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 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11 17 18 19 20 21
Results 401 to 408 of 408
  1. #401
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    There’s different types of spiritual experiences. Some of which are not only non-contradictory, but are highly practical and unitive across all faiths. Such experiences present the person with “more reality and truth than we ordinarily experience in everyday life.”
    Again, I'm seeing a lot of claiming, but no supporting. When you say that the person is presented with more reality and truth, what support do you have for that truth, and what makes one rationally justified in believing it?

  2. #402
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    When you say that the person is presented with more reality and truth, what support do you have for that truth, and what makes one rationally justified in believing it?
    1. "Mystical awareness confers an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer.
    2. Every tradition makes the point that this certainty is total, undeniable, clear, and eternal.
    3. One cannot doubt the reality of the experience while in the midst of it.
    4. We all doubt all kinds of experiences we have in life — we doubt our fundamental subjectivity — but it is not possible to doubt mystical phenomena."
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  3. #403
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. "Mystical awareness confers an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer.
    2. Every tradition makes the point that this certainty is total, undeniable, clear, and eternal.
    3. One cannot doubt the reality of the experience while in the midst of it.
    4. We all doubt all kinds of experiences we have in life — we doubt our fundamental subjectivity — but it is not possible to doubt mystical phenomena."
    Soooo ... no support, then?

  4. #404
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It still comes down to, if the parameters were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    This is broadly called the anthropic principle. It is true as far as it goes, but I don't think it really address the explanation of why. If I dropped the plunger on a stick of TNT underneath our feet and nothing happened, we wouldn't answer the question, "what happened" with "well if it had gone off, we wouldn't be here talking about it."

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Big stretch to say the ONLY reason the universe has the qualities it has is because of purposeful intent.
    I don't think I am saying that initially. I'm saying there are three possible explanations;

    1) Pure chance, they just happen to be in that narrow zone that allows for matter formation and life.

    2) Necessity. There is a governing principle. They have to be these particular values. No other values were possible. Something akin to the die only having threes on all sides.

    3) Design. This is the intent option.


    I'm certainly open to another option, or an argument for 1 and 2, but I've never seen anyone offer a fourth coherent option and the other two require appealing to some pretty unlikely scenarios.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok but, the only place in the universe we are aware of that could support human life is earth.
    Sure, that we are aware of. I'm not sure how that is really relevant. I can fine tune an engine for performance, it doesn't mean it move the car sideways. Just because we fine tune something within the range of possible outcomes doesn't mean that a) that is the perfect fine tuning or b) that that means that every possible thing related to that outcome is realized.

    For example, I might fine tune my perscription for a cancer patient to make them healthier. That doesn't mean that the perscription is perfect for that aim. And it doesn't mean that it will cure a staph infection if they have it.

    There might even be a drug that does both. Cures the cancer and the staph, but I don't pick it because of another concern. Say it causes kidney damage. When we consider the kinds of questions being asked here, I think it is important that we understand the full range of implications.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    If the purpose of a project is to create an environment in which fish might survive and flourish, then why design a Karaoke lounge in which an aquarium sits?
    Really, comic sans? ;-) I kid of course.

    I understand that temptation, perhaps my response was overly antagonistic, I might have been letting Zhav get to me. The intuition makes sense, what I question is the underlying assumption. Why would we assume that the primary purpose of creation is an environment that maximizes livable space?

    My day job is managing project managers, it is not uncommon for a PM to elevate a requirement in the project over others (which is technically my job, not theirs). There isn't, however, anything in this argument that would imply that it was the primary purpose to maximize life. If anything, I would argue that it seems to be a base necessity that allows for other requirements. Kind of like the foundation of the house being necessary, but not the ultimate goal of the construction project.

    That inference though is somewhat natural. It is, perhaps a bit more accurate to rephrase the premise as fine tuned to allow for life rather than fine tuned for life if that makes sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The argument you've presented doesn't support such a conclusion.
    Well, that is, in part, because that isn't what the argument is putting forward. Rather, it is putting forward that the best explanation of the fine tuning of the universe is design. That there is fine tuning is presented via the support of several physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers. Which is why I asked if they were not the kind of support you were looking for, what kind are you interested in?

    Partly, though, I think your concern comes from the fact that we haven't addressed the entire argument. Rather, for simplicity, we are with premise 1 for now. Is there an issue with premise 1? If not, we can move to premise 2. Are the only three explanations for this phenomenon, design, necessity, or chance?
    "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.


  5. #405
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Partly, though, I think your concern comes from the fact that we haven't addressed the entire argument.
    No, my concern is that you appear to be avoiding answering some pretty straight-forward questions:
    1. What support do you have that the universe was finely-tuned for human life, since this is an implicit claim in your use of the fine-tuning argument as support for your belief in the Xtian deity?
    2. What is your view on the origins of live on our planet? As a natural occurrence in a life-permitting universe, or was some intervention by the Xtian deity necessary in order to jump-start the actual life in the previously lifeless universe?

    If all you're going to do is refuse to answer these and claim they're irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, then we'll conclude that all the argument supports is that the universe appears to be finely-tuned for the creation of black holes, and that the occurrence of life is just a happy accident. Take your pick.

  6. #406
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Another question:
    Since you offered the three arguments (KCA, Fine-Tuning, Morality) as why you think your belief in the Xtian deity is rationally justified, were these the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?

  7. #407
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Soooo ... no support, then?
    The support for the mystic that validates the truth they realize is an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer. Their support is also strengthened by a scientific empirical process (method) that is rigorous and highly disciplined. Thus, it is repeatable for those who want to obtain evidence of this truth first hand.

    If you or I want support for something that requires a microscope, we would have to be willing to open our eyes and look through a microscope in order to observe what is on the petri dish. If you or I want support/evidence for the truth that is realized by mystics, we can choose to embark on a similar disciplined process in order to experience this truth directly.

    On a slightly different note, it is interesting to note that science is now giving us data to support what mystics have been saying for ages.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  8. #408
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The support for the mystic that validates the truth they realize is an absolute certitude on the knower or experiencer. Their support is also strengthened by a scientific empirical process (method) that is rigorous and highly disciplined. Thus, it is repeatable for those who want to obtain evidence of this truth first hand.

    If you or I want support for something that requires a microscope, we would have to be willing to open our eyes and look through a microscope in order to observe what is on the petri dish. If you or I want support/evidence for the truth that is realized by mystics, we can choose to embark on a similar disciplined process in order to experience this truth directly.

    On a slightly different note, it is interesting to note that science is now giving us data to support what mystics have been saying for ages.
    On what planet is any of this support?

 

 
Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11 17 18 19 20 21

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
  •