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 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 147 of 147
  1. #141
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Perhaps you can elaborate, if it so obvious? How are the two words being used differently?
    If you cannot see it...chances are it means you WILL NOT see it.

    Nothing I can do about that.

    You slightly missed the point of my argument. My point was about the inconsistent application of that language to the conclusions. Hence why I called it a taxicab fallacy.

    Relating to Evansaul's "knowing" you concluded: "I do dismiss it, Evensaul, and, frankly, you should also. "I know in my heart"...is code for "I do not know."" (post 112)

    Your application of the warrant underlying personal experience, which applied to Even was flat rejection.

    However, when relating to your own "guess" about the Bible's veracity, you conclude: "so it makes sense to me that they would invent an angry, mean-spirited, vengeful, demanding god to protect themselves from their enemies' gods...which is what they did." (ibid)


    So Evensaul's guess should be rejected, but yours should not?
    I did not miss the point of your argument. You are attempting to change the point.

    But...I understand. That is part of the game. I do see that.

    I guess I am countering R. D. Laing's advice:

    They are playing a game.
    They are playing at not playing a game.
    If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.
    I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.

  2. #142
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you cannot see it...chances are it means you WILL NOT see it.
    So...you have no explanation of your claim that they are being used differently?


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa
    I did not miss the point of your argument. You are attempting to change the point.
    I detailed this objection back in post 122:
    "We can either reject both of your personal experiences and feelings or accept both of them. But to be consistent, we can't reject one and accept one because it suits our conclusion better."


    Do you have anything of substance to add to this thread?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #143
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So...you have no explanation of your claim that they are being used differently?
    Not what I said...nor inferred. What I have inferred is that I can see that you are playing a game. If you were not, you'd easily be able to see the difference. I'm willing to play the game...but if it is a game you want, I'm gonna make the rules, not you.


    I detailed this objection back in post 122:
    "We can either reject both of your personal experiences and feelings or accept both of them. But to be consistent, we can't reject one and accept one because it suits our conclusion better."


    Do you have anything of substance to add to this thread?
    Plenty.

    Do you?

    And if YES...when are you going to start?

  4. #144
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Either you take Him at His word, or you place your own or another finite person's word in His place. What makes you think your subjective guess is valid?
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    [1] Him!

    So not only do you know there IS a god, you KNOW the god has a gender...and it is MALE.

    Interesting.

    [2] Anyway...any guess is "valid"...as a guess. It may be correct; it may be wrong.
    [1] I base my words on His revelation. God is Spirit and has chosen to reveal Himself in a masculine way.

    https://frame-poythress.org/wp-conte...ontroversy.pdf

    [2] Valid as true? The problem is that two opposing beliefs cannot both be true. It goes against the foundation of logic, the very thing you use to make sense of anything.

    The most critical issue is the truth. Which belief, if any, is true? How do you know (epistemology)?

    I invite you to read chapters 31 and 32 of the following link on the justification of knowledge from a Christian perspective (I use the 'Read Aloud' feature in Microsoft quite often):

    https://frame-poythress.org/wp-conte...gy-Excerpt.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Your guess that a god exists may be correct...and IT MAY BE WRONG.

    That is the essence of my argument.
    No, God has confirmed that He is who He says in numerous ways to my mind concerning His Word. Personally, He has also answered prayer and shown me grace and mercy by drawing me to His Spirit. After my father died, I was looking for meaning. I returned to Africa, and I continually had people who believed in God placed in my life - my uncle, my roomie at the place I worked, his friends, other work acquaintances. Then the accident. Then back to Canada. I was skeptical but decided to investigate further. That was over 38 years ago. That is my personal experience that you can doubt, but to me it is real.

    You get to know someone by your relationship with them. Back in the early 1980's, I started reading the Bible. I believed it was what it claimed to be and throughout my Christian life, God continues to confirm to me who He is.

    Let me put it this way - If you don't believe in God and dismiss the evidence of His existence, there is no way of convincing you. The skeptic always has one more "but what if?" in his/her repertoire.

    This example is one way God puts it through the inspired writer of Hebrews:

    Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
    6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.


    If you don't believe He is how are you going to trust anything that He says? You will find a way to dismiss it as an old wives story or a myth. The problem comes when you continue to deny the argument in spite of its reasonableness and logic and ability to make sense of life. Your bias gets in the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If you think the Bible is an invention I would invite you to explain away prophecy and see how well your logic and reason prevail about what we do know or is most reasonable to believe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Ahh...you are guessing that the Bible is the word of your god...and that its contents with regard to "prophecy" are true without doubt...and then using that second guess to validate the first guess.

    But what if you are wrong in either of those guesses?
    If someone is gracious to you, it can affect you and change you in wanting to be gracious to others. Would you risk ridicule because the message is worth repeating and the grace is worth sharing?

    I have a practical/empirical side of the argument. That deals with prophecy - that has its basis in history. You see, I believe that when you pay attention to the audience of address and the time statements of Scripture (who the author is addressing), then prophecy becomes alive and understandable. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is the focal point of prophecy in the NT and much of the OT. With the history we have available I can show the reason and logic behind biblical prophecy and its fulfillment in detail to what was said. I do not believe you can counter logically but are welcome to try.

    For your benefit, if the God I speak of is who the words claim Him to be, then He is able to orhestrate history. Is that a given?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I would also invite you to make sense of anything without first having an objective, absolute, universal source of appeal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I have no idea of what that means. "Universal source of appeal." Are you supposing a Supreme Court of REALITY?
    Universal - applying to all people.

    The highest and objective authority of appeal, the standard that all other standards appeal to.
    What happens when you don't have one or when it is not universal - applying to everyone?

    Do you have an objective (true, outside yourself) appeal?

    Is your 'ultimate' criteria able to justify itself? If not then the question arises if it is the ultimate criteria. So when you present this criteria of yours, your highest authority - guesses in your case - is it a standard that is universally true for all people or is there something still higher that overrides it? When you appeal to your guess as being no truer (or equally true) than any other opinion you run into the standard that your guess is based on, speculation, your personal feelings, or those of others in the same boat. If the standard is not universal, in that it MUST apply to every other person, then you can't say it is BETTER. All you can say is that you PREFER it to other standards.

    In the case of physical measurements, we have a court of appeal (the International Bureau of Weights and Measures) that contains an accurate standard that disputes are measured against. It is a blueprint we use as our measurement standard - our objective or universal standard for such measurements.

    https://sizes.com/units/BIPM.htm

    In the case of logic we have laws that are necessary, and without them nothing else makes sense (such as the Law of Identity -> A = A). You use logic to communicate and make sense of anything. Is it universal? It has to apply to all or else something could mean anything losing ability to communicate.

    Apply universal to morality.

    If there is no objective 'universal' (applying to everyone) best that we can measure 'good' or 'better' against, then what makes something good? It boils down to your subjective opinion and preference verses my opposing subjective opinion and may the mightier win.

    When there is no best or universal court of appeal (standard/reference/authority/measure) that is best (THE Standard) anything can be pushed, just like Hitler did during WWII or Kim Jong-Un does in North Korea. Go and dispute with him that what he is doing is not best and see what happens. He may very well shortly hold the world hostage. Liberal appeasement policy (give him whatever he asks for; don't keep him accountable), and no backbone, has created the situation.

    Morality hinges on a 'best' measure, not a changing fluctuating one.

    Speaking of liberal, leftist, socialistic societies, China is along the same lines. China (or Russia) is a country who leaders autocratically control the way the rest live. Those in power control the masses throughout history. A progressive leftist liberal based socialist government is more likely to violate its people and make them submit to the whims of the elite, all the while claiming the best interests of the masses. That is the battle happening in the States now. Do you want to bow to such a system - big government? My personal opinion is that Donald Trump may be the only chance you have of turning the tide of big government since it has been left uncheck for so long. Liberal Democrats are bent on socialism in a big way. Give them your money so that they can do what they think is your best interest. Do their ideas make sense? I negatively shake my head every day. Let their bureaucracy get bigger and overreach every area of your life (sorry - my rant).

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If you are willing to do that it would be worth my while to present a case and question the reasonableness of your responses. I leave it in your court as to whether you want to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Peter, we can have a discussion...or we can decide not to. I'll leave that up to you.
    I asked you first - (^8

    Do you want one? Will you continue to engage when it gets uncomfortable because when the foundations (core beliefs) a person believes starts to unravel it gets awkward and very personal for them? Sometimes it turns into a shouting match (situation lost) or ignoring the points the other person makes (focus on the agenda of protecting your precious beliefs at all costs, even when they have no merit - a natural defensive ploy) because they refuse to remove the blinders.

    Jesus said:

    Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
    The Two Foundations
    24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
    28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

    Although the underlining significance of these words may be dealing with the temple that stood in Jerusalem that the Jews were vested in as opposed to the greater reality, it is a principle that can be applied to worldviews, most definitely. I think the two foundations are more likely the one invested in Jesus/God versus the one opposing Him.

    If I blow against your foundation, that which everything else rests on, will it withstand the assault?

    If you want me to invest my time is showing you what I know and have reason to believe (regarding proof) I will try. I can lay it out for you and see if I can answer your objections while pushing the sensibility of your worldview at the same time (by contrasting it with the Christian one). My claim is that one of our worldviews can make sense of why what is actually is, and it is not yours. Bold assertion.

    Peter

  5. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  6. #145
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    335
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If we stick with the pure warrant argument, ie should we accept a claim rather than will we, I would maintain (blatantly stealing the idea from others) that the aphorism becomes circular for two reasons.

    1) (not my original point) is that Sagan's aphorism is a claim itself and should require extraordinary evidence since it is covering an extraordinary claim (a claim about the extraordinary has to, by definition be extraordinary). I won't detail this much, but simply to put forward that it falls into that category of claims that suffer internal problems like "there are no absolute truths."

    2) (and more my original point). How do we define an extraordinary claim? I think a good place to start is to say that it is a claim about a subject or a truth statement we don't have common experience with.
    While I still agree the weight of the evidence in question is equal, the weight of the CLAIMS is not.

    1. Maybe the issue here is using "extraordinary" for the evidence in question. If I told you I could shoot lightning out of my finger (or anything supernatural), with only my word as evidence, I think you would be likely to not believe me. If we met and I shot lightning across the room out of my finger and hit you, with that evidence, I think you would likely believe me. Perhaps "strength of evidence" or some such would be better than extraordinary. After all, if I said I just got a cramp in my leg from sitting here typing so much, I'm guessing most people would believe me without needing further "stronger" evidence since it is common and normal for such a thing to happen. If I said I never get cramps because I float in the air instead of sitting on a chair, most people would require much stronger evidence than my word.

    2. Ok, " I think a good place to start is to say that it is a claim about a subject or a truth statement we don't have common experience with. " works for me. In my last post I had only meant that supernatural stuff would qualify as "extraordinary", not that it was the definition. My bad...

    ---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Yes, I do.
    Then how can God be God, and also be his own son, and the holy spirit all be distinct individuals and also just one God?

    ---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Your statement is what I see as self-refuting. You are making a truth claim that you either know is true or it too falls into the category of ignorance. How do you know we all come from a position of ignorance? You just admitted you don't by stating you are in a position of ignorance.
    While technically you could be right, the opposite would be "at least one human does not suffer from ignorance about our shared "reality" and I have never heard anyone successfully argue that. Even if you are correct about God existing at all, there are still many ??? that you may not know about "reality".

    ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    I disagree. Jesus summed it up in two commandments - love God and love your neighbor/fellow human.
    I was more referring to more along the lines of salvation and such.

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Our outer shells, our physical bodies from non-living matter, yes. What about the intangibles, the things that make you distinctly you? If God created us, then life came from the living. Do you think your personality is just what your electro-chemical reactions produce? How does life come from something nonliving?
    I am not seeing any evidence of "intangibles".
    Are you suggesting that brain activity ("electro-chemical reactions") come from some place other than the brain? Like beamed to us through the airwaves. As in "your thoughts do not originate in your brain"?

    Regarding souls (intangible), I realize the Bible speaks of such things. Is there any other evidence?




    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Since God is perfect, pure and holy and He created man for a relationship, is one lie, or one theft, or one adultery, enough to prevent you from enjoying His presence?
    Only if God wants it that way, as he makes ALL rules.
    Also, I don't get the "people are free of sin once they die and go to heaven (those that get in of course) and they won't sin ever again. Suddenly people are "prefect, morally"??

    Since God "walks thru time" like we "walk thru air" he knows what will happen, and goes back and forth thru time constantly making these things happen, it almost sounds like OCD???

    ---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Since you are sinning against an eternal Being who created humans to live with Him forever and sin has ruined that,
    1. Had god not allowed the Devil to be in the garden of eden, sinning would not exist. Actually, I would like some one to show that sin does in fact exist and what "it" is in the first place.

    2. Adam and Eve mentally were children and God knew they would "eat the apple" when he put them in eden. Since knows all, he knew they would sin. there is NO question there at all! So God knew where we would end up before it happened and we go through it all anyway....???...
    2a. How about leave the Devil out of eden? Problem of sin solved, man never has to leave eden and always existed there with God! No need for the fallen to be stranded on earth till death/judgement.

    3. If God "can't be around sin, how could the Devil have even been in the garden of eden???
    Last edited by Belthazor; Yesterday at 08:29 PM.

  7. #146
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    335
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    It isn’t going to work, Frank.
    Perhaps instead of him trying to convince you God does not exist, he is trying to get you to convince him God does exist....
    (subconsciously at best I'm sure....)

  8. #147
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    While I still agree the weight of the evidence in question is equal, the weight of the CLAIMS is not.
    I'm not sure what you mean by this.

    How does one measure the "weight of a claim?"

    I suspect, what you mean (given the rest of your post) is whether the claim runs counter to pre-existing assumptions, facts, or understanding. I would argue that that doesn't make the claim more weighty, it makes the "against" column larger.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    If I told you I could shoot lightning out of my finger (or anything supernatural), with only my word as evidence, I think you would be likely to not believe me.
    Probably, but remember, part of that is psychology. Squatch has cognitive biases like everyone else that tend to make him discount certain claims outside of their pure warrant. The other part is the warrant, so let's look into that a bit.

    Evidence for:

    1) Belthazor's testimony.

    Evidence against:

    1) Evidence concerning the biological limitations of humans.

    2) Understanding of the germane functions and sources of lightening.

    I think it is important to remember that we do have more relevant evidence to the claim than just your word, which is why we both have a suspicion that I (and pretty much most people) would reject your claim. Now if we didn't have that evidence. If we had no idea what lightening was, or what human beings were, there wouldn't be that same natural propensity to reject. We might still be more or less agnostic (since the warrant isn't very strong), but we wouldn't be completely neutral.

    If I were to tell you that I have a box on my desk now. A claim you don't really have any evidence for (aside from my word) and no real evidence against that isn't psychological (a distrust of Squatch, or the internet, or something), you might not be 100% convinced of the claim, but you shouldn't be 50/50 on it either right?

    Underlying this is an implicit definition of "extraordinary" that says they are claims for which we already have disconfirming evidence. Those claims need strong confirming evidence for sure, not because they are extraordinary fundamentally, but because the positive evidence has negative evidence it needs to outweigh.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    2. Ok, " I think a good place to start is to say that it is a claim about a subject or a truth statement we don't have common experience with. " works for me.
    Oh man, I hate to be this guy, but I think I've talked myself out of that definition a little. [Sorry].

    As I was writing the above, I think Sagan might have meant something a little different than just lack of experience. For example, if I were to say that I used to play catchem when I was a kid (assuming you've never heard of it before), I think it wouldn't require extraordinary evidence to support. Even though you don't have common experience with "catchem" it isn't a claim I think necessarily fits into what Sagan is talking about.

    I think he means something we have natural skepticism towards. A claim that makes an eyebrow raise. Setting aside psychological factors, that would seem to indicate claims that we have existing evidence, understandings, or assumptions which would be invalidated.

    In all of the examples of claims I think would fall into "extraordinary" in Sagan's mind, I can't think of one where the rational skepticism isn't based on pre-existing understanding or evidence, but on the nature of the claim itself.

    I suppose something like, "I met a married bachelor" today might be one because it is internally contradictory, but I think most of what we are talking about are claims that counter something we feel we already know or understand.

    Does that definition make sense? Am I missing something?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8

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, 02:13 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, 08:01 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
  •