(July 17, 2013 at 4:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No the bible is evidence. The claims are meaningless without faith. Foolish and folly.

Evidence in the exact same way that the Koran, The Vedas, Gurū Granth Sāhib, Avestan are evidence for the truth of Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, right?

Faith is not a virtue, it is gullibility.

1.5 billion Muslims and 1.1 billion Hindus have faith. According to you, they have faith in the 'wrong' god. According to them, you do.

And none of you can support your claims with anything other than fallacious arguments and faith.

Quote:You are required to consider the evidence honestly. Acting upon that information is you embracing the assumption of God.

I pride myself on the ability to consider all evidence honestly. As soon as I am presented with some, I will evaluate it honestly.

Quote:Like I said, God can't be provable. Of course the proofs fail.

I am not looking for proof. Just compelling evidence and reasoned argument.

I understand my faith to be the next evolutionary step to other faiths. All faiths address the same subject.

I wish you well in your search.

(July 16, 2013 at 12:51 am)genkaus Wrote: My point was, rather than granting contradictory moral premises and formulating an argument around them, you could've just as simply pointed out the contradiction and saved yourself the trouble.

Hm, indeed. However, I plan on running this argument sometimes and I honestly wouldn't want to deal with the hassle of trying to get monotheists to accept that, so I figure putting it in a deductive argument makes it more obvious when they're BSing.

Quote:They are starting to. A lot of theologians have tried to reconcile different religions by using this argument.

Huh. That's a little odd to me, but good to know. Thanks.

Quote:You missed the point here. Saying that "X acts according to its nature" is a tautological statement. That's because X's nature is determined by how X acts. The statement doesn't tell us anything about X or its nature - its just another way of saying "X does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't do".

Oh, I did miss that. But wouldn't it make more sense to say "How X acts is dependent on X's nature", not the other way around? Unless you're, say, referring our epistemic situation with regards to inferring X's nature from its actions?

Quote:Accepting that god acts contrary to his nature would be self-contradictory. It'd mean that the theist has given up on any pretensions that this being is subject to logic or laws of reality.

Ah, good point. But didn't you earlier state that you were surprised Christians/Muslims didn't take that position, since "it'd leave their opponent without a refutation"?

(July 18, 2013 at 12:00 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Oh, I did miss that. But wouldn't it make more sense to say "How X acts is dependent on X's nature", not the other way around? Unless you're, say, referring our epistemic situation with regards to inferring X's nature from its actions?

I may be missing the point here, but more sense in regard to what?

(July 18, 2013 at 12:00 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Ah, good point. But didn't you earlier state that you were surprised Christians/Muslims didn't take that position, since "it'd leave their opponent without a refutation"?

Exactly. Once you state that the thing you are referring to is not subject to logic, how can there be a logical refutation?

(July 18, 2013 at 12:07 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 12:00 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Oh, I did miss that. But wouldn't it make more sense to say "How X acts is dependent on X's nature", not the other way around? Unless you're, say, referring our epistemic situation with regards to inferring X's nature from its actions?

I may be missing the point here, but more sense in regard to what?

I thought I was a bit unclear when I posted it.

What I mesn is, you said "X's nature depends on how X acts", and my question was that wouldn't it make more sense to say the reverse? That X's actions are dependent on its nature?

Quote:

(July 18, 2013 at 12:00 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Ah, good point. But didn't you earlier state that you were surprised Christians/Muslims didn't take that position, since "it'd leave their opponent without a refutation"?

Exactly. Once you state that the thing you are referring to is not subject to logic, how can there be a logical refutation?

Ooh, that is a good one. My mind was almost blown there. xD That'd put theists in an interesting situation.

(July 18, 2013 at 12:15 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I thought I was a bit unclear when I posted it.

What I mesn is, you said "X's nature depends on how X acts", and my question was that wouldn't it make more sense to say the reverse? That X's actions are dependent on its nature?

That's the thing about tautological statements - either way makes equal sense. For example,
A. All bachelors are unmarried men.
B. All unmarried men are bachelors.

The statement is the same (and equally pointless) either way.

(July 18, 2013 at 12:07 am)genkaus Wrote: Once you state that the thing you are referring to is not subject to logic, how can there be a logical refutation?

Very many religions state this. Islam is a case in point. They simply state that Allah is beyond understanding. (the Qur'an ads contradictory attributes)

(July 18, 2013 at 2:20 am)fr0d0 Wrote: They simply state that Allah is beyond understanding.

The fiction writers of early religions were smart enough to include the Unknowable Clause, but they were not bright enough to understand the evolution of man and his mind to reason, which in time would be the eventual downfall of religion. It certainly seems to be taking an awfully long time, but then again religion has done a great deal of damage.

That doesn't explain the increased ignorance of people like yourself towards religion Maelstrom. It kind of disproves it.

(July 18, 2013 at 2:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: That doesn't explain the increased ignorance of people like yourself towards religion Maelstrom. It kind of disproves it.

I have studied religion and I understand its evolution better than most. Unlike the theists who profess blind faith in something simply because it gives them tingly feelings when they are depressed, I have objectively learned that religion is merely something primitive man created in his infancy to explain a world he knew nothing about and an origin about which he was clueless. Oral tradition of myth gets passed on, and unfortunately the mythology made it to print where ignorant men daily continue to think it is factual.