FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-24-2003, 12:49 PM   #241
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 1,336
Default

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.
Keith Russell is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 12:54 PM   #242
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,945
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hawkingfan
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.
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).
theophilus is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 12:57 PM   #243
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

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.
Mageth is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 06:21 PM   #244
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 602
Default Very Interesting.

Quote:
Originally posted by theophilus
Yes, plausible. Since, on your atheistic worldview, certainty is impossible, plausibility is all you can demand.

Then you deny that the Earth is warmed by the Sun. You deny that the Earth is a sphere that rotates on an axis and also revolves around the Sun. You deny that live organisms are composed of cells with DNA nuclei, mitochondria, golgi bodies, cell membranes. You deny that muscles contract after a cholinergic nicotinic neurochemical stimulation of the motor endplate leading to actin and myosin fibrils moving in opposite directions. You deny that all higher animals have genetic codes slighly less than half of which is supplied by the father, and slightly more than 50% by the mother (mitochondrial DNA). You deny that molecules are bonded atoms, which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons on and on to quarks. You deny the apparent existence of gravity. You deny that cancer is an overproduction, hypermitosis, of mutated body cells that spread in colonies (metastasis). You deny that infections are caused by bacteria, fungi, viruses, and PRIONS. You deny the possibility of light production from electrically activated atoms. OK, enough.

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.

None of that made any sense. "God is only lying if Christianity is not true." That is false if the God is Allah, Brahma, or the Monotheistic Judaic YHWH. It is only a true statement assuming the Tertullian/Augustinian Trinity God. If there is no god of any kind, then the statement is ludicrous. "That is the issue here, not whether it make sense in your worldview." WOW. That is not the issue here because it is incoherent. And that there is no god does make sense in my "world view". "If it is true, then it explains itself." No it doesn't. If Christianity is not true, which it isn't, God is not lying. It is those who invented god and cut and pasted Christianity together who are lying.

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).
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
Fiach is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 07:36 PM   #245
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,009
Default

Originally posted by theophilus :

Quote:
So, the "presuppositional challenge" is , whether atheistic naturalism can account for the possibility of knowledge, immaterial entities such as logic, the laws of science and morality.
I believe that objective epistemic and ethic foundations are woven into the fabric of the universe as a brute fact.

Quote:
The Christian worldview can account for all these.
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.
Thomas Metcalf is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:29 PM   #246
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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
Fiach is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:41 PM   #247
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,009
Default

Originally posted by Fiach :

Quote:
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 the kind comments. If you have any questions, please ask.
Thomas Metcalf is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:51 PM   #248
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 602
Default Tom, do you have a philosophy education.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Originally posted by Fiach :



Thanks for the kind comments. If you have any questions, please ask.
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
Fiach is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 12:26 AM   #249
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,009
Default Re: Tom, do you have a philosophy education.

Originally posted by Fiach

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

Quote:
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?
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.
Thomas Metcalf is offline  
Old 03-25-2003, 01:41 AM   #250
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: I am Jack's ID
Posts: 592
Smile

Quote:
Thomas: 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.
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.
Tyler Durden is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.