Hi sac51495, and welcome to the fray. I hope you are prepared for an onslaught of replies from a wide variety of people.
I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, ...
... And lastly, this discussion will not be fought from a neutral standpoint, for two primary reasons. 1. The Bible commands us not to.
I am curious to understand why you seem to imply, or take for granted, that these are the only choices available to a philosophical approach to reality.
Perhaps we should ask what makes christianity a valid philosophy rather than just a(nother) religion?
What philosophical basis does one begin with?
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
First of all, I did not say whether or not I believe evidence is supreme. The question at hand is how you have come to assert that evidence is supreme in defining your truths.
No, the question is, what do you use for primary assumptions as the base to your logic ?
I like to start with the assumption that experience of objects that are common to more than one person are likely to be the result of reality rather than fantasy, and that the more people that experience the same object in the same way, the more likely that object is to be reality.
An example is a chair, where people come in and sit down, rarely with any concern about the chair being real because the experience of chairness is so common to all people.
Ultimately then, if "reality" is subjective, then there is no reality...right?
That is one possibility, but another is that reality exists, independent of human perception (ie a rock is a rock whether or not anyone is there to perceive it).
In this case the basic a priori assumptions we can make are
that there is a reality,
that we can understand parts of this reality by objective testing and
that other people exist who can experience the same reality in the same way.
Without these assumptions all philosophy and religion is just naval gazing, and any concept could be true, none could be deemed more credible than any other, reality could exist or all could be illusion (as the Buddhists would have it).
This is what I asked at the end of Message 19 (my only previous reply on this thread):
I am curious to understand why you seem to imply, or take for granted, that these [atheism or fundamental christianity] are the only choices available to a philosophical approach to reality.
Perhaps we should ask what makes christianity a valid philosophy rather than just a(nother) religion?
What philosophical basis does one begin with?
Where [atheism or fundamental christianity] is inserted for clarity.
What is\are your basic assumption/s?
This does not mean that reality is subjective, just our perceptions of it. This means that we can control for subjective perception by comparing notes between people to see if the same reality is experienced. The more people that confirm a subjective perception as being valid, the higher confidence we can have.
We see these basic assumptions above are validated continually by mundane everyday existence in the common way people behave around objects and other people.
These assumptions form the common building foundation for our understanding of reality: what is needed next? How do you derive your faith?
I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer.
Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe?
Curiously, in my previous post I already listed the necessary presuppositions for a rational understanding of reality.
Interestingly, in my previous post I also asked a question of you - still unanswered, even though it seems you think you can ask me questions instead. Sorry, your turn first.
Try again. What is\are your basic assumption/s? (Or haven't you done your homework).
And then you get some penalty questions for missing the first one:
Why do you presuppose that I am an atheist? Do you (mis)classify everyone that doesn't fall over for your incomplete logic and your argument/s from incredulity as an atheist?
Re: Simple starting points, simple but not answered?
Hi sac51495
My basic assumption is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and has since been ruling over it in an omnipotent and omniscient manner, and that he sent his Son to carry the burden of His children's sin, and we thereby have forgiveness and the ability to enter into His kingdom.
Ah so you assume that your belief is true, rather than deduce it from evidence. In logic this is known as begging the question:
quote:Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. (Sometimes called circular reasoning.)
I thought you said you used logic.
Message 135: Once again, we are created in the image of God, and this gives us the ability to reason in the correct way, thus, we will then be able to come to the correct conclusions about the world around us.
But if we are so created, then we don't need to assume that the bible is true, or that we were created with this gift, rather we can deduce this from the evidence provided by the world around us. Therefore your initial assumption is useless: useless if it is true (because it is unnecessary) and useless if it is false (because it distracts you from reality).
I guess I assumed you were an atheist because of the implications of your assumptions in one of your previous posts.
You mean because, unlike you, I didn't make any useless assumptions?
Before I go into an argument with you then, I need to know if you believe that God is dead, or if you believe that He just no longer controls the universe? Or, if I am still mistaken about your beliefs, please tell me.
Or perhaps you just need to learn more about deism.
quote:Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.
Curiously, this appears to be more consistent with your claims about logic and the use of it than religions where you are supposed to use faith as a basis of belief or belief as a basis of faith.
This is what your presupposition amounts to: pretending that your faith\belief is validated by your presupposition that your faith\belief is true.
I was referring to the instance you would cite the bible as evidence for your belief that god gave us this ability. I would counter with, How do you know the bible is true then? Your reply would then either have to be: "I just believe it is!", which doesn't sound very convincing to me. Or it would be something like "It's the word of god!" which is circular.
Even better, its his a priori assumption:
Message 132: My basic assumption is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and has since been ruling over it in an omnipotent and omniscient manner, and that he sent his Son to carry the burden of His children's sin, and we thereby have forgiveness and the ability to enter into His kingdom.
This is what your presupposition amounts to: pretending that your faith\belief is validated by your presupposition that your faith\belief is true. Perhaps you made a false presupposition.
Well quite........
So, are you contesting my presuppositions? Or are you agreeing that sac51495's presupposition/s is/are useless and logically flawed?
Just for reference:
sac51495 Message 132: My basic assumption is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and has since been ruling over it in an omnipotent and omniscient manner, and that he sent his Son to carry the burden of His children's sin, and we thereby have forgiveness and the ability to enter into His kingdom.
Which is what I replied to with the message you quoted. Previously I had listed:
RAZD Message 119: That is one possibility, but another is that reality exists, independent of human perception (ie a rock is a rock whether or not anyone is there to perceive it).
In this case the basic a priori assumptions we can make are
that there is a reality,
that we can understand parts of this reality by objective testing and
that other people exist who can experience the same reality in the same way.
Without these assumptions all philosophy and religion is just naval gazing, and any concept could be true, none could be deemed more credible than any other, reality could exist or all could be illusion (as the Buddhists would have it).
Do you disagree with those presuppositions? A simple yes or no will suffice at this time.
All of which suggest that you are operating under the presupposition that there is a whole realm of non-empirical reality in which gods exist.
If not - then my bad.
No it is not a presupposition, so yes, once again, your bad. Anyone who has followed the debates will recognize this as an old failure on your part, repeated here once again. Curiously it has nothing to do with this thread topic that I can see.
But all I ask for is a frank and unambiguous clarification on what your position actually is on such matters.
Amusingly, my opinion is essentially irrelevant and unnecessary to discuss topics (like this one) with logic and reason, it is only you being an obsessive nosy parker.
Curiously, you still can't say why you feel you need to make a decision - why is that? And now (your latest failed reply) it appears you don't even understand the question ... perhaps you should keep your pursuit of (your) fantasy to one thread at a time. Then you only look foolish on one thread.
™ Version 4.2
