Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: September 23, 2024, 12:20 pm
Thread Rating:
|
On Hell and Forgiveness
|
 (August 30, 2018 at 1:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 1:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I thought I *did* answer. I said very clearly that I would go for truth over love and facts over fulfillment. I don't know. Is God 'truth' as well as being 'love'? is there a difference (I think there is)?  RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2018 at 1:14 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference... Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations. Now as to whether a probabilistic argument favors the existence of God, I personally do not see how one can assign those probabilities in a fair and objective way. The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.
<insert profound quote here>
(August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: To be evidence concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to. I agree. But to believe in things that are not in evidence and for reasons that are countered by actual facts is a delusion as well as being wrong.
The strongest objections to gods have -always- been those objections which would hold even if there were gods. It's a common mistake of the faithful to imagine that the mere existence of a god would cause everyone to drop to their knees and shout hosanna.
I don't have to be confronted with a hypothetical god, I can find their analogs right here in life..my rejection of those people is an expression of the same position that would be applied to hypothetical gods. I don't need to go to heaven to meet this sort of being, there are plenty here on earth.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 (August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions. Reasonable people can disagree, until something unreasonable is introduced as falsely reasonable. When it comes to matters of religious faith, it is only reasonable to comprehend that one preferring the fantasy disconnected from reality has issues relational to delusion.  Quote:I guess I need further clarification, because I'm not sure what that implies. Does this mean you would accept or reject God in the scenario I presented?You can't accept or reject that which makes no sense .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb  (August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference... Hypothetically speaking, would God raising someone from the dead after, say, oh, I don't know, a public crucifixion qualify as a "piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction?" Asking for a friend.
I have reasonable disagreements with my wife. Nevertheless, not every christian is as reasonable in their beliefs -as- my wife.....so....?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 30, 2018 at 1:12 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations. And I do not believe either of those conditions have been meet with respect to mainstream Christian beliefs, or at least those that I understand to be such.
<insert profound quote here>
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 36 Guest(s)
