(March 25, 2016 at 12:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Ms. Camus, the concepts around the "God of the Philosophers" are extremely well defined, as early as Plotinus, and very coherent. There simply is no support for the notion that the God of  Classical Monotheism  is ill-defined. Granted, many believers are a bit fuzzy on the specifics so I can see how it may appear to you.

Well if that is the case, then why, for crying out loud, don't you streamline your discussions/arguments to that end rather than all the existential, "true meaning of reality" stuff?  It just seems like it would be more productive, especially if your goal is to persuade atheists into considering the God of Christianity.  

I just don't see how badgering empiricists into admitting that there may be some aspects of the universe beyond our comprehension accomplishes anything.  Frankly, it's irritating when executed in such a condescending tone.

(March 25, 2016 at 9:32 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 12:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Ms. Camus, the concepts around the "God of the Philosophers" are extremely well defined, as early as Plotinus, and very coherent. There simply is no support for the notion that the God of  Classical Monotheism  is ill-defined. Granted, many believers are a bit fuzzy on the specifics so I can see how it may appear to you.

Well if that is the case, then why, for crying out loud, don't you streamline your discussions/arguments to that line, rather than all the existential, "true meaning of reality" stuff?  It just seems like it would be more productive, especially if your goal is to persuade atheists into considering the God of Christianity.  

I just don't see how badgering empiricists into admitting that there may be some aspects of the universe beyond our comprehension accomplishes anything.  Frankly, it's irritating when executed in such a condescending tone.

I have never seen a good definition of god.

(March 25, 2016 at 9:56 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I have never seen a good definition of god.

That is because once it is defined, it so much easier to disprove it. Without a definition, what can be disproven? That is why the theists will not elaborate. (that and there is no god, which makes it extremely difficult to describe)

It's not as though an empiricist would argue that point in any case.  We don't know what we don't know, and we may not be capable of knowing whatever that is regardless...and?

God: something hiding behind human fear and doubt. Disprove that

(March 25, 2016 at 11:41 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's not as though an empiricist would argue that point in any case.  We don't know what we don't know, and we may not be capable of knowing whatever that is regardless...and?

Exactly. Most of us humbly agree there is a lot of shit about existence we still don't know of. Or can't know of. So what? How is acknowledging that fact in any context a good reason to believe in Yahweh?

(March 25, 2016 at 9:32 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well if that is the case, then why, for crying out loud, don't you streamline your discussions/arguments to that line, rather than all the existential, "true meaning of reality" stuff?  It just seems like it would be more productive, especially if your goal is to persuade atheists into considering the God of Christianity...I just don't see how badgering empiricists into admitting that there may be some aspects of the universe beyond our comprehension accomplishes anything.  Frankly, it's irritating when executed in such a condescending tone.

I participate primarily in the philosophy threads and as such use more academic terms. Please remember that online conversation lacks the verbal inflections, facial expressions, and gestures needed to properly interpret a writer's tone. Generally, I avoid directly using 'you' and favor making my points referring instead to 'people' or 'someone'. I do this for a reason. In the past, overly sensitive members took these as personal attacks and accused me of maliciously speculating about their motivations. So, please, do not assume automatically that I am expressing contempt; although, I also find it annoying when atheists and evangelicals seem not to appreciate that philosophical inquiry is tradition. Many of the arguments for and against Divinity (and many other things besides) are responses or embellishments to previous positions, some going back to antiquity. My recent statements about existential choices, etc. are in fact a recognition that doxistic positions about God are not themselves fundamental; but rather logically follow from more basic epistemological commitments. If anything, I am signally my appreciation for the positions of philosophically serious atheists. They are not irrational; they simply have a different starting point for their inquiry. Second, I have no interest in persuading atheists of anything. I am however providing them with an opportunity to reflect on a different perspective that is immune to the arguments of convenience most use to justify their disbelief.

Simon Moon Wrote:

Felasco Wrote:And as already discussed above, this is not proof that human reason therefore works for EVERYTHING.

Never said it did.

In this discussion, I am only concerned with existential claims. 

Quote:Can we use reason to fall in love, a key aspiration of most humans?   No, we can't.

Seems like a non sequitur to the discussion we are having.


We are discussing whether reason is the best method to discern whether it is justified to believe in supernatural, existential claims. 

Quote:I am declining to believe in the infinite power of human reason on faith, just as you reasonably decline to believe in the infinite power of holy books on faith.  I am the real atheist here.

Here's a question for you; do you currently accept the premise, that at least one god exists, to be true?

I have a feeling he won't answer that one.

(March 25, 2016 at 9:56 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I have never seen a good definition of god.

Plotinus has one. Aquinas's is highly developed. Spinoza takes a different tack but is equally well defined.

No one disputes the claim that your beliefs are immune to arguments which others find persuasive Chad, lol. You aren't the bearer of breaking news on that count. Your compatriots beliefs, dissimilar as they are to your own in many respects, are interchangeable with your own in that regard.