Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24
Results 461 to 464 of 464
  1. #461
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    to your diqualification of parental teaching- I see no reason to justify the prejudice against parents as proper authority to derive beliefs from
    I'll focus on this, for now. I'm of the opinion that accepting a claim because an authority tells you it's true (or simply tells you to accept the claim), does not rationally justify the belief. Sure, you could say it justifies the belief for the authority, and even for you, and the claim may even turn out to be correct, but none of that qualifies as rational justification for believing the claim.

    On what basis do you say that coming from an authority serves as rational justification for belief in a claim, since this is clearly not a reliable pathway to truth?

  2. #462
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    I'll focus on this, for now. I'm of the opinion that accepting a claim because an authority tells you it's true (or simply tells you to accept the claim), does not rationally justify the belief.
    I think we are using "authority" different here?

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    On what basis do you say that coming from an authority serves as rational justification for belief in a claim, since this is clearly not a reliable pathway to truth?
    You will have to support that it is "clearly" not a reliable pathway to truth. It seems to me that in regards to things like history authorities are almost our exclusive access to knowledge.
    We rely on authorities all the time, and are perfectly rational to do so.
    It may not be the maximum possible on a reliability scale, however it is not only the maximum that qualifies as rational to believe.

    Your argument is from the position of a negative and inferring that it is irrational to believe a less than maximally reliable path to truth.
    You need to support that. Given how many pay for an education, I think you have an uphill climb in your argument against authorities.
    To serve man.

  3. #463
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this thread is specifically about whether or not a broad, theistic belief is rational. This argument is presented in that context here, and in no other.
    I have said this before in this thread but feel it needs repeating. I am only arguing against beliefs in a specific religion, not theism as a whole.

    ---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    To reiterate, I'm using the term "fine-tuning" in the same manner as physicists and astrophysicists use the term. Do you disagree with their use or my definition of their use? If so, please detail how their usage, or my understanding of their usage is incorrect.
    This sounds fine. Now can you show they think this was because of intent and not just saying the parameters for our universe to exist in it's current form are very limited?

    ---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Define fantastic in a measurable sense. I think when we use subjective discriptors of that nature we end up just enshringing out initial conclusions against the argument. Perhaps all the answers are "fantastic" it doesn't mean that one of them isn't the most likely.
    I see no reason to do that.
    Since you agree that "perhaps all of these answers are fantastic", even your "most likely" just doesn't sound very likely.

    The fact you think "God" cares what I think on the matter and won't allow me to know the truth, even though "He" wants me to fallow the truth actually makes it seem a less likely possibility...

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    By reading the Constitution? By reading the 16th Amendment a person could clearly answer the question of whether or not the government is allowed to levy an income tax without once appealing to understanding about the IRS.
    HUH? You said a person with no knowledge of Gov't! By reading/learning before making a proper decision you have rendered your point to irrelevance.

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Right, we can rule out chance because a chance event resulting in a 787 is statistically less likely than other explanations. But your response skipped a step. When you say that no one doubts that it was made by man, you are right, artificial creation by humans is a category of explanation.

    If you were to offer that category to me, I wouldn't be justifid in saying, "but you don't know each step in a 787's creation, therefore we can't rule out chance." That would be absurd. That is the exact form of your objection here. You are saying we can't rule out an entire category of options because we can't detail the specific steps on another category.

    To employ an argument ad absurdum rebuttal, your argument could be applied to say "we can't reject the widely discredited primeval atom theory of the origin of the universe because we don't understand the full model of the universe." Clearly that isn't the case, we have rejected that particular theory, despite our understanding.
    Um, no.
    My point was/is, one is obvious, the other is not at all.

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In statistical terms, yes it is actually a very big deal. That is why there are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on these subjects, why it is a perenial discussion in the physics community, and why it is discussed at conferences.

    Regardless of however you want to subjectively assess it, we have to deal with the premise offered. "The fine-tuning of the universe is explainable through either necessity, chance, or design."

    What it means is other universes may exist but they would not be like ours at all...

    To support the universe was indeed "fine tuned" you would have to show intent ie a consciousness that purposefully did this.

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Oh? Can you detail which part of the nicene creed requires that life be present in all parts of the universe?

    I think it, more accurately, would counter some inferences that people have about Christian teaching (including some Christians to be fair) rather than any core doctrine or theology.
    I said no such thing for goodness sake.
    Unless humans travel faster than light safely, almost all of the universe is out of our reach (assuming humans won't survive for billions of years). That and the fact that most of the universe is deadly to humans leads me to believe it wasn't "made just for us".

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, why would I need to propose a universe God resides in? What rule have I proposed that God is exempt from?
    To the first:
    ok, you are saying God resides "where" since he can not be a part of our universe?

    To the latter:
    God needs no cause.
    God IS an actual infinity.
    God need fallow no natural law.
    God is conscious but has no physical presence and is timeless etc (how could such a being even be said to exist?).
    God need not have existed in another universe prior (or even now) to creating this one.

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The first statement is correct. That there is no temporally prior moment to T=0 in the big bang. The second statement is correct, that there is a causal prior to the big bang. The third statement is not correct. The causal prior didn't happen "when" anything since time is not related, dimensionally, to that prior. Rather, I would say, that the cuasal prior exists absent time.
    You change my words all the time but usually fail to show a significant difference. I would rather focus on my ideas than semantics, though I appreciate your thoroughness...

    So the "causal prior" exists when time does not.
    We define time as only applying to our universe.
    Correct?

  4. #464
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think we are using "authority" different here?
    Please explain - this is quite vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will have to support that it is "clearly" not a reliable pathway to truth.
    Well, assuming, for the sake of argument, that only one theistic belief system is true - let's say yours. All the people in the world who believe in the wrong deity because a person of authority (their parents) told them it's true, do not have the true belief. Therefore, this method is not a reliable pathway to truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We rely on authorities all the time, and are perfectly rational to do so.
    Please give an example where we take an authority's word on a claim simply because they are an authority and without any further support which that authority can provide to back up their claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It may not be the maximum possible on a reliability scale, however it is not only the maximum that qualifies as rational to believe.
    I'd argue that an authority that expects someone to believe their claims just because they're the authority (and not even an authority on the field in question, in the case of parents presenting theistic claims to their children), is quite low on the reliability scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your argument is from the position of a negative and inferring that it is irrational to believe a less than maximally reliable path to truth.
    No, I not saying anything about varying scales of reliability. Either a pathway is reliable or it isn't. If it isn't, then believing in the claim via such a pathway is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You need to support that. Given how many pay for an education, I think you have an uphill climb in your argument against authorities.
    Comparing the expertise professors and teachers have in their fields with parents claiming to their kids that a deity exists is simply absurd. Academia has a sound foundation of support for the claims they make. This is not the case with the theistic claims which parents make.

 

 
Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •