Keith Russell

Hawkingfan said:
"Oh, I see. "Plausible explanations". You mean excuses. No, I do not excuse God for lying or changing his mind. And yes, I've looked at the reasons for his lying and changing his mind and I find them disgusting."

And, also probably very very human.

Keith.

theophilus

Yes, plausible. Since, on your atheistic worldview, certainty is impossible, plausibility is all you can demand.

God is only "lying" if Christianity is not true. That is the issue here, not whether it makes sense in your worldview. If it is true, then it explains itself.

If it is not true, then knowledge is impossible, and you have no standard by which to judge if God is "lying" or not because you have no standard of truth (please don't claim "reality" as you standard for truth, becuase you don't know what reality is and have not "objective" means of finding out).

Mageth

Since the ultimate nature of reality is not/cannot be known, science is impossible.

Wow, let's chuck everything we have learned about the universe using the scientific method over the last few hundred years out the window, then. It's all a crock, as it is impossible for anyone to successfully practice the scientific method.

(For something that's impossible, there sure are a lot of practitioners)

I would answer: if science is impossible because the ultimate nature of reality is not/cannot be known, then likewise is any other "system" (e.g. theism) incapable of making truth claims about reality. You're throwing your baby out with the bath water.

Fiach

That is a rather absurd statement. If one starts out denying the real world, it doesn't justify belief in the Imaginary Magic Universe. Saying that objective evidence is invalid is simply incredible. Your thinking process is fascinating if indeed baffling. The bizarre ideation makes all of your ideas doubtful, even to yourself. I don't mean to sound insulting. But I have no way to explain your thinking and information processing. It is just too bizarre.

Sorry Theo, I am just giving you an honest response. I apologise in advance if it offends you.

Fiach

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by theophilus :

I believe that objective epistemic and ethic foundations are woven into the fabric of the universe as a brute fact.

My foundation is more parsimonious than yours. I win.

Also, I wish you would explain to me how epistemic foundations can be contingent upon a person. That's a rather strange idea, and I have no clue how that could be possible. There's a reason I don't think any leading apologist takes presuppositionalism seriously.

Finally, I have a feeling you presuppose the nonexistence of God when you attempt to argue for theism. You see, if the greatest good is served by my believing in God, then God will see to it that I do. If this isn't a maximally good world all the time, then God doesn't exist, so I don't see why you're attempting to change anything about it.

Fiach

This is fascinating. Each of us see the errors in Theo's thinking. You approach it with the terminology of Philosophy, and I approach it from the point of view of mathematical logic and hard basic science. My education neglected philosophy to make room for extra science electives along with my majoring in biochemistry.

If I can learn more of your philosophical terminology and argument formulation it could make me a terror to arguing theists. I add that to my neuroscience and biological neurobehaviour, with some rather simplistic Highland common sense ideation. So I am going to read your posts carefully, not because I disagree, it sounds splendid. I want to acquire some of your philosophical rhetorical skills, at least on a beginners level.

Thanks for your input, it gives a different aspect than that with which I am familiar.

Fiach

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Fiach :

Thanks for the kind comments. If you have any questions, please ask.

Fiach

Is your eduction background strongly founded in philosophy as I would surmise? I would ask you for a book recommendaton.

Assume that I have next to no formal education in philosophy, I was really sequestered in a technological stetting. Could you recomment a book that it not too advanced, that introduces some of the basic philosophical schools such as objecivism (whatever that is) and existentialism etc.? Something on a college freshman level, introductory, eh?

Thanks,

Fiach

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Fiach

I'm a junior in philosophy at a large public university, so I have some good experience but I'm by no means an expert yet.

As for books on the subject of philosophy of religion:

http://students.washington.edu/tmetcalf/bib.htm

Some of these are more advanced than others. The Web sites are pretty basic, the articles are pretty advanced, and the books vary. For basic stuff, see Barker's book, plus Krueger's book What is Atheism? and Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God.

Well, I have my own biases here: Stay away from objectivism and existentialism, because many people don't exactly think of them as "real philosophy." The sort of philosophy we do here is analytic philosophy, not continental philosophy. For an introduction to analytic philosophy, you might want to see Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy and The Problems of Philosophy.

Tyler Durden

Hello. I am with you on objectivism, because that movement lacks an academic sanction, and its founder Ayn Rand does not deserve her cult status, but existentialism does deserve a defense as a real philosophy. It is a legitimate outgrowth or a candidate of a conclusion to subjectivism in the history of philosophy.

The people who do not think of existentialism as a "real philosophy" are professors who specializes in analytic thought who privilege some sort of vocabulary, who want to defend their presuppositions about reason. Analytic philosophy was dominant in the mid 20th century, but is now on the downside, after the works of Quine and Wittgenstein, Putnam, Davidson and Rorty. Analytic thought is now dated, and in the same position those Hegelian idealist/metaphysicans were at the turn of the 20th century.

Bertrand Russell's a good starting point - especially for anglo-american thought. But you would be missing out a lot about the advances in 20th century thought - not to mention structuralism, poststructuralism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and philosophy of science.