Dualism

[fr0d0]

Hello Rabbit. Sorry for the short break - I had to go sort out some stuff for my Mother (she lives some distance away) and was offline for the weekend as a result.

Post #94

I didn't mean that applying logic to everything religious was illogical.. I meant: applying the same logical reasoning that faith does not require proof to the whole of religion was illogical.

"argumentum ad populam (appeal to the masses)."
YOU SAID my reply went against standard Christianity. I was simply refuting that. It matters not to me if I'm in the majority or minority. My challenge was for you to find one example to refute my position (that any Christian has actual conclusive, verifiable proof of God's existence), which you have not.
You're completely off subject suggesting that I believe something simply because it's popular. That's a completely nonsensical conclusion. Nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. And couldn't be further from the truth.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

Absolutelt not. You completely misunderstand again. 'Not provable' as in made by God or not.. is what I'm saying.

I'm happy with it that people belief without conclusive proof but I'm sceptical about the idea that the choice of a SPECIFIC belief, such as a monotheistic belief, out of the vast array of all possible beliefs (such as non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs) needs no other justification than the choice itself. This is a what Dennett would identify as a skyhook, from all possibilities a particular possibility is claimed out of nowhere. This is illogical and certainly is NOT rationalisation, which you claim it to be.

Like I've said, you are absolutely right that faith is indiscriminate. Faith would support belief in the nonsensical right through to the supremely sensible. What divides these potential beliefs is the resultant belief set and not the subject of faith. this is how believers logically discern between them. Yes yes yes, there is not reason from the faith statement alone to believe anything. Faith doesn't work alone.

Post #96

You seem to assert that the answer on A is positive:
A+: "faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof"
But not the positive answer on B:
B+: "faith in general does not require proof"

So from the above, you see I think A+ and B+ are the same. So you are wrong.
It seems you need to re-calibrate your lasers but I'll carry on just in case it'd be helpful to you.

A++: "the existence of the christian god does not require proof and is a true statement"
Constantly in your answers there is that mix of A+ and A++.
If I am wrong about this please say so.

A++ - I'm far more tentative with my assertion that this is a truth, but I would apply the truth to all faith, not singling it out to Christianity alone. It simply seems to fit the way God is defined in Christianity for one. Unless I am mistaken.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

So we're talking hypothetical reasoning that is also provable?
I take the definition of God as outlined in the Christian Bible. I also find God defined in an infinite other sources but perhaps you could get your teeth into that one. The reasoning is consistent to the nature of this God.

Post #97

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

True: 1, 2, 3, 6.