hey man sorry I was brusk this morning. before my coffee. Our friend related to me what you said bout warrants and proofs and I was too crabby. I apologize.
Now worries, we all get cranky and i guess we have both had bad experiences with idiot arguments on the web, makes one a little defensive from the get go.
Lets assume that we are both coming in good faith to have a reasonable exchange of ideas and sort of start again.
While i am happy to do some form of formal debate i sort of think an informal discussion might be beneficial to start of with. To that end please expand on what you where saying about warrants and proofs.
I had never heard of Toulmin, having read his Wiki it sounds like in intersting approach to moral arguments, in honesty the approach i tend to take, while i am not a total moral relativist the circumstances obvious change the moral requirements of a situatuion.
I will be interested in how you use this approach to look into the rationality of belief
Essentially I am saying that if we are dealing with something that can't be proved (proof in an empirical sense is a slippery thing) we can use a lower standard, the warrant.
A warrant is required anyway for any empirical proof becuase that just means there's a valid reason to to accept the premise.
If we argue for belief as warranted then there's reason to believe it. If there is reason to believe it then it can't be foolish or unfounded.
An interesting idea, i read your article and a few more pages from Wiki to get a feel for the way this style of arguing goes. It looks like a fundementally different approach to 'normal' argument. It is very top down, you start with a conclusion and work back via Warrants to Grounds (evidence).
Based on this what is your argument that belief in God in itself is rational?
However i still think you need to define what you mean by god, you have to ascribe some characteristics that can be considered, otherwise any counter argument will be a little like punching fog.
My concept of God is based upon Paul Tillich's notion of God as being itself. That's another reason to not arue for proof but warrant because with Tillich's deal he's against arguemnts to prove the existence of God and they contradict his theology in several ways. Can't go into it now.
You really need to read Tillich's systemic theology vol.I t understand it.
I have some pages on it on my old website but they don't do it justice. I've written more and better stuff on the blog.
I have read your posts and some other things, mostly from Wiki, about Tillich.
A few questions come to mind
Even if i allow the whole ground of being argument, this gets you no closer any specific deity, which I have to assume is the point of the exercise, to justify a specific belief.
Actually addressing the argument itself all that Tillich does is come to the conclusion that there must be a ground state of being and then decides to call this God, unless i missed it all God is a short name given to his concept.
The argument that things just are is dismissed, almost out of hand. Apparently on the basis that this explanation is insufficently eligant, i am sorry but i fail to see how this can be used as a basis for dismisal.
I have no training in philosophy so i may be missing obvious stuff but at it's heart this feels a lot like a presuppositionalist approach, having assumed there is a god this is an effort to justify that belief. not just justify but move god into an area that, within the nature of the argument, cannot be questioned. I am sure you can see why a materialist would find this unsatisfying. If i have missed something obvious please try to explain what i have got wrong.
One major problem atheist seem to have is in understanding what people mean when they talk about God. Most atheist regard this as a big man in the sky with specific identity if you have a different idea you can't be talking about the same thing it has to be a totally different God. When you say "get's you no closer to a specific deity" what you really mean is no closer to a big man who is nothing more than a magnified idea of the kind of men we are and know.
why should that be a goal of religion? why should that be regarded as the basis of the divine? There are many images of Gdo in the bible but atheists focus just on the big father/king on the throne figure. That's cultural and psychosocial: hater the father, do battle with the super ego and so on.
So what is the purpose of religion? and for that matter what do you mean by God? a question I have asked before.
Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being, simply you postulate that there must be a being the is the basis for existence and then call it god. So how do you get from this conceptual being to the specific details of a being that you can worship?
The reason most athiests concentrate on the sky daddy aspect of god is that is the one that is used to justify most of religious claims. If you want to belive in a non interventionist deistic being then fine, but that means all the 'god cares if you sin' stuff has no meaning. If you want to claim there is a being that will judge you when you die and knows your every thought then i think the old man in the sky is fitting. It's not about hating the father figure, or it's not for me, it's about challenging things done in the name of a being for which there is no evidence.
Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being,
Of course it does. I warned you that you have to read a read a whole book just to get the basic concept (Paul Tillich's systematic theology volume I. Real theology takes a lot of work that's why good seminaries take four years.It's an entire education not to one little post on a message board.
"simply you postulate that there must be a being the is the basis for existence and then call it god."
No the eternal necessary aspect of being not "a being" but "being itself." The ground of being.
So how do you get from this conceptual being to the specific details of a being that you can worship?
The reason most athiests concentrate on the sky daddy aspect of god is that is the one that is used to justify most of religious claims.
Only at the popular level. Chrsitain theology includes the most brilliant minds in human history and it's had 2000 years to develop. You can't just the intellectual nature of a tradition by the average person on the street. You have to read it's great thinkers.
If you want to belive in a non interventionist deistic being then fine, but that means all the 'god cares if you sin' stuff has no meaning. If you want to claim there is a being that will judge you when you die and knows your every thought then i think the old man in the sky is fitting. It's not about hating the father figure, or it's not for me, it's about challenging things done in the name of a being for which there is no evidence.
That's circular reasoning. There's obviously evidence or the greatest minds human history wouldn't' buy int it. you refuse to read the evidence you only listen it filtered through atheist propaganda. You are afraid to actually listen to the real thinkers doing what they really god.
Metacrock Addressing your essay on the nature of religion, First off I have no idea what you mean by human problematic, could you please define this for me. I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premises on what religion is for. While that may be what you want religion to be about, it is about as far as you can get from a layman’s understanding on the nature of religion ( that being a form of relationship with a divine being) and most atheist’s understanding, it being a method of controlling the masses, to the benefit of an elite few. “Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being,
Of course it does. I warned you that you have to read a read a whole book just to get the basic concept (Paul Tillich's systematic theology volume I. Real theology takes a lot of work that's why good seminaries take four years.It's an entire education not to one little post on a message board.” How? While I appreciate that full understanding may take years I am sure that you could take an element and explain it. Given I have a job, a life and a small child I don’t have the time to do a correspondents course in philosophy, however I am sure you must be able to find some aspect of a divine being derived from Tilich’s argument that can be summed up in a relatively short post. “No the eternal necessary aspect of being not "a being" but "being itself." The ground of being. “ This is just splitting hairs, it is still a postulated entity that you have decided to label god, you have failed to justify that this ground state of being even has an purpose above allowing for existence, or is just another elemental aspect of nature. For it to be considered a god it would need intent and conscience. Your evolution of god concept is interesting, but it only talks about concepts, not realities. I can conceive of all kind of things that are not real. The fact that as people had more time to think about the larger questions they came up with more involved answers speaks more to the amount of time not needed for survival rather than a definite approach to an ultimate truth. And still does nothing to get you to any proof of the Abrahamic god. Particularly as you site the bible and tradition as your sources and let’s face it both of them are questionable, at best, as reliable sources. So you are saying that the popular, and by popular you mean the driving force in the religious lives of the vast majority of all people who go to church, is wrong. That is a very brave position to take. Most of the people I know believe in a personal, interventionist god, do you think they are categorically wrong?
All the great minds that have built this intricate theology also all started from the point of view that there is a god so we better explain how we know that, not the scientific approach of look for evidence and then formulate testable hypothesis, and test them. Also I find it more than slightly telling that as human understanding of the workings of the universe moves forward so the philosophy that hides god from being testable also moves forward, almost as if the more we lift the curtain the more we must be convinced that god is in the small bits still in shadow. If there was obvious and unambiguous evidence for god, we would not be having this conversation, the fact that may great people have believed is a simple argument from authority with a little argument from popularity thrown in, lots of very bright people believe unsubstantiated and unproved things that doesn’t prove that what they believe is true, or do you think homeopathy works based on noble winning scientists thinking they have proved it? Let’s ask this straight, do you believe in the Christian interventionist god? If so give me a good piece of actual evidence, not scripture, not philosophical musings, actual evidence that this being exists. I am not afraid to listen to actual thinkers, but the problem with philosophy is that at some point you need to test your thought experiments against reality, if your god exists and he can have an effect in the world then there should be evidence of it. If not then all the philosophy in the world does not make the imaginary real. If you have evidence let’s get on to that, you need to convince me that there is a god, specifically a Christian god (as that is your chosen faith) before I commit the time and energy to looking in to any deeper truths
Metacrock Addressing your essay on the nature of religion, First off I have no idea what you mean by human problematic, could you please define this for me.
>>Fancy way of saying "sin." It means a little more than that. It's the basic core of problems around the nature of being human. The point of the issue with humanity.
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premises on what religion is for. While that may be what you want religion to be about, it is about as far as you can get from a layman’s understanding on the nature of religion ( that being a form of relationship with a divine being) and most atheist’s understanding, it being a method of controlling the masses, to the benefit of an elite few.
My understanding of religion is based upon having a Masters degree in the study of religion and reading may figures in comparative religion. I don't where your disagreement is coming from. I don't you have had personal experience as a religious person or not. Just going to chruch and thinking of yourself as a "Christian" would not make you an expert on the nature of religion. Nor would the desire to disprove or outargue Christianity.
“Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being,
Metacrock: "Of course it does. I warned you that you have to read a read a whole book just to get the basic concept (Paul Tillich's systematic theology volume I. Real theology takes a lot of work that's why good seminaries take four years.It's an entire education not to one little post on a message board.”
LL: How? While I appreciate that full understanding may take years I am sure that you could take an element and explain it. Given I have a job, a life and a small child I don’t have the time to do a correspondents course in philosophy, however I am sure you must be able to find some aspect of a divine being derived from Tilich’s argument that can be summed up in a relatively short post.
Yes I think I already did that. Meta: “No the eternal necessary aspect of being not "a being" but "being itself." The ground of being. “
LL: This is just splitting hairs, it is still a postulated entity that you have decided to label god, you have failed to justify that this ground state of being even has an purpose above allowing for existence, or is just another elemental aspect of nature. For it to be considered a god it would need intent and conscience.
Not at all. I did justify it and grounded in the experience of religious peephole. NO reason why it must be any more empirical than that. That's what people experience that's what they are talking about so that's their belief and that's what you must deal with.
LL:Your evolution of god concept is interesting, but it only talks about concepts, not realities.
the atheist pretense that if I can doubt something that disproves it. doubt is nto proof. you annot use your doubt as proof. No reason why I should privilege your doubt. you can doubt anything, including your own existence. sow what? doubting doesn't prove it's not true. I have reason to believe it's true and just becuase you an doubt doesn't disprove my reasons. we haven't even talked about the arguments yet.
I can conceive of all kind of things that are not real. The fact that as people had more time to think about the larger questions they came up with more involved answers speaks more to the amount of time not needed for survival rather than a definite approach to an ultimate truth.
doubting a thing does not prove it's not true. your doubt is not a special king's X that automatically disproves anyting you doubt.
And still does nothing to get you to any proof of the Abrahamic god. Particularly as you site the bible and tradition as your sources and let’s face it both of them are questionable, at best, as reliable sources.
We haven't begun to talk about arguemnts for God. So actually zeroing in on a particular tradition is still miles down the road.
I really want to do that on the 1x1 section on my boards.
So you are saying that the popular, and by popular you mean the driving force in the religious lives of the vast majority of all people who go to church, is wrong. That is a very brave position to take. Most of the people I know believe in a personal, interventionist god, do you think they are categorically wrong?
this is really off track. I don't know what you are talking about here.
September 5, 2013 at 3:04 AM Blogger Logic Lad said...
Split post due to length
All the great minds that have built this intricate theology also all started from the point of view that there is a god so we better explain how we know that, not the scientific approach of look for evidence and then formulate testable hypothesis, and test them.
before you can make a hypothesis you have to have a phenomenon that is selectable to empirical proof. If you can't get empirical proof you can't test the hypothesis. There may be aspects of God belief that could be tested as empirical hypothesis but not God Godself becuase that's the basis of reality so it's off scale for empirical proof.
Atheist ideology insists that science is the only form of knowledge. that was never considered true by most thinkers before. I don't consider it true now. Thus empirical scientific hypothesis is the only kind of knowledge.
Also I find it more than slightly telling that as human understanding of the workings of the universe moves forward so the philosophy that hides god from being testable also moves forward, almost as if the more we lift the curtain the more we must be convinced that god is in the small bits still in shadow.
you are just evoking the ideolgoical propaganda device of reducing truth to the area taht you think your view controls. reduce all knowledge to science because you think you control science. That's nothing more than saying we wont accept any form of truth that which confirms our view.
It's the circular reasoning of a truth regime: only scinece is true is anything that counts agaisnt that view is automatically labeled "not scinece" and just ignored. so nothing could ever count against it. Like charging someone with being guilty of suspicion.
If there was obvious and unambiguous evidence for god, we would not be having this conversation, the fact that may great people have believed is a simple argument from authority with a little argument from popularity thrown in,
Let's think how totally illogical that is. Only 3% maybe 6 at most who agree with the no God thing to extent of self labeling as atheist.90% of humans are willing to say "I believe in some kind of God." So think obviously hte vast majority of humans find that there is obvious reason to bleieve.
Moreover, there are tons for arguments that atheist can't answer. I have 52 myself no one has ever answered one of them to the extent that I can see clearly is wrong. That's not say that I haven't had to re formulate a couple. So it's not like I refuse to accept problems. But I haven't seen one actually disproved. So then to say there's no obvious reason is just a silly refusal to accept the fact that there are good reasons.
atheism is a brain washing. you will not allow any evidence to stand against your view. you wont consider the possibility. arguing this way is nothing more than circular reasoning. you start with the assumption that if you can doubt it must be untrue then assert that your doubt is founded upon some vital bit of reasoning when really it's just begging the question.
lots of very bright people believe unsubstantiated and unproved things that doesn’t prove that what they believe is true, or do you think homeopathy works based on noble winning scientists thinking they have proved it?
reasoning from analogy. Nothing about homeopathy disproves any God argument. Smart people also believe truth things so that's neither here nor there.
you are going to have get into a God argument be able to say that you can dismiss them. Then you can only say that of the one's you've argued.
Let’s ask this straight, do you believe in the Christian interventionist god? If so give me a good piece of actual evidence, not scripture, not philosophical musings, actual evidence that this being exists.
science is based upon philosophy. the from of scinece atheism depends upon such as reductions are filled iwth philosophy. The use of philsoh as a shame work is merely a ploy to back up the reduction of truth to scinece. Science is pushed as the only valid form of knowledge and philosophy as a shame word to day we dont' accept philosophy as knowledge. Becuase you think scinece supports atheism it doe not. no tin any way.
without philosophy scinece would not exist, and it still depends upon it, that's why scientisim tries to take over philosophy.
I am not afraid to listen to actual thinkers, but the problem with philosophy is that at some point you need to test your thought experiments against reality, if your god exists and he can have an effect in the world then there should be evidence of it.
why? that means you have to limit reality to just that kind of evidence. What if reality is not limited to that? that just comes form the ploy that says reduce all knowledge to the area that we think we control.
If not then all the philosophy in the world does not make the imaginary real.
you make logic be illogical. if logic disproves your ideas then your ideas are wrong, you don't need empirical proof. If you support the idea of square circle and say "show me am empirical disproof of square circles" I don't need to. I can disprove square circle without looking in the real world for any. Then you are free to look for them the rest or your life. when you are an old man and you haven't found one maybe you will figure out that logic can't be fooled or made up.
we don't need to go looking for square circles to know they are not there.
there is more to belief in God than just logic. There's a kind of empiricism that deals with personal insight. The king of thing Buddhist enlightenment is based upon.
If you have evidence let’s get on to that, you need to convince me that there is a god, specifically a Christian god (as that is your chosen faith) before I commit the time and energy to looking in to any deeper truths
I think evidence is totally irrelevant to you becuase when I present it you are going raise the bar. the first think you will do is say 'I can doubt this is not's really not proven." the second thing you will say is but this doesn't prove X. X will more higher up the bar than the original proof.
Joe wants you to go on his boards and debate him on the 1x1 section:
http://www.doxa.ws/forum/
Register if you have to.
He wants to put this argument there, but if you don't want to, he would like to post this argument somewhere else on the board where other people can chime in.
He isn't trying to clobber you, but he wants to discuss these things.
(note to me, try not to sound too much like a fool) While not working I enjoy playing computer games, (I am mostly over my WoW addiction), watching a selection of excellent Amercian drama and running and playing in some of the good ol' D&D.
While I was brought up by a Methodist Mum and an Agnostic Dad, and lets face it Christmas service at the local church is always good for the singing, I am a avowed athiest and a strong believer in the scientific method
22 comments:
hey man sorry I was brusk this morning. before my coffee. Our friend related to me what you said bout warrants and proofs and I was too crabby. I apologize.
I would like to discuss that if you care to.
Metacrock
Now worries, we all get cranky and i guess we have both had bad experiences with idiot arguments on the web, makes one a little defensive from the get go.
Lets assume that we are both coming in good faith to have a reasonable exchange of ideas and sort of start again.
While i am happy to do some form of formal debate i sort of think an informal discussion might be beneficial to start of with. To that end please expand on what you where saying about warrants and proofs.
Meta
I had never heard of Toulmin, having read his Wiki it sounds like in intersting approach to moral arguments, in honesty the approach i tend to take, while i am not a total moral relativist the circumstances obvious change the moral requirements of a situatuion.
I will be interested in how you use this approach to look into the rationality of belief
I have blog piece about Toulmin's idea of the rational warrant and how I use it with God argument.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-rational-warrant.html
On Rational Warrant
Essentially I am saying that if we are dealing with something that can't be proved (proof in an empirical sense is a slippery thing) we can use a lower standard, the warrant.
A warrant is required anyway for any empirical proof becuase that just means there's a valid reason to to accept the premise.
If we argue for belief as warranted then there's reason to believe it. If there is reason to believe it then it can't be foolish or unfounded.
An interesting idea, i read your article and a few more pages from Wiki to get a feel for the way this style of arguing goes. It looks like a fundementally different approach to 'normal' argument. It is very top down, you start with a conclusion and work back via Warrants to Grounds (evidence).
Based on this what is your argument that belief in God in itself is rational?
However i still think you need to define what you mean by god, you have to ascribe some characteristics that can be considered, otherwise any counter argument will be a little like punching fog.
My concept of God is based upon Paul Tillich's notion of God as being itself. That's another reason to not arue for proof but warrant because with Tillich's deal he's against arguemnts to prove the existence of God and they contradict his theology in several ways. Can't go into it now.
You really need to read Tillich's systemic theology vol.I t understand it.
I have some pages on it on my old website but they don't do it justice. I've written more and better stuff on the blog.
Super essential Godhead
Tillich's ontology part 1
Tillich's Ontology part 2
Tillich's implied OA
The question of Being Brute Fact or Deep Structures
Meta
I have read your posts and some other things, mostly from Wiki, about Tillich.
A few questions come to mind
Even if i allow the whole ground of being argument, this gets you no closer any specific deity, which I have to assume is the point of the exercise, to justify a specific belief.
Actually addressing the argument itself all that Tillich does is come to the conclusion that there must be a ground state of being and then decides to call this God, unless i missed it all God is a short name given to his concept.
The argument that things just are is dismissed, almost out of hand. Apparently on the basis that this explanation is insufficently eligant, i am sorry but i fail to see how this can be used as a basis for dismisal.
I have no training in philosophy so i may be missing obvious stuff but at it's heart this feels a lot like a presuppositionalist approach, having assumed there is a god this is an effort to justify that belief. not just justify but move god into an area that, within the nature of the argument, cannot be questioned. I am sure you can see why a materialist would find this unsatisfying. If i have missed something obvious please try to explain what i have got wrong.
One major problem atheist seem to have is in understanding what people mean when they talk about God. Most atheist regard this as a big man in the sky with specific identity if you have a different idea you can't be talking about the same thing it has to be a totally different God. When you say "get's you no closer to a specific deity" what you really mean is no closer to a big man who is nothing more than a magnified idea of the kind of men we are and know.
why should that be a goal of religion? why should that be regarded as the basis of the divine? There are many images of Gdo in the bible but atheists focus just on the big father/king on the throne figure. That's cultural and psychosocial: hater the father, do battle with the super ego and so on.
Meta
So what is the purpose of religion?
and for that matter what do you mean by God? a question I have asked before.
Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being, simply you postulate that there must be a being the is the basis for existence and then call it god. So how do you get from this conceptual being to the specific details of a being that you can worship?
The reason most athiests concentrate on the sky daddy aspect of god is that is the one that is used to justify most of religious claims. If you want to belive in a non interventionist deistic being then fine, but that means all the 'god cares if you sin' stuff has no meaning. If you want to claim there is a being that will judge you when you die and knows your every thought then i think the old man in the sky is fitting. It's not about hating the father figure, or it's not for me, it's about challenging things done in the name of a being for which there is no evidence.
"So what is the purpose of religion?"
from my blog
what is the nature of religion?
"and for that matter what do you mean by God? a question I have asked before."
I answered it before by linking to a post on the ground of being.
the bible God and the depth of being
Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being,
Of course it does. I warned you that you have to read a read a whole book just to get the basic concept (Paul Tillich's systematic theology volume I. Real theology takes a lot of work that's why good seminaries take four years.It's an entire education not to one little post on a message board.
"simply you postulate that there must be a being the is the basis for existence and then call it god."
No the eternal necessary aspect of being not "a being" but "being itself." The ground of being.
So how do you get from this conceptual being to the specific details of a being that you can worship?
evolution of God Concept part 1
evolution of God Concept part 2
The reason most athiests concentrate on the sky daddy aspect of god is that is the one that is used to justify most of religious claims.
Only at the popular level. Chrsitain theology includes the most brilliant minds in human history and it's had 2000 years to develop. You can't just the intellectual nature of a tradition by the average person on the street. You have to read it's great thinkers.
If you want to belive in a non interventionist deistic being then fine, but that means all the 'god cares if you sin' stuff has no meaning. If you want to claim there is a being that will judge you when you die and knows your every thought then i think the old man in the sky is fitting. It's not about hating the father figure, or it's not for me, it's about challenging things done in the name of a being for which there is no evidence.
That's circular reasoning. There's obviously evidence or the greatest minds human history wouldn't' buy int it. you refuse to read the evidence you only listen it filtered through atheist propaganda. You are afraid to actually listen to the real thinkers doing what they really god.
that last line should say "doing what they really do." We haven't even started talking about evidence yet.
Metacrock
Addressing your essay on the nature of religion,
First off I have no idea what you mean by human problematic, could you please define this for me.
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premises on what religion is for. While that may be what you want religion to be about, it is about as far as you can get from a layman’s understanding on the nature of religion ( that being a form of relationship with a divine being) and most atheist’s understanding, it being a method of controlling the masses, to the benefit of an elite few.
“Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being,
Of course it does. I warned you that you have to read a read a whole book just to get the basic concept (Paul Tillich's systematic theology volume I. Real theology takes a lot of work that's why good seminaries take four years.It's an entire education not to one little post on a message board.”
How? While I appreciate that full understanding may take years I am sure that you could take an element and explain it. Given I have a job, a life and a small child I don’t have the time to do a correspondents course in philosophy, however I am sure you must be able to find some aspect of a divine being derived from Tilich’s argument that can be summed up in a relatively short post.
“No the eternal necessary aspect of being not "a being" but "being itself." The ground of being. “
This is just splitting hairs, it is still a postulated entity that you have decided to label god, you have failed to justify that this ground state of being even has an purpose above allowing for existence, or is just another elemental aspect of nature. For it to be considered a god it would need intent and conscience.
Your evolution of god concept is interesting, but it only talks about concepts, not realities. I can conceive of all kind of things that are not real. The fact that as people had more time to think about the larger questions they came up with more involved answers speaks more to the amount of time not needed for survival rather than a definite approach to an ultimate truth. And still does nothing to get you to any proof of the Abrahamic god. Particularly as you site the bible and tradition as your sources and let’s face it both of them are questionable, at best, as reliable sources.
So you are saying that the popular, and by popular you mean the driving force in the religious lives of the vast majority of all people who go to church, is wrong. That is a very brave position to take. Most of the people I know believe in a personal, interventionist god, do you think they are categorically wrong?
Split post due to length
All the great minds that have built this intricate theology also all started from the point of view that there is a god so we better explain how we know that, not the scientific approach of look for evidence and then formulate testable hypothesis, and test them. Also I find it more than slightly telling that as human understanding of the workings of the universe moves forward so the philosophy that hides god from being testable also moves forward, almost as if the more we lift the curtain the more we must be convinced that god is in the small bits still in shadow.
If there was obvious and unambiguous evidence for god, we would not be having this conversation, the fact that may great people have believed is a simple argument from authority with a little argument from popularity thrown in, lots of very bright people believe unsubstantiated and unproved things that doesn’t prove that what they believe is true, or do you think homeopathy works based on noble winning scientists thinking they have proved it?
Let’s ask this straight, do you believe in the Christian interventionist god? If so give me a good piece of actual evidence, not scripture, not philosophical musings, actual evidence that this being exists.
I am not afraid to listen to actual thinkers, but the problem with philosophy is that at some point you need to test your thought experiments against reality, if your god exists and he can have an effect in the world then there should be evidence of it. If not then all the philosophy in the world does not make the imaginary real. If you have evidence let’s get on to that, you need to convince me that there is a god, specifically a Christian god (as that is your chosen faith) before I commit the time and energy to looking in to any deeper truths
Metacrock
Addressing your essay on the nature of religion,
First off I have no idea what you mean by human problematic, could you please define this for me.
>>Fancy way of saying "sin." It means a little more than that. It's the basic core of problems around the nature of being human. The point of the issue with humanity.
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premises on what religion is for. While that may be what you want religion to be about, it is about as far as you can get from a layman’s understanding on the nature of religion ( that being a form of relationship with a divine being) and most atheist’s understanding, it being a method of controlling the masses, to the benefit of an elite few.
My understanding of religion is based upon having a Masters degree in the study of religion and reading may figures in comparative religion. I don't where your disagreement is coming from. I don't you have had personal experience as a religious person or not. Just going to chruch and thinking of yourself as a "Christian" would not make you an expert on the nature of religion. Nor would the desire to disprove or outargue Christianity.
“Your arguments about the ground of existence tells your nothing about the nature or aspect of the proposed being,
Metacrock:
"Of course it does. I warned you that you have to read a read a whole book just to get the basic concept (Paul Tillich's systematic theology volume I. Real theology takes a lot of work that's why good seminaries take four years.It's an entire education not to one little post on a message board.”
LL:
How? While I appreciate that full understanding may take years I am sure that you could take an element and explain it. Given I have a job, a life and a small child I don’t have the time to do a correspondents course in philosophy, however I am sure you must be able to find some aspect of a divine being derived from Tilich’s argument that can be summed up in a relatively short post.
Yes I think I already did that.
Meta: “No the eternal necessary aspect of being not "a being" but "being itself." The ground of being. “
LL:
This is just splitting hairs, it is still a postulated entity that you have decided to label god, you have failed to justify that this ground state of being even has an purpose above allowing for existence, or is just another elemental aspect of nature. For it to be considered a god it would need intent and conscience.
Not at all. I did justify it and grounded in the experience of religious peephole. NO reason why it must be any more empirical than that. That's what people experience that's what they are talking about so that's their belief and that's what you must deal with.
LL:Your evolution of god concept is interesting, but it only talks about concepts, not realities.
the atheist pretense that if I can doubt something that disproves it. doubt is nto proof. you annot use your doubt as proof. No reason why I should privilege your doubt. you can doubt anything, including your own existence. sow what? doubting doesn't prove it's not true. I have reason to believe it's true and just becuase you an doubt doesn't disprove my reasons.
we haven't even talked about the arguments yet.
I can conceive of all kind of things that are not real. The fact that as people had more time to think about the larger questions they came up with more involved answers speaks more to the amount of time not needed for survival rather than a definite approach to an ultimate truth.
doubting a thing does not prove it's not true. your doubt is not a special king's X that automatically disproves anyting you doubt.
And still does nothing to get you to any proof of the Abrahamic god. Particularly as you site the bible and tradition as your sources and let’s face it both of them are questionable, at best, as reliable sources.
We haven't begun to talk about arguemnts for God. So actually zeroing in on a particular tradition is still miles down the road.
I really want to do that on the 1x1 section on my boards.
So you are saying that the popular, and by popular you mean the driving force in the religious lives of the vast majority of all people who go to church, is wrong. That is a very brave position to take. Most of the people I know believe in a personal, interventionist god, do you think they are categorically wrong?
this is really off track. I don't know what you are talking about here.
September 5, 2013 at 3:04 AM
Blogger Logic Lad said...
Split post due to length
All the great minds that have built this intricate theology also all started from the point of view that there is a god so we better explain how we know that, not the scientific approach of look for evidence and then formulate testable hypothesis, and test them.
before you can make a hypothesis you have to have a phenomenon that is selectable to empirical proof. If you can't get empirical proof you can't test the hypothesis. There may be aspects of God belief that could be tested as empirical hypothesis but not God Godself becuase that's the basis of reality so it's off scale for empirical proof.
Atheist ideology insists that science is the only form of knowledge. that was never considered true by most thinkers before. I don't consider it true now. Thus empirical scientific hypothesis is the only kind of knowledge.
Also I find it more than slightly telling that as human understanding of the workings of the universe moves forward so the philosophy that hides god from being testable also moves forward, almost as if the more we lift the curtain the more we must be convinced that god is in the small bits still in shadow.
you are just evoking the ideolgoical propaganda device of reducing truth to the area taht you think your view controls. reduce all knowledge to science because you think you control science. That's nothing more than saying we wont accept any form of truth that which confirms our view.
It's the circular reasoning of a truth regime: only scinece is true is anything that counts agaisnt that view is automatically labeled "not scinece" and just ignored. so nothing could ever count against it. Like charging someone with being guilty of suspicion.
If there was obvious and unambiguous evidence for god, we would not be having this conversation, the fact that may great people have believed is a simple argument from authority with a little argument from popularity thrown in,
Let's think how totally illogical that is. Only 3% maybe 6 at most who agree with the no God thing to extent of self labeling as atheist.90% of humans are willing to say "I believe in some kind of God." So think obviously hte vast majority of humans find that there is obvious reason to bleieve.
Moreover, there are tons for arguments that atheist can't answer. I have 52 myself no one has ever answered one of them to the extent that I can see clearly is wrong. That's not say that I haven't had to re formulate a couple. So it's not like I refuse to accept problems. But I haven't seen one actually disproved. So then to say there's no obvious reason is just a silly refusal to accept the fact that there are good reasons.
atheism is a brain washing. you will not allow any evidence to stand against your view. you wont consider the possibility. arguing this way is nothing more than circular reasoning. you start with the assumption that if you can doubt it must be untrue then assert that your doubt is founded upon some vital bit of reasoning when really it's just begging the question.
lots of very bright people believe unsubstantiated and unproved things that doesn’t prove that what they believe is true, or do you think homeopathy works based on noble winning scientists thinking they have proved it?
reasoning from analogy. Nothing about homeopathy disproves any God argument. Smart people also believe truth things so that's neither here nor there.
you are going to have get into a God argument be able to say that you can dismiss them. Then you can only say that of the one's you've argued.
Let’s ask this straight, do you believe in the Christian interventionist god? If so give me a good piece of actual evidence, not scripture, not philosophical musings, actual evidence that this being exists.
science is based upon philosophy. the from of scinece atheism depends upon such as reductions are filled iwth philosophy. The use of philsoh as a shame work is merely a ploy to back up the reduction of truth to scinece. Science is pushed as the only valid form of knowledge and philosophy as a shame word to day we dont' accept philosophy as knowledge. Becuase you think scinece supports atheism it doe not. no tin any way.
without philosophy scinece would not exist, and it still depends upon it, that's why scientisim tries to take over philosophy.
I am not afraid to listen to actual thinkers, but the problem with philosophy is that at some point you need to test your thought experiments against reality, if your god exists and he can have an effect in the world then there should be evidence of it.
why? that means you have to limit reality to just that kind of evidence. What if reality is not limited to that? that just comes form the ploy that says reduce all knowledge to the area that we think we control.
If not then all the philosophy in the world does not make the imaginary real.
you make logic be illogical. if logic disproves your ideas then your ideas are wrong, you don't need empirical proof. If you support the idea of square circle and say "show me am empirical disproof of square circles" I don't need to. I can disprove square circle without looking in the real world for any. Then you are free to look for them the rest or your life. when you are an old man and you haven't found one maybe you will figure out that logic can't be fooled or made up.
we don't need to go looking for square circles to know they are not there.
there is more to belief in God than just logic. There's a kind of empiricism that deals with personal insight. The king of thing Buddhist enlightenment is based upon.
If you have evidence let’s get on to that, you need to convince me that there is a god, specifically a Christian god (as that is your chosen faith) before I commit the time and energy to looking in to any deeper truths
I think evidence is totally irrelevant to you becuase when I present it you are going raise the bar. the first think you will do is say 'I can doubt this is not's really not proven." the second thing you will say is but this doesn't prove X. X will more higher up the bar than the original proof.
I'll do evdience soon.
Logic Lad,
Joe wants you to go on his boards and debate him on the 1x1 section:
http://www.doxa.ws/forum/
Register if you have to.
He wants to put this argument there, but if you don't want to, he would like to post this argument somewhere else on the board where other people can chime in.
He isn't trying to clobber you, but he wants to discuss these things.
here's my arguments set out on my 1x1 board. I really wish you would come over there to debate them. It would be so much easier to post there.
here
Hey LL I didn't really like my answers above so I did a blog piece answering you. I hope you don't mind. I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
Here
I've still waiting for you to come to the 1x1 Boards at Doxa forums. It's all set up for you.
Meta
I am signed up for to your boards now. Sorry about the delay. Major life stuff has happened in the last few months. Hope to hear from you soon.
Post a Comment