|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
quote: I would venture to guess that many Muslims, Hindus, and others would strongly contest that. which part of the above would muslims, hindus, and others contest?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: you established nothing that i could see... you *asserted* something, but that's an entirely different matter... evidently you believe it is true that there is "..no reason to believe or not believe anything.."... do you not see the internal tension in that statement? by what reasoning do you state as true your proposition while at the same time denying the existence of the reasoning necessary for the proposition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: then before we precede, since you affirm the existence of *some* God, tell me about the one you believe in... tell me his attributes, his teachings, his will for you... i need to know what you believe so i don't build a straw man (or straw God) to argue against
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: when berkeley says that truth is inaccessible to humans, do you believe he is telling the truth? by what route, being human, did he reach this truth? the christian worldview is the only one that has as a set of presuppositions the things necessary for both knowledge and truth... all worldviews begin with presuppositions, the honest person admits as much... but i see a glaring inconsistency in the statement "it is in fact true that we can not know truth"... do you? i still need to know more about this god you believe in... tell me some about him/her/it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Gzus: "it is in fact true that we can not know truth?" — yes, well, noting the absurdity of the statement, I have attempted to formulate a ‘better’ one. Truth, undeniable, perfect argument immune to the powers of scepticism. This can never be achieved by humans because there is always the sceptical argument ‘what if logic itself is flawed’ you cannot ‘logically’ prove that ‘logic’ is unflawed since it is ‘logic’ which is in question. This is the shortfall of nihilism, religion and everything else that ‘we’ experience or claim to experience. i would like to draw your attention to some things you say and hope that by doing so you will understand why i can say that christianity, while also utiliizing a certain degree of circularity in its argumentation, can at least remain consistent within its worldview you say above, "Truth, undeniable, perfect argument immune to the powers of scepticism. This can never be achieved by humans because there is always the sceptical argument." now look closely at that... you are making a truth claim, that being that truth "..can never be achieved by humans because there is always the sceptical argument." if that is the case, how is it you are able to state it as truth? if truth can't be achieved, it can't then be the case that such a proposition is true... this is obscenely inconsistent and again, "..you cannot ‘logically’ prove that ‘logic’ is unflawed since it is ‘logic’ which is in question." by what vehicle do you arrive at the above? logic itself? your worldview consists of, in totality, an absence of everything... you deny the very logic necessary to argue logically, you deny the very truth necessary to state any proposition as true... surely you can see that what you profess to believe is in fact irrational... i, on the other hand, know that metaphysical entities such as logic and truth exist... they exist because there is a God in whom they are embodied, perfectly... they exist in time because God has created man "in his image"... i know the material isn't all there is, you have to utilize the tools of my worldview to even put forth an argument for your worldview... doesn't that bother you? examine it closely and see if you don't come to the conclusion that irrationality can't be, in and of itself, a basis for one's belief system... if you find your beliefs to be at odds with one another, maybe it's time to examine other beliefs, ones *not* containing such unbearable tensions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i would like to know something about this god you believe in... the ones you mention above have certain things in common but also certain inconsistencies one with another... it's *your* god i'd like to know about... tell me about him DELETED BY EDIT A QUOTE INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO GZUS [This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hello chavalon
Originally posted by Chavalon: The mutually exclusive truth claims made by strong adherents of all the religions mentioned do seem to throw severe doubt on the universal validity of any of them. i frankly don't see how two or more mutually exclusive truth claims can lead to the conclusion that doubt, severe or otherwise, need be thrown on any one of them... person P thinks the earth is spherical in shape, person Q says flat, person R says triangular...
Most pragmatic empiricists do not see profit in ideas of the transcendent, especially in sorting through claim and counter-claim, and may be called atheists, as much for a lack of interest as a lack of capacity for the subject. Suppose a buddhist were to claim that the concept of God is a benign and useful way of conceptualising the thoughts and feelings which arise if one sees merit in entertaining such ideas. Buddhists can and do describe themselves as pragmatic, empirical, religious and atheistic. i agree that empiricists believe as you say, i just think they must borrow from my worldview in order to hold to their beliefs how do buddhists reconcile the seemingly mutually exclusive definitions you attach to their beliefs? for example, would a religious empiricist deny or affirm the supernatural? would a pragmatic atheist, during her religious ceremonies, affirm or deny a deity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: but mr. davies, my question concerned your words on the subject... here they are:
forgiven: this post and your previous might lead one to believe that while you don't deny God's existence you would need more before you could decide *which* God exists, the muslim, hindu, christian God... is this in fact your position? Mr. DaviesIn a nutshell, yes i'll take your last answer as being your final one, you don't believe in any god
quote: more powerful in its unintelligent way? i think before you decide to argue against the existence of God you might need to have some idea of what the word 'god' means to you...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hello mr. davies
quote: a strange paragraph... it seems vaguely redundant to say you don't believe in any god while at the same time being convinced no god exists... how can you accept the possibility of "more than one god, dead gods, gods coming into being and more than any of us could imagine" while at the same time being "convinced there is no god or gods?" i am as confused as you seem to be
quote: do your presuppositions prevent you from examinging my evidence? if not, what sort of evidence would you require, what would be acceptable to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: only if your worldview is ruled by inconsistencies... it's not a matter of who can say one thing or the other, it's a matter of who is able to account for being able to make internally consistent statements
quote:anyone who can point out the irrationality of your statements has that right... if you don't wish your worldview to be judged, don't put it in opposition to another's quote: then why do you pretend to take part in rational discussions if you admit to irrationality in your own thinking? why not look for the weaknesses of your paradigm and throw away the parts that are obviously irrational?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: that's the whole point... see, i don't have that problem... i trust my senses, i trust my reasoning abilities (such as they are), i know there's more to life than the material world... i have a worldview that allows me to make sense of such things... you don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: huh? one of us is very confused... aren't *you* the nihilist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: you keep missing the point... it isn't enough for you to make the statement, *argue* it... make your case, but do so without relying on tools your worldview does't give you... at least stand up and admit it your worldview is irrational, but don't use reason to argue!! don't use logic!!... those don't exist, can't exist, in your world... at least admit you're nothing but atoms reacting to other atoms and nothing more [This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: so you demand empirical evidence for a transcendental entity?... are your demands re this particular entity (the christian God) consistent with your demands for all such entities? must all transcendental entities be empirically verified, or do you solve this problem by denying their existence?... your position appears arbitrary, thus irrational on its face... i don't expect that to bother you much, but most people would rather embrace a worldview that is at least consistent in its dogmas
quote: we all have presuppositions, but you misstate my position... i have a view of the world that is internally consistent, i can give an account for things that exist yet are not suspended in time and space.. you can't, not without borrowing from my worldview... so while i believe the bible is the inspired word of God i don't see how you can argue against it without using the very tools you deny, the very tools that can be accounted for from only within my worldview
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i can understand why you can't grasp it, your worldview doesn't allow for such things as reason... but that does not mean i'm unjustified in what i say, my worldview gives me the right i never said "nothing is certain," you did... you arbitrarily define terms and you assert without argumentation... rational discourse is impossible with you since even the elementary principles of debate seem unknown to you... unless or until you can grasp these things and formulate arguments that account for your worldview, maybe you should just read for awhile
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024