Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-22-2002, 03:55 PM | #211 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Kent,
Quote:
Should we take your word for it? Logical thought is a rule governed process. Provided certain classes of orderly behavior (and you have given no justification for thinking that orderly behavior can come only from an omnipotent person) we have the possibility of both rules and intelligent beings - without having a higher intelligence to guide them. Quote:
It's not simply the fact that you have an ultimate authority that I am talking about here. (although I am increasingly convinced that such a notion is highly problematic.) I am talking about how you determine what God's nature, properties and existence. My basic problem with your epistemic idea of God is this: one presupposition about God, or anything else is as good as another. "Ah, but mine is consistent and can explain X, Y, and Z." Putting aside the question of whether God can explain anything at all, I should point out that it really doesn't matter whether a presupposition is consistent or not or whether it has a functional role in theories. These things require a meta-evaluative system which defeats the whole purpose of So if you presuppose God, you cannot hold that he is more rational than any other presupposition. If you do no presuppose God, you can establish truth-preference, but open yourself to other epsitemic vulnerabilities. Regards, Synaesthesia |
||
08-22-2002, 05:15 PM | #212 | |||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi Synaesthesia,
Quote:
I believe these statements are true but at this time I'm not sure how to prove the impossibility of another foundation. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Kent |
|||||
08-23-2002, 05:28 AM | #213 | ||||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Kent,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you are omnipotent, you presuppositions are sound. If you are like most humans, your dogma, even if correct, is epistemically very thin. Regards, Synaesthesia |
||||
08-23-2002, 08:06 AM | #214 | |||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi Synaesthesia,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We all must presuppose something in order to start our reasoning. Can you please explain why presupposing the Christian God is not rational? Whatever it is that you presuppose, if it does not account for logic it is not rational. My presupposition does account for logic and I know no other presupposition that does. So, what is more rational, a presupposition that gives you a foundation for rationality or a presupposition that does not? Quote:
What I do know is that if I do not presuppose the Christian God then I cannot rationally know anything. Maybe you can explain why you think other presuppositions are more sound than mine. As usual, thanks for the good discussion. Kent |
|||||
08-23-2002, 01:52 PM | #215 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 665
|
Hello Kent,
It seems to me that you are treating the proposition "A worldview must be rational and consistent" as a more ultimate proposition than god, and then using those criteria to evaluate worldviews and come to the conclusion that the christian worldiew is the only consistent worldview! Also, when you say that atheism is inconsistent, don't you mean incomplete? Couldn't an atheist just say that they agree with the laws of logic but have no idea why they work? [ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p> |
08-26-2002, 07:42 AM | #216 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi sir drinks-a-lot,
Quote:
It is true that I am using rationality as a test for worldviews and I have found that the Christian worldview is the only one that can pass it. Quote:
I suppose that atheists could believe that their worldview is simply incomplete and that rationality will somehow be explained in atheistic terms someday. But, this is simply blind faith that I believe is itself irrational. Kent |
||
08-26-2002, 07:50 AM | #217 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Median strip of DC beltway
Posts: 1,888
|
This thread has gone on quite a while, and while it walked the line of philosophy vs EoG for a while, it's definately in the EoG column now.
|
08-26-2002, 09:13 AM | #218 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 665
|
Greetings Kent:
Quote:
Quote:
Atheists do not necessarily believe that rationality will somehow be explained in atheistic terms some day. I see no reason to make that assertion. Does a computer behave rationally? How about pet dog? [ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p> |
||
08-26-2002, 02:20 PM | #219 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Auc kland, NZ
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
|
|
08-26-2002, 02:22 PM | #220 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Auc kland, NZ
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
He died, but he isn't dead - what's the big deal about the sacrifice when it wasn't permanent? I guess thats our (unanswered) question. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|