Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa
And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa
And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser
Why should it be blind guess? — EnPassant
EnPassant
99
EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.
Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa
It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.
And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa
Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.
And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser
Thank you. — EnPassant
Devans99
1.6k
Why should it be blind guess? — EnPassant
Frank is a committed agnostic I think. He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. He also denies we can use probability to induce the existence of God.
I think maybe Frank with his reluctance to trust empirical and theoretical evidence is borderline solipsist... — Devans99
What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know — Frank Apisa
I guess you're a septic - and like most septics, wrong. — Ricardoc
One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. — S
That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. — S
So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. — Christoffer
And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. — Christoffer
French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand.
— SethRy
Interesting. Considered and thoughtful. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser
The first cause is timeless; beyond causality, needs no creating. The tenses past, present and future do not apply; the first cause just IS. — Devans99
So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc. — Devans99
...and I have a good justification for doing so. — Devans99
Devans99
1.6k
What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know — Frank Apisa
I wonder though that the 'I do not know attitude' is the only valid attitude to take? If everyone had that attitude then we would not progress so fast I think. Not saying there is anything wrong with that attitude, it is valuable to have neutrally positioned people in on the discussion. But I feel we also need people to champion certain ideas else we will not make much progress - ideas are the live blood of progress. — Devans99
So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc... and I have a good justification for doing so.
.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.
I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa
Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you. — S
The possibility of something, refers to something.
If it does not exist, it would be nothing.
How do you refer to nothing? — Shamshir
EnPassant
101
.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.
I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa
Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it. — EnPassant
What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?
The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.
Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.
Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on. — EnPassant
Pascal's argument, according to Anselm's separation of necessity and contingency, would not be applicable to the Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster for the reason that this deity has no strong ground to justify its necessity - I suppose we can agree to that? maybe? — SethRy
Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?
* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions. — EnPassant
One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:
1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa
Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge. — S
EnPassant
102
One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:
1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa
That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task. — EnPassant
I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task. — EnPassant
The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. — EnPassant
Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation. — EnPassant
I play no tricks. I merely asked a question.You're playing a trick with language, also known as sophism. — S
What I have done is removed the separation.The particular something in this case would be a concept, more specifically God. No one is arguing over the existence of the concept, so if that was all you were getting at, then you've missed the point. What's being argued over is whether this concept has an actual referent. You haven't demonstrated that it does. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.