Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Devilnaut · 08-20-2002, 11:30 AM

WJ:

Quote:

No. Aside from arguing the merits/limitations of logical necessity (which makes atheism, BTW, logically inconsistent by deductive 'methodology' alone)

Can you explain how disbelief in a deity is logically inconsistent "by deductive methodology", please?

Don't tell me where this "contradiction lies" or where I have to look or that I have to search this or that to figure it out. If you know what you're talking about, just explain it!

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

WJ · 08-20-2002, 11:38 AM

Typhoon!

I haven't dodged the question. I answered the question concerning logical necessity. Perhaps you need to ask yourself whether logical necessity is consistent, in your use of reason when making determinations about EOG?

I bet that it is. And that's because you rely soley on analytic propositions/deduction for your no-god belief.

Right? If you used both induction and deduction, you'd either be a theist or an agnostic.

Is any of that convincing? If not, why?

WJ · 08-20-2002, 11:48 AM

"Can you explain how disbelief in a deity is logically inconsistent "by deductive methodology", please?"

*sigh* Because almost every person uses common sense inductive reasoning to make claims, judgements, so on and so forth about the world and their existence in it. On the other hand, to only use deductive reasoning regarding the possibility of EOG then, becomes an arbitrary use of logic.

Kant, James and others will tell you that.

Walrus

MrDarwin · 08-20-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
I'm saying that there is evidence of a benevolent God.

Then please tell me what you think that evidence is, since so far you seem to be evading my questions rather than answering them.

Hobbs · 08-20-2002, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
"Can you explain how disbelief in a deity is logically inconsistent "by deductive methodology", please?"

*sigh* Because almost every person uses common sense inductive reasoning to make claims, judgements, so on and so forth about the world and their existence in it. On the other hand, to only use deductive reasoning regarding the possibility of EOG then, becomes an arbitrary use of logic.

Kant, James and others will tell you that.

WJ, would you mind outlining your experience and background in studying philosophy for us? I ask because, based on my experience of teaching college philosophy classes, you strike me as an undergrad who has taken a few classes in philosophy (probably more on the intro level) and read several books about the topic, but who has not yet really gotten the hang of the subject. You have learned some jargon, and you might even understand some of it, but you are not yet able to express your understanding in a way that your audience can understand what you are talking about (and I know from others' responses to you that I'm not the only one who is having difficulty figuring out precisely what you mean). I'm not convinced you really understand what you mean.

In a previous discussion, you kept mentioning "aposterior" reasoning. Can you, without looking it up (no cheating here: remember, God is watching you), give me a definition of "a posteriori"?

Jobar · 08-20-2002, 12:55 PM

I agree with Hobbs; WJ, you know not whereof you speak.

This forum is full of people with advanced degrees in various sciences and philosophies; they are normally able and willing to put their thoughts into forms understandable by any reasonably bright person. That's one of the hallmarks of intelligence. They need not spout jargon; and if they do, it is normally because they are talking to someone who plainly understands the technical terms they use.

On the other hand, WJ takes delight in attempting to confuse things with big words. One might suspect he cannot impress with his ideas, so he attempts to baffle with his bullshit... this does not speak well of the point(s) you attempt to argue, WJ.

WJ · 08-20-2002, 01:14 PM

Mrdarwin!

I don't mind discussing issues of benevolence, grace, the problem of good/evil etc., but I must get a commitment or some understanding of the ground rules from you first. That way we are singing from the same sheet of music.

I responded to your intitial question 'convince me there is a God' by stating that God is a logically necessary Being. Did you agree to that or not?

[Of course assuming you are an atheist the answer would be no. So based upon the assumption that that in fact would be your answer, how do you arrive at that conclusion?]

In otherwords, if you say no, you must state reasons why.

The reason this question must be explored is because to explain benevolence, the use of induction will be used. If you don't understand or are unwilling to understand the distinction, then the majority of the 'benevolence discussion' that your are using for convincing evidence of EOG would be meaningless as your expections would be considered one sided.

In otherwords, we would be waisting our time.

Make sense?

Walrus

MrDarwin · 08-20-2002, 01:24 PM

WJ, thank you for admitting that you cannot answer my questions and have no interest in the discussion I started.

WJ · 08-20-2002, 01:24 PM

Hobbs/Jobar!

Mmmm, I'm sincerely disappointed and my feelings are hurted. You've resorted to peanut gallery politics again.

Anything else you'd like to say?

BTW, have you responded to my challenge in the other thread yet, Jobar? I think, quite frankly, you're full of shit!

WJ · 08-20-2002, 01:28 PM

Let it be known that mrdarwin is in the same league:

"I don't mind discussing issues of benevolence, grace, the problem of good/evil etc., but I must get a commitment or some understanding of the ground rules from you first. That way we are singing from the same sheet of music."

Are you misrepresenting the truth in what I said mrdarwin? Or are you full of shit too?

BTW, I'm beginning to wonder, what is your point in starting the thread?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-20-2002, 11:38 AM	#32
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Typhoon! I haven't dodged the question. I answered the question concerning logical necessity. Perhaps you need to ask yourself whether logical necessity is consistent, in your use of reason when making determinations about EOG? I bet that it is. And that's because you rely soley on analytic propositions/deduction for your no-god belief. Right? If you used both induction and deduction, you'd either be a theist or an agnostic. Is any of that convincing? If not, why?

08-20-2002, 11:48 AM	#33
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	"Can you explain how disbelief in a deity is logically inconsistent "by deductive methodology", please?" sigh Because almost every person uses common sense inductive reasoning to make claims, judgements, so on and so forth about the world and their existence in it. On the other hand, to only use deductive reasoning regarding the possibility of EOG then, becomes an arbitrary use of logic. Kant, James and others will tell you that. Walrus

08-20-2002, 12:55 PM	#36
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I agree with Hobbs; WJ, you know not whereof you speak. This forum is full of people with advanced degrees in various sciences and philosophies; they are normally able and willing to put their thoughts into forms understandable by any reasonably bright person. That's one of the hallmarks of intelligence. They need not spout jargon; and if they do, it is normally because they are talking to someone who plainly understands the technical terms they use. On the other hand, WJ takes delight in attempting to confuse things with big words. One might suspect he cannot impress with his ideas, so he attempts to baffle with his bullshit... this does not speak well of the point(s) you attempt to argue, WJ.

08-20-2002, 01:14 PM	#37
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Mrdarwin! I don't mind discussing issues of benevolence, grace, the problem of good/evil etc., but I must get a commitment or some understanding of the ground rules from you first. That way we are singing from the same sheet of music. I responded to your intitial question 'convince me there is a God' by stating that God is a logically necessary Being. Did you agree to that or not? [Of course assuming you are an atheist the answer would be no. So based upon the assumption that that in fact would be your answer, how do you arrive at that conclusion?] In otherwords, if you say no, you must state reasons why. The reason this question must be explored is because to explain benevolence, the use of induction will be used. If you don't understand or are unwilling to understand the distinction, then the majority of the 'benevolence discussion' that your are using for convincing evidence of EOG would be meaningless as your expections would be considered one sided. In otherwords, we would be waisting our time. Make sense? Walrus

08-20-2002, 01:24 PM	#38
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	WJ, thank you for admitting that you cannot answer my questions and have no interest in the discussion I started.

08-20-2002, 01:28 PM	#40
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Let it be known that mrdarwin is in the same league: "I don't mind discussing issues of benevolence, grace, the problem of good/evil etc., but I must get a commitment or some understanding of the ground rules from you first. That way we are singing from the same sheet of music." Are you misrepresenting the truth in what I said mrdarwin? Or are you full of shit too? BTW, I'm beginning to wonder, what is your point in starting the thread?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.