I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum, apologies if I am not, first time posting and all that.
After a debate I had with a christian the other day, she was taken my argument and passed it on to someone else to answer it. Basically, this other person has emailed me taking up the christian corner as it were!
When it comes to psychology I'm all there, but philosophy isn't an area I have studied. Basically I'm about to post the email that he sent below, he's banging on about Metaphysucal Naturalism and the like... I'll be honest and admit I don't clearly understand what that is! It just looks to me like its an attempt to bamboozal me with a load of technicality and nonsense and over collude my original premise (which was basically that it was illogical to take the bible as read and believe all the nonsense that was in there). However, I'd actually like to throw and email back at him in response rather saying "I don't know what you're talking about"!!! If I post the email below here, is there anyone philosophically savvy enough who could formulate a coherent and concise response (thus sparing me the time to have to get a degree in philosophy from Cambridge University!).... I look forward (and hope to learn a great deal) from your responses. Many thanks in anticipation...
The email in question:
Conversation started today
14:35
Yochanan יהוה-הוא-אדיב Lilley
Hello Paul
Sorry to just appear out of no where. I was around Lindsay's house the other day and she told me about a conversation you guys were having, and I said to her I would like to address some of the issues of atheism vs Theism that you guys were discussing.
As far I could see you had not made any positive arguments for atheism really, which we can address later if you wish to converse
If I may I will just state that In my studies of philosophy I have realised two things.
Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality, and secondly I have particularly found the World Views which atheism has as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism, Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in making sense of reality...
Now I am sending you a few deductive arguments I have written showing the rational coherency of Christian Theism as apposed to atheism.
In a deductive argument if the premises are true the conclusion (logically) has to be true (as long the argument is valid).
So unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument.
That is how a deductive arguments work. So if you disagree with the argument, please address which premise you disagree with and why...
These are a few of the argument:
>>>Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?<<<
Nope.
the-necessity-of-his-existencenature/1401941063360572
>>>C.S. Lewis’ argument from reason against naturalistic atheism...<<<
Nope.
>>>Epistemic argument for GOD; why we can not perceive reality unless GOD exists...<<<
Nope.>>>Argument for GOD from human agency and it's fundamental nature...<<<
Nope.
>>>Darwinian tautology refuted...<<<
Nope.
>>>The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties (In response to R. Dawkins)...<<<
Nope.
After a debate I had with a christian the other day, she was taken my argument and passed it on to someone else to answer it. Basically, this other person has emailed me taking up the christian corner as it were!
When it comes to psychology I'm all there, but philosophy isn't an area I have studied. Basically I'm about to post the email that he sent below, he's banging on about Metaphysucal Naturalism and the like... I'll be honest and admit I don't clearly understand what that is! It just looks to me like its an attempt to bamboozal me with a load of technicality and nonsense and over collude my original premise (which was basically that it was illogical to take the bible as read and believe all the nonsense that was in there). However, I'd actually like to throw and email back at him in response rather saying "I don't know what you're talking about"!!! If I post the email below here, is there anyone philosophically savvy enough who could formulate a coherent and concise response (thus sparing me the time to have to get a degree in philosophy from Cambridge University!).... I look forward (and hope to learn a great deal) from your responses. Many thanks in anticipation...
The email in question:
Conversation started today
14:35
Yochanan יהוה-הוא-אדיב Lilley
Hello Paul
Sorry to just appear out of no where. I was around Lindsay's house the other day and she told me about a conversation you guys were having, and I said to her I would like to address some of the issues of atheism vs Theism that you guys were discussing.
As far I could see you had not made any positive arguments for atheism really, which we can address later if you wish to converse
If I may I will just state that In my studies of philosophy I have realised two things.
Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality, and secondly I have particularly found the World Views which atheism has as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism, Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in making sense of reality...
Now I am sending you a few deductive arguments I have written showing the rational coherency of Christian Theism as apposed to atheism.
In a deductive argument if the premises are true the conclusion (logically) has to be true (as long the argument is valid).
So unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument.
That is how a deductive arguments work. So if you disagree with the argument, please address which premise you disagree with and why...
These are a few of the argument:
>>>Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?<<<
Nope.
the-necessity-of-his-existencenature/1401941063360572
>>>C.S. Lewis’ argument from reason against naturalistic atheism...<<<
Nope.
>>>Epistemic argument for GOD; why we can not perceive reality unless GOD exists...<<<
Nope.>>>Argument for GOD from human agency and it's fundamental nature...<<<
Nope.
>>>Darwinian tautology refuted...<<<
Nope.
>>>The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties (In response to R. Dawkins)...<<<
Nope.
