Although both approaches have their own merits, it is too often forgot Published on Jun 18, in Philosophia. John Capps 1 Estimated H-index: 1. Truth is a fundamental philosophical concept that, despite its common and everyday use, has resisted common-sense formulations. At this point, one may legitimately wonder if there even is a common-sense notion of truth or what it could look like. Drawing on both ordinary language philosophy and contemporary pragmatic The Will to Power. Published on Apr 30, Lawrence J. James I. Porter 11 Estimated H-index: Nietzsche and the Truth of History.
Anthony K. Robert B. Nietzsche and Wagner. Nor have I been able to find such evidence of the existence of God…therefore, faith. Anytime you claim that your philosophical truth god has any credibility outside your own imagination to say nothing of being com…. This is never a true statement, under any circumstances. Opinions are opinions because they are subjective assessments of a given circumstance. Facts are true regardless of opinion. You observe something and make a faith judgement based on the circular reasoning of your religious views.
No one should be so open minded that they fall for anything. The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world. You really need a dictionary to arrive at regular definitions of words! It just shows an inability to reason or to use clear language.
My point is the reality I believe in is the reality I live in. You claim to live in a reality where god exists even though you have no evidence whatsoever. I was not making a direct comment at yourself. I was simply stating that from my experience you having given your own experiences that when people talk about supernaturalism , the occult and make wildly un-evidenced assumptions , that they can never make their claims stack up.
So we now live in an age where technology affords us the possibility of verifiably proving these claims , yet they have not being verified , out of the thousands and thousands of claims , they only need to provide unequivocal evidence for one , yet the evidence is not forthcoming.
So what am I to believe? I think it should not be viewed as Ad hominem to say that humans bullshit. The cow and the rodent are physical realities easily discernible by physical means. On the other hand, if as the Hindus claim, the cow is a reincarnation of a departed loved one then I would have no simple means of refuting that claim. Well, yes, the philosophical Truth I referred to does support the 5b definition. It is, I believe, close to the Buddhist conclusion of it.
Yet, falsehood does exist.
Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard
Therefore, it is part of the universal Truth. Thank you. You have just written out the explanation of the Universal Truth. In my mind, I have made no mistake, honest or otherwise. Of course, I consulted a reference work, more for your benefit than for mine. I regret you believe my thoughts to be dishonest in some way. As I have said before, I base my beliefs on my own subjective experiences aided by the use of logic. Good day. It is not possible to prove a negative. To illustrate the point:- I would be glad to examine any objective evidence you may have of the non-existence of Zeus, Aphrodite, leprechauns, tooth-fairies,.
So I take it you also believe in all the other gods for which there is equally no evidence and no disproof of their existence! To illustrate the point:- I would be glad to examine any objective evidence you may have of the non…. I am simply here to discuss, not debate.
This is, after all, a discussion forum, right? And in fact, you are Alan4discussion, correct? No probs. It should come as no surprise then, that your definition of truth is of no relevance to anyone else but you. I must be away, folks. Time for my hour of yoga.
- Donald Davidson;
- Lecture Notes in Data Mining!
- The Folly of Trying to Define Truth?
- Download options.
Thank you for the invigorating mental exercise. I am glad to see that throughout these talks cool heads and logic prevailed. And making one logical statement somehow validates the illogical position you stand behind how, exactly? I fail to see the point. Very much like your odd notions of absolute and supreme reality, they were manufactured with no relation to how the universe actually works. No deity, not one has any more credence than another. So nothing about your statement has even the most remote sense of accuracy.
You persist in pushing your opinion as if it had equal weight to actual scientific endeavor into understanding the only universe that exists. I will continue to post this until it sinks in: what you have is faith in something that has no correlation to reality. You make up or borrow theistic ideas about realities and truths that somehow supercede and exceed human understanding and lie beyond human experience. Except that if these things existed you would have no more access to it than anyone else. It only further complicates what is a cut and dry example of you spouting things that have no relevance or fundamental understanding of reality.
Users of this site are not required to be atheist, and religious users are very welcome to argue the case for their beliefs provided it is relevant to the thread in question. Anyone who posts here, religious or not, should be willing to argue their case rather than simply post an opinion and refuse to engage with criticism of it.
First, a formatting tip. It would make a post like this one easier to follow and keep any future replies from accidentally mixing up your words with those you quote from others. Making up your own is bad rhetorical practice. On the other hand, if as the Hindus claim, the cow is a reincarnation of a departed loved one […]. There is no support for the claim by Hindus or anyone else that a cow is a reincarnated anything.
Deriving conclusion from an unsupported premise is invalid reasoning. Of course you would. Either provide a basis for inserting it into your line of reasoning or abandon it. There is a presumption of burden in logical reasoning, and it lies with the party making the affirmative claim. We then base our level of confidence in the claim on the strength of the evidenc.
Jordan Peterson: Apostle of Truth or Confusion? Pt. 1 - Folly of the Cross
Otherwise, reasoning would break down anytime anybody just makes something up from thin air. Not really. Here you make a demonstrably false claim. Note that the modifier supreme in the dictionary definition necessarily implies that some of reality is excluded from the definition, yet you include all of it. This directly contradicts your claim to rely on definition 5b, which very clearly says that truth is that which is considered to have value. Furthermore, you make it clear in several places that you are NOT making use of the dictionary definition, but one that derives from your own philosophy.
Definition 5b will not bear that interpretation. I claimed that falsehood is not true. This is axiomatic and self-evident. It is part of existence. Falsehood is not part of any kind of truth. They are opposite concepts and necessarily separate. Saying falsehood is part of truth is wrong.
If the definition of words is a matter of opinion then all communication is impossible. It is an absurd position. Logic is a rigorous discipline with defined rules. It is not just whatever makes sense to you. Defining terms is a critical component of logic. Definitional bait-and-switch is not logic. It is equivocation. Well, fine. In principle, there is nothing wrong with coining a term, defining it, and then using it to make a point.
My only objection arises, because you are using a word in your new coinage with a pre-existing definition that is antithetical to the new one you propose. I cannot think of a reason to do it which would not involve some measure of dishonesty. That is a very high bar, usually only obtained in mathematics.
Equivocation is a pretty well known phenomenon. I admit that I am making a claim about motive which is extremely hard to objectively determine in any individual case. When Mr. He interpreted that definition to exclude receiving oral sex. I would attribute dishonest motives to Mr.
Clinton with a reasonable degree of confidence, though short of complete confidence. So I ask you sincerely, what good reason could there be? Confusion and lack of clarity are extremely likely to result. If confusion and decreased clarity are not the desired effect, why introduce them? What is gained?
Consult it again. For your own benefit this time. I do not think it means what you think it means. I have also attempted to clearly explain my position to you. That is an unsound basis for belief. It is the basis for every delusional belief ever held. A person in an a asylum who believes he is Napoleon Bonaparte uses the same basis.
That would me a better approach. However logic insists that you rigorously and skeptically test your subjective experiences against objective observation. It also requires you to minimize your assumptions. You appear to employ neither of these approaches, so I doubt your claims be using logic. Not all chains of reasoning are logical.
I highly recommend the formal study of logic to anyone interested in the pursuit of truth. I commend that. I strive to take the exact same position. I hope it will bear fruit for you as it does for me. People knew some truths about themselves, about others and so forth before some of them invented science. Atheism may be true.
But those circumstances may or may not cause my certainty. When people make up deities or deify once living persons they are not just assigning a new name, they associate specific attributes to said deity or deities with obligations for worship and living practice. Even when they do use the same name, such as the over ten thousand sects of Christianity, small to large differences of how worshipers see their deities create de facto separations. The divergence lacking any majority agreement, means that most people are necessarily wrong about these attributes, even if anyone is right.
I would be glad to examine any objective evidence you may have of the non-existence of Zeus, Aphrodite, leprechauns, tooth-fairies,. All Hail — the worshipful — Aphrodite, leprechauns, and tooth-fairies! In reply to 93 by Alan4discussion:. It would make a post like this one easier to follow…. It is possible, on limited occasions to prove a negative by providing a contradictory positive. Popping in here again as your human sacrifice.
If possible try to stick to your most important points. When people make up deities or deify once living persons they are not just assigning a new name, they associate specific attributes to said deity or deit…. Good info Nitya, thanks. I have really only posted here from a standard PC using Internet Explorer. I hope you will stick around even though your minority views will probably draw frequent fire. I suggest that you list the attributes of YHWH , Odin and Zeus so you can plainly see that they are nothing like each other beyond all being mythological deities.
There is no if. They are 2 different deities created by 2 separate cultures. They are not the same. Are you presuming to speak for all the myriad cultures and their beliefs in trying to invent your all encompassing god? Mortals invented the immortal being, any other conclusion requires actual evidence of the deity in question. Also, bear in mind the moderators message about preaching before going much further. You have not defended your claims except to repeat the same things you started out saying.
Good point, Alan. But C. I know that I used a double negative. Aristotle used them, too, when he obverted universal affirmative sentences into universal negative ones. In reply to 96 by Alan4discussion:. Sort of. I would even argue that some animals gain knowledge using processes that are essentially scientific. It is refreshing to hear this sentiment offered up by a theist.
I am certain we would disagree on many things, but I want to thank you for this completely unprompted acknowledgement of uncertainty. Sometime perhaps we can discuss your basis for choosing theistic belief in light of this uncertainty, but thanks for this comment. It exists in any exercise of deductive reasoning. Mortals can only try to express what their limited imagination may picture as God.
I posted a very simple logical exercise. Naming and portrayal in that case are merely human stabs at dealing withe concept of God in human terms. Never have. If I tried to convince you of the existence of God, you might construe that as preaching. I simply offer my position and explain why to anyone who may be curious. Thank you, BonJolvie.
Ancient people believed in a pantheon of gods, usually with one being pre-eminent. Our three major western religions all contend there is only one God, with some subtle differences. I suggest that you list the attributes of YHWH, Odin and Zeus so you can plainly see that they are nothing like each oth…. Banjolvie, thank you for post I probably need to agree with you about science and pre-scientific societies.
In those societies, people used their five senses, discovered that they got the same result when they repeated something, reasoned inductively about what they did repeatedly, assumed some truths that scientists still assume. But I think science is more than its methods.
Like Socrates, I would want to know the essential nature of science because we can use our senses, reason inductively and so forth in other fields, too. During this discussion, long posts about the metaphysics behind that argument would be MAJOR digressions. No, there is no if here, as in your if then statement is faulty from the beginning.
The moment you start with an if then statement regarding god, and you have been doing this the whole time, you bypass any effort to prove any such god. Your idea of god is not superior to any other, has no grounding in reality and cannot be demonstrated. It is a belief based on numerous things you have borrowed or simply made up. Just like any other faith. They made stuff up in reflection of their own ways of life to explain what they could not.
You are once again offering no evidence but still attempting to have unprovable positions accepted as fact. By reducing the point being made about the faiths past and present from all around the world to a simple all paths lead to the same unprovable deity trope you are not only speaking for the deities of other cultures but undermining the very reason they were brought up in the first place, which would be to demonstrate both that no faith has a monopoly on the facts and that all of them are man made.
And if there are a pantheon of gods, or a creating but non interfering god…. You say nothing in my exercise is logical? Thenl i would suggest to you that you renew your acquaintance with Logic Anyway, I think you and I would find it difficult to find common ground on such matters as these. Best wishes, and no hard feelings. The moment you start with an if then statement regarding god, and you have been doing this the wh…. Very often when theists pop in to give their take on the whole god thing most often the core issue is defining what god is to begin with, as that obviously varies from person to person as to what that even means.
Your position lies in the latter. You refer to absolute truth, reality and such without actually explaining anything about what you define god as being. So any working definition would have to be functionally independent of what already exists. Additionally, giving unprovable properties to your god in question also does nothing to further the discussion as it only exacerbates the issue.
One can make such claims of virtually anything and would still have explained nothing. If something exists in the universe, or is a part of its entirety, it is subject to scrutiny by anyone with the tools to examine reality. It would therefore not beyond reach, nor would it require any such special connection to ascertain. Roll up, roll up, roll up…. Hard hats will be thrown in F.
Well some brains are in anycase. Joehev, please explain what your first sentence means. You can deduce some if-then proposition or other from any other proposition. In reply to by joehev:. But more importantly I said that what you were proposing was faulty from the very start when I elaborated. Even when you acquiesce that these are just opinions you continue to push them as if they should possess equal footing with any other truth seeking method.
And you do so while never admitting that your ideas are inherently flawed as you cannot prove any of it. My interest is in what is true, and your position is not true. Simple as that. Patience of a saint ya have…. And most…. And my lack of belief has nothing to do with this. This is about what can be demonstrably proven, and has been from the beginning. That has been my position from the moment you popped up on this thread. It simply provides another hole to drop this very common god of the gaps trope.
Yes, you are right. There are certainly other exercises in deductive logic that may not include if-then statements. In your mind, not in mine. That again is just plain logic. This is an interesting thought. Are you thinking mostly about tool use? I wonder if there is a good specific example that would illustrate your idea better than just an allusion to our early development? If you are quite familiar with logic, then an if-then statement should be quite familiar to you.
I have said my views on God are based on personal experience and reason. Faith is certainly involved in the end.
Crowds sometimes make poorer decisions than do individuals.
So, again you are mistaken. You can take it or leave it. Equal footing? There is no equal footing since we are discussing two very different concepts in the same breath, scientific method on physical reality and subjective reasoning on the existence of God. Neither method works well in the opposite camp. See, this is where your sense of mission gets in the way of your objectivity. It may actually be spot on.
But neither of us may ever know in our lifetime. Anyway, I think y…. But I think we are broadly on the same page. I fully agree that this is not the time for an extended conversation about the first-cause argument. Suffice it to say that surprise! I do not find it convincing. I consider pretty much every logical case for theism to have been pretty soundly refuted. Well, every case that I am aware of — including arguments from first-cause.
Speaking generally, they all require one to accept their conclusion before the arguments become convincing. As you have chucked in this assertion, I take it like T. A, you ignore the fallacy of infinite regression:- Who was the creator, of the creator , of the creator, of the creator …. Often ancient logical fallicies from historical characters. It is possible to use logical tools to draw illogical conclusions, people do it all the time. Does the lack of evidence for god mean there is the remotest possibility he could be skulking about in some part of reality?
But the idea of the deity as has been described which has been part of my contention, the issue of even describing what god is and what attributes he would or could have are entirely illogical from every standpoint that has been presented. If science were to come across any evidence to support a creative or intervening force it is just as likely that it would be entirely different than anything that man believes in, perhaps to the point that using such terms as god and such would be likely meaningless. Employing them in a rational discussion on objective truths seem more than a little pointless.
The former connects to the real universe, the latter if free from logical flaws, will only be self consistent, but detached from reality and can be entirely imaginary. As I have said before, my evidence rests on personal experience and logic. There is no physical evidence except as one makes of the universe itself. Subjective opinion, may be used in a premise, but is not part of the deductive process. You have failed to demonstrate a grasp of logic — having merely produced assertions and a confused redefintion of the word.
That is presented as your unspecified personal opinon of your undisclosed perceptions — not evidence: — not even weak evidence! The evidence of the universe is provided by testable research from astronomers and cosmologists. You have shown no understanding of any of it! We have already been over your strange redefinition of words to conform with your views before. He believes that, although each material object is composed of matter and form, i.
Aristotle probably would tell you that roundness, say, consists of the set of all round things, including every round thing that has existed, that ever will exist or that merely could exist. Each person includes a pattern that causes him to be a person. But for Aristotle, my death will destroy my pattern and me. Mathematical Platonists believe that mathematical sets are abstract objects. Even W. Quine, the most reductionist empiricist philosopher I can think of, thought there were mathematical sets.
Besides, I think Socrates would have agreed with you when you defined an even number as any number that 2 divides evenly. In reply to by BanJoIvie:. Also if you could produce a reference link to this idea in the work of W. Quine, I would appreciate that. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth. He believes that, although each material object is composed of matter and form, […]. That objects are composed of matter, I will concede. Matter exists, matter changes states. We may confirm this through observation.
I assumed that to be the case without your saying so. Surely this is another point upon which we could disagree at length. When I injected the word irrational, I was alluding to rationality as the polar opposite of faith. For my money, one can arrive at a conclusion using either faith or reason, but not both. They are oil and water. If you start from a premise derived from faith, reason fails before it begins. That, in brief, would probably stand as a summary for my refutation of most of the standard apologetic arguments. Their biases often convince them that the arguments have substance.
Saint Thomas Aquinas was partially right into thinking that anything that exists is caused by another. In this argument, he again used the assumption that there could be no infinite regression of causes. However, if this assumption was correct, then what caused God to exist? If nothing can cause itself to exist, how was God able to cause himself? If God has been in existence from eternity, what is the problem with a universe that has been in existence from infinity?
This latter assumption is equally logical but much simpler and more probable. I have of course thought about and discussed this topic on previous occasions. Thanks for that, Alan. Those arguments are solid reminders of why I have grown tired of the field of philosophy. All triangles have something in common that causes them to be triangles. All matter has something that causes it to be matter. These common properties are essences. In fact, you may want to read about scientific essentialism because even some scientists are essentialists. Please remember the difference between scientific jargon and what it signifies.
But even before anyone classified mammals, already had the mammal-making properties. If objects have essences, they already have them before scientists classify those objects. Properties tell us what their owners are. Dawkins debated Dr. John Lenox, Dawkins defined faith a believing without evidence. So Lenox asked Dawkins whether he, Dawkins, had faith in his wife. After Dawkins agreed that he did, he gave his reasons for it, his evidence that justified his faith. As you might expect, that brief exchange made some audience members laugh.
It told me that Dawkins should have thought more carefully before he spoke. In debating the working of the universe I often feel more productive with these sorts of discussions Just for fun, suppose that Catholicism is true, that the pope sometimes does teach infallibly and that God is all-good, all-poweful, all-knowing and so forth. Then anytime the pope teaches that way, God will prevent him from teaching a falsehood. In reply to by Alan4discussion:.
Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the on…. That premise takes you straight into the thicket of contradictions that Theodicy fails to unravel. Remember that a false as in contradictory premise implies any conclusion, so if you are going to get started, you are first going to have to show evidence for the truth of your premise.
I suppose in theology you can always suppose! I thought the Vatican I examples were pretty clear! Yes, faith is the belief without evidence. What Lennox did here was just playing a little semantics game about different meanings of a same word. It happens that faith also means trust and those definitions of faith are in the dictionary just like high can mean being on top of something of altitude or being in a drug-induced state. I think Lennox perfectly knows that and was being quite dishonest there.
Human beings share a long list of common attributes. Whether any of these is truly universal to every human, or completely exclusive to only humans — well, that may be squishier. Consider for example that if you could travel back through the generations, there would never be a non-human parent that gave birth to a human child. There would come a point at which we would be hard pressed to say for certain whether a certain ancestor was Homo Sapiens or a member of an earlier speicies.
Humanness is a continuum. I absolutely do not agree that there is an essence which causes me to be human. More on that later. I see no evidence that this is the case. Humanness is merely a description applied by observing minds. Sneaky, sneaky! So far as any observation has ever shown…ever, matter is perfectly capable of being matter all on its own. We observe the universe. In investigating those properties, we note that some objects share common properties while others differ. We group like with like and give the categories names. For a long time, we thought we had, but Einstein cleared that up.
That pesky William of Ockham you know. This observation lends nothing to the discussion. Again you are imbuing this idea of essence with a kind of power. At such time as there is any evidence that objects do have essences, this statement may become relevant. The universe exists. Is there even such thing as a single object? Do I have the same essence I did when I was born, even though every cell in my body has been replaced many times? How much of me can be pared away without the loss of my essence? If I have massive brain trauma or Alzheimers and undergo total personality change, does my essence change?
If I clip my toenails, does some of my essence go with the clippings or does it all stay with me? Yes they do. Many of them. But the grouping of these properties into common classes is a mental process. Those classes have no existence outside our minds. Of course not, the idea of bringing something into existence with words is ludicrous. Sorry again. Who said anything about causing things to exist? It is a model we build inside our brains by configuring our neural network in a specific way, not by bringing anything into existence with our brain to represent something in the outside world.
About two nights ago, when I watched a Youtube video where Prof. That, in brief, is the definition I intended in my I assume that was the impetus for your question. In my view, he fell victim to a misguided or even dishonest line of questioning. For one thing, I have observational evidence that she does in fact exist!
I would say rather that I have trust or confidence in my wife. Furthermore, that trust has been earned; gained through experience. I will continue to hold it so long as it is warranted. Long may that be. The process of a person who reasons. The process of forming inferences from premises. The arguments resulting from this process.
There you go again. But since their understanding of the universe is understandably limited, I have chosen to fill in the blanks with God. You have chosen to wait. But since your constant attempts to deride me and my position can shed no further light on the universe than what astronomers and cosmologists can provide you, I have to assume you are incapable of understanding how anyone else can.
Good evening. You may find some woolly confused definitions in student philosophy notes or student exercises, but let me assure you there is…. I agree: Faith can be a kind of trust. Now that you mention it, I think Lennox would have been prudent not to ask Dawkins whether he had had faith in his wife. For example, in one of his two epistles, St. A Gospel writer, St. Were that assumption true, it would rule out, say, philosophical arguments for theism. In reply to by Sedanar:. So Lenox asked Dawkins whether he, Dawkins, h…. I am sure you can find strange definitions of anything in the writings of some theologians who are given to semantic shuffling!
But since your constant attempts to deride me and my position can shed no further light on the universe than what astronomers and cosmologists can provide you,. I deride anyone who makes up nonsense about subjects where they have no understanding, and should honestly state that they do not know the answer.
You have indulged in pyschological projection again. I am fully aware that you have no possible way of knowing what happened during the early evolution of the universe, — and probably self-assured by god-did-it-by-magic , have very little knowledge of how it progressed after the early inflationary stage.
I would disagree. Assertive ignorance is the cause of many human problems, accidents, and disasters, and is an active obstruction inhibiting learning processes. This is illustrated in your asserted ignorance about the gods of other cultures. I have no idea who Dunning-Kruger may be, or may have been, or what effect they gave birth to,.
Like so much other information I have given you, you learned nothing from the link ! There is an introductory simplified explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect , for those who cannot understand the detailed explanation on the earlier link. You are probably approaching a site record for using the greatest number of words to say nothing of any substance! I was willing to just just sum up my feelings on the matter and to get on with my day. The highlighted section is the entire issue with this premise. Being objective using objective reasoning to draw conclusions about any idea or event means examining what is true and false of a given proposition and eliminating what is unprovable and outright false.
You want to claim that because science has not completely eliminated the possibility of a creator that it is not only possible, but because of your unprovable assumptions that he exists in some fashion we can never perceive. Your attempts to back up your claims consists solely of escapist reasoning and pushing the idea of your deity farther and farther out of reach so that he is effectively both unapproachable and unprovable. You claim to use logic and legitimate reasoning to do so, but every example you pose is rife with special pleading based entirely on your belief system.
Not on the facts. The practical definition of truth is posed in this thread, the actual observations of reality are mentioned throughout it, but you choose to ignore it and continue to support your own ideas with the same ideas we just got through refuting.
Your words are a perfect way to illustrate why this conversation will never progress. For every example of why your positions have no practical application in logic you have only the mention that your idea of god is beyond science and therefore untouchable. This also demonstrates further your misunderstanding of science. Everything we know from science we know because of testable hypothesis and rigorous examination. The very litmus test you seem so eager to cast aside. Facts, not faith will help this conversation advance.
You have no facts and rely only on faith and philosophical wandering. There is no way to advance this discussion with that kind of thinking. Or simply put, anything that can be presented with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. Actually if you did not have the information from astronomers Copernicus, Gallilao etc you would still think the Earth was flat with lights stuck into a series of dome roofs!
You would have no perception whatever of galaxies or the universe. Regardless of if you admit it or not, any understanding you have of these, is based on astronomical observations. Just making it up? I seek the boundaries of human knowledge, and recognise that NOBODY knows what is beyond these, but that specialists working at the frontiers are making progress.
Nobody can honestly claim to know the unknown. I would be utterly ashamed of making up nonsense denying credit to the people who did the research to provide the astronomical information! Without them you would not know the universe or the galaxies exist! It seems you have not learned much about these beyond that statement. Best wishes, Joe. Why is that an important point? I see nothing remarkable about it. Theology never adds clarity to language, and quite often does the reverse.
I know that sounds flip, but I mean it. Theology is a thoroughly spurious field. It arises completely from special pleading, and thrives on the equivocal use of words. Hardly the first time Dawkins has disagreed with the bible. Much of what the bible says about faith is just deep sounding nonsense. Giving reasons for a belief is not the same as providing evidence for it. There are plenty of reasons why people believe unevidenced assertions. Helping someone believe something need not entail showing them any evidence.
If the author s of that work whoever they were intended to help readers believe, they did not consider evidence to be important for that aim. The purpose of evidence is not to help belief. Belief is not the aim of evidenced reasoning. Evidence is just as likely to impede belief as to assist it, depending upon whether a particular belief happens to align with objective reality. It requires an empirical basis. I would not entirely rule out philosophical arguments, provided they entail a reasonable grounding in empirical data.
In practical terms this does rule out most philosophical attempts to justify theism. Philosophical arguments without empirical grounding are conjecture, not evidence. No argument, no matter how sound, can take us from pure speculation to objective truth without observing the universe along the way. Well, I suppose that one might reach a true conclusion by sheer accident, but that would be vanishingly unlikely. And even then, one would have no way of actually knowing that the conclusion happens to be objectively true. Perhaps someday they will, but not today.
Actually if you did not have the information from astronomers Copernicus, Gallilao etc you would sti…. You never make your case, and you only address a fraction of the issues brought up. And when you address you only reiterate what you start out saying. But as I said, smashing head against brick wall solves nothing. Unless you consider basic honesty a joke or are writing fiction, you should not be doing that at all. Just let the lack of knowledge be what it is: a lack of knowledge.
Why fill it with unverified superstition? Ah well! Perhaps they have to dodge the aircraft? But his opinion still reminds me of a point that Archbishop Fulton J. They criticize their misconceptions about it. Have Dawkins and others asked theologians, other Christians what they think faith consists of? Maybe not. Even if evolutionists disagree about it, the creationists I have in mind seem to ignore a current part of evolution theory. Again, I doubt that Dawkins has been demolishing any straw men. But clearly, he misinterprets St. Thomas never says that everything has a cause. He tells that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
One point of his first-cause argument is that God prevents a vicious infinite regress of causes because everything other than God gets its causal ability from Him. His nature implies them. But as you may already know, it conflicts with Dr. Complexity is a defect partly because complex things have imperfections.
A perfect thing has all the good properties it needs to be the kind of thing it is and no imperfections. Perfection is a kind of wholeness. I would suggest the possibility here that not only is perfection a kind of wholeness, but that it is wholeness. Perfection, God, includes everything, i. Not even science. Interesting, eh? Perhaps someday they will, but not tod…. Just let the lack of knowledge be what it is: a lack o…. The evidence lies inside each person. I arrived there by reason and prayer. So can anyone.
Ouch, you got me, Joe. A canonized saint may be whole with respect to what God wants him to be. He may be as holy as God wants him to be, say. Aristotle and St.
Thomas Aquinas would tell us that change consists of actualization of a potential. If He exists, His nonexistence is metaphysically impossible. In Heaven, though, canonized saints will still actualize potentials. Could you be a bit more specific and explain exactly what it is inside each person that counts as evidence? To the bigoted ignorant, who have no rational answers, all constructive criticism is an insult!
Perhaps you should reflect, that for quite some time now, YOUR wriggling responses have been an insult to the intelligence of those trying to conduct a rational debate. Your claim to have dreamed up an understanding of the universe without reference to the information provided by astronomers, is quite comical in its absurdity! Could I suggest a little more realism: Nothing exists outside the God-delusion. Not even science — or reality.
Closed-minded, tunnel-vision-blinkers, firmly in place. In reply to by joehev: — The evidence lies inside each person. I think you are more likely to get a reasoned coherent answer at my comment Lastly, implying that you are more open-minded than others does not count as a good argument any more than it would if its inverse was made explicit: the ad hominem implication of narrow-mindedness in others to discredit their positions.
So, I ask again, why fill in a lack of knowledge with unverified superstition? What reason have you to invent fake knowledge to fill a gap you know is a gap? So it seems that, despite earlier protests, you do want to wade into the first-cause argument. But first, let me do a bit of housekeeping with your lead-in.
Buckle up, this may take a while. I apologize in advance for the treatise length post. Feel no obligation to respond to any or all of it. I have no idea what Richard did or did not say. Here is the entry :. The rest of the definitions include other senses in which the word is used, including loyalty, allegiance, fidelity and trust. I maintain that definition 2b is fairly approximate to mine minor quibbling aside or at least that I have not taken unreasonable liberties with it.
I further maintain that none of the other definitions actively contradicts or precludes the sense of definition 2b. Martin Luther comes to mind. Around these parts we see it a lot. Its called the No True Scotsman fallacy. That is not necessarily unfair, nor does it necessarily mean that my plainly phrased understanding is inferior to a florid apologetic filled with special pleading. See the first-cause argument below. I regularly listen to a local catholic radio station and I hear competing positions grossly caricatured — even outright lied about — all the time.
Not just by radio hosts, by priests and theologians.