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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:07 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would you call my new beliefs?
#31
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
It is important to remember that ' God did it' isn't actually an explanation, as the term is commonly understood. The reasons it doesn't work are legion, but the primary one is that God cannot be defined outside of the 'explanations'. 'What is God?' 'God is what created the universe.'

Tautology at its finest.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#32
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 10:48 am)SteveII Wrote:
(March 1, 2017 at 10:41 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: You have no arguments, just assertions.  I'll pass.

So, you were not really looking for a discussion, just looking for kudos for cheap shots that you are not equipped to back up. Good to know where you are on the "thinker vs. cool-aid-drinker" scale.

You don't discuss.  You assert.  And you can't back any of them up except in your own little mind.  Someone would have to be seriously addled to to be led to a religion by you.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing."  - Samuel Porter Putnam
 
           

Reply
#33
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 11:11 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It is important to remember that ' God did it' isn't actually an explanation, as the term is commonly understood. The reasons it doesn't work are legion, but the primary one is that God cannot be defined outside of the 'explanations'. 'What is God?' 'God is what created the universe.'

Tautology at its finest.

Boru

That's not true. 5000 years ago, the Jews defined God as a spirit who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. Almost a 1000 years ago, Anselm defined God as "the greatest conceivable being". You seem to be employing some kind of verificationism in your reasoning. That philosophy has been dismissed for over half a century as inadequate. We can have a description of God independent of any sort of argument or inductive reasoning.

(March 1, 2017 at 11:22 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:
(March 1, 2017 at 10:48 am)SteveII Wrote: So, you were not really looking for a discussion, just looking for kudos for cheap shots that you are not equipped to back up. Good to know where you are on the "thinker vs. cool-aid-drinker" scale.

You don't discuss.  You assert.  And you can't back any of them up except in your own little mind.  Someone would have to be seriously addled to to be led to a religion by you.

LOL. You are certainly not worth continuing with. Have a good day.
Reply
#34
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#35
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 11:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.
Reply
#36
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 10:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Well, I would rather have a well constructed set of arguments that demonstrate that I have an internally consistent worldview, then to cobble together a bunch of "we don't knows", "brute facts", theories impossible to apply scientific methods to, and a huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers.

Well, kudos for admitting that you'd rather make up answers than accept that certain things cannot be known. Maybe you can answer a question for which no one seems to have the solution. What is it about intellectual integrity that theists find so abhorrent? Why do you guys seem to think that acknowledging you don't know something is a weakness?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#37
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 12:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(March 1, 2017 at 11:56 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.

You insist on missing the point. God is not 'already defined elsewhere', as you yourself said in an earlier post. The whole Kalam cosmological argument is an attempt to prove what is already assumed, it is manifestly NOT an attempt to find out about the beginning of the universe. If cosmology were equated to a murder investigation, the KCA would be analogous to detectives trying, not to prove who committed the crime, but that John did it.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#38
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 12:08 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
(March 1, 2017 at 10:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Well, I would rather have a well constructed set of arguments that demonstrate that I have an internally consistent worldview, then to cobble together a bunch of "we don't knows", "brute facts", theories impossible to apply scientific methods to, and a huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers.

Well, kudos for admitting that you'd rather make up answers than accept that certain things cannot be known.  Maybe you can answer a question for which no one seems to have the solution.  What is it about intellectual integrity that theists find so abhorrent?  Why do you guys seem to think that acknowledging you don't know something is a weakness?

As I said in my post, I have reasons for everything I believe. There are some things that I do not know and will admit that I do not know--so your "weakness" conclusion is not true. 

As far as intellectual integrity, it is easy to write that overused allegation. Do you have any specifics on how I am lacking?
Reply
#39
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 12:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: As I said in my post, I have reasons for everything I believe. There are some things that I do not know and will admit that I do not know--so your "weakness" conclusion is not true. 

Then why the dig at atheists for having a bunch of "I don't knows" and a "huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers?" You definitely give off the vibe that there is something wrong with admitting you're unable to answer something.

Give me an example of something you don't know, and I guarantee it will really just be that you believe that god did it, you just don't claim to know how. That's not the same as recognizing there are questions you'll never be able to answer.

(March 1, 2017 at 12:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: As far as intellectual integrity, it is easy to write that overused allegation. Do you have any specifics on how I am lacking?

Lol, you're a Christian. Your religion is a textbook example of tossing intellectual integrity out the window. Feels over reals, as the kids say.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#40
RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
(March 1, 2017 at 12:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(March 1, 2017 at 12:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.

You  insist on missing the point. God is not 'already defined elsewhere',  as you yourself said in an earlier post. The whole Kalam cosmological argument is an attempt to prove what is already assumed, it is manifestly NOT an attempt to find out about the beginning of the universe. If cosmology were equated to a murder investigation, the KCA would be analogous to detectives trying, not to prove who committed the crime, but that John did it.

Boru

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree that God has been defined for thousands of years before the Kalam came around. The foremost living authority on the Kalam addresses your other concerns:


Quote:Objection #2: The kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle.

Response to #2: All the objector has done is describe the nature of a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the conclusion is implicit in the premises, waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. A classic illustration of a deductive argument is:

1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.

3. Therefore, Socrates is moral.

This argument has the same logical form as the kalam cosmological argument.[5] In fact, this form of the argument even has a name. It is called modus ponens. Symbolically, it looks like this:

[Image: tenworst.png]

This is one of the most basic and important logically valid argument forms. Incredibly, I have actually seen claims by Internet critics that this argument about Socrates being mortal is also question-begging!

This raises the question of what it means for an argument to be question-begging. Technically, arguments don't beg the question; people do. One is guilty of begging the question if one's only reason for believing in a premise is that one already believes in the conclusion. For example, suppose you were to present the following argument for the existence of God:

1. Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.

2. The moon is not made of green cheese.

3. Therefore, God exists.

This is a sound argument for God's existence: its premises are both true, and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic (specifically, disjunctive syllogism). Nevertheless, the argument is not any good because your only reason for believing the first premise to be true is that you already believe that God exists (a disjunction like premise (1) is true if one of the disjuncts is true). But the belief that God exists is the conclusion of the argument! Therefore, in putting forward this argument you are reasoning in a circle or begging the question. The only reason you believe (1) is because you already believe (3).

Now neither the argument for Socrates' mortality nor the kalam argument is like this. In both cases reasons are given for believing the first premise which are quite independent of the argument's conclusion. Biological and medical evidence may be marshaled on behalf of the premise that all men are mortal, and I have presented arguments (which I'll review shortly) for the truth of the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, I have not begging the question. The objector has made an elementary mistake of confusing a deductive argument with a question-begging argument.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z4a61IXvlM
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How often do your beliefs change? Ahriman 37 2739 January 23, 2022 at 10:03 pm
Last Post: paulpablo
  What would you do if you found out God existed Catholic_Lady 545 77185 March 5, 2021 at 3:28 am
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  For a good time call The Valkyrie 25 2518 November 21, 2018 at 5:39 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  My views on religious doctrine and beliefs robvalue 9 957 October 2, 2018 at 7:06 am
Last Post: Cod
  What would you say to a god if you met one? The Valkyrie 37 3952 June 1, 2018 at 7:05 am
Last Post: brewer
  What new books would you like in the Bible? Fake Messiah 13 2127 February 6, 2018 at 10:07 pm
Last Post: KevinM1
  How do you call someone who is religious only because it makes them feel happy? Der/die AtheistIn 38 7224 November 25, 2017 at 12:31 am
Last Post: c172
  What would you do if you found out that I was God? Aegon 16 2495 October 8, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Last Post: Aegon
  What would you do if you found out that God has nothing to do with religions? Little Rik 68 11406 October 8, 2017 at 4:31 pm
Last Post: energizer bunny
  What would you do if you found out Dog existed? Gawdzilla Sama 16 3265 October 7, 2017 at 6:30 pm
Last Post: ignoramus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)