是这样的话,那么这一前提可以被“一切开始存在的东西都有其原因”所取代。

        ::宇宙的起源是由宇宙的起源引起的。 违背休姆, 每个事件都有原因。 真主不是事件。 可能有人会认为某些事件, 如量子事件, 不需要原因。 如果是这样, 那么这个前提可以被“ 一切开始存在的东西, 都有原因 ” 所取代 。

      ::宇宙的起源不是起源于宇宙,就是没有起源于宇宙。宇宙的起源于宇宙的起源于宇宙。与休姆相对,每个事件都有其原因。上帝不是事件。也许有人会认为某些事件,如量子事件,不需要其原因。如果是这样,那么这个前提可以被“一切开始存在的事物都有其原因”所取代。

     Rebuttal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
    ::抗抗卡拉姆宇宙参数

    Rebuttal of Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
    ::为上帝的存在抵御宇宙论辩

    Nothing can come from nothing is a fairly well accepted principle since Parmenides.  In the West it is taken to be used to support the idea that the universe must have had a creator or a maker or source or origin.  However, that is due to the prior storied of a creator being that sets the intellectual environment in which thinking takes place.  Now in the East and now in the West there are alternative approaches to the explanation of the universe that we experience. 
    ::没有什么可以来自什么,这是帕梅尼迪斯(Parmenides)以来一个相当普遍接受的原则。 在西方,它被认为是用来支持宇宙必须拥有一个创造者或制造者或来源或起源的理念。然而,这是因为一个创造者先前的传说决定了思想发生的智力环境。 现在,在东方和西方,我们所经历的宇宙解释有其他选择。

    1. Nothing comes from nothing.
      ::没有什么来自什么。
    2. Something does exist.
      ::确实有东西存在
    3. Therefore, has never been nothing.
      ::因此,从来不是一无是处。
    4. It is possible that the something that currently exists has always existed.
      ::目前存在的东西有可能一直存在。
    5. The something that exists is always changing.
      ::存在的东西总是在变化。
    6. Change is a feature of something.
      ::变化是某些东西的一个特点。

    The East has had such notions for millennium.  In the West there are now alternative cosmologies to account for the cosmos -- M theory is one of them.  A flaw in the cosmological argument is in giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself - a necessary being -- without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physis, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms. What the western thinkers omitted as a possibility was the alternative that there is energy that has always existed and undergoes changes that are time and it can expand and contract and generate multiple dimensions.  The Hindus and Buddhists have this sort of idea and so to do the Taoists.
    ::东方有这样的千年概念。在西方,现在有替代的宇宙学来解释宇宙 -- -- M理论就是其中之一。宇宙论的一个缺陷是给予一个不需要自己创造或起源的神灵以特殊的独家地位 -- -- 一种必要的存在 -- -- 而不承认这种地位可以赋予宇宙的基本物质、物理、宇宙的能量,而这种地位可以有不同的形式。西方思想家所忽略的一种可能性是,有的能量一直存在并经历着时代的改变,它可以扩张、收缩和产生多种层面。印度教徒和佛教徒有这种想法,教士也有这种想法。

    If people need to believe that there was an origination for the universe and that the origination involves an eternal entity then you can have several possibilities including these:
    ::如果人们需要相信宇宙有起源,而起源涉及一个永恒的实体,那么你可以有几种可能性,其中包括:

    1. eternal entity = deity = creator of universe
      ::永恒实体 = 神 = 宇宙的创造者
    2. eternal entity = energy = continual existence of energy in various forms undergoing continual change = universe
      ::永久实体 = 能源 = 能源 = 以各种形式持续存在的能源 正在持续变化 = 宇宙

    For a explanation of the universe or multiple universes that holds that they have always existed and go through what may be termed cycles see the following as a start from Wikipedia A cyclic model is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, self-sustaining cycles. 
    ::对于宇宙或多个宇宙的解释,这些宇宙或多个宇宙认为,它们一直存在并经历着可称为循环的周期,从维基百科开始就可以看到以下各点:A周期模型是宇宙遵循无限、自我维持周期的多种宇宙模型中的任何一种。

    Outcome Assessment
    ::成果评估

    This argument or proof does not establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity.  It attempts to argue for the existence of such a being by making exceptions to rules in the argument and that is not rationally legitimate.  While the argument can not be used to convert a non-believer to a believer, the faults in the argument do not prove that there is no god.  The Burden of Proof demands that the positive claim that there is a supernatural deity be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that standard.  The believer in God can use the argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being.  The argument does not establish any degree of probability at all when there are alternative explanations for the existence of the known universe.
    ::这一论点或证据并不能证明存在超自然的神灵,它试图通过在论点中规定规则的例外情况来证明存在这种神灵,这种论点或证据是不合情理的。虽然这个论点不能用来将不信者转换为信仰者,但这个论点的错误并不能证明不存在神灵。证据的责任要求根据理由和证据来确立关于存在超自然神灵的积极主张,而这个论点不符合这个标准。相信上帝的人可以利用这个论点来证明存在超自然神灵的逻辑可能性,或者至少相信存在这种神灵的可能性并非不合理。当对已知宇宙的存在有其他解释时,这个论点并不能证明任何可能性。

    Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. RULE: Everything that exists must have a cause
      ::所有存在的东西必须有一个原因
    2. the Universe (multiverse) exists
      ::宇宙( 多元) 存在
    3. the universe (multiverse) must have a cause
      ::宇宙(多元)必须有一个原因
    4. The cause of the universe (multiverse) is God
      ::万能的主,确是万能的万能的主。

    Rebuttal:
    ::阻断 :

    1. BUT what is the cause of God?
      ::但是,什么是上帝的事业呢?
    2. God has no cause but is a necessary being. God is an exception to rule.
      ::真主除必要的外,绝无应受崇拜的,真主是有归宿的。
    3. The Deity exists.
      ::神灵存在

    Problem with argument:
    ::有争论的问题 :

    1. ____Premises are false
      ::房地是假冒的
    2. ____Premises are irrelevant
      ::房舍无关紧要
    3. ____Premises Contain the Conclusion –Circular Reasoning
      ::载有结论的序言 - 环形理由
    4. ____Premises are inadequate to support the conclusion
      ::房舍不足以支持结论
    5. _X_ Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support
      ::_X_在同等或更大的支持下存在替代论据

    This argument or proof has flaws in it and would not convince a rational person to accept its conclusion.  This is not because someone who does not believe in a deity will simply refuse to accept this proof based on emotions or past history but because it is not rationally compelling of acceptance of its conclusion.
    ::这一论点或证据有缺陷,无法说服理性的人接受其结论。 这并不是因为不相信神的人会因为情感或过去的历史而拒绝接受这一证据,而是因为它没有理性地说服人接受其结论。

    Proofs for the Existence of God:   The Te leolo gical Argument
    ::证明上帝存在的证据:神学争论

    The Teleological Argument or proof for the existence of a deity is sometimes called the Design argument. Even if you have never heard of either argument, you are probably familiar with the central idea of the argument, i.e. there exists so much intricate detail, design , and purpose in the world that we must suppose a creator. All of the sophistication and incredible detail we observe in nature could not have occurred by chance.
    ::有时,神的神的神的神学争论或证据被称为“设计”的争论。即使你从未听说过其中任何一个论点,你也可能熟悉这个论点的核心概念,即世界上存在如此复杂的细节、设计和目的,我们必须假设一个创造者。我们所观察到的自然界中的所有复杂和令人难以置信的细节不可能是偶然发生的。

    When looking at the universe people might see more order or disorder as is their predilection and they might see it in varying proportions.  When examining the universe and seeing complexity and order there are a variety of explanations for how it may have come about.  Some people want an explanation backed by evidence and without violations of reasoning and some do not want such explanations.  Some want the easiest explanations with the least amount of thought.  Some merely accept the explanations that they have received when growing up.
    ::当观察宇宙时,人们可能会看到更多的秩序或混乱,就像他们的偏好一样,他们可能会看到更多的秩序或混乱,他们可能不同程度地看到它。在审查宇宙并看到复杂性和秩序时,对它是如何形成的有各种各样的解释。有些人希望得到证据支持的解释,而没有违反推理,有些人不希望得到这种解释。有些人希望得到最简单的解释,而没有太多的想法。有些人只是接受他们成长时得到的解释。

    The term teleological comes from the Greek words telos and logos . Telos means the goal or end or purpose of a thing while logos means the study of the very nature of a thing. The suffix ology or the study of is also from the noun logos. To understand the logos of a thing means to understand the very why and how of that thing's nature - it is more than just a simple studying of a thing. The teleological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God that begins with the observation of the purposiveness of nature. The teleological argument moves to the  conclusion that there must exist a designer. The inference from design to designer is why the teleological argument is also known as the design argument.
    ::电传学一词来自希腊的词“ 电话” 和标志。 Telos 意指某事物的目的、目的或目的,而标志则指某事物的本质研究。 后缀学或研究也来自名符其实的标志。 要理解某事物的标志就意味着理解某事物的本质的原因和特性—— 它不仅仅是对某事物的简单研究。 电传学论是试图证明上帝的存在,它始于对自然目的的观察。 电传学论的论断转向必须有一个设计师的结论。 从设计到设计师的推论就是为什么电传论也被称为设计论。

    The Teleological Argument
    ::地球神学争论

    The Teleological Argument is the second traditional “ a posteriori ” argument for the existence of God.  Perhaps the most famous variant of this argument is the William Paley’s “Watch” argument.  Basically, this argument says that after seeing a watch, with all its intricate parts, which work together in a precise fashion to keep time, one must deduce that this piece of machinery has a creator, since it is far too complex to have simply come into being by some other means, such as evolution. 
    ::《神学争论》是第二个关于上帝存在的传统“后世”论点。 也许这一论点最著名的变式是威廉·帕利的“观察”论点。 基本上,这一论点说,在看到一只手表及其所有复杂部分以精确的方式一起工作以保持时间时,人们必须推断这块机器有一个创造者,因为它太复杂了,不能仅仅通过演进等其他手段出现。

    The basic premise, of all teleological arguments for the existence of God, is that the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity. Hence, there must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we can observe.
    ::所有关于上帝存在的神灵学论点的基本前提是,世界根据自然的秩序、统一、一致性、设计和复杂性等经验,展现了一个智慧目的。 因此,必须有一个聪明的设计师来解释我们所观察到的智慧目的和秩序。

    Paley's teleological argument is based on an analogy: Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a watch, with its intelligent design and complex function must have been created by an intelligent maker: a watchmaker, the universe, with all its complexity and greatness, must have been created by an intelligent and powerful creator. Therefore, a watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe.
    ::帕利(Paley)的目测论依据一个类比:监视者是看着上帝的宇宙。 就像手表一样,它有智慧的设计,有复杂的功能,一定是由智慧制造者创造的:一个手表制造者创造的:一个手表制造者,宇宙及其所有的复杂性和伟大性,一定是由智慧和强大的创造者创造的。因此,一个手表制造者就是看着上帝创造的宇宙。

    The skeleton of the argument is as follows:
    ::论点的要点如下:

     Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
      ::人类艺术品是智能设计的产品;它们有目的。
    2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
      ::宇宙和人类的文物相似
    3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
      ::因此:宇宙很可能是智能设计的产物,并有目的。
    4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
      ::然而,宇宙比人类的文物 更复杂和巨大
    5. Therefore:  There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe .
      ::因此:也许有一个强大而聪明的设计师 创造了宇宙。

    Paley's Teleological Argument For The Existence Of God
    ::帕利为上帝的存在 提出的神的神学争论

      Premises/Conclusion
    ::房地/结论

    1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
      ::人类艺术品是智能设计的产品
    2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
      ::宇宙和人类的文物相似
    3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
      ::因此宇宙是智慧设计的产物
    4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
      ::但与人类的文物相比 宇宙是复杂而巨大的
    5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.
      ::因此,可能有一个强大又聪明的设计师 创造了宇宙。

    Criticism or Rebuttal of Teleological Argument
    ::电讯辩论的批评或反驳

    • How much order is there?
      ::有多少顺序?
    • What other universes exist to compare this one to them?
      ::还有什么其他宇宙可以比较这个宇宙和它们?
    • No conclusion to only 1 creator!
      ::只有一个创造者没有结论!
    • No conclusion to a divine creator!
      ::神圣的造物主没有结论!
    • No conclusion as to a very intelligent creator!
      ::没有结论 一个非常聪明的创造者!

    Alternative explanations exist involving natural processes! Possibility: Aliens? Possibility: Universe making contest amongst multiple deities!
    ::存在涉及自然过程的替代解释! 可能性:外国人? 可能性: 宇宙在多种神灵之间进行竞争!

      David Hume's Counter Argument
    ::David Humme的辩驳

    1. The universe does not exhibit that much order as there are many indications of disorder such as the collision of galaxies, black holes, nova and supernova, cosmic radiation, gamma radiation, meteor impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes
      ::宇宙没有表现出如此有序的宇宙,因为有许多迹象显示存在诸如星系碰撞、黑洞、新星和超新星碰撞、宇宙辐射、伽马辐射、陨石撞击、火山、地震等混乱现象。
    2. argument from parts to whole is not valid
      ::从部件到整个部件的参数无效
    3. analogy fails because there are no other universes to compare this one to
      ::类比失败是因为没有其他宇宙可以比较
    4. the argument does not prove the existence of only one ( 1) such god
      ::该论点不能证明只有一个(1)这样的神的存在。
    5. the argument does not prove that the creator is infinite
      ::该论点不能证明创造者是无限的

    David Hume, 1711-1776, argued against the Design Argument through an examination of the nature of analogy. Analogy compares two things, and, on the basis of their similarities, allows us to draw conclusions about the objects. The more closely each thing resembles the other, the more accurate the conclusion. Have you ever heard the expression you are comparing apples to oranges? We use the above-mentioned idiom when we want to express the notion that a comparison is not accurate due to that dissimilarity of things under scrutiny. A good analogy will not compare apples to oranges.
    ::David Hume, 1711-1776, 1711-1776, 通过研究类比的性质来反对设计争论。 分析比较了两件事, 并且基于它们的相似性, 允许我们得出关于对象的结论。 每一件事越接近另一件, 得出的结论就越准确。 你是否听过你将苹果与橙子比较的表达方式? 我们使用上述语义来表达一种观点, 即比较并不准确, 因为受审查的事物的异同性。 一个好的类比不会将苹果与橙子相比较。

    Is the universe similar to a created artifact? Are they similar enough to allow for a meaningful analogy. Hume argues that the two are so dissimilar as to disallow analogy. Further, we know so very little about the universe that we can not compare it to any created thing that is within our knowledge. If we want to employ a valid analogy between, say, the building of a house and the building of the universe we must be able to have an understanding of both terms. Since we can not know about the building of the universe a Design Analogy for the existence of God is nothing more than a guess. 
    ::宇宙是否与所创造的文物相似? 它们是否足够相似,可以进行有意义的类比? 休姆认为两者不同,不允许进行类比。 此外,我们对宇宙知之甚少,因此我们无法把它与我们所了解的任何创造的东西相比较。如果我们想在建造房子和建造宇宙之间使用一个有效的类比,我们就必须能够理解这两个术语。因为我们不知道宇宙的构建,因此,上帝存在的《设计分析》只不过是猜测而已。

    David Hume's Objection to Teleological or Design Argument for Existence of God
    ::David Humme反对神的神的神学或设计论据

    The Intelligent Design Theory
    ::智能设计理论

    In recent years a number of scientists have attempted to supply a variation on the teleological argument that is also a counter to the evolutionary theory.  It is called Intelligent Design Theory.  This theory disputes that the process of natural selection, the force Darwin suggested drove evolution, is enough to explain the complexity of and within living organisms.  This theory holds that the complexity requires the work of an intelligent designer.  The designer could be something like the Supreme Being or the Deity of the Scriptures or it could be that life resulted as a consequence of a meteorite from elsewhere in the cosmos, possibly involving extraterrestrial intelligence, or as in new age philosophy that the universe is suffused with a mysterious but inanimate life force from which life results.
    ::近年来,一些科学家试图提供与进化理论相反的对目的论论论的变异。它被称为智能设计理论。这一理论对自然选择过程、达尔文认为的驱动进化的力量足以解释生物体的复杂性和内在的复杂性。这一理论认为,复杂性需要智能设计师的工作。设计师可以是像《最高存在》或《圣经》的神一样的东西,也可能是宇宙其他地方的陨石造成的生命,其中可能涉及外星智能,或者像新时代的哲学一样,宇宙被神秘但无生命力所窒息,生命由此而产生。

    One of its weaknesses is that the argument for intelligent design is subject to a great many definitions:  What is intelligent design?  Opponents of this argument will point out that rather than looking to see if an object looks as if it were designed, we should look at it and determine if its origin could have been natural.
    ::其弱点之一是,关于智能设计的论点受到许多定义的制约:什么是智能设计?这一论点的反对者会指出,与其看一个物体是否看上去是设计好的,不如看它,确定它的起源是否自然。

    The Theory of Intelligent Design with Morgan Freeman
    ::摩根·弗里曼的智慧设计理论

    Question:   Doesn’t the fact that the universe is so well designed mean that it must have had a Designer?   
    ::问题:宇宙设计如此精良, 这难道不意味着它必须有一个设计师吗?

    Well designed compared to what? The universe is terribly complex, vastly interesting, awe-inspiring—but, as far as we can tell, it is the only one. Since we can all imagine a better-designed universe, even though none of us is divine (ask the folks in areas now suffering from floods or from droughts if they couldn’t design a better water distribution system about now, or contemplate your own appendix or your poor pet’s fleas or West-Nile-virus-bearing mosquitoes), it’s a little hard to know if it’s “well designed.”
    ::与什么相比,设计得更好。 宇宙非常复杂,非常有趣,令人振奋,但据我们所知,它是唯一的宇宙。 由于我们都能够想象出一个设计得更好的宇宙,尽管我们当中没有人是神的(如果现在无法设计一个更好的水分配系统,或者无法思考你自己的附录,或者你可怜的宠物的跳蚤,或者West-Nile-病毒带蚊子 ) , 很难知道它是否“设计良好 ” 。

    And, even if it is, wouldn’t a God necessarily be even better designed—so who designed Him, and then who designed that Designer, ad infinitum?
    ::即使是这样,难道真主不是更善于设计吗?谁设计他呢?谁设计他呢?谁设计他呢?谁造他呢?谁造他呢?

    Most people who bring this one up have in mind some variation of a creationist argument in response to Darwin or other evolutionary theorists. The one usually credited with popularizing or developing this version is William Paley, who described it in Natural Theology (1802). Daniel C. Dennett (1995) argues convincingly that Hume anticipated Paley, having Cleanthes, one of his (Hume’s) three fictional characters in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779/modern reprint, Prometheus Books), lay out the argument.
    ::提出这一看法的大多数人都想到了针对达尔文或其他进化理论家的创造主义论点的一些变异。 通常被推崇或发展这一版本的通常是William Paley,他在自然神学(1802年)中描述了这一说法。 Daniel C. Dennett(1995年)令人信服地指出,Hume预见到Paley,他(Hume)在关于自然宗教的对话(1779/现代重印,Prometheus Books)中的三个虚构人物之一,即他(Hume)在“关于自然宗教的对话”(1779/现代重印,Prometheus Books)中写明了这个论点。

    In any case, the real problem is that design and a “Designer” with a purpose are not necessarily connected. The natural forces at work in the universe do change things, and at least in the case of organic matter, those changes are in a particular direction, or directions. But that does not imply purpose or an intentional destination. Organisms with inheritable characteristics that work better in whatever environment they are in are more likely to survive and reproduce—so “Nature,” or evolutionary forces, do design organisms that are increasingly well adapted and thus are often increasingly complex. Given a few million generations over a few billion years, such design forces can create an astonishing variety of interesting products—but that in no way suggests an omnipotent, omniscient, purposeful Creator.
    ::无论如何,真正的问题是,设计与目的的“设计者”之间不一定有联系。 宇宙中的自然力量确实改变了事物,至少在有机物方面,这些变化是在特定方向或方向上发生的。 但这并不意味着目的或有意目的地。 具有较好遗传特征的有机体在它们所处的任何环境中都更可能生存和繁殖 — — 因此“自然 ” 或进化力量,设计的生物体越来越适应性强,因此往往越来越复杂。 在数亿多年前的几百万代人中,这种设计力量可以创造出惊人的有趣产品 — — 但绝不意味着无能的、无所不在的、有目的的创造者。

    The Complexity or Improbability Counter Argument 
    ::复杂性或概率性 反 辩 辩 辩

    The more the complexity of the universe or the improbability of its actual orderings then the less likely it is that it had or has an intelligent designer.
    ::宇宙的复杂程度或实际定序的不可能性越大,那么它拥有或拥有智能设计师的可能性就越小。

    Irreducible Complexity Argument
    ::电导复杂度参数

    The case made by the promoters of the intelligent design argument is actually providing evidence against the conclusion that there must be an intelligent designer. The more the complexity of the universe is advocated or presented by the promoters of the intelligent design argument as a supposed indication of intelligence at work, then the more it works against the conclusion that there must be an intelligent designer. Why? Because if there was an intelligent designer there would be no need for all the complexity and waste observed in the physical universe.
    ::智能设计理论的推动者提出的案例实际上提供了证据来反驳必须有一个智能设计师的结论。 智能设计理论的推动者越是提倡或提出宇宙的复杂性,作为工作智慧的假定指针,那么它就越反对必须有一个智能设计师的结论。 为什么? 因为如果有一个智能设计师,那么在物理宇宙中观察到的所有复杂性和浪费就没有必要了。

    Outcome Assessment
    ::成果评估

    This argument or proof does not establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity.  It attempts to argue for the existence of such a being by making comparisons that are questionable and using evidence that is also questionable and for which there alternative explanations and that is not rationally legitimate.  While the argument can not be used to convert a non-believer to a believer, the faults in the argument do not prove that there is no god.  The Burden of Proof demands that the positive claim that there is a supernatural deity be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that standard.  The believer in god can use the argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being.  The argument does not establish any degree of probability at all when there are alternative explanations for the existence of features of the known universe.
    ::这一论点或证据并不能证明存在超自然神,它试图通过比较来论证存在超自然神,这种比较是值得怀疑的,它使用的证据也是值得怀疑的,而且有其他解释,而且不合理。虽然这一论点不能用来将不信者转换为信仰者,但这一论点的错误并不能证明不存在神。证据的举证责任要求根据理由和证据来确立超自然神的肯定主张,而这一论点不符合这一标准。信仰上帝的人可以使用这一论点来证明存在超自然神的逻辑可能性,或者至少相信存在这种神性的可能性并非不合理。当对已知宇宙的特征存在有其他解释时,这一论点并不能证明任何可能性。

     Premises/Conclusion:
    ::房地/结论:

    1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
      ::人类艺术品是智能设计的产品
    2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
      ::宇宙和人类的文物相似
    3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
      ::因此宇宙是智慧设计的产物
    4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
      ::但与人类的文物相比 宇宙是复杂而巨大的
    5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe. 
      ::因此,可能有一个强大又聪明的设计师 创造了宇宙。

     Problem with argument:
    ::有争论的问题 :

    1. _X__Premises are false or questionable
      ::_X__ 房地是虚假的或有疑问的
    2. ____Premises are irrelevant
      ::房舍无关紧要
    3. ____Premises Contain the Conclusion –Circular Reasoning
      ::载有结论的序言 - 环形理由
    4. _X__Premises are inadequate to support the conclusion
      ::_X__ 房地不足以支持结论
    5. _X__Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support
      ::_X__ 替代论点在同等或更大的支持下存在

    This argument or proof has flaws in it and would not convince a rational person to accept its conclusion.  This is not because someone who does not believe in a deity will simply refuse to accept based on emotions or past history but because it is not rationally compelling of acceptance of its conclusion.
    ::这一论点或证据有缺陷,无法说服理性的人接受其结论。 这并不是因为不相信神的人会基于情感或过去的历史而拒绝接受其结论,而是因为它没有理性地说服理性的人接受其结论。

      Philosophy Applications  
    ::哲学应用

    lesson content

    EPISD Critical knowledge and Creative Thinkers Goal
    ::EPISD 关键知识和创意思想者目标

      lesson content

    Writing assignment : Use the text and outside resources to support your answers. Make sure you completely and thoroughly answer each part.
    ::写入任务: 使用文本和外部资源支持您的答案。 请确保您完整和彻底地回答每个部分 。

    A rguments for the Existence of God:  The arguments for the existence of god have weaknesses.  Some have more problems than others.  Some seem more attractive and some stronger than others.
    ::为真主而争论:为神的存在而争论的,是软弱的。有些是比另一些问题更多的问题,有些是更吸引人的,有些是比其他更强大的。

    1. What do you think the value of these arguments to be?
      ::你觉得这些论点有什么价值?
    2. Why do humans care about these arguments or proofs?
      ::为什么人类关心这些论点或证据?
    3. Since they all have problems, are they necessary for the believer in god?
      ::因为他们都有问题 信仰上帝的人需要他们吗?
    4. Select any one argument : Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological, Miracles, Experience
      ::选择任何一种论点:本体学、宇宙学、神学、奇迹、经验
    • describe it
      ::描述说明
    • describe its weakness or flaw
      ::描述其弱点或缺陷
    • point out what its attraction would be
      ::指出其吸引力
    • what use a believer can make of it despite its problem.
      ::信仰者尽管有问题,却能如何利用它。

    Vocabulary
    ::词汇表

    lesson content

    EPISD Effective Bilingual Education Goal
    ::EPISD 有效双语教育目标