*sigh*. The more philosophy i do outside of this forum the less appealing smart-sounding, but un(der)regulated discussion becomes. — AmadeusD
Well, I think that the opportunity to discuss them with other people who have also read them helps a lot. That's my biggest problem. Perhaps I should try to start some reading groups.For the purpose of learning philosophy, time spent actually reading the classics is more productive than arguing with idiots in the hopes of the occasional informative post. — Lionino
I've been aware of some of them. I suppose I'll just have to experiment and see what happens.There are a few reading groups here — Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes. But you don't see them unless you look for them because they get quickly taken over by dumb nonsense such as this and this. — Lionino
That suggests one could start a useful discussion from the relevant pages of the encyclopedias - and then read the book. Standing on the shoulders of the giants.Anyhow, any meaningful discussion to be had is covered 90% in the IEP/SEP page of the respective philosopher — Lionino
That seems paradoxical. — Ludwig V
+belief implies one is not certain — Ludwig V
I'm happy to assert that that is not the case — Ludwig V
But I would say that a belief must be capable of being true and most people think that religious doctrines are true or false. — Ludwig V
Here is a statement from a highly-regarded Catholic philosopher, Joseph Pieper, with whom I have only passing familiarity: — Wayfarer
moral virtues become deeply embedded in our character
links the knowing of truth to the condition of purity.
the virtues of faith, hope, and love
Well, I'm inclined to agree with you at least this far, that "I believe that p and that p is false" is a contradiction. "I believe that p and that p might be false" is not a flat-out contradiction, and could be described as paradoxical. "I believe that p and that p cannot be known, even though p is capable of truth and falsity." is extremely odd, but, for someone who believes on faith, comprehensible.I think claiming belief and not knowledge is paradoxical. The claim to 'faith' is, to me, an indication of dishonesty or delusion. — AmadeusD
That seems a reasonable idea. Maybe a bit harsh - people can be misled even if they do their level best to check things out properly.to me, delusion implies that someone has simply formed a conclusion without adequately assessing the relevant states of affairs. — AmadeusD
I think this proves we can prove a negative.— 180 Proof
It only proves this if you can definitively say that and where the missing item ought to be. Which is absurd. The only way you could say that would be if the missing item actually existed, then disappeared. You are conflating a "disappearing existent" with an unknown. Anything which is to whatever extent unknown can not be definitively identified sufficient to this putative "proof of non-existence." This is exactly what Dennett failed to appreciate.
That is by definition, proving a negative. What's absurd is your explanation. You are in fact, conflating positive/negative with existence/nonexistent.
Positive: There's a dog in my room.
Negative: There isn't a dog in my room.
What's also absurd is you think that "proving a negative" means that one must prove all negatives. — night912
Whatever that means, it's not that. Usually atheism is a reasonable rejection of 'any god described by theism' (with predicates entailing empirical facts about the universe which are lacking ...) just like other imaginary entities.So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness... — Pantagruel
Whatever that means, it's not that. — 180 Proof
I think claiming belief and not knowledge is paradoxical. The claim to 'faith' is, to me, an indication of dishonesty or delusion. — AmadeusD
I've no quarrel with that. Of course folks are entitled to their own idiosyncratic, placebo-fetish (i.e. cosmic lollipop) of choice. My quarrel is, however, with theistic deities of religion: they are demonstrable fictions, and therefore, it's not "illogical" to reject them as facts (i.e. real, intentional agents).I say, the logical concept of god is what is logically possible to each and any given individual person, based on that individual's experiences. — Pantagruel
And this depends on which "concept of god" is at issue, doesn't it? In sum, clarify your "god-concept" (my preferred conception is ).... the possible existence of "god" ... at the logical-conceptual level ...
idiosyncratic, placebo-fetish (i.e. cosmic lollipop) of choice. — 180 Proof
We are stuck with having to make a choice, even about what we claim to know. — Fire Ologist
If you are going to logically deny the existence of God, — Pantagruel
AFAIK, "logic" doesn't "explain" anything; its "applicability" consists in providing formal consistency to arguments (re: valid inferences, sound conclusions).the applicability of logic to explain — Fire Ologist
So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness, then God by definition does exist. — Pantagruel
Anything can exist as soon as we arbitrarily and unilaterally change the definition of "anything". But what we get is not informative, it is a tautology. — Lionino
If you assume the conceptualization entails the non-existence of the thing then perhaps it is the conceptualization that is flawed — Pantagruel
If the conceptualisation of something is flawed because it entails contradiction, what people have in mind is demonstrably false and what can exist is something other than what people have in mind. Assigning this or that label to this or that conceptualisation doesn't change the facts about the world — Lionino
I have as much right as the next person to flesh out the concept of God in whatever ways make the most sense to me. — Pantagruel
Do you then grant that I have all the rights to flesh out the concept of God as the banana that I will eat in 15 minutes before leaving for the gym? — Lionino
If that seems reasonable to you. — Pantagruel
Yet, nobody in the academy, when discussing philosophy or theology, has the above in mind when talking about God — Lionino
What academy are you referring to? — Pantagruel
The main defining feature of a "god" is having abilities which transcend human understanding — Pantagruel
a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:
If you are going to set yourself up as presenting an authoritative definition of "god," I would think that advertising yourself as an atheist isn't the most credible first step.
Let's face it. Atheists, by their own declaration, are really only qualified to speak about what god is not. — Pantagruel
The one that academics are part of. — Lionino
Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree:
a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being: — Lionino
In any case, that is not a defining feature because it is nonsense. Our modern ability to solve differential equations in our head transcends the human understanding of Bronze Age Europeans, and yet we are not gods. — Lionino
The epistemic stand of a person has zero bearing or whether they are qualified to define something or not. — Lionino
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.