Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,828 Year: 3,085/9,624 Month: 930/1,588 Week: 113/223 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
tesla
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 316 of 577 (563057)
06-03-2010 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Coyote
06-02-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
quote:
This is a field I have studied.
Early man was early man, but what about a hundred years before that? And a thousand years before that? 100,000? 1,000,000? 5,000,000?
There are a lot of fossil critters out there that anthropology suggests that are ancestral to "early man." You don't want to call them apes.
lol you got me. i was thinking archeology. i know nothing really of anthropology. But i do believe it is a good aid to archaeologist in their quest to understand the behaviors of past civilizations.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 11:04 PM Coyote has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 317 of 577 (563058)
06-03-2010 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by anglagard
06-02-2010 11:18 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
probrobly. he wasnt always right. but he was right alot.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by anglagard, posted 06-02-2010 11:18 PM anglagard has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 318 of 577 (563075)
06-03-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
So how do you explain your own belief in god?
that's what I'm doing here. My belief came from proof. you cannot have faith in something you do not know is. and to know you need proof. i found what i needed, and I'm debating it.
How does this "proof" differ from conviction exactly?
How does this "knowledge" differ from belief exactly?
And the psychological, sociological, anthropological and historical evidence says that the best explanation for your belief in god is - what?
well..you ask a tall order.
Not really. It is only made difficult by your innate resistance to having your cherished beliefs evidentially questioned. I simply ask you to consider mankind's recorded proclivity to erroneously invoke the unknowable in order to find explanation, meaning, purpose and comfort and to apply it to yourself and your own beliefs.
Why do you think the supernatural explanation for your own beliefs will fare any better than any of the other supernatural explanations posited by humanity throughout history?
Aside from your deep personal conviction that your god and your beliefs are somehow different of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:56 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 11:41 AM Straggler has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 319 of 577 (563120)
06-03-2010 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
06-03-2010 7:16 AM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
quote:
How does this "proof" differ from conviction exactly?
How does this "knowledge" differ from belief exactly?
I'm not offering a supernatural explanation, nor embedded my beliefs in the supernatural.
i understand life is natural. it has a food chain. we are not the top of it. we are on this planet, but we are not in the universe.
examine a tree. it starts out and grows in a systematic way. the trunk that spits in two has a limb that splits in two. and the limbs of that limb splits to two. it follows a perfect map. the large and the small are identical.
now look at the structure of an atom. it follows the same road map as a solar system, which follows the same road map of its galaxy. so the large is a mirror of the small.
its not clear because of diversity. but it is evident and has some significance.
now philosophically in order to rationalize the maps i have to find a natural way to tie in thoughts and emotions to the maps. so i examine the bodies in the middle to understand te smaller and greater bodies. examining emotions i see them evident in lesser life forms, so apply the logic that it will apply to the greater. greater intelligence is greater wisdom. so even though i accept the body we live in is alive and has life, i cannot rationalize its behavior without application of how i would react to the lesser life forms that exist within me, and around me...
man. there is too much data for me to try to explain how it interprets into my beliefs, and since they are my beliefs it would just be food for you to further debate to no end.
proof is just evidence of life. and the realization that everything has a purpose and works and interacts perfectly. that thought and emotions exist naturally. and have natural explanations if understood.
my convictions come from acceptance of the data i have understood leading to greater things to yet understand. but what i have understood says God loudly and the bible agrees with the assessment if in only an obscure way.
I put myself in the shoes of existence. and found it a lonely place to be without diversity.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 7:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 12:59 PM tesla has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 320 of 577 (563123)
06-03-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
Although i do not agree with the assessment that early man was an ape. But that early man was early man.
Last I checked, we are still apes.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:56 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 321 of 577 (563126)
06-03-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by tesla
06-03-2010 11:41 AM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
Tesla writes:
I agree natural explanations will always beat supernatural. because supernatural means : YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT.
Straggler writes:
So how do you explain your own belief in god?
Tesla writes:
I'm not offering a supernatural explanation
Yes you are. You are saying that your belief in god is explained by the actual existence of a supernatural god rather than any of the empirically evidenced alternative explanations for this behaviour.
Tesla writes:
nor embedded my beliefs in the supernatural
Oh so you believe in one of those materially detectable gods rather than one of those ethereal supernatural ones then?
Tesla writes:
my convictions come from acceptance of the data i have understood leading to greater things to yet understand. but what i have understood says God loudly and the bible agrees with the assessment if in only an obscure way.
Tesla writes:
proof is just evidence of life
Only if you apply extreme confirmation bias can you conclude that life is proof of the existence of your god.
Tesla writes:
I put myself in the shoes of existence. and found it a lonely place to be without diversity.
Firstly awe, wonder and "diversity" can be found in existence and the universe without recourse to invoking god. Don't assume that believers have a monopoly in that area.
Secondly - Your feelings of loneliness and the desire to overcome these feelings are exactly the sort of very human needs which evidence suggests humans are prone to finding ways of resolving through conviction at the expense of truth.
So remind me again - Why is your belief in god best explained by the actual existence of god rather than any of the other possible explanations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 11:41 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:40 PM Straggler has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 322 of 577 (563180)
06-03-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
anthropological evidence that i have actually studied supports evolution. which is good for me because evolution is my very proof of God. Although i do not agree with the assessment that early man was an ape. But that early man was early man.
Early man was an ape, middle man was an ape and modern man is an ape. All humans that ever existed are or were apes.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:56 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 323 of 577 (563197)
06-03-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Huntard
05-11-2010 5:17 AM


Re: I
Huntard,
Your notions of morality seem very vague. You said at one point that there is not only one correct standard:
Huntard writes:
I never said that [there is only one correct standard]. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation.
I then said "the way that you decide which choice is the right one is by the standard of experience", to which you replied: yep.
So in the second case you say that the only standard that can be used in order to determine right and wrong is experience.
Or maybe I misinterpreted something you said. If so, please correct me, and then elaborate a little bit on your views of morals.
Skeptic? Yes, very much so.
Hmmm. A skepticist would be seen as saying "we have no way of knowing anything", or "we cannot define morality", or other such "skeptical" statements. As far as I have seen, you don't seem to very skeptical though, because you would agree that certain things are absolutely wrong, such as murder. A skeptic would say that "you can't know whether or not murder is wrong. Explain.

Here is another inconsistency:
No i don't [derive truth from experience]. I derive truth from the evidence.
You then said:
I rely on what my experience has taught me I should do
So in the first case, you said that your truth is derived from "the evidence". The first objection I would have against this is that you cannot provide evidence for support of everything you believe. A simple example of this is the laws of logic. You cannot use a logical argument (or logically interpreted evidence) to prove the validity of the laws of logic, without invoking the laws of logic themselves, for if you were to logically interpret evidence that supported the laws of logic, you would be using the laws of logic to interpret the evidence, which isn't allowed (at least, it isn't allowed by you, who say there are no presuppositions).
The second objection is that...you denied it yourself, by saying that you rely on your own personal experience to decide what is the correct thing to do. To say one should do something in a particular situation is a truth claim, so therefore, your relying on experience for truth is inconsistent with your first statement that you only rely on evidence.
Or, we could dig a little deeper. You said:
I said there is only one correct one (standard) for any given situation.
This itself is a truth claim. So how did you conclude that there is only one correct standard for a given situation? How do you know that there aren't two? Or three? Or is it undefinable? What standard did you use to justify this truth claim (that there is only one correct standard for a given situation)? Or did you presuppose that there is only one correct choice?
I'm sorry to tell you this but the god of the old testament is far from "good and upright", he commits massive atrocities, killing even innocents in the process.
I'm sorry you wasted time telling me this because your statement has no effect on what I believe. Do you even have any idea what I do believe? I don't think so. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). In other words, "ain't nobody innocent, and that's why 10 out of 10 people die". So you can just say however much you want that you hate God, but that has no effect on my beliefs whatsoever. Merely making the statement that "God is mean" has no effect on whether or not God is mean. And as I have shown already, God doesn't kill innocents, because nobody is innocent.
Is rape bad? Is murder? Is theft?
Before I answer, you need to tell me just where you come of saying that there are moral absolutes. These moral absolutes are just horribly inconsistent unless there is no god.
So why is rape bad? You would probably say because it's bad for society, or bad for the species, or some other such question-begging statement. Besides question begging, you have no basis for saying that rape is bad for the victim. Suppose the raper gets more enjoyment out of it than the victim got hurt? And as I mentioned earlier, to say rape is bad because "it's bad for society/the species" is begging the question. I could then ask "why is it bad for society/the species?".
Or why is stealing bad? Suppose the robber was starving to death, and they would have died had they not stolen food? Wouldn't it have been considered bad for the species if the robber had died?
One closing question. Are the moral absolutes you mentioned material, or immaterial?
If your parents told you to shoot that man, would you do it or choose to be rebellious?
No. If a parent were to command their child to commit a sin, then certainly it wouldn't be rebellion to disobey the command. This is fairly obvious, and to interpret this out of scripture might actually involve reading between the lines...what a novel concept.
And also, rebellion involves more than just disobedience to one command. It involves general disrespect for authorities, repeated disobedience, and dishonoring of parents.
You also said God condones slavery. First of all...so what? From your worldview, why is slavery wrong? Second of all, you need to bring the references that you are referring to.

I think the discussion on death is hopeless.
So is the discussion of orangutans.
And so is the one on Hitler.

Regarding the metaphysical question I asked.
Let me rephrase it: what is the nature of reality?
This question is very specific, so just try to answer with one of your more fundamental beliefs about reality. You could give multiple answers if you wish. Here is my answer: God exists as an immaterial, infinite, eternal, and holy being, who created the universe and all that is therein, including man, whom He created in the image of himself.
I gave this answer because it is one of my most fundamental beliefs about reality. Also, the point of my asking this question is not to see who's answer has the most evidence in support of it. I just want you to give me an answer about what you believe.
To rephrase the epistemological question: what is the nature of human knowledge?
So use your answers to these questions to answer the 3rd question which is: what is the nature of good and evil?
It [experience] has shown itself to be [reliable] throughout my life. Can you show that it hasn't?
So you're appealing to experience to prove that experience is reliable? How can you do this? How do you know that any experiences are reliable? How do you know that your memory is reliable? How do you know that anything which you recall experienced throughout your life is reliable, and that it somehow relates to current events? Your reply cannot be "my experiences have always shown experience to be reliable", because this is circular reasoning, because you first assume that your experiences are reliable, and then conclude that your experiences must be reliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Huntard, posted 05-11-2010 5:17 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Huntard, posted 06-04-2010 3:58 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 338 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2010 7:11 PM sac51495 has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 324 of 577 (563216)
06-03-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
06-03-2010 12:59 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
quote:
Oh so you believe in one of those materially detectable gods rather than one of those ethereal supernatural ones then?
God is natural and does exist. we exist for some purpose yet unknown. and God is natural to all things. it appears supernatural because it is way above yours or my, comprehension level. that's all. But science shows God is. You limit your own knoledge by ignoring what you do not understand.
quote:
Only if you apply extreme confirmation bias can you conclude that life is proof of the existence of your god.
No. Its definite that we exist only within the confines of "existence". Because of evolution i know things were not always as they are. so the start of existing never happened. existence always was. it evolved. and that's definite proof for me. The greatest minds of science understood something of that or they would not echo God in their belief structure.
quote:
So remind me again - Why is your belief in god best explained by the actual existence of god rather than any of the other possible explanations?
What other possible explanations? all things are natural. therefore God is natural. God "is" because existing demands it in an evolved state.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 12:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2010 8:47 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 325 of 577 (563240)
06-04-2010 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by sac51495
06-03-2010 7:58 PM


Re: I
Hello sac,
sac51495 writes:
Your notions of morality seem very vague. You said at one point that there is not only one correct standard:
Huntard writes:
I never said that [there is only one correct standard]. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation.
I never said that [there is only one correct standard]. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation.
So in the second case you say that the only standard that can be used in order to determine right and wrong is experience.
Or maybe I misinterpreted something you said. If so, please correct me, and then elaborate a little bit on your views of morals.
I decide what to do on my experiences and the evidence before me. I never said there are absolute morals, stop putting words in my mouth.
Hmmm. A skepticist would be seen as saying "we have no way of knowing anything", or "we cannot define morality", or other such "skeptical" statements.
No they wouldn't. A skeptic would ask for evidence before believing stuff. Get these weird and wrong ideas out of your head.
As far as I have seen, you don't seem to very skeptical though, because you would agree that certain things are absolutely wrong, such as murder.
No I wouldn't.
skeptic would say that "you can't know whether or not murder is wrong. Explain.
No he wouldn't. I say that murder is not absolutely wrong, I can think of situations where I could conceivably be kinda alright with murder.
So in the first case, you said that your truth is derived from "the evidence". The first objection I would have against this is that you cannot provide evidence for support of everything you believe.
Yes I can, or at least logic to back it up. Do you know everything I believe? Guess not, since you;ve made several wrong statements about what you think I believe.
A simple example of this is the laws of logic. You cannot use a logical argument (or logically interpreted evidence) to prove the validity of the laws of logic, without invoking the laws of logic themselves, for if you were to logically interpret evidence that supported the laws of logic, you would be using the laws of logic to interpret the evidence, which isn't allowed (at least, it isn't allowed by you, who say there are no presuppositions).
Whatever are you on about here? Will you stop talking in this mumbo jumbo kind of way?
The second objection is that...you denied it yourself, by saying that you rely on your own personal experience to decide what is the correct thing to do. To say one should do something in a particular situation is a truth claim, so therefore, your relying on experience for truth is inconsistent with your first statement that you only rely on evidence.
No it isn't, for my experience includes all the evidence I have ever seen, and the evidence I have before me.
This itself is a truth claim. So how did you conclude that there is only one correct standard for a given situation? How do you know that there aren't two? Or three? Or is it undefinable? What standard did you use to justify this truth claim (that there is only one correct standard for a given situation)? Or did you presuppose that there is only one correct choice?
I used my experience of the world around me to conclude that. I have never seen a situation where there was more than one optimal solution.
I'm sorry you wasted time telling me this because your statement has no effect on what I believe.
I never espected it to have any result whatsoever, so don;t fret.
Do you even have any idea what I do believe?
Apart from your statements here, no I don't. I'm not in the habit of presuming somethhing about peoples believes, like you are.
I don't think so. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). In other words, "ain't nobody innocent, and that's why 10 out of 10 people die".
What a dumb explanation for death.
So you can just say however much you want that you hate God, but that has no effect on my beliefs whatsoever. Merely making the statement that "God is mean" has no effect on whether or not God is mean. And as I have shown already, God doesn't kill innocents, because nobody is innocent.
Nice cop out. I suggest you gop murder everybody then. Oh wait. no don't, I'm a moral person, who thinks everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
Before I answer, you need to tell me just where you come of saying that there are moral absolutes.
In never said that, stop putting words in my mouth.
So why is rape bad? You would probably say because it's bad for society, or bad for the species, or some other such question-begging statement. Besides question begging, you have no basis for saying that rape is bad for the victim.
It causes them distress and suffering. I can;t believe you have to ask me this.
Suppose the raper gets more enjoyment out of it than the victim got hurt?
What? Then it would still cause distress pain and suffereing to the victim. Where the fuck do you come up with these fuccked up questions man? Get your head checked.
And as I mentioned earlier, to say rape is bad because "it's bad for society/the species" is begging the question. I could then ask "why is it bad for society/the species?".
No it isn;t begging the question. It is bad for the species/society because it causes an unstable society, if even locally, which is not the best environment for the species to thrive.
Or why is stealing bad? Suppose the robber was starving to death, and they would have died had they not stolen food? Wouldn't it have been considered bad for the species if the robber had died?
I would be ok with stealing if that were the case.
One closing question. Are the moral absolutes you mentioned material, or immaterial?
They aren't absolutes.
No. If a parent were to command their child to commit a sin, then certainly it wouldn't be rebellion to disobey the command.
Yes it would be.
This is fairly obvious, and to interpret this out of scripture might actually involve reading between the lines...what a novel concept.
It's not fairly obvious. Disobeying your parents is a rebellion against them, and for rebellion against your parents, you should be stoned, or so the bible says. Hey, it's not my moral standard either.
And also, rebellion involves more than just disobedience to one command. It involves general disrespect for authorities, repeated disobedience, and dishonoring of parents.
Ok, they ask you repeatedly to kill a man.
You also said God condones slavery. First of all...so what?
So what, he asks. Man you've got some fucked up morals.
From your worldview, why is slavery wrong? Second of all, you need to bring the references that you are referring to.
It is bad for society. What the hell are "references that you are referring to"?
Let me rephrase it: what is the nature of reality?
No idea. I don't deal in mumbo jumbo good for nothing but philosophical musings qustion, I deal with reality.
God exists as an immaterial, infinite, eternal, and holy being, who created the universe and all that is therein, including man, whom He created in the image of himself.
Have you got any evidence for that? Thought not.
I gave this answer because it is one of my most fundamental beliefs about reality.
It's also comletely devoid of evidence, and so, quite irrelevant.
Also, the point of my asking this question is not to see who's answer has the most evidence in support of it. I just want you to give me an answer about what you believe.
I believe nothing that has no evidence for it. I deal with reality.
To rephrase the epistemological question: what is the nature of human knowledge?
More mumbo jumbo. No idea. I deal with reality.
So use your answers to these questions to answer the 3rd question which is: what is the nature of good and evil?
Mumbo jumbo all the way. I deal with reality.
So you're appealing to experience to prove that experience is reliable? How can you do this? How do you know that any experiences are reliable? How do you know that your memory is reliable? How do you know that anything which you recall experienced throughout your life is reliable, and that it somehow relates to current events? Your reply cannot be "my experiences have always shown experience to be reliable", because this is circular reasoning, because you first assume that your experiences are reliable, and then conclude that your experiences must be reliable.
I tested my experiences against reality, and found them to be consistent with it. So do you, every day of every week of every month. So I keep wondering why you keep bringin this up, when in your own life, you live it just like I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by sac51495, posted 06-03-2010 7:58 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by sac51495, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Huntard has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 326 of 577 (563275)
06-04-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by tesla
06-03-2010 10:40 PM


"QED"
In this thread alone you have stated that your faith has relieved you of your feelings of loneliness and provided your life with meaning and purpose sufficient to turn you away from previously drunken and violent ways. Your proof for the particular immaterial entity in which you place this life changing faith is simply existence (which could be argued as evidence for pretty much anything). You have repeatedly fallen back on defining the ultimate object of this faith as intrinsically unable to be disproved whenever I challenge your baseless assumption that the cause of these beliefs is the actual existence of an immaterial being rather than just very human psychological needs.
You are a walking talking text book example of everything I have been talking about. Psychological need, extreme confirmation bias and the desperate scrabble to immunise ones cherished beliefs from any possibility of direct refutation. Everything you have said has demonstrated the deep personal requirement for utter conviction that what you believe is true regardless of actual truth. How can you not see this?
I guess that question answers itself.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:40 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 327 of 577 (563321)
06-04-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
Tesla,
evolution is my very proof of God.
Not to seem as though I am disagreeing with everyone on here, but I do disagree strongly with attempting to mix God and evolution together. The only way in which you can do so is to lie to yourself about the Genesis account of creation, which is about as precise and clear as it can be as to the length of time it took God to create the universe.
But before I go any further with discussing this with you, I need to find out what exactly you do believe about the Genesis account of Creation, what you believe about how the evolutionary time scale fits into the Genesis time scale, or if you believe Genesis 1-3 is allegorical, or whatever.
There are greatly varying views amongst theistic evolutionists, so before I present my arguments, I need you to tell me what you believe.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:56 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:44 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 328 of 577 (563324)
06-04-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 2:52 PM


Re: LET ME ASK THIS ONE QUESTION AGAIN
Dr. Adequate,
What makes you think that you are the one-in-a-million theist who has got it right?
Above all, I don't think I've got it all right. In fact, I don't believe anybody has it completely right. Only God's word has it completely right, so that is what all Christians should refer to in order to come up with their beliefs.
The reason, however, that I do not want you quoting Christian leaders as an attack on me, is because I don't necessarily believe the same things that the Christian leaders did. And furthermore - since the Bible is my ultimate authority - ,although I may read the writings of Christian leaders and see truth in them, I do not take their writings as my ultimate authority. When you're arguing with me, you have to argue with me (obviously), not with the beliefs of Christian leaders. And arguing with me necessarily involves arguing with the Bible (since the Bible is my ultimate authority).
So anyways, I hope that was an adequate explanation for my statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 2:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by anglagard, posted 06-04-2010 11:10 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 335 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2010 6:09 PM sac51495 has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 329 of 577 (563332)
06-04-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by sac51495
06-04-2010 10:47 AM


Self Contradiction City
sac51495 writes:
Above all, I don't think I've got it all right. In fact, I don't believe anybody has it completely right. Only God's word has it completely right, so that is what all Christians should refer to in order to come up with their beliefs.
However, you evidently believe that your interpretation of the one out of 30,000 versions of the Bible that you consider 'the word of god' should be above any examination.
If you don't think you have it right (an admirable show of humility before God), how can you think your interpretation of your preferred version of the Bible is the absolute truth?

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by sac51495, posted 06-04-2010 10:47 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by sac51495, posted 06-14-2010 7:00 PM anglagard has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 330 of 577 (563333)
06-04-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by PaulK
05-30-2010 1:05 PM


PaulK,
If it is necessary to make some assumptions before producing an epistemology then they should be as few and as minimal as possible.
So you admit that some metaphysical assumptions must be made before producing an epistemology? Why do you then condemn my metaphysical beliefs?
What you want is to place assumptions - not reality - before knowing.
I am placing reality (metaphysics) before epistemology, which is exactly what you said I should do. Right? Wasn't the question I asked a metaphysical one (what is the nature of reality)? You admitted that one must have basic metaphysical beliefs (beliefs about reality) before an epistemological method can be formed. For example, suppose you said "the best way to find out what a tree feels like is to go outside and touch it". This is, of course, a true statement. But it does have an underlying metaphysical belief, one that must be assumed (whether it be consciously or sub-consciously) before you can confidently go outside and touch the tree - that you can go outside and touch the tree. This is a basic of example of "metaphysics before epistemology". Another metaphysical question is "is God real? If so, what is his nature?". The reason the answer to this question is so important is because of this: if God is real, and if He is then omnipotent and omniscient, and if he created this earth, and if the Bible then be true, all of our beliefs will be radically influenced by our belief or non-belief in God. This is why one must presume God or no god as a metaphysical belief.
Some people will say though, that they take a "neutral" stance by weighing the evidence for both sides. However, this makes God out to be a minor ethical belief, because note that the person was making his epistemological assumptions before taking God into account. If one takes this outlook (of placing knowing before God), they can come to very wrong conclusions.
However, the point I have been trying to make is that everyone, whether they admit it or not, is suppressing the fact that they believe in God, because no worldview can account for everything we do and the way that we act other than the Christian worldview.
An example is with Huntard, who cannot prove why he believes murder to be wrong (at least in some situations). If I ask him why murder is bad, he'll say "because it's bad for society". I then ask "why is it bad for society?", and he'll say "because it makes society unstable". I would then ask "why does it make society unstable?", to which he would reply with another answer that doesn't really account for good and bad, or stability and instability. You see, he has caught himself in an infinite regress, in which he'll constantly take a step back and say why murder is wrong, but never account for wrong itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2010 1:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2010 4:06 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 332 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 4:11 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 333 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2010 4:12 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 334 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2010 6:04 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 336 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2010 6:34 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 337 by cavediver, posted 06-04-2010 6:55 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 341 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2010 4:15 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 343 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2010 6:32 PM sac51495 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024