RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
September 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Well, I think some of what he said applies, but I also agree that the "proofs" are not convincing no matter how many times they are repeated. If this forum has taught me anything it is this: atheists can be just as irrational in their denials as Christians can be in their assertions.
What bothers me most about these arguments is the fact that they do not rest in or lead into a more expansive philosophical understanding. They just kinda stop as in, "Okay I proved God, now let's talk about Jesus."
What bothers me most about these arguments is the fact that they do not rest in or lead into a more expansive philosophical understanding. They just kinda stop as in, "Okay I proved God, now let's talk about Jesus."
Quote:Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality...Even as a Christian, I don't think so. Spinoza comes to mind.
Quote:...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...I think he has this backwards, atheism is not the foundation, but rather the conclusion of naturalism. The problem with naturalism (in my view) is not that is leads to atheism per se. Instead, naturalism unnessesarrily restricts what can be included in reality and in doing so fails to address fundamental phenomena (not all of which require theistic support).
Quote:unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument. That is how a deductive arguments work.Bite me. For those of you that consider me a pompous ass, I refer you to this condescending statement.
