[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
can you clarify what point you are making with that last post? {Cortes}[/quote]
Please quote. You guys are way too fast for me. Not sure what you are referring to at this point.
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what “provably irrational” means. I don’t believe in the God that you say exists but I also don’t know why you do, so I’m not sure if I think your belief is irrational.
I know the argument you are referring to, I don’t think it proves anything. I seriously doubt a person’s belief or lack of belief in God has anything to do with those so called arguments. Please don’t say it is ample argument, you are only lying to yourself if you think it brings anything to the table.
Your belief that the Catholic God exists and created the world and is the basis for all good etc is unfounded so far as there are no grounds for anyone to entertain the notion of the existence of God based on your arguments. I won’t comment on your belief, we all lay faith with someone or something at times. You may disagree, and call my lack of blind faith unfounded, I think there is no need for anything more You have your own reasons to believe, why is that not enough, why are you trying to convince me?
Your summary of the argument was comical - “in other words God” is the actual argument, which says it all really.
edit - saw your comment re: quoting, will make sure to going forward, not used to actually posting all that much.
I need to go to work now, I’m happy to continue later if you wish, I’ll read the full thread just to make sure I can put some of your later comments in context but I have to say that, as someone who happened upon this thread, Im thoroughly unconvinced that belief in a God is some type of knowledge or branch of epistemology, it’s really really not. I’m still not even sure what the point of the thread is?
to put it simply :
we have to choose between circularity (ie : acknowledging the existence of knowledge) and inconsistency (ie : saying we don’t know, yet acting as if we do).
There is no alternative.
And circularity > inconsistency.
It implies that there is an absolute principle.
On top of that, Tiribulus make his best to convince us that calvinism is the absolute absolutism, and therefore, the only true absolutism.
While i try to say that an impersonnal absolute principle is “purer”, and therefore, truer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
What faith and reason have in common is the starting point, “I don’t know”, from which we start our journey.
This is the only thing they have in common, but to call faith and reason equal because of this is a fallacy.[/quote]
Yes, faith is of a higher order than reason.
[quote]People of faith say, “We know this to be true, because we believe this to be true and have faith that it is true.”
People of reason say, “We don’t know why, but we can know how.”
The difference between faith and reason is fundamental, not for their starting points but because of the conclusions.
[/quote]
Is there People of Faith and Reason?[/quote]
Faith is the acceptance of something as true without evidence. I’d say that hardly trumps reason, if at all.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there were people of faith and reason.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The use of faith does not automatically preclude the ability to reason. Certainly you are not insinuating that ALL of the things you believe are firmly based in science without the slightest smidgeon of faith, right?
[/quote]
Within the confines of religious faith and beliefs the use of faith does preclude the ability to reason.
I have faith that, for instance, interstellar space travel is merely a matter of technology and time, but I can’t make a reasonable prediction of when that might happen.
I believe that morality evolved, and altough I can’t conclusively prove that’s true, I can make a reasonable case for it.
Most of what I take for granted in everyday life is merely a lack of knowledge rather than the acceptance of something as true without evidence.
That I don’t know the ins- and outs of how electronics work does not preclude me from learning how it works. That I have faith my PC will boot next time I start it does not mean I can’t find out why if it doesn’t boot the next time.
Religious beliefs however are uniquely uprovable.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< That I don’t know the ins- and outs of how electronics work does not preclude me from learning how it works. That I have faith my PC will boot next time I start it does not mean I can’t find out why if it doesn’t boot the next time. >>>[/quote]Ultimately yes it does. Kamui just said why.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Religious beliefs however are uniquely uprovable.[/quote]Absolutely true, including yours. Kamui just said why. There’s a lot on this page that I’d love to comment on, but I have to go to work.
Knowledge is gained; the existence of incomplete knowledge does not point at a full library, if that’s what Kamui meant.
The mere fact that we exist, and the fact that we don’t know how we came to be, that we don’t know how the universe came to be, that is not the issue.
“We don’t know” is the default state for both of us.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
First, Cosmological Argument from Contingency provides an ample argument for the necessity of a First Cause (in other words, God). Tirib doesn’t like this one for a number of reasons but if you are taking on Christians telling us our belief that there is a God has no evidence or basis in reason, you are sorely mistaken. [/quote]
All you’re basically illustrating here is that you require a very low standard of evidence before you’re willing to accept a claim. Does it not bother you that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of god? Or that whenever studies on the effectiveness of prayer are done (even by Christians) it fails miserably? I urge you to look it up.
Don’t you think if god intervenes in the physical world and prayer works that it should be demonstrable?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
After that is established, there are all sorts of others ways we can confidently conclude that the God we have established must exist is the self-same God of Abraham, Moses, Elija, is, in fact, Jesus Christ. But, again, this is not the place to discuss all that.
You keep saying that our beliefs are unfounded, but you have a yet to offer a single example of an unfounded belief that we hold.
Please. One example. [/quote]
Look into the historicity of Jesus. There’s no evidence to support his divinity claims.
I want to address this “atheist believe something can come from nothing.”
Say you define nothing as non-existence. How can you conclusively say something cannot come from nothing when we don’t have nothing to test from? So why rule it out?
That’s why I said, my position is that I do not necessarily accept something cannot come from nothing.
[quote]kamui wrote:
to put it simply :
we have to choose between circularity (ie : acknowledging the existence of knowledge) and inconsistency (ie : saying we don’t know, yet acting as if we do).
There is no alternative.
And circularity > inconsistency.
It implies that there is an absolute principle.
On top of that, Tiribulus make his best to convince us that calvinism is the absolute absolutism, and therefore, the only true absolutism.
While i try to say that an impersonnal absolute principle is “purer”, and therefore, truer.
[/quote]
What brought you away from believing that existence is infinite and always has and always will be. I know based on evidence, it’s just as much a leap of faith. But it is an option to believe.
Is it because it leaves no meaning and purpose in life and thus leads to inconsistencies between belief and action?
[quote]
What brought you away from believing that existence is infinite and always has and always will be. I know based on evidence, it’s just as much a leap of faith. But it is an option to believe.[/quote]
Actually, I do believe that existence is infinite and always has and always will be.
But that’s another problem entirely.
It’s not a chronological and cosmological problem.
it’s an (epistemo)logical one.
Even if the world is infinite (always has and always will be), it still need a non-contingent, absolute principle to exist (and be knowable).
[quote]kamui wrote:
to put it simply :
we have to choose between circularity (ie : acknowledging the existence of knowledge) and inconsistency (ie : saying we don’t know, yet acting as if we do).
There is no alternative.
And circularity > inconsistency.
It implies that there is an absolute principle.
On top of that, Tiribulus make his best to convince us that calvinism is the absolute absolutism, and therefore, the only true absolutism.
While i try to say that an impersonnal absolute principle is “purer”, and therefore, truer.
[/quote]
I finally understood what you have been saying this entire time. This post was the perfect, most succinct summary of what you have been talking about, and makes it much, much easier to grasp that what I’ve read so far.
Thank you, kamui. Once again, you’ve given me a big chunk of intellectual meat to chew on.
Hey guys, was at work for the past 12 hours, sorry for not responding to each of you in return but I don’t think that Kamui’s statement is that profound to anyone who has thought about this before - I don’t think that statement has any bearing on religon. Yes, our reasoning is built upon itself but I think that is perhaps good enough - our judgement serves its purpose. I certainly fail to see why a belief in Jesus is not ultimately rooted in the same circular logic - your beliefs have arisen partly through some internal reflection and reasoning which has contributed to the intellectual grounds of your belief.
Religos belief does occupy some higher ground than any other belief. There have been some interesting arguments made, but nothing justifying the lofty claims made by the creators of this thread.
BTW, why is this God not subject to same limitation of reality as the rest of existence? Reality is all there is, there can be nothing mnore. Is God a part of reality or reality a part of God? How can we ever know God if we can’t know anything. How has religon answered anything???
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< All you’re basically illustrating here is that you require a very low standard of evidence before you’re willing to accept a claim. >>>[/quote]I have the very highest standard possible. Almost everybody runs away before getting there though. [quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Does it not bother you that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of god? >>>[/quote]Does it bother you that science itself depends on the very God I proclaim to be scientific or to even exist all.
I don’t know if Cortes and I will ever fully agree, but I will confess to something about him. It is gratifying to see somebody, a Catholic somebody at that, come to the place of saying, (without actually saying it): “hmmm. ya know what? All this reformation Calvinism Trib’s always yappin about ain’t quite as instantly dismissible, ridiculous and heretical as I might have once thought”. He is of course free to correct me if I’m wrong. Got a PM, 2 e-mails, the gym, work and maybe some time later for more.
Tribulus, I’m trying to understand what step you are making from the stage of accepting circularity or an absolute principle.
Am I correct that you are choosing to accept that an absolute must exist, as this is the only way for us to have true knowledge (justified by this first principle)?
Isn’t there an alternative - no knowledge?
Is your agrument that if I choose the second, I can’t claim to know it and no one can, which leaves your position of a first princpple the only consistent position to take if one is going to take any position whatsoever?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:<<< ? >>>[/quote]Please very carefully read my posts on this page: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/we_need_another_christianity_thread?id=4946977&pageNo=6 I am being quite sincere. Much of what is there is part of a very fruitful, even then previous conversation involving Cortes, Groo and myself. No sarcasm intended. Every question you are likely to ask for a while is in those posts. I put considerable time and effort in composing them. If you’re really interested.
Later in that thread is some dialog between squating_bear and myself that was quite productive as well.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< All you’re basically illustrating here is that you require a very low standard of evidence before you’re willing to accept a claim. >>>[/quote]I have the very highest standard possible. Almost everybody runs away before getting there though. [quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Does it not bother you that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of god? >>>[/quote]Does it bother you that science itself depends on the very God I proclaim to be scientific or to even exist all.
I don’t know if Cortes and I will ever fully agree, but I will confess to something about him. It is gratifying to see somebody, a Catholic somebody at that, come to the place of saying, (without actually saying it): “hmmm. ya know what? All this reformation Calvinism Trib’s always yappin about ain’t quite as instantly dismissible, ridiculous and heretical as I might have once thought”. He is of course free to correct me if I’m wrong. Got a PM, 2 e-mails, the gym, work and maybe some time later for more.
[/quote]
Of course, I know that you understand that the argument you present here does nothing of the sort. It just proclaims the dichotomy that you and kamui went back and forth (and agreed) on.The presupposition of Van Til, and yourself,on what/who that is, is another argument altogether. No amount of verbosity or tortured argument is going to make his/your conclusion stick…it is just a matter of belief and faith. And as much as it you could be right, so could anyone else’s views be right on the nature of the primary cause.
Or perhaps I just don’t understand the argument well.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< All you’re basically illustrating here is that you require a very low standard of evidence before you’re willing to accept a claim. >>>[/quote]I have the very highest standard possible. Almost everybody runs away before getting there though. [quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Does it not bother you that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of god? >>>[/quote]Does it bother you that science itself depends on the very God I proclaim to be scientific or to even exist all.
I don’t know if Cortes and I will ever fully agree, but I will confess to something about him. It is gratifying to see somebody, a Catholic somebody at that, come to the place of saying, (without actually saying it): “hmmm. ya know what? All this reformation Calvinism Trib’s always yappin about ain’t quite as instantly dismissible, ridiculous and heretical as I might have once thought”. He is of course free to correct me if I’m wrong. Got a PM, 2 e-mails, the gym, work and maybe some time later for more.
[/quote]
Of course, I know that you understand that the argument you present here does nothing of the sort. It just proclaims the dichotomy that you and kamui went back and forth (and agreed) on.The presupposition of Van Til, and yourself,on what/who that is, is another argument altogether. No amount of verbosity or tortured argument is going to make his/your conclusion stick…it is just a matter of belief and faith. And as much as it you could be right, so could anyone else’s views be right on the nature of the primary cause.
Or perhaps I just don’t understand the argument well.
[/quote]
I have to admit, I’m not sure if I’m missing something here. Tribulus, why do you believe there to be a benevolent god rather than some unknown unconscience force?