RE: Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?
August 9, 2012 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2012 at 8:25 pm by CliveStaples.)
(August 9, 2012 at 7:48 pm)Annik Wrote: Whoever wrote this survey needs to do a little research into leading questions.
What do you mean? These questions aren't 'leading' in the sense that they indicate a preferred response; they are 'leading' in the sense that they have a basic "yes/no/I don't know" response format. Most surveys don't ask open-ended questions, because the answers are much harder to quantify.
(August 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm)padraic Wrote: A trap of sophistry into which I will not be drawn.
My position: God cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand proof,period.
...so you'll ignore logical proof?
(August 9, 2012 at 7:57 pm)Gambit Wrote: Right, maybe I'm missing something here but the answers are: It seems not - It seems so - I can't say. To me, those answers are leading. For instance, "It seems not", is not "No, it cannot/isn't". "It seems so", is not, "Yes it is". And "I can't say", is, "It's possible, but I don't know either way". There aren't enough responses and room to elaborate for the survey to draw truly logical conclusions. Am I just having a brain fart here?
I don't want to be insulting, but I think you are. In this context, "I can't say" means "I do not grant that this is true, nor do I grant that this is false". "It seems so" doesn't mean "I think it absolutely must be true", but something more like, "Yeah, that seems reasonable."
Quote:EDIT: Even if most atheists arrived at the answer that yes, an Necessary being exists, all that proves is that they're responding to questions in a particular way because they can't know the answers. As Padraic pointed out, that simply points to a lack of evidence. All the exercise shows is that people can explore a path of "what ifs", however, still dismiss a thing due to lack of verifiable evidence.
This seems to ignore the implication of their beliefs; if the implication of "I don't know" to A, B, and C, and "Yeah, it seems so" to X, Y, and Z, is that "A necessary being exists", you can't just say, "But I said I didn't know A, B, and C, so you can't conclude that a necessary being exists!" You're ignoring what a proof is.
(August 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ah - a Necessary Nonentity.
Courtesy of Rasmussen's CV: “From a Necessary Being to God,” International Journal of Philosophy of Religion (2009). Oh yes, definitely no bias here.
Bias? The only arguments that are offered are based purely on logic. Where's the bias?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
