RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 21, 2019 at 8:35 am
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2019 at 8:37 am by Belacqua.)
(March 21, 2019 at 8:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Logical arguments do not function as fact-gathering tools. They begin with assumptions that, if sound, will be fact-based, and yield conclusions from there.
For example, Aristotle's whole argument for a First Mover begins from two premises:
1) things change, and
2) change is caused by something.
Those seemed self-evident to people for a long time. The rest of the argument pretty much goes from there, without the need for more premises.
I understand that people now tend to think the second premise is not believable. Maybe so.
Quote:If you're talking about evidence, you're talking about science.
This is your metaphysical commitment. I guess it seems so self-evident to you that it needs no defending. I'm not going to argue with you about it.
By the way, does your screen name refer to Albert Camus? Have you ever read his book Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism? I found that really helpful at one point in my career. Atheists really knew what they were talking about in those days.