Claiming that theres a paradox does not do that - it's explicit acknowledgement of the issue of logical incoherence.

AKA, a mystery, a miracle. These frauds will argue until they're blue in the face about logic and possibility, but in the end, they don't give a shit - that's all a smokescreen of convenience. You can't prove them wrong because it's not impossible..they say..but when it is impossible..they say, it only proves them even moar right!

Goes like this.

"That can't be true."
-Sure it can, and if it can't, hosanna, a miracle..... qed!

(July 26, 2022 at 6:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Claiming that theres a paradox does not do that - it's explicit acknowledgement of the issue of logical incoherence.  

AKA, a mystery, a miracle....

This all started because I was replying to Kloro's presentation of the Kalam and saying to him that its veracity was dependent on specific metaphysical assumptions. Make different assumptions or use different first principles and you get different theological and philosophical outcomes. And the most important thing to understand about first principles is that there will never be universal agreement about what they are. Over the years I have found myself in many vigorous debates over Thomisic concepts during which I realized, the debate was not about any specific demonstration; but rather, about the underlying ontologies. The 5W only work in within the metaphyical framework of moderate realism. They do not work for nominalists. The Kalam works in eternalism (kinda) but not in presentism. And it seems to me anyway, that one's proof of God should come before you've extablished a theory of time.

(July 26, 2022 at 8:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 26, 2022 at 6:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Claiming that theres a paradox does not do that - it's explicit acknowledgement of the issue of logical incoherence.  

AKA, a mystery, a miracle....

This all started because I was replying to Kloro's presentation of the Kalam and saying to him that its veracity was dependent on specific metaphysical assumptions. Make different assumptions or use different first principles and you get different theological and philosophical outcomes.

Absolutely.  

Quote:And the most important thing to understand about first principles is that there will never be universal agreement about what they are. Over the years I have found myself in many vigorous debates over Thomisic concepts during which I realized, the debate was not about any specific demonstration; but rather, about the underlying ontologies. The 5W only work in within the metaphyical framework of moderate realism. They do not work for nominalists. The Kalam works in eteranalism (kinda) but not in presentism. And it seems to me anyway, that one's proof of God should come before you've extablished a theory of time.

I wouldn't even saddle a god with time, as an argument, myself.  A god that exists in time is still a god that exists.

(July 26, 2022 at 8:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: And the most important thing to understand about first principles is that there will never be universal agreement about what they are.

Not true among scientists; in fact, the exact opposite.

i'll see if i can contribute anything. first, Jefe817: do you understand that i wasnt trying to offend you when i encouraged you to pursue your faith, and does my statement make any more sense to you now?

(July 26, 2022 at 9:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 26, 2022 at 8:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: And the most important thing to understand about first principles is that there will never be universal agreement about what they are.

Not true among scientists; in fact, the exact opposite.

Are you saying that all scientists, as men and women, share identical first principles OR simply that professional practice dictates a narrowly focused epistomolgy? Or something else.

All science shares first principles..thus, in their capacity as scientists, all scientists share first principles. They may still disagree on the bestest flavor of ice cream , by their disparate first principles of bestest...as people, but they would not be speaking scientifically, as scientists...... when personally opining on the bestest flavor of ice cream. That's kind of the point of science. A standard schema in which all x-type claims are accurately presented and addressed uniformly.

OFC...credible and honest apologetics have literally nothing to do with poo-pooing science, or scientists...so go off. I'm sure it will make a difference!

(July 27, 2022 at 2:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 26, 2022 at 9:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Not true among scientists; in fact, the exact opposite.

Are you saying that all scientists, as men and women, share identical first principles OR simply that professional practice dictates a narrowly focused epistomolgy? Or something else.

Scientific first principles are universal, things like the Conservation laws, empirical observation, testability, repeatability, predictability and falsifiability of theories, philosophical realism, methodological naturalism, etc.

I think that's the disconnect. When I exhaust philosophical realism and methodological naturalism...then and only then, would I resort to gods, even if I believed in gods. I have not yet exhausted either thing...and so I don't. Further, I do not see how gods conceivably could solve the problems of philosophical realism and methodological naturalism, factually, and so I don't.

-and on top of that, I know quite a bit about gods. That's why I self identify as a gnostic atheist. I think that whatever is true, we already know enough about gods to say...... "not that".