Shadowy Man

But how do you know that God's word is authoritative?

Jobar

Theophilus-
I freely acknowledge that I begin from the position of acknowledging God and his word as the foundation of all knowledge. The question is which of our presuppositions explains human experience; not just sensory experience, but the supra-sensory experiences?

You see, my presupposition can explain why you want to work for the betterment of mankind while yours cannot.

Wrong twice. Hell, three times.

One. "Which of our presuppositions"? You make the same one I do, and then you add on top of that one which I contend is invalid and extraneous.

Two. You cannot say, or demonstrate, that "supra-sensory experiences" even exist.

Three. Of course I can explain why I want to work for the betterment of humanity. I am, after all, human, and if you need me to tell you why we humans want to make our lives and world better, I'll respond by asking what planet do *you* come from?

Yer out!

Oh yeah- I meant to put this in my previous post, such a cool little .gif-

Philosoft

Let me try to disassemble this, because it doesn't look right.

(1) If God exists, I can know things.
(2) I know things.
(C) Therefore, God exists.

Now, let's deal just with premise 1. How is God's existence a sufficient condition for knowledge?

Cozmodius

Wow...I like this...I really do! This is the ONE cosmic truth that I have seen expressed here so far...but then it does seem that most here shy away from metaphysics.

However Theophilus, The big problem with your argument is that not only do you start off with a presupposition...you also assume fact for this presupposition and allow no room for error, evolvement or even flexabillity. You then test ALL KNOWLEDGE AND FACT against this presupposition...without even so much as the simplest of tests against the presupposition itself.

If you had tested the presupposition you probably would have quickly found so much error and contamination that you may have thrown it out altogether...but you didn't. So now you are stuck with an abundance of "Knowledge and Facts", all based and reliant on a faulty presupposition, which of course leaves your "Knowledge and Facts" just as faulty.

It's sort of like if science began all of it's understanding of the universe with the presupposition that "the sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is the center of the universe", and anything that was discovered from that point forward had to either fit with that, or it wouldn't be accepted as fact.

So when you think about it, it's better to start without any presuppositon at all than to start with 1 that's fixed in place. Afterall, if it's true why fear the scrutiny?

Jobar

Hello Cozmodius, and welcome to II.

Metaphysics? One door up, in Philosophy.

Seriously, discussions here revolve around existence- we try to move down the ladder of abstractions, rather than up. We do sometimes discuss pantheism, and cosmic consciousness, and mysticism- but usually those topics are better addressed in Philosophy or Non-Abrahamic Religions.

Sur-reality

While we are on the subject of truth and presuppostion let me ask one question: Is there truth? For in everything we must presuppose that something is true. (I myself just made a presupostion) When Jobar is off bettering the human race he is presupposing that what he is doing is "right". Therefore that leads me to ask the question what is right, is something right if it benifits mankind but then how do we judge what is "right for mankind? With all do respect why should we take what Jobar belives to be right for man kind any more than what hitler deemed right? All in all what i am saying is that it is impossible not to presuppose (if in fact impossibility is credible for that is another presupposition). All this is the long way to say these things:
1. Can we prove anything without presupposition?
2. How do we define what is truth if it depends on an individuals
presuppositions?
3. And what the hell does this have to do with evidence of God's existence?

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jobar
[B]Theophilus-
I freely acknowledge that I begin from the position of acknowledging God and his word as the foundation of all knowledge.

You assume your conclusion, then use the assumed conclusion to prove the conclusion. I doesn't work that way for those of us in the matter-energy universe.

The question is which of our presuppositions explains human experience; not just sensory experience, but the supra-sensory experiences?

We don't have any evidence of supra-sensory experiences, even radio waves are received ultimately by our senses with the aid of our technology. Sensory experiences (visual, auditory, tactile, and recorded by electronic technology) are the only ones we have.

You see, my presupposition can explain why you want to work for the betterment of mankind while yours cannot.

No it doesn't. Your hypothetical god more often orders humans to harm other humans than benefit anyone. That is based on your Bible. It is rhetorical since your god is too improbable to exist in my opinion. If your god is hypothetical at best, and improbable by the odds, to argue its authorativeness is silly. Should we debate if the Invisible Pink Unicorn poops pink turds?

Wrong twice. Hell, three times.

Aye. But isn't twice zero the same as three times zero?

One. "Which of our presuppositions"? You make the same one I do, and then you add on top of that one which I contend is invalid and extraneous.

I reject the making of an assumption that is unsuported and not evidence based.

Two. You cannot say, or demonstrate, that "supra-sensory experiences" even exist.

Correct.

Three. Of course I can explain why I want to work for the betterment of humanity. I am, after all, human, and if you need me to tell you why we humans want to make our lives and world better, I'll respond by asking what planet do *you* come from?

You and I have an "altruistic gene" like all of our fellow primates and many other social animals. In its maximal manifestion we sacrifice our own lives for another. In day to day living it manifests by helping others in small to modest ways on a consistent basis. Some who lack the gene or its code is dodgy, are what we call "criminals" or "sociopaths."

Yer out!

Tae ta shooers wi' ye. Ye miserrrable aix-cuse o' a batter. Dawkins, m'lad, y' aire oop naixt. Doon't dessapint (disappoint) me noe. (The official language of Aberdeen, Dooner)

Oh yeah- I meant to put this in my previous post, such a cool little .gif-

It is so good I'll leave it in.

Fiach

Cozmodius

Thank you for the welcome Jobar.

Oxymoron

Theophilus' proof of God's existence:

1.) Assume God exists.
2.) Er.... that's it.

Mods, can we move this to the 'worst arguments for the existence of God' thread?

Logical criticism: you can use this to prove anything, including the absolute opposite of something else, leading to a logical contradiction.

Technical criticism: a property of an assumption is that it is atomic - an axiom- or can be reduced to atomic assumptions. It should either be so fundamental that it is logically impossible to be otherwise, or to question it would be of no value.

Eg:
1 + 1 = 2. Logically, if 1 + 1 = 3, then what would 1 + 2 be? Arithmetic is atomic and self-consistent.

Sometimes we might reach an assumption which we cannot (yet) justify - an indeterminate assumption. Fair enough, be honest to admit it.

A non-atomic assumption is not necessarily a bad one, however, it can be further reduced to another set of assumptions plus some logical reasoning. One may recurse this down till we reach either indeterminate assumptions, or atomic ones.

'Assuming that God exists' is far from atomic. I would be interested to hear what assumptions and axioms it depends upon, theophilus. That is, if you don't have a downer on logical reasoning as well as naturalistic analysis.

stuO

Hello...as this is my first effort (possibly only one) thanks to everyone for some most interesting and informative posts and essays

If 1 + 1 = 2. Logically, then if 1 + 1 = 3 then 1 + 2 could = 2

Perhaps to be a little more patient with theophilus and play devil's advocate a little, I don't want to speak for him but... doesn't what he says boil down to.... if the maths (1 + 2 could = 2) is present in any conceptual form then could it become a realisable form in the event of further knowledge which supports current requirements of scientific proof. Crazy stuff happens. For example if 11 quantum dimensions were determined in science and in dimension 3, 7 & 9, 1 + 2 = 2 and in dimension 2 and 6 pink unicorns romped in gay abandon, then the illogical concept becomes an understandable reality and the believers of 1 + 2 = 2 and the pink unicorn brigade would have a great deal of evidence to support them in saying " I told you so ".This "maths" also then holds with occam's original razor as it would add nothing unnecessarily.

As I see things, I think the insistence that an outrageous idea does exist in any reality is disengenuous to say the least Surely to insist that a God must exist simply because it can be a concept, seems to remain in the realms of an unknowable entity even if one were just to allow such an abstract idea . It can only be a guess at best.
By the way thanks for reading this. I would say that I can reliably assert at atomic level - (an appealing description Oxymoron) - objective evidence can prove you did . Debating down to atomic reasoning rocks!