Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 21, 2017 at 1:39 pm (This post was last modified: January 21, 2017 at 1:52 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(January 21, 2017 at 1:36 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(January 21, 2017 at 1:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I appreciate it, but that's kind of silly. You're basically saying I can't say one time how I feel about something bc it will make ppl not want to say them anymore. Tooth fairy comparisons run rampant on this forum. I've never said a word. This is the first time that I'm like "yeah, it is insulting, here's why." I really don't see why anyone would object to me voicing that.
I can see you are taking this in a way I had not intended.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
If Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, had a bad day he'd likely smash the tooth fairy's teeth out with his mighty hammer. So there's absolutely no comparison between God and the Tooth Fairy. And when I was a little kid offering the Tooth Fairy my baby teeth she never came around to visit. I pray that Thor pays that stingy BS fairy a visit soon!
January 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm (This post was last modified: January 21, 2017 at 2:18 pm by Aroura.)
(January 21, 2017 at 11:58 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(January 20, 2017 at 10:13 pm)Aroura Wrote: ...I don't feel like wading through the dog pile that is this thread to find it. If you post it again, or a link, I'd actually be interested in reading it.
In propositions taking the form of ‘X exists’, the various entities or agents filling the role of X may fall into different categories of being. Here are some examples:
P1: The Tooth Fairy exists.
P2: Time exists.
P3: Numbers exist.
P4: Truth exists.
P5: Possibilities exist.
In P1, if a tooth fairy exists, it would be a particular concrete substance. Now when some skeptics insist with complete certainty that there is no evidence for X they are specifically asking for a sample of or an isolated observable effect of X. To the extent that any of P2-P5 might exist, not one of them could exist in the same way P1 could. By that skeptic’s criteria for proof, no one could justify belief in any of the subjects of P2-P5. And yet serious scholars regularly debate the ontological status of time, numbers, truth, and possibilities. Moreover, some of those propositions are arguably properly basic, meaning someone is justified in believing they are true in the absence of defeaters.
IF god exists, then he exists in ways similar those kinds of things found in P2-P5 and it is complete nonsense to insist that he exist in the same way as P1. As such it is unreasonable and obnoxious to demand that theists produce such evidence or to make that comparison during a debate with a theist to suggest that belief in God is ridiculous. I could quote example after example of AF members doing just that. And it is dishonest for anyone to pretend that that doesn’t regularly happen on AF.
Thank you for taking the time to repost the info.
I see, this is like the WoW comparison. The claim that God exists outside our reality, but interracts with it in undetectable ways.
Well, I normally do NOT debate theists, as I really have no interest in (de)converting you, but as you went to this trouble, it seems only polite to respond.
Here are a list of my counter arguments, in no particular order.
I'm sure you have heard it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Numbers are not an extraordanary claim, for instance.
Why do you say the tooth fairy is concrete substance? If god can interact with humans without a detectable trace, then why not other things? Truth does not interact with humans on it's own, we create the idea of truth. The way humans wish to define God seems more like the Tooth Fairy to me than Truth, for example.
"By our own criteria of "proof""....we don't ask for proof, but evidence. I'm sure a resident scientist can explain better than I , but there is evidence for time, for instance. There is literally no evidence whatsoever for God.
Truth and possibilities and numbers are human created concepts. Are you saying God is a human created concept? If so, I fully agree. There are many human created concepts that we have discarded because of inadequate evidence. The Id, super-ego concepts from Freud, for instance, have been discarded by modern psychologists. Free-will is another you will see hotly debated, with many great modern thinkers discarding it (or redefining it to mean something entirely different than it used to).
We still demand some evidence for the existence of concepts. Mathematical formulas must have proofs, the passage of time can be demonstrated with a decaying apple, etc.
My point is just because a humans thought it up, and even if most humans assume it exists (like free-will), if there is still no evidence whatsoever or any good demonstration of it, then the idea should be discarded. We do this with other human created concepts, the idea of God doesn't get a special pass.
Ok, I hope you can see I'm not trying to be insulting. Peace.
January 21, 2017 at 5:16 pm (This post was last modified: January 21, 2017 at 5:20 pm by Cephus.)
(January 21, 2017 at 8:47 am)ignoramus Wrote: My theory.
Jesus is Santa! Have you ever seen both at the same time! (too soon?) lol!
No, no, no. Satan is Santa. They both wear red and you never see them at the same time. Coincidence? I think not!
(January 21, 2017 at 1:37 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Yeah the point is never to be offensive. The point is to get the truth out there however offensive it happens to be.
And often people just pay more attention when you say something that offends them. Either way it's still true and the truth shouldn't be offensive.
The truth is not offensive.
And people should never take the truth as offensive, but when you have people who don't really care about the truth, who believe things for entirely emotional reasons and take those emotional beliefs and make them part of their own self-image, anyone who exposes those beliefs as either entirely emotional or rationally questionable, hurts the feelings of the people who are totally invested in these things being true. it's just like people who are fanatical about sports teams. If you say anything about their team that they don't like, regardless of whether or not it's true, and they're going to get offended and throw a punch.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide mankind that cannot be achieved as well or better through secular means.
Bitch at my blog! Follow me on Twitter! Subscribe to my YouTube channel!
(January 21, 2017 at 11:58 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: In propositions taking the form of ‘X exists’, the various entities or agents filling the role of X may fall into different categories of being. Here are some examples:
P1: The Tooth Fairy exists.
P2: Time exists.
P3: Numbers exist.
P4: Truth exists.
P5: Possibilities exist.
In P1, if a tooth fairy exists, it would be a particular concrete substance. Now when some skeptics insist with complete certainty that there is no evidence for X they are specifically asking for a sample of or an isolated observable effect of X. To the extent that any of P2-P5 might exist, not one of them could exist in the same way P1 could. By that skeptic’s criteria for proof, no one could justify belief in any of the subjects of P2-P5. And yet serious scholars regularly debate the ontological status of time, numbers, truth, and possibilities. Moreover, some of those propositions are arguably properly basic, meaning someone is justified in believing they are true in the absence of defeaters.
IF god exists, then he exists in ways similar those kinds of things found in P2-P5 and it is complete nonsense to insist that he exist in the same way as P1. As such it is unreasonable and obnoxious to demand that theists produce such evidence or to make that comparison during a debate with a theist to suggest that belief in God is ridiculous. I could quote example after example of AF members doing just that. And it is dishonest for anyone to pretend that that doesn’t regularly happen on AF.
Thank you for taking the time to repost the info.
I see, this is like the WoW comparison. The claim that God exists outside our reality, but interracts with it in undetectable ways.
Well, I normally do NOT debate theists, as I really have no interest in (de)converting you, but as you went to this trouble, it seems only polite to respond.
Here are a list of my counter arguments, in no particular order.
I'm sure you have heard it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Numbers are not an extraordanary claim, for instance.
Why do you say the tooth fairy is concrete substance? If god can interact with humans without a detectable trace, then why not other things? Truth does not interact with humans on it's own, we create the idea of truth. The way humans wish to define God seems more like the Tooth Fairy to me than Truth, for example.
"By our own criteria of "proof""....we don't ask for proof, but evidence. I'm sure a resident scientist can explain better than I , but there is evidence for time, for instance. There is literally no evidence whatsoever for God.
Truth and possibilities and numbers are human created concepts. Are you saying God is a human created concept? If so, I fully agree. There are many human created concepts that we have discarded because of inadequate evidence. The Id, super-ego concepts from Freud, for instance, have been discarded by modern psychologists. Free-will is another you will see hotly debated, with many great modern thinkers discarding it (or redefining it to mean something entirely different than it used to).
We still demand some evidence for the existence of concepts. Mathematical formulas must have proofs, the passage of time can be demonstrated with a decaying apple, etc.
My point is just because a humans thought it up, and even if most humans assume it exists (like free-will), if there is still no evidence whatsoever or any good demonstration of it, then the idea should be discarded. We do this with other human created concepts, the idea of God doesn't get a special pass.
Ok, I hope you can see I'm not trying to be insulting. Peace.
Thank you. My point was not debate my examples; but rather, to show that “God exists,” is a philosophical proposition that has been debated throughout the centuries with the same seriousness as questions about time, numbers, etc. Suppose you are at a dinner party (forum) sitting at a table (thread) of five and two people are having discussion about Plantinga’s ontological argument, specifically his use of modal logic. Of course everyone at the table is welcome to join the conversation; it’s a party after all. But if another guest’s contribution is “You can’t logic your skydaddy, zombie-Jew into existence,” then he is just being a douche. It’s not even an argument. It’s an unwelcome quip. Go sit the loud and obnoxious table (a thread for just mocking). The point is that I have no problem when the atheist members want to mock religion among themselves. But if you’re directing that kind of comment at a Christian on a Philosophy thread, well, that’s just rude.
FWIW here are my stances with respect to the examples:
P2: Time exists. –I’m agnostic on the issue. I lean towards presentism, but eternalism seems just as plausible. In either case, I think time is based on related states and not any kind of extention.
P3: Numbers exist. –I’m a moderate realist. I feel that resolves the tension between Platonic forms and Aristotelian imminence and provides a satisfactory solution to the Problem of Universals.
P4: Truth exists. –I don’t really have a complete theory of truth, but I strongly favor those that have a place for the idea that some truths are proscriptive.
P5: Possibilities exist. –To me possibilities are not simply epistemological uncertainties; but rather, part of the nature of things, e.g. glass has within it a disposition to shatter regardless of whether or not it ever does.
