stretch

Hi Jobar

uh ... Jobar ... am I invisible or sumptin???

I'm a theist. I answered because it seems weird to be talking about what theists won't answer purely among atheists and agnostics.

Of course, we may be still be just spinning wheels, but ....

stretch

Hi ex-xian

I do math, not psychology ... I have no idea what psychology teaches.

Regardless, we are still limited in what we can perceive with our senses, no matter how actively we use them.

As for whether or not if I buy Kant re pure reason but not necessarily re his moral arguments, I should be an agnostic to be consistent ... I must admit that makes a certain amount of sense.

I think the reason that I like Kant is that I was agnostic for so long ... 3 decades ... or maybe 4 if you want to include the years before I thought seriously about things like the existence of God.

But, anyway, there are other arguments or reasons (which are more subjective than objective, possibly) besides those of Kant's moral ones for belief.

When it comes to purely objective lines of reasoning, I think the best one can do is argue that belief isn't irrational or illogical. (And yes, I do catch flak for that in theist circles ... so I'm used to be in the minority when I'm arguing ... so I don't mind being in the minority here, either )

- denise

ex-xian

I do math too! Oh! the joys of mathematical rigor!
I must not have made myself clear. I do not mean that we actively use our sense to apprehend perceptions, we actively use our senses to apprehend data about the objects directly. To say that we cannot know something IAOI, presupposes a mind/body distinction. If that disctinction is left out of the picture, then Kant's position become untenable. Can you offer support for the mind/body disctinction, and thus, for your position that god cannot be disproved?
What are the reasons for your belief in god? If they are subjective, then the truth value of the propositions is conditional, therefore the reality of god's exixtence will vary depending on the condition of the person. So god exists for you, and not for me, and both statements are equally valid. This violates the law of non-contradiction. And since god is inherently subject to the laws of logic, your position becomes untenable.

stretch

Hi ex-xian

Sure we gather data on objects. And we think about these data ... it doesn't mean that we know for sure what all of the attributes of the underlying objects are.

Do we need a mind/body distinction to say that we can't perfectly know things outside of ourselves? Please explain.

I don't have time for the next question that I left out of the quote. I'm getting ready to go to church ....

God, if He truly exists beyond being a figment of my imagination, isn't dependent on whether or not you or I believe ... that sure wouldn't be much of a God.

As for my reasons, that takes us out of the realm of philosophy. If you want me to post them somewhere else, no problem. I'm not sure where the appropriate place is, though ....

stretch

Hi ex-xian (sorry ... but I never remember to check to see if you sign your post with a 'real' name ... )


When it comes to mind/body separability, I don't think that it can be (dis)proven by pure reason. And, believe it or not, I think that a purely materialist outlook is not unreasonable.

We live in a world where lots of things are 'observationally equivalent'. Occam's razor may suggest that going with the materialist view is simpler, and possibly right.

We do know(?) however that immaterial 'things' exist, like ideas. A materialist will argue that they are purely an emanation of our material brains. No functioning brain, no ideas. It's not as if this doesn't make sense.

just some rambling thoughts ... cu later

denise

Jobar

Beg pardon, Stretch. From your comment
i got the impression you were more on the agnostic end of the scale, and as I posted that at 2:16 AM my time, I was not at my sharpest.

EstherRose, I am not rebuking you here- your answer is topical, and as a new user, you are likely not aware- but we normally frown on lengthy Biblical quotes in this forum. It may be that this topic will be more suited to our Biblical Criticism forum. We'll see how it goes.

EstherRose

Sorry, I did not realize bible quotes were inappropriate in this case. Since hawkingfan asked several questions (as quoted above) regarding Christian faith, belief and related it to the koran, I felt it appropriate to support what I wrote with the scripture from the bible and koran. To do otherwise would be to give an incomplete answer and I felt cheat the thread of a debatable response.

Ex-Xian to answer your question. I have completed post-grad work in medicine and chemistry. Astronomy is a hobby as are many of the biological sciences.

Hawkingfan, perhaps the best answer to your questions is to state that a Christian or other theist cannot answer the questions fully given the limitations on what we are allowed to write here.

stretch

Hi Jobar,

De nada, eh!

I don't think that agnosticism is unreasonable, and I still think kind of like an agnostic in some ways ... old habits die hard.

Normal

So what? Have you heard of Kierkegaard? Faith isn't about knowing, it's about believing.

This is a non-sequitir. If a person acts irrationally, is that the same as no person at all? Just because you can’t apply the laws of logic doesn’t make something non-existent.

Not really. Science tells us "HOW", but completely ignores "WHY". Being a materialist is not a pre-requisite for science, at all. Science tells us how the world works, but I know quite a few scientists who feel an immaterial force is at work (Einstein for one).

Philosoft

There hardly exists a consensus about Einstein's theological predilections. If you're referring to his cosmological constant, you might take another look at what he had to say later.

In any case, one of the things about philosophy that has always irritated me is that any answer to any question can always be countered with "why?". Theisms are generally satisified answering the existential "whys" with "because G wanted it that way," where G is any particular god or gods. But why (heh) am I to accept that as a satisfactory existential stopping point? Why can't I ask, "why did G want it that way"?