|
Author
|
Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 61 of 456 (553168)
04-01-2010 5:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
04-01-2010 4:58 PM
|
|
quote:
Acts 17 asserts that Paul used reason, but the statements it attributes to him are preaching. not rational argument. It really is obvious if you just read it.
I believe this fits in Webster's definition of "reason."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 4:58 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 62 of 456 (553170)
04-01-2010 6:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 5:50 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
Perhaps some of the folks here don't understand the definition of "reason" any better than they do "faith?"
If you think that mere assertions constitute reasoning then that person would be you.
quote:
"Reason" does not necessarily imply an airtight logical argument.
Nobody said that it did. But it requires some sort of logical argument - and that isn't there.
quote:
What, pray tell, was "selective" or "misleading" in my quote?
The fact that you omitted the definition that Liddell Scott associates with theology and the New Testament. To simply pick out the definition that you want rather than the most relevant definition is obviously selective and misleading.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 5:50 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 11:05 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 63 of 456 (553183)
04-01-2010 7:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 5:50 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
"Reason" does not necessarily imply an airtight logical argument. But it should at least address the question at hand. Acts 17 doesn't do that. Let's use Leprechauns as an example. You ask me why you should believe in Leprechauns. My well thought out and reasoned argument is "Leprechauns are mischievous and green". See how I have completely jumped past the question? This is exactly what Paul has done in Acts 17. He completely jumps past the question "What reason do we have for thinking that your god exists" to a long list of God's characteristics. Let's look at the very first line of reasoning that Paul uses in Acts 17:24
quote:
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
What line of reasoning did Paul follow to reach this conclusion? How is this anything other than a bald assertion?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 5:50 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2010 10:34 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 64 of 456 (553213)
04-01-2010 10:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
04-01-2010 4:58 PM
|
|
quote:
The point you were meant to be addressing was your claim fromMessage 32 :
quote:
But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
I worded this statement so broadly that I though it was indisputable. Is there really any serious question about it?? The history of philosophy is full of logical, reasoned arguments both for and against the existence of God. Anyone who has studied philosophy would know this. There is a significant overlap with theology on these questions; Aquinas and others were both philosophers and theologians.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 4:58 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 4:00 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 65 of 456 (553215)
04-01-2010 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
04-01-2010 6:09 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
The fact that you omitted the definition that Liddell Scott associates with theology and the New Testament. To simply pick out the definition that you want rather than the most relevant definition is obviously selective and misleading.
Sorry, I was not trying to be misleading in any way; I included only the basic meaning to make it more readable. The transliterations become hard to read. Here is the entire entry, if anyone wants to see it:
Liddell & Scott writes: pisteuo—, f. euso—: plqpf. pepisteukein: (pistis):to trust, trust to or in, put faith in, rely on, believe in a person or thing, c. dat., p. tini Hdt., Att.; with neut. Adj., logois emoisi pisteuson tade believe my words herein, Eur.:later, p. eis Theon to believe on or in God, N.T.; p. epi ton Kyrion Ib.:absol. to believe, Hdt., Thuc.:Pass. to be trusted or believed, Plat.; pisteuesthai hypo tinos to enjoy his confidence, Xen.; p. para tini, pros tina Dem.; ho—s pisteuthe—somenos as if he would be believed, Id.:Med. to believe mutually, Id. 2. to comply, Soph. 3. c. inf. to believe that, feel sure or confident that a thing is, will be, has been, Eur., etc.; p. poiein to dare to do a thing, Dem.:Pass., pisteuomai ale—theusein I am believed likely to speak truth, Xen. 4. c. dat. et inf., toisi episteue sigan to whom he trusted that they would keep silence, in whose secresy he confided, Hdt. 5. to believe, have faith, N.T. II. p. ti tini to entrust something to another, Xen., etc.:Pass., pisteuomai ti I am entrusted with a thing, have it committed to me, Id.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2010 6:09 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Granny Magda
Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: 11-12-2007 Member Rating: 4.1
|
|
|
Message 66 of 456 (553225)
04-02-2010 3:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 4:18 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
I am not surprised that unbelievers find the reasoning unconvincing and reject it. Ad hominem. Looks like Paul's love of logical fallacy is contagious. I do not reject your description of Paul's long string of logical fallacies as "reason" because I am an unbeliever. I reject it because it is a long string of logical fallacies. That is not reason. That is fallacy. There is a difference.
But yes, I AM surprised that they take the position that there is no reasoning at all. Point it out then. You cite Acts 17 as an example of reason, yet when I read it it gives nothing but a series of baseless assertions and appeals to scriptural authority. Where is the reason?
I don't see the concept of faith against reason in any of these definitions, not even Webster's. Are you kidding me? Seriously, I find that hard to believe. Look again.
Websters writes: 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. Appeal to authority. There is no reason there, only fallacy. You speak as if you have blinded yourself to reason. Try taking off your Jesus-tinted sunglasses for a while. Mutate and Survive
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 4:18 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2010 10:43 AM | | Granny Magda has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 67 of 456 (553226)
04-02-2010 4:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by kbertsche
04-01-2010 10:46 PM
|
|
quote:
I worded this statement so broadly that I though it was indisputable. Is there really any serious question about it??
Obviously there was. That was why your were attempting to defend it - and failing.
quote:
The history of philosophy is full of logical, reasoned arguments both for and against the existence of God. Anyone who has studied philosophy would know this. There is a significant overlap with theology on these questions; Aquinas and others were both philosophers and theologians.
And all of the attempts to argue for the existence of God failed. Without exception. That's why religious philosophers are STILL looking for new arguments for the existence of God - and still failing. So all you are doing is pointing to yet more evidence against your claim.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2010 10:46 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 68 of 456 (553250)
04-02-2010 10:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
04-02-2010 4:00 AM
|
|
quote:
quote:
The history of philosophy is full of logical, reasoned arguments both for and against the existence of God. Anyone who has studied philosophy would know this. There is a significant overlap with theology on these questions; Aquinas and others were both philosophers and theologians.
And all of the attempts to argue for the existence of God failed. Without exception. That's why religious philosophers are STILL looking for new arguments for the existence of God - and still failing. So all you are doing is pointing to yet more evidence against your claim.
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The use of logic and reason does not guaranty that an argument cannot fail. You have presented no evidence against my claim that philosophy and theology use logic and reason.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 4:00 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 10:30 AM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-02-2010 11:12 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 69 of 456 (553252)
04-02-2010 10:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
04-02-2010 10:12 AM
|
|
quote:
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The use of logic and reason does not guaranty that an argument cannot fail. You have presented no evidence against my claim that philosophy and theology use logic and reason.
I am of course aware that apologists - including academics try to use reason to prop up their faith. However, since it is clear that they start from a position of faith, it is clear that their faith is NOT based on reason and THAT is the point under discussion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2010 10:12 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 70 of 456 (553254)
04-02-2010 10:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Taq
04-01-2010 7:22 PM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
Let's look at the very first line of reasoning that Paul uses in Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
What line of reasoning did Paul follow to reach this conclusion? How is this anything other than a bald assertion?
Yes, this is an assertion. It is in response to their request in vv 19-20 that he explain his views to them. This discussion is sidetracking the thread. Perhaps I misspoke in Message 38 and Message 49. Most of Paul's speech at Mars Hill is assertions, as some of you have said. The chapter does not present an extended logical argument at Mars Hill, but more of a persuasive speech. Paul quotes two of their own poets in an attempt to persuade them. And he cites the resurrection as evidence for the deity of Christ and the truth of what he is saying:
NET Bible writes:
Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.
Overall, Paul was explaining WHAT his message was (this is what they asked him to do), and providing only some evidence for WHY it was true.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Taq, posted 04-01-2010 7:22 PM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by Huntard, posted 04-02-2010 10:38 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 71 of 456 (553256)
04-02-2010 10:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by kbertsche
04-02-2010 10:34 AM
|
|
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
kbertsche writes: Overall, Paul was explaining WHAT his message was (this is what they asked him to do), and providing only some evidence for WHY it was true.
But he didn't provide any evidence. He told them the story of the resurection, sure. But a story is not evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2010 10:34 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Many Assertions, No Reason
quote:
quote:
But yes, I AM surprised that they take the position that there is no reasoning at all.
Point it out then. You cite Acts 17 as an example of reason, yet when I read it it gives nothing but a series of baseless assertions and appeals to scriptural authority. Where is the reason?
See Message 70 quote:
quote:
I don't see the concept of faith against reason in any of these definitions, not even Webster's.
Are you kidding me? Seriously, I find that hard to believe. Look again.
Websters writes:
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. quote:
Appeal to authority. There is no reason there, only fallacy.
This isn't quite an "appeal to authority." This definition also fits a jury's belief of a witness account, due to his veracity and testimony. This is not against reason.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by Granny Magda, posted 04-03-2010 9:13 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 73 of 456 (553261)
04-02-2010 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
04-02-2010 10:12 AM
|
|
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The use of logic and reason does not guaranty that an argument cannot fail. You are shifting the goal posts. You are the one who claimed that theists use reason and logic to support their contention that God exists. Now you are saying that logic and reason are no good. You need to make up your mind.
You have presented no evidence against my claim that philosophy and theology use logic and reason. Burden of Proof fallacy. You are the one who claimed that theists use reason and logic to demonstrate that their God exists in the same way that scientists use reason and logic. It is up to YOU to supply the evidence of this. The burden of proof is on you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2010 10:12 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 74 of 456 (553285)
04-02-2010 2:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
04-02-2010 10:30 AM
|
|
quote:
I am of course aware that apologists - including academics try to use reason to prop up their faith.
Finally we agree on something!
quote:
However, since it is clear that they start from a position of faith, it is clear that their faith is NOT based on reason and THAT is the point under discussion.
I agree that reason is not the ONLY basis for religious faith, and not necessarily even the PRIMARY basis for many people. But the point I was making in Message 28 was broader: faith and reason work together in religion, rather than being opposed to one another. the use of reason by Christian apologists illustrates this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 10:30 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 3:13 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 75 of 456 (553289)
04-02-2010 2:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Taq
04-02-2010 11:12 AM
|
|
quote:
You are shifting the goal posts.
Not so.
quote:
You are the one who claimed that theists use reason and logic to support their contention that God exists. ... You are the one who claimed that theists use reason and logic to demonstrate that their God exists in the same way that scientists use reason and logic.
That's not exactly what I've been saying in this thread. My claims are not restricted to God's existence; they are much broader. The current sub-thread that you are replying to is an exchange between PaulK and I, stemming from my statement in Message 32: kbertsche writes: But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason. The point is that faith and reason work together in religion as they do in science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-02-2010 11:12 AM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by Taq, posted 04-02-2010 6:11 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2