Sorry about the delay. I was rather preoccupied over the holidays.
It astounds me that you felt it worthwhile to actually type all that. Ah well. It is at least revealing.
Indeed.
So you cannot understand why I believe thus and so. That is fine. But since that is also entirely irrelevant I am going to ignore it.
(Maybe others have been willing to wander down these rabbit trails, but I am not. Let us stick to the logically relevant.)
Yes, I am quite sure that was it.
So you assert; but that is compelling only to the already convinced.
That follows only on a correspondence theory of truth, which I do not hold—and the statement was mine. If the statement was yours, then it could be said that "true" was one of the criteria. Please attempt to remove your metaphysical blinders every now and then.
I do not presuppose the truth of my worldview when evaluating another; that is question-begging foolishness, a fact which escapes the notice of far too many here. But obviously I presuppose the truth of my worldview when expressing and defending it. Not to put too fine a point on it but, "Duh." And this worldview holds itself as not only true but necessarily true. That is why the "existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" would disprove Christianity entirely for me, for such a thing should be impossible.
Ipse dixit ... [yawn]
Your fellow atheists who already agree with this are of course nodding in agreement. But just how satisfying can an echo chamber really be for you?
Maybe that's all you need: to be convincing for the already convinced. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Wrong. I reject it because it is self-defeating (i.e., quite apart from my own worldview).
That's probably because you misunderstand what self-attesting means here.
(December 15, 2012 at 8:56 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Where I come from, "without" refers simply to not having something whereas "within" means sometimes originates from inside and invokes spatial imagery. I've never heard the term "without" used in the context of something getting something from outside itself. It's always meant simply not having something. You're using the word to describe something having something that originated from another source. Is this some difference between normal American english and Canadian? I guess I'm "aboot" to find out.
I just looked it up in my American Oxford dictionary. It says the way you use "without" is an "archaic" usage. Shall we then also start using 'f' for small 's's and saying "ye", and "whither" and "'tis"? That sounds like a gay time.
It astounds me that you felt it worthwhile to actually type all that. Ah well. It is at least revealing.
(December 15, 2012 at 8:56 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Maybe those things exists. I don't know.
Indeed.
(December 15, 2012 at 8:56 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I just can't understand why you would believe such things exists. Is it simply because you want to believe in them? Explain why you believe the Christian God exists and ... [snip rest]
So you cannot understand why I believe thus and so. That is fine. But since that is also entirely irrelevant I am going to ignore it.
(Maybe others have been willing to wander down these rabbit trails, but I am not. Let us stick to the logically relevant.)
(December 15, 2012 at 8:56 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.
Yes, I am quite sure that was it.
(December 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: No, it isn't. It contains many factual errors and internal contradictions that make it inconsistent with reality.
So you assert; but that is compelling only to the already convinced.
(December 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: Yes, it was. Something is considered to be true if it is consistent with its premises and/or consistent with reality. One of your requirements was "consistent with itself and the world we live in", i.e. true.
That follows only on a correspondence theory of truth, which I do not hold—and the statement was mine. If the statement was yours, then it could be said that "true" was one of the criteria. Please attempt to remove your metaphysical blinders every now and then.
(December 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: First of all, thanks for proving me right. By making a statement like "Christianity is the only worldview that is true necessarily", you've shown that you do presuppose the truth of your own worldview and measure that of others by it. Your previous statement regarding existence of god, angels, demons etc. further proves it.
I do not presuppose the truth of my worldview when evaluating another; that is question-begging foolishness, a fact which escapes the notice of far too many here. But obviously I presuppose the truth of my worldview when expressing and defending it. Not to put too fine a point on it but, "Duh." And this worldview holds itself as not only true but necessarily true. That is why the "existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" would disprove Christianity entirely for me, for such a thing should be impossible.
(December 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: ... self-contradictions, factual and logical errors in the Bible ...
Ipse dixit ... [yawn]
Your fellow atheists who already agree with this are of course nodding in agreement. But just how satisfying can an echo chamber really be for you?
Maybe that's all you need: to be convincing for the already convinced. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
(December 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)genkaus Wrote: And finally, there are many other philosophies and worldviews which do qualify the criteria of being "self-attesting, logically coherent and consistent with itself and the world we live in" - naturalism being the first to come to mind. The only reason you don't accept it is because of your pressuposition of truth of your worldview.
Wrong. I reject it because it is self-defeating (i.e., quite apart from my own worldview).
(December 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm)apophenia Wrote: I'm wondering why a worldview that is self-attesting needs an apologetic. Or a priestly class.
That's probably because you misunderstand what self-attesting means here.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
