A Serious Question For Theists

[fr0d0]

I'm referring to any source of information Tonus

[Jackalope]

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

The empiricist cannot move past the fact that there cannot be independently verifiable evidence. He remains with a null answer.

Now you guys say that this isn't a rational explanation exactly because you are illogically married to the notion that there has to be some empirical evidence for any idea to have merit.

It's an explanation of the difference between rationalism and empiricism, yes. Thanks, I was aware of it already.

For the record, I *don't* hold the position that there must be empirical evidence - at least not for *your* belief to be justified to your satisfaction.

What I was asking for is to hear your explanation of the reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. As far as I'm aware, you've avoided doing so, and I'm curious why. I have no interest in dismantling your reasoning, as I have no interest in changing your mind or feeling intellectually superior.

Are you ever going to do so?

[RobbyPants]

That's not entirely true. Many of us were once theists. That doesn't mean we were insane. It means we didn't yet discover the rational truths that would cause us to make a shift from religious beliefs to atheism.

I was (to an extent). I actively argued against a rational evaluation of my faith. I argued against the same arguments I use now. So, my shift wasn't so much of a discovery, but more as me becoming disaffected by my beliefs, and gradually opening up to looking at them honestly.

[FatAndFaithless]

That's not entirely true. Many of us were once theists. That doesn't mean we were insane. It means we didn't yet discover the rational truths that would cause us to make a shift from religious beliefs to atheism.

I was (to an extent). I actively argued against a rational evaluation of my faith. I argued against the same arguments I use now. So, my shift wasn't so much of a discovery, but more as me becoming disaffected by my beliefs, and gradually opening up to looking at them honestly.

Interesting to hear someone came from that kind of belief system. Something I've been wondering for a while and you might be able to give some insight to: if there are people that argue against rational investigation or rational justification of their beliefs, do you think it's even worthwhile having a conversation with that person?

Did atheist discussions have any impact on you leading to question your beliefs when you were a member of your faith, or was it strictly a personal and experiential matter?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

So basically the "rationalist" can accept the lack of any evidence because the evidence that doesn't exist is "logically consistent." Um. Ok. That's very intellectual. Almost like saying that belief in God's existence is justified because there's so many reasons not to believe.

Welcome to Frodo's logic class, where every statement is backed by logic! Please take a banana cumberbund the purple soda, frog blast the vent core?

---

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

The empiricist cannot move past the fact that there cannot be independently verifiable evidence. He remains with a null answer.

Now you guys say that this isn't a rational explanation exactly because you are illogically married to the notion that there has to be some empirical evidence for any idea to have merit.

---

So your position is no atheist on this forum has ever discussed ontological arguments?

That's funny, could've sworn...

I wrote "most atheists". You wrote "no atheist".

Honesty is important rampant.

It is, unfortunately it's also a quality you appear to utterly lack. The KCA has been defeated 3 times in formal debates, on this board, where Jeremy Walker failed to justify the first premise logically.

Please name a single member of the board who was present at the beginning of the universe, and questions the first premise of the KCA based only on strict empirical evidence.

---

So, like Cthulhu said, bring forth the rational argument for God.

This shows a misunderstanding of the subject, and that you didn't read or didn't understand what I said above.

Translation: I realize I don't have one, so I'm going to bullshit my way out of my assertions. Hold my drink why I backpedal furiously.

If there could be an independently verifiable way of proving God then you wouldn't need to believe (in the religious sense) that he existed. You would know.

Translation: I believe, but the burden of proof is on you. I can't think of a good argument for God, but I really like believing in God, so beliefs are important because I have them.

The process to belief is the consideration of information. A purely rational (because none of this information is empirically verifiable) process.

Translation: here's some more bullshit, because I don't have any particularly compelling reason to believe other than I want to believe. I'm going to continue asserting that my belief is rational, without giving you any reason to consider it as such, and as I have done in the past, will probably be claiming I proved belief in God is rational in a couple pages, due to arguments I never gave.

The information is subjective/ is dependent on the perspective of the observer. If you were to adopt the perspective of the observer, then the information would be true for you.

Translation: I believe God exists, so if you shut your brain off and assume I'm right, it will become apparent that I think I'm right, therefore I'm right.

The rationalist is able to assume the perspective of the observer and verify to an extent the observers claims. They can then understand the advantageous possibilities of the observers point of view.

Translation: I'm right I'm right, because I'm right and I think I'm right, therefore rationally, I must be right.

Here is the rational process:
Information > intellectual assent > action
This is faith as defined in the Christian tradition.

Translation: If you think like I think and believe what I believe, you'll believe what I believe.

I suspect though that you're actually saying that you wish to withdraw from the conversion. And that's fine by me.

I shat all over your chess board without even moving a pawn, and knocked over your queen and knights with my tail feathers. You admit defeat, and that I am a chess champion, don't you?

[fr0d0]

For the record, I *don't* hold the position that there must be empirical evidence - at least not for *your* belief to be justified to your satisfaction.

What I was asking for is to hear your explanation of the reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. As far as I'm aware, you've avoided doing so, and I'm curious why. I have no interest in dismantling your reasoning, as I have no interest in changing your mind or feeling intellectually superior.

Are you ever going to do so?

I answered you in the other thread earlier. I have no problem providing it and have done so countless times here on this forum.

People are always saying I haven't shown my reasoning but that's just a dishonest tactic some people like to use.

[Jackalope]

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

I missed this point in my previous post. We're not thinking along the same lines here - you missed what I was alluding to.

Consider the classic deductive syllogism:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Assessing the validity of this syllogism is an exercise in pure deductive reasoning. Validity tells you nothing about the truth of your conclusion.

Assessing it's soundness (and thereby it's truth value) requires induction and experience - perhaps not yours, yes you could read about the experience of death and accept that all men die, but *someone* had to experience the mortality of humanity and inductively reason that all men are in fact mortal.

See where I'm going with this?

[Jackalope]

I answered you in the other thread earlier. I have no problem providing it and have done so countless times here on this forum.

People are always saying I haven't shown my reasoning but that's just a dishonest tactic some people like to use.

Link? I must have missed it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I answered you in the other thread earlier. I have no problem providing it and have done so countless times here on this forum.

People are always saying I haven't shown my reasoning but that's just a dishonest tactic some people like to use.

Link? I must have missed it.

Frodo's argument is a priori. You already know it, so there's no sense in having him repeat it, unless you think he's wrong, in which case you simply didn't understand the argument he already presented and doesn't need to present again.

[fr0d0]

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

I missed this point in my previous post. We're not thinking along the same lines here - you missed what I was alluding to.

Consider the classic deductive syllogism:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Assessing the validity of this syllogism is an exercise in pure deductive reasoning. Validity tells you nothing about the truth of your conclusion.

Assessing it's soundness (and thereby it's truth value) requires induction and experience - perhaps not yours, yes you could read about the experience of death and accept that all men die, but *someone* had to experience the mortality of humanity and inductively reason that all men are in fact mortal.

See where I'm going with this?

You're skewing the need for there to be empirical evidence at some point? We need to explore the opposite, or agree that a purely theoretical conclusion can be valid.

Apologies if you said that already

---

Link? I must have missed it.

Here :

Well you could defend empiricism as somehow linked to rationalism as you said.

I'm satisfied that I've used reason to reach my decision to believe, yes. I've covered it many times here.

Via thorough investigation of the bible and it's claims I concluded it to be true, and acted upon that information.

I've explored in detail my conclusions, which is a continual process. I investigate and question all the time as I believe I have the responsibility to do.

I'm from a non religious background. Both my parents were not religious. My Mum was quite a strong atheist. My dad made fun.

And the last post in that thread :

Come now, hobbit. You claim to have come to believe through rational process - all I'm asking is to share that process. In the three years I've been here, I've never seen you do so.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Well that looks completely different and I can see a question. I've just been trying to explain exactly that to irrational in these two parallel threads. I guess you guys just aren't getting it

I'm certainly deadly serious and want to explain it to you. I believe that I've done the same very many times since I've been here on AF. Others have confirmed that they accept my explanation.

What I can't do is provide you with reason to believe yourself. It's not that it's necessarily complex. It can be as complex or as simple as you need it to be. The only people that are dissatisfied with my explanation are those that demand that they get it enough to be convinced themselves, and if course this is not possible. The only way you can do that is to do something yourself. (Or for God to do it to you I guess).