Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]
March 20, 2014 at 2:06 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2014 at 2:10 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(March 19, 2014 at 8:17 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(March 19, 2014 at 4:00 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're addressing a superficial definition of faith commonly held by the ignorant. Ignorance is prevellant everywhere.
A further backpedal from your earlier claims. First you held "the true" Christian view, then yiu held the mainstream one and now you apparently hold a view that is apparently not the common view, as only the ignorant hold it.
*slow clap*
You see, you're making progress.
Quote:Never have you addressed my point that the philosophers that you cite could be taking about something else.
I'm sorry, but you are being ridiculous here and seems rather dishonest. They are NOT talking about something different, they explicitly talk about the relationship between rationality and faith in Christianity. That's why I told you to read Kierkegaard's book "Fear and Trembling" because that's what the book's central theme explores.
Quote: I'm totally disinterested in reading them as they don't address my faith, only philosophy.
Except they do. Each of them goes through an investigation of faith to give their reasons why they think in some sense it must be irrational. They directly address your faith. Just saying that they don't is merely you demonstrating your ignorance of their writings, which aren't merely about philosophy.
Quote:Why should apologetics and theology not also fall foul occasionally rampant?
To do apologetics is to defend a particular theological and philosophical position.
A flawed position in need of an entire discipline to defend it, unlike any other area of philosophy.
It begins with the presumption that a set of beliefs are correct, and seeks (unsuccessfully) to defend them. Apologetics is the inverse of the application of logic and reason to discover justified true beliefs about the world.
Furthermore, this "if any philosophy is flawed all of it is equally flawed" angle is another ridiculous attempt at switching the burden of proof around to those who don't presuppose truth without investigation, so that none need be provided by those who do.
It is an entire field based on special pleading.
