RE: The Case for Theism
March 5, 2013 at 11:33 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 11:44 pm by Whateverist.)
(March 5, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Do you just 'lack belief' in the existence of Santa Claus or toothfaires? Or are you fairly certain they don't exist since you put them in the same category as God?
My best guess is that it is all silly-stuff. But I have no reason to worry about it and am uninspired to form an opinion.
(March 5, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I don't have faith in God, I believe God exists due to evidence in favor of that belief as well as lack of evidence of some other mechanism that can account for our existence.
Well have fun convincing Genkhaus. Personally I'm unimpressed with 'reasoned' arguments about silly stuff. Like him you will sneak in your bias and build sand castles from there.
(March 5, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: My understanding is an agnostic claims there isn't enough evidence pro or con to beileve God exists. I actually loathe that position. Its like people who check undecided on a survey. Why bother? Its my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator but I could be wrong.
You should get on well with Genkhaus. Like you he is no middle of the roader. He is your kind of atheist. To me atheism, like theism, is much ado about nothing much. I'll leave it to the two of you to hash out whose arguments best support your own bias on these 'vital' questions.
(March 5, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Thats up to the individual. However, if we do owe our existence to God, then any belief that believe in God is at least partially right.
Sorry, I didn't quite hear your answer. Which God is it you think is the real McCoy, the one that all the others are at least partially right in as much as they allow for the category that includes your fave?
(March 5, 2013 at 11:20 pm)genkaus Wrote: But the fact that philosophy disagrees with you means that you are wrong.
I would have thought such boasts were on par with those who claim to know what 'the facts' are according to science. Science doesn't trade in facts, it is about establishing which theories are best supported by evidence. It doesn't declare winners. Like science, philosophy is an approach to certain questions - generally ones too poorly defined to be decided in a straightforward manner. I'm unaware of any volume containing the settled positions to these questions which have become the orthodoxy of philosophy and endorsed by philosophers everywhere.
