RE: Rational belief
September 20, 2010 at 4:22 pm
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm by Captain Scarlet.)
(September 19, 2010 at 10:42 pm)tackattack Wrote: Yes Void I'll give it a go when I have a free moment.Can't be done without committing yourself to informal fallacies. Cosmological and Design arguments rely on the Ontological status of God and have been thoroughly pulled down. Plantingas modal argument is unconvincing. All thats left is the appeal to TAG, biblical authority and personal experience. Hardly a beauty parade of convincing argumentation. Sneer over!
(September 20, 2010 at 5:51 am)Rayaan Wrote: I don't think it's possible to prove God through logical analysis. Why? Because to do that we have to know certain things and/or qualities of God which are not possible to know, and therefore, we can't be too sure if all the premises are true or not. We have to understand all of God's attributes before we try to form any statements about Him. However, that is not possible since this is something beyond our knowledge.I think this is an honest response but also a bitterly disappointing one. If you cannot define what you believe in, how do you know you believe in it? It places you in a position of intellectual bankruptcy (and I don't beleive you are incapable of rational thought). It is the equivalent of saying:
"I believe in Superman. I read it in a book and saw a movie. I do not know of supermans powers, nature nor attributes. I have no empirical evidence of supermans existence. I cannot define superman nor what he is. But he exists outside of any reality I can describe and understand."
What is the difference between my position on superman and your belief in a god (apart from the age of the supporting texts)?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
