Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Why not deism?
September 25, 2019 at 1:09 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2019 at 1:10 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 19, 2019 at 10:59 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I agree that the fundies around you won't have good evidence. But I do think that authoritative testimony and logical proofs certainly are evidence, depending on the topic. (I suppose people disagree on who is "authoritative" -- that's something else that needs arguing out.)
What exactly is 'authoritative testimony' in the context you are using it?
Please give me an example of something that could be considered 'authoritative testimony'.
Logical proofs (I suppose you mean: Kalam, teleological, ontological, etc?) are only evidence if they are valid and sound. None, I repeat, none of the so called logical proofs for the existence of gods, are both valid and sound. So, there is that...
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Why not deism?
September 25, 2019 at 4:14 pm
(September 25, 2019 at 1:09 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (September 19, 2019 at 10:59 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I agree that the fundies around you won't have good evidence. But I do think that authoritative testimony and logical proofs certainly are evidence, depending on the topic. (I suppose people disagree on who is "authoritative" -- that's something else that needs arguing out.)
What exactly is 'authoritative testimony' in the context you are using it?
Please give me an example of something that could be considered 'authoritative testimony'.
Logical proofs (I suppose you mean: Kalam, teleological, ontological, etc?) are only evidence if they are valid and sound. None, I repeat, none of the so called logical proofs for the existence of gods, are both valid and sound. So, there is that...
Agreed. And I do hope Belaqua isn't thinking theologians when he's talking about authoritative testimony, but we'll see what he means.
Posts: 2435
Threads: 21
Joined: May 5, 2017
Reputation:
26
RE: Why not deism?
September 25, 2019 at 5:44 pm
Well here's some authoritative testimony:
Quote:An old cowboy sat down at the bar and ordered a drink. As he sat sipping his drink, a young woman sat down next to him. She turned to the cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"
He replied, "Well, I've spent my whole life, breaking colts, working cows, going to rodeos, fixing fences, pulling calves, bailing hay, doctoring calves, cleaning my barn, fixing flats, working on tractors, and feeding my dogs, so I guess I am a cowboy."
She said, "I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. As soon as I get up in the morning, I think about women. When I shower, I think about women. When I watch TV, I think about women. I even think about women when I eat. It seems that everything makes me think of women."
The two sat sipping in silence.
A little while later, a man sat down on the other side of the old cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"
He replied, "I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian."
Or mebbie not, I just like the story.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
Posts: 692
Threads: 21
Joined: September 25, 2018
Reputation:
13
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 1:51 pm
An authoritative testimony should be information about the evidence discovered.
Typically you wouldn't have a lay person speaking about the evidence. You would have someone who has had a lot of experience in the field.
But the author of the testimony isnt all that important. Its the evidence that they are presenting that is important.
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
Posts: 67286
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 1:58 pm
Not true. The modal ontological is successful.
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!
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 2:28 pm
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2019 at 3:44 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 26, 2019 at 1:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not true. The modal ontological is successful.
Successful at what? Certainly not proving the existence of a god.
Not to mention, that many philosophers do not even accept S5 modal logic.
Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
How does one come to the conclusion, that it is even possible that a god exists? It may in fact, not be possible.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 5:29 pm
(September 26, 2019 at 2:28 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (September 26, 2019 at 1:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not true. The modal ontological is successful.
Successful at what? Certainly not proving the existence of a god.
Not to mention, that many philosophers do not even accept S5 modal logic.
Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
How does one come to the conclusion, that it is even possible that a god exists? It may in fact, not be possible.
Hence why it's a useless argument. At best it's valid, nothing more.
Posts: 35323
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 5:54 pm
Why not Zoidberg??
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 6:37 pm
(September 26, 2019 at 5:29 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (September 26, 2019 at 2:28 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Successful at what? Certainly not proving the existence of a god.
Not to mention, that many philosophers do not even accept S5 modal logic.
Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
How does one come to the conclusion, that it is even possible that a god exists? It may in fact, not be possible.
Hence why it's a useless argument. At best it's valid, nothing more.
I don't even think it's valid, though.
It seems to treat existence as if it's an attribute. As in:
This maximally great being has all the following attributes: A, B, C, D, etc.
But this maximally great being has all those same attributes, except it has one more attribute, it exists.
Doesn't something need to exist, before it can have any attributes?
Just saying...
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 46369
Threads: 540
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Why not deism?
September 26, 2019 at 6:49 pm
(September 26, 2019 at 1:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not true. The modal ontological is successful.
If you mean 'successful' in the sense that a lot of people have been paid to write about it, ok.
Other than that, not so much.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
|
