(October 11, 2022 at 6:28 pm)R00tKiT Wrote:(October 11, 2022 at 6:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I really could not care less about exegesis of the Quran or Bible or any other religious text.
And yet you accused a highly acclaimed scholar of twisting the verses of the central religious text to fit his needs, this is an extremely serious accusation that requires formidable evidence. I guess I'll just ignore from now on what you said about al-Ghazali and fundamentalism.
Anything involving prophecy being realized, outside of science, is making stuff up.
The effect of Al Ghazali's teachings were the decline of the Arabic Golden age and the adoption of an attitude that makes actual intellectual progress impossible. Closing the gates of ijtihad is one of the many things that lead to the decline of the Islamic civilization.
[
Quote:(October 11, 2022 at 6:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, if you make false assumptions, you will deduce false conclusions.
That's actually not true. I recall you have a solid background in math, and so you must know that false propositions can in principle lead to true propositions.
0=1 leads to 0=0 when we multiply both sides by 0, and yet "0=1" is a false proposition, but 0=0 is true.
But sure, false assumptions are not a reliable way to apprehend reality. The thing is, you actually have to prove that they are false. Remember, the burden of proof is on you because you're asserting that some assumptions are false.
If you use false assumptions, you are guaranteed that some of your conclusions will be false. If you use contradictory assumptions, you can prove *every* statement, true or false.
Quote:(October 11, 2022 at 6:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote: As for the impossibility of God: first define, precisely, what you mean by 'God'.
God : a personal creator of the universe, -and hence outside of the universe, that is omnipotent and omniscient.
Prove it's impossible for this creator to exist. Good luck.
What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'universe'? I define it as the collection of all that exists. So there cannot be anything that exists outside of it.
If you have a different definition, please give it.
Quote:(October 11, 2022 at 6:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote: if you believe otherwise, give a precise definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural' as well and we can discuss.
I don't think this natural/supernatural distinction has much interest, despite its frequent occurence in this kind of discussions. The term "natural", in this context, might stand for anything that is not the product of human intelligence, and sometimes it's defined as anything that isn't the product of any intelligence, which obviously smuggles the conclusion that theism is false.
So, these words are semantic games that can be very misleading, and sometimes make it easier for the atheist to smuggle the conclusions they want.
So you don't consider humans and human creations to be part of the natural world? Strange definition.
So is God the product of human intelligence? No. So God is natural by your definition. Hence God is NOT outside of the natural world.
Requiring precision of language means that theists can't use their ambiguous terminology to twist meanings and confuse things. That isn't 'smuggling the conclusions', it is staying precise and careful in our reasoning.
