(November 3, 2014 at 4:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Here's what confuses me. I have exactly the same epidemiological stance, apply reason to experience, and yet I reach a different conclusion, i.e. God exists. Why then, is my belief in God a worldview and your opposite conclusion not one? Moreover, having reached that conclusion I can carry that over as the premise of further inquiry. Why are atheists incapable of doing the same?
(November 3, 2014 at 4:12 pm)Faith No More Wrote: But you don't have the same epistemological stance that we do, which is most apparent in your use of Aristotelian ideals.I don’t see the difference. In the context of a previous post, the stance was defined as reason applied to experience. Aristotelian and Neo-Scholastic metaphysics come out of that approach just as much as any other metaphysical position.
(November 3, 2014 at 4:12 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Your belief in god is a worldview because your conclusion leads to philosophical consequences that affect your perspective on everything that exists, while the lack of belief in god simply entails that further information is needed to create a complete worldview.Truly, I believe you’re reaching. You cannot honestly believe that atheism doesn’t affect subsequent inquiry. Ruling out options, like divine influence over physical reality, is one such philosophical consequence.
