A Serious Question For Theists

[Jackalope]

I missed this point in my previous post. We're not thinking along the same lines here - you missed what I was alluding to.

Consider the classic deductive syllogism:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Assessing the validity of this syllogism is an exercise in pure deductive reasoning. Validity tells you nothing about the truth of your conclusion.

Assessing it's soundness (and thereby it's truth value) requires induction and experience - perhaps not yours, yes you could read about the experience of death and accept that all men die, but *someone* had to experience the mortality of humanity and inductively reason that all men are in fact mortal.

See where I'm going with this?

You're skewing the need for there to be empirical evidence at some point? We need to explore the opposite, or agree that a purely theoretical conclusion can be valid.

Apologies if you said that already

I completely agree that a purely theoretical conclusion can be valid, I'd go so far that it might even be sound - that would depend entirely upon the specific argument. When the premises make claims about things which are observable, we have a nexus with empiricism.

My point here is not that rationalism has a necessary dependency on empiricism, but that particular arguments do and as you've presented no arguments, I can't assess whether your claim that no empirical evidence is needed to prove them holds water or not. Perhaps you've seen arguments that are persuasive and are purely rational. As you've not deemed fit to share them with us, how might we know this?

Link? I must have missed it.

Here :

---

Well you could defend empiricism as somehow linked to rationalism as you said.

I'm satisfied that I've used reason to reach my decision to believe, yes. I've covered it many times here.

Via thorough investigation of the bible and it's claims I concluded it to be true, and acted upon that information.

I've explored in detail my conclusions, which is a continual process. I investigate and question all the time as I believe I have the responsibility to do.

I'm from a non religious background. Both my parents were not religious. My Mum was quite a strong atheist. My dad made fun.

And the last post in that thread :

Well that looks completely different and I can see a question. I've just been trying to explain exactly that to irrational in these two parallel threads. I guess you guys just aren't getting it

I'm certainly deadly serious and want to explain it to you. I believe that I've done the same very many times since I've been here on AF. Others have confirmed that they accept my explanation.

What I can't do is provide you with reason to believe yourself. It's not that it's necessarily complex. It can be as complex or as simple as you need it to be. The only people that are dissatisfied with my explanation are those that demand that they get it enough to be convinced themselves, and if course this is not possible. The only way you can do that is to do something yourself. (Or for God to do it to you I guess).

---

Yes, I saw those. What I was looking for was something with more substance, more specifics, a bit more meat on the bone, something for me to consider. Your explanation paraphrased is essentially, "I investigated it, reasoned it, and found it to be true." The devil's in the details, and the details were what I was after. You know, the rational arguments the you've found persuasive.

If you're unable or unwilling to share them, that's fine - say so. But please, don't continue in the fiction that you already have.