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 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 17 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 551
  1. #121
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How is saying "I know in my heart" objectively different than saying "I'm relying on my personal knowledge?"
    That may be a tough one for you, Squatch...although keeping your mind open should help you to see the SIGNIFICANT difference.

    Now, we can get into solipsism if you insist...although that usually is a death spiral in these kinds of discussions.

    So perhaps I ought to ask...are you just trying to derail the discussion...are you seeking a "death spiral" for the discussion...or do you think there is a genuine point to be made about (what I see to be) the significant differences between me saying "I know I typed the word you referenced"...and Evensaul saying, "I know in my heart there is a god?"

    We can go through all the avenues...if necessary...but surely you see the difference. So...can you acknowledge that you do...or are you going to insist their is not significant difference?

    Alternatively, couldn't I apply your objection to your response with equal validity? Wouldn't it be just as true to say "'relying on personal experience' is just a way of saying "I do not know" for people who do not want to acknowledge that they do not know?
    If you want to attempt to make the case for that...do so, although once again, I see a diversion to solipsism if you do.

  2. #122
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you want to attempt to make the case for that...do so, although once again, I see a diversion to solipsism if you do.
    I brought that comparison up to highlight a gap in your argument. You've asserted that Even's claim is really just a way of saying "I don't know," but you've offered us no reason to think that that is the case. I was attempting to elict a bit more of a structure defense of that critique.


    What's more, I was pointing out that your objection was the kind of a taxi-cab fallacy. You want to dismiss his experiential reference point, but maintain your own.

    Your argument earlier related to the Bible was supported by your own, personal feelings on the book, rather than some kind of objective critique of the document using literary or historical analysis.

    Essentially, your argument in post 102 is "I know in my heart that it is a work of primitive people inventing gods." The exact same argument Even has forwarded as his defense.

    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.
    "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. Likes evensaul liked this post
  4. #123
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I brought that comparison up to highlight a gap in your argument. You've asserted that Even's claim is really just a way of saying "I don't know," but you've offered us no reason to think that that is the case. I was attempting to elict a bit more of a structure defense of that critique.
    It seems to me you may be more interested in derailing the discussion than doing what you say you are doing here, Squatch. For now, I will accept that you are not just derailing.

    Perhaps it is best to break this down to more discrete bits...and see where it leads.

    Are you saying that you see no appreciable difference between me saying "I know I typed the words you referenced"...and Evensaul saying, "I know in my heart there is a god?"

    You sound like an intelligent person...and I am astonished that you do NOT...if you do not.

    So...do you?

  5. #124
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Are you saying that you see no appreciable difference between me saying "I know I typed the words you referenced"...and Evensaul saying, "I know in my heart there is a god?"
    I'm saying that I see no appreciable difference in the support offered for either claim. Both are simple assertions of personal experience.

    I'm asking you what reason you have to believe that people who say something really just mean "I don't know." It seems like a convenient interpretation.


    Likewise, I'm asking you, more fundamentally, what difference there is between his statement and your earlier statement that the Bible appears to be the work of primitive people inventing gods for their own self interest.

    How is there an appreciable difference in those two statements?
    "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.


  6. #125
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm saying that I see no appreciable difference in the support offered for either claim. Both are simple assertions of personal experience.
    You didn't answer the question...you dodged it.

    Please answer it...and then you can ask me one...and I will attempt to give a reasonable answer. Then we can go back and forth with questions/answers/and follow-ups.

  7. #126
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    You didn't answer the question...you dodged it.

    Please answer it...and then you can ask me one...and I will attempt to give a reasonable answer. Then we can go back and forth with questions/answers/and follow-ups.
    I think I did answer it. From the perspective of what warrant they offer another person to accept a claim, I don't see them as different at all. Without any explanation, evidence, reasoning, or rationale, there is no difference between someone saying;

    "I personally know the sky is green."

    and

    "I believe in my heart that I've experienced the sky being green."


    Neither of those give me any reason to accept them as factual, or warrant to accept the underlying claim (the sky is green) as true, right?
    "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.


  8. #127
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think I did answer it. From the perspective of what warrant they offer another person to accept a claim, I don't see them as different at all. Without any explanation, evidence, reasoning, or rationale, there is no difference between someone saying;

    "I personally know the sky is green."

    and

    "I believe in my heart that I've experienced the sky being green."


    Neither of those give me any reason to accept them as factual, or warrant to accept the underlying claim (the sky is green) as true, right?
    Nice try.

    No cigar.

    That is not what I asked; it is not an acceptable paraphrasing of what I asked; and it does not come near to dealing with the thrust of my question.

    So here it is again:

    Are you saying that you see no appreciable difference between me saying "I KNOW I typed the words you referenced"...and Evensaul saying, "I KNOW in my heart there is a god?"

    It is not a hard question.

    You can either say: YES...I see no appreciable difference...or NO of course I see a significant difference just as any intelligent, reasonable, honest human being would.

  9. #128
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    or ...of course I see a significant difference just as any intelligent, reasonable, honest human being would.
    “The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.” ― Ayn Rand,
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #129
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    That is not what I asked; it is not an acceptable paraphrasing of what I asked; and it does not come near to dealing with the thrust of my question.
    Difference in what then? You appear to be asking for a comparison unrelated to what I asked and what I offered in my initial post.

    When I compared the two sentences, I didn't compare them based on grammar, number of words, emotional appeal, or any other criteria. I compared them on the weight of the warrant they offered to support the claims they made to a third party.

    If you are asking a question related to this thread, then I would answer: "No I don't see a material difference in the impact either sentence has on a third party's warrant."

    If you are asking a separate question, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? Difference in what measure?
    "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.


  11. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    “The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.” ― Ayn Rand,
    Could be.

    But I doubt I could intimidate someone like Squatch...so I would not even attempt it.

  12. #131
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Well, for a "know in my heart" example, let's say that someone has a vivid experience of feeling God's presence and from that becomes convinced that God exists.

    We can question whether the person had a genuine experience (God really did contact him) or whether he just experienced something else that he thinks is contact from God.

    But either way, if the person truly believes that God exists because God contacted him, then he is not guessing that there is a God and he is not admitting that he doesn't know has has to guess.

    He might wrong but he does have an answer that he truly believes.

    So there's the difference between "I know in my heart" and "I don't really know".

    And btw, unless we have proven that either God does not exist or God does not contact people, the scenario where someone believes in God because God contacted him is technically possible so it's even feasible that someone "knows in his heart" that God exists because God actually exists and has let that person know.

  13. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  14. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Anyone following our conversation should be able to see that I am asking if there is a significant difference between the way the notion "know" is being used in the two phrases. That was what you originally challenged; that was the reason I capitalized the words in my question.

    You asked how I KNOW that I wrote the sentence you quoted…the sentence I had just typed and posted a few minutes earlier.

    Evensaul claims he has “an inner KNOWING” that God exists.

    I’m asking if there is a significant difference between our “KNOW.” I am wondering if you think the value of "know" the way he used it is the same or significantly different from the way I used it in response to your query.

    I suspect (guess) you understand what I have been asking…but for some reason, you seem to be dodging the question.

    Interesting.

    Anyway…do you see a significant difference?

  15. #133
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you are asking a question related to this thread, then I would answer: "No I don't see a material difference in the impact either sentence has on a third party's warrant."
    Though I think I get what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree, since the "evidence" offered by both claims is similar in weight.
    However:

    one claim is pretty mundane. One typing on a keyboard is incredibly common and there seems little reason why most people would be wrong or lie about such a thing.

    the other claim is fairly fantastic as most people do not claim regular "communication" (for lack of a better term, the idea here is somehow knowing/feeling/experiencing/? God on a regular basis). This is not common and there are definitely reasons a person could be mistaken about anything "supernatural" and there are definitely bias reasons why someone might embellish or just plain lie about such a thing (not that I am casting doubt on Evan's sincerity).

    Should we not take into account one claim is common/ordinary and one is extraordinary/fantastic?
    Perhaps I am being more "intent of the law" as apposed to the "letter of the law" in this case?

  16. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  17. #134
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I’m asking if there is a significant difference between our “KNOW.” I am wondering if you think the value of "know" the way he used it is the same or significantly different from the way I used it in response to your query.
    So you maintained that you "know" you typed that sentence because you have a personal experience with the act of doing it (more accurately the memory of that act).

    Even claims he "knows" God exists because he had a personal experience with a message from God (more accurately the memory of that message/experience).

    I don't see any difference in the usage of the word in either sentence, do you? If so, what difference?

    More accurately, I was asking in post 122 about what justification you had in holding that belief and how was that justification different than Even's. IE, what is your warrant for holding that belief?

    I suspect that you are implicitly discounting his warrant because the conclusion is around a subject you doubt. If he had said, for example, that he "knew in his heart that the sky was blue" you might not have had the same automatic dismissal with the idea that it "really means" that he doesn't know.

    Operating on that assumption, I was trying to point out that you have a hidden assumption in your argument, one that doesn't stand up to strict scrutiny.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Though I think I get what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree, since the "evidence" offered by both claims is similar in weight.
    That they are similar in weight is exactly my point, thank you. Simply dismissing someone else's personal experience based on your own personal experience is hardly a good warrant for holding a position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Should we not take into account one claim is common/ordinary and one is extraordinary/fantastic?
    Perhaps I am being more "intent of the law" as apposed to the "letter of the law" in this case?
    I think this is akin to Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" aphorism. https://link.springer.com/article/10...406-016-9779-7

    The problem is, that aphorism, while popular isn't widely adopted by philosophers for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is circular, things are extraordinary because there isn't widespread evidence for them, IE we don't have daily encounters with them. But it is precisely this rarity that leads us to expect non-extraordinary evidence. Take a black hole. They are relatively rare in our experience (none of us have experienced one), and we have only sporadic observations of their impact. Certainly far less extraordinary, evidence wise, than say the Kuiper belt. But we don't hold them as less demonstrated. Why? Because their very nature argues against extraordinary observation. Rather, we should expect to only see fleeting and indirect evidence of their existence. Anything else would cast doubt on the observation.

    But more importantly, it is subjective. What is "extraordinary?" For Plato's denizens of the cave, the sun was extraordinary, but for us it wasn't. In this case, perhaps for Even that experience wasn't extraordinary and so it wouldn't require additional evidence. Or, Frank's claims about the Bible in an earlier post would seem extraordinary to me given my background training in historical document analysis, historiography, and classical literature, but it might well be for him.

    Thus, if we employ that particular aphorism we end up substituting emotional appeal for intellectual warrant. It becomes less "is this claim supported, and more "how do I feel about the nature of this claim."
    "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.


  18. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That they are similar in weight is exactly my point, thank you. Simply dismissing someone else's personal experience based on your own personal experience is hardly a good warrant for holding a position.
    Totally agree

    ---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think this is akin to Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" aphorism. https://link.springer.com/article/10...406-016-9779-7
    I think we pretty much agree here too

    ---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The problem is, that aphorism, while popular isn't widely adopted by philosophers for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is circular, things are extraordinary because there isn't widespread evidence for them, IE we don't have daily encounters with them. But it is precisely this rarity that leads us to expect non-extraordinary evidence.
    This I would like further exploration please.

    ---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=Squatch347;557316]
    But more importantly, it is subjective. What is "extraordinary?"
    /QUOTE]

    This too, in general, it looks like we agree

  19. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  20. #136
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This I would like further exploration please.
    I'm happy to talk more about this with you. I want to be sure we don't wander too far from the purpose of this thread, so we might take it to PM (or another thread) at some point if you are ok with that.


    The originally attached article and this one (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...inary-evidence) detail this a bit more than I did. [I'm assuming you meant the discussion of its circularity].

    First, we have to be careful, Sagan confused the warrant to hold a claim with the psychology of individuals on occasion. Certainly an individual held in a cult and told that 2+2=5 will require a bit of convincing that that isn't the case. But that isn't a problem of reason or logic, but a problem of psychology.

    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.

    Because the claim is rare, any evidence it produces should likewise be rare (it might be large in scale, but rare in scope. Take the impact that killed the dinosaurs, we have a big crater and a sediment layer everywhere. Two widely found pieces of evidence, but still only two pieces of evidence.) by definition since it doesn't occur frequently or we don't have experience with it. But then how should I demonstrate that that evidence is trustworthy? It is, of course likewise rare and would need its own extraordinary evidence to validate it. And what would I need to support that extraordinary evidence supporting extraordinary evidence? Extraordinary evidence of course!

    Sagan (copying Hume), by employing the same standard in both clauses of his aphorism creates an endless loop of burden on the claimant that is unwarranted and fallacious. It is also demonstrably false given Bayesian Inference (large in scope, small in scale), but I didn't bring that up originally and don't want to now. ;-)
    "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.


  21. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  22. #137
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm happy to talk more about this with you. I want to be sure we don't wander too far from the purpose of this thread, so we might take it to PM (or another thread) at some point if you are ok with that.
    Certainly. Should we steer off course too far, we should move this part of the discussion someplace else. Another thread or PM is fine At this point in the conversation, it still seems germane though.

    ---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    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.
    Indeed, let us define it best we can, slippery subject that it is.

    As close as I can currently come to an "objective" definition. Pretty much anything "supernatural" would meet that criteria. Not the only criteria of course, but we are talking about God.
    What is "supernatural" now comes to mind. How about "something that defies common sense with respect to cause and effect, and/or the "known laws" of physics".

  23. #138
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Because of my faith and trust in His Son God has shown/confirmed His word is true. You can't make sense of existence without first presupposing Him. I challenge you to try. What do you know for certain about your belief/belief system?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm curious. Here on ODN, God's abilities are commonly referred to as "God can do anything logically possible", but not the impossible. For instance, God can not make a married bachelor or a square circle. Do you agree?
    Yes, I do. God uses language to communicate to His creatures - humanity. Words have meaning that relates to a context in describing what is. So God could not logically contradict Himself and still communicate truth (it would not make sense), nor would He since He does not lie (another thing God cannot do). If you want to understand something truly for what it is then you have to 1) think God's thoughts after Him, or 2) have God reveal what is true on any given subject.

    Since He is omniscient and created all things, He understands them in every detail. We do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So, are you coming from a position of ignorance then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    As we all are.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Since God will not tell us directly what is expected of us, we must rely on much less than perfect communication. This assumes of course, God exists.
    However, whether God exists or not, we are ALL still in a position of ignorance....
    I disagree. Jesus summed it up in two commandments - love God and love your neighbor/fellow human.

    God also has explained that we have all wronged Him and the penalty is death (spiritual separation). He has provided a solution to that judgment by His Son.

    I believe you see the problem of our sin, our wrongful action. Every day as it plays out all over the world and sometimes affects you personally.

    Again, are you sure we are ALL in a position of ignorance about God? Since you have admitted, you just don't know whether He exists, how can you be sure everyone fits your self-refuting category.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I don't think there is lack of information to reach the right conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Obviously we have different standards when it comes to evidence. How do we know yours is superior?
    Maybe.

    Is the information logically consistent with what is, with what you see? Is it logical and reasonable to believe?
    What is your highest authority for believing it? Yourself? Some other relative, limited human being?

    Is it more likely and sensible to believe unintentional, impersonal, inorganic, dumb, brainless, blind, irrational, random, chance happenstance (or such a process however that may materialize and sustain any function indefinitely?) is ultimately responsible for your being?

    Or, is it more sensible to believe a living, logical, reasoning, intelligent, ultimate personal Being is responsible?

    Which is sensible and which can make sense?

    Since you are a living, (at times) logical, reasoning, intelligent, personal being that is capable (when coupled with another living being of the same kind) of producing other such beings, I'll look forward to your answer.

    What makes sense? Can you make sense of something without the Laws of Logic? Can you test information as to its truth claim? How do you get to the bottom of anything without an objective, universal, absolute measure/reference point? You first have to know what a straight line is before you can judge something as crooked. Where does your ultimate standard come from? Do you just make it up or is there something objective that you can appeal, that already exists?

    What if dealing with the abstract/intangibles, such as logic, morals, concepts, mathematical principles that are discovered (they are there whether or not you believe in them, but would they be there without any mind to conceive and think of them) and which explain laws? Why would we discover laws in a senseless, chance universe? All these abstracts require a mind to think them. Do/can they exist without mindfulness? If your mind can think them and my mind can think them they do not depend solely on your mind, or mine, do they (unless you are just having this conversation with yourself - are you?)? (^8

    If the laws of logic, or the concept of 2+2=4, requires a mind to think them when was the idea ever not what it is? Can 2+2=4 ever not be so? If so then, what can 2+2=? It brings up a bunch of philosophical questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    That's just the thing. It doesn't make sense, nor can it, nor do you ever witness such a 'process.'
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My point was, if God created us, he did so from nonliving matter. So no matter how life arose, it came from nonliving matter.
    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?

    God gave us life, so we have life coming from the living. Show me where something living comes from something non-living. You suppose it can but can you demonstrate it doing so?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What happens if you have a debt that you can never afford to pay (an infinite amount/wrong)? What happens if there is One who is owed who can make the payment for you (forgive the debt or offense)? Would you accept the payment or would you insist on paying off the debt by your means, forever?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What if I have committed no such "infinite wrong" whatever that is?
    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?

    Since we have all fallen short of His perfect glory and since we have a mind that rejects His mercy (unless He first offers us His grace), why would a perfectly holy, good, and just God allow such a being into His presence? Why would He let a person that rejects Him, fails to acknowledge Him, does wrong against Him, wrong to others, is at times openly hostile, and blames Him for his own sinfulness, into His presence, without that person repenting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    However, "One" can forgive anything "One" chooses. No questions, asked nor justifications needed.
    We can forgive, but what about justice? It requires you turn the other cheek. If you overlooked someone who murdered a family member without seeking penalty would that be just? Would it be loving? Would you be willing to turn a blind eye to injustice with no guarantee the person will not take another life? He got away with one without penalty. What does that tell him?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But to answer your question anyway. I think:
    "if you are now, or wish to be, a man of honor", you will take care of your debts as best you can. So ya, I am willing to tell God I own my good as well as my bad, and I take responsibility for ALL those actions. It's honorable to be that way when I'm alive. Should there be life after "death" (which "death" would now have NO meaning whatsoever...), it would still be the honorable thing to do. I take this quite seriously. I see no reason anyone but me should be punished for my errors, nor praised for my good deeds.
    Since you are sinning against an eternal Being who created humans to live with Him forever and sin has ruined that, how would it be if you were separated from Him for eternity? I don't know what hell is, its descriptions could be a metaphor for separation from God, or it could be physical torment, but could you imagine spending the rest of eternity with a bunch of people who are left to their selfish devises and self-interests?

    That is why the sting/fear of death should be taken away for the believer. God has a promise for those who trust in His Son.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 03:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    PGA...let's start with the question of your acceptance of the Bible.

    All I can do with regard to the Bible is to make the best guess that I can about it.

    Here is my guess about that book (JUST A GUESS):

    It appears to me to be the product of a relatively unsophisticated, superstitious Hebrew sect with limited access to knowledge about the scope of the (presently) known universe. It appears to me to be primarily a self-serving history of the early Hebrews...interspersed with a fanciful (and fearful) mythology. The early Hebrews like the early Greeks, Romans and Norsemen...with their limited knowledge...invented gods to answer mysteries that they encountered in simply being alive. The Hebrews were surrounded by perceived enemies with angry, mean-spirited, vengeful, demanding gods...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.

    It is my guess that the story of that invention...is what we now call "the Bible."

    Why do you think your guess about the Bible makes more sense than that?

    And why do you think that your guess about the Bible is more than a guess?
    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?

    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. I would also invite you to make sense of anything without first having an objective, absolute, universal source of appeal. 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.

    Peter

  24. #139
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you maintained that you "know" you typed that sentence because you have a personal experience with the act of doing it (more accurately the memory of that act).

    Even claims he "knows" God exists because he had a personal experience with a message from God (more accurately the memory of that message/experience).

    I don't see any difference in the usage of the word in either sentence, do you? If so, what difference?

    More accurately, I was asking in post 122 about what justification you had in holding that belief and how was that justification different than Even's. IE, what is your warrant for holding that belief?

    I suspect that you are implicitly discounting his warrant because the conclusion is around a subject you doubt. If he had said, for example, that he "knew in his heart that the sky was blue" you might not have had the same automatic dismissal with the idea that it "really means" that he doesn't know.

    Operating on that assumption, I was trying to point out that you have a hidden assumption in your argument, one that doesn't stand up to strict scrutiny.
    If you cannot see a substantial and significant difference between the notion of "know" in "I know I typed this sentence" and "I know a GOD exists"...there is no basis for an actual intelligent, reasonable discussion, Squatch.

    Going through the mechanics you are suggesting is like attempting a discussion about planetary motion with someone suggesting that 1 + 1 = 2 must first be explored.

    Look...I have no problem with people playing Internet games. You are free to do so...and I will play along with you. I will enjoy it; I often think it is cute; and even more often, I get a kick out of it. But I won't take you seriously.

    But to show you I am enjoying the game playing...let's go back to your post #122. There you wrote:

    Essentially, your argument in post 102 is "I know in my heart that it is a work of primitive people inventing gods." The exact same argument Even has forwarded as his defense.
    Well...my wording there was precise. Here is how I started the part that you claim essentially is "I know in my heart:"

    Here is my guess about that book (JUST A GUESS):

    So by saying that I was speaking exactly as was Evensaul...are you confirming what I am saying...that Evensaul is doing nothing more than making a guess?

    We agree, Squatch, right? Evensaul was just making a guess...which is what I am saying.

    We'll have fun with this, Squatch.

    ---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    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?
    Him!

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

    Interesting.

    Anyway...any guess is "valid"...as a guess. It may be correct; it may be wrong.

    Your guess that a god exists may be correct...and IT MAY BE WRONG.

    That is the essence of my argument.

    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.
    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?


    I would also invite you to make sense of anything without first having an objective, absolute, universal source of appeal.
    I have no idea of what that means. "Universal source of appeal." Are you supposing a Supreme Court of REALITY?

    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.
    Peter
    Peter, we can have a discussion...or we can decide not to. I'll leave that up to you.

  25. #140
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Pretty much anything "supernatural" would meet that criteria.
    Would it? Take the ancient celts (my ancestors) for example. They would have seen the supernatural in ring forts, certain bird species, and Oak trees. For them the supernatural wouldn't have been extraordinary at all, it would have been a factor in daily life.

    That isn't to argue that their claims are correct, of course. But that's one of the problems with this particular qualifier, it is subject to a whole host of mental biases, including selection bias. The celts would have had a selection bias towards the supernatural and thus wouldn't consider it extraordinary. A materialist would have a selection bias towards physical explanations and would thus have a naturalist bias. One might be right one might be wrong on any given issue, but I would argue that including that bias tendency into the evaluation criteria isn't necessarily helpful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you cannot see a substantial and significant difference between the notion of "know" in "I know I typed this sentence" and "I know a GOD exists"...there is no basis for an actual intelligent, reasonable discussion, Squatch.
    That seems, if I may be frank, like a bit of a cop out. Take your example, 1+1=2, demonstrating its truth (or at least putting up a coherent argument) is relatively simple.


    P1) One: being or amounting to a single unit...http://www.dictionary.com/browse/one?s=t
    P2) Plus: more by the addition of; increased by http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plus?s=t
    P3) Equals: as great as; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equal--to?s=t
    P4) Two: a cardinal number, 1 plus 1. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/two?s=t
    C1: Therefore one plus one equals two is definitionally true through two logical arguments.


    You can call it a "game" all you wish, but I really don't see how the word "know" is being used differently in those two setences (ie an equivocation fallacy).

    Both seem to be using the primary defintion of know:

    1.to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/know?s=t

    Perhaps you can elaborate, if it so obvious? How are the two words being used differently?

    Quote Originally Posted by frank
    So by saying that I was speaking exactly as was Evensaul...are you confirming what I am saying...that Evensaul is doing nothing more than making a guess?
    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?
    "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.


  26. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 17 ... LastLast

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
  •