(April 1, 2016 at 12:28 am)robvalue Wrote: These things almost always amount to:
1) Make observations.
2) Announce apply binding rules logical constraints based on to these observations
3) Notice an apparent paradox caused by the rules. Exclude logically inconsistent interpretations of the data.
4) Define a special thing that violates the rules, to plug the apparent paradox. Consider the only remaining conceivable option a justified belief.

Fixed that for you.

I'm not going to play word games with you.

If you consider God to be as real as "the number 7", then I agree.

I would consider strong evidence as evidence for God.

(April 6, 2016 at 10:22 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm not going to play word games with you

So basically, you want to maintain a specific philosophical position, but are not going to have a serious philosophical discussion about it. I love how when the going gets tough some of you back away by calling serious discussions "word salad" and "just semantics".

If you want to declare victory, be my guest.

I think I'm done debating you.

I don't think any debate between us is going to be productive. We don't share enough common ground with the most basic assumptions. So I'm not going to try anymore.

It's nothing personal.

(April 6, 2016 at 12:25 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't think any debate between us is going to be productive. We don't share enough common ground with the most basic assumptions...It's nothing personal.

I understand. I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone or winning a debate. This may not apply to you specifically, but many AF members, atheists and theists alike, end up talking past one another simply because they have completely different starting points - not about God's existence or the authority of Scripture per se - but the underlying pre-commitments they hold even before those questions come up.

Lately, I've been more interested in recognizing those differences about fundamental assumptions, because without a shared understanding of the basics, you are right, nothing much will be accomplished. At the same time, you seem to believe that you have outlined all the reasons why, for example, you think Aquinas fails. Those conclusions may rightly follow from a specific set of assumptions other than those made within the Scholastic tradition. You would not make those objections if you did not believe your fundamental assumptions were better ones, true? As for me, I always ask if the assumptions I make in one area, like theology, have wider implications to other areas like science, ethics, and aesthetics. You may not believe this but I was not always a believer, much less a student of Swedenborg. I changed to have a somewhat cohesive philosophy of life. I try to use the same basic assumptions across the board which is why I am no longer an atheist.

(April 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 12:25 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't think any debate between us is going to be productive. We don't share enough common ground with the most basic assumptions...It's nothing personal.

I understand. I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone or winning a debate. This may not apply to you specifically, but many AF members, atheists and theists alike, end up talking past one another simply because they have completely different starting points - not about God's existence or the authority of Scripture per se - but the underlying pre-commitments they hold even before those questions come up.

Lately, I've been more interested in recognizing those differences about fundamental assumptions, because without a shared understanding of the basics, you are  right, nothing much will be accomplished. At the same time, you seem to believe that you have outlined all the reasons why, for example, you think Aquinas fails. Those conclusions may rightly follow from a specific set of assumptions other than those made within the Scholastic tradition. You would not make those objections if you did not believe your fundamental assumptions were better ones, true? As for me, I always ask if the assumptions I make in one area, like theology, have wider implications to other areas like science, ethics, and aesthetics. You may not believe this but I was not always a believer, much less a student of Swedenborg. I changed to have a somewhat cohesive philosophy of life. I try to use the same basic assumptions across the board which is why I am no longer an atheist.

Indeed what is a god and how does it do what its supposed to? Never seen a good coherent definition or an explanation of how its supposed to operate.

I was a bit rude and I apologise. Everything you wrote, in my opinion, was entirely a red herring and of no consequence to any of my points. But that's just for your information and those following at home. I really see no point continuing. You probably think it was all relevant, so again, not much point.

I could state what I think the difference between me and you is when it comes to assumptions, but I don't think that would be productive either. Yes, I do believe I've totally dismantled Aquinas, both in my video and before by dissecting all the logical fallacies. Obviously you don't agree. I'll leave it up to the reader as to who has made the better case. I'm not in the business of announcing myself a winner. I'm always open to being convinced, but sadly you haven't convinced me of anything.

On that note, I shall wave our debates goodbye.

(April 6, 2016 at 2:29 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Never seen a good coherent definition or an explanation of how its supposed to operate.

I would suggest that you haven't really dipped your feet into the more profound theological works. Spinoza put forth a very good summary of Pantheism. Whitehead fairly represents Panentheism. Plotinus is a good start for the "God of the Philosophers" also called classical monotheism. Thomas Aquinas goes into considerable depth developing the Christian God. So unless you were hoping for a two sentence dictionary entry, I really cannot understand how anyone can consider these various conceptions of God ill-defined. As for incoherent, I think that demonstrating that Spinoza, for one, is incoherent would be a herculean task, imo, and a critique of Aquinas deserves a more comprehensive treatment than most here are willing to give.