It also shows that these supposedly religious people are completely unfamiliar with the writings of the early Church fathers like Augustine or even Thomas. It would be useless to think they would even know the names Origen or Lactantius.
We were mired in a stalemate on a different, more pressing problem.
They were wrong about the facts they knew. However, their ability and desire to gain facts was limited and unnecessary. The Earth from most ground level points, before something interrupts the horizon, which unless you are on a beach or in a desert usually happens, certainly looks flat. When you an ant stand on a gigantic round ball you donât see the curve in it. Further, man untill fairly recently, was very limited in his ability to travel.
And from my perspective right now, if I were not taught things by other people, then the Earth looks flat to me from my current perspective.
So they were wrong about the facts they knew, but they had no way of knowing different even if they did care.
So based on what they were able to know at the time, shit looks flat, they thought the Earth was flat.
Youâre problem here is your pushing a 21st century, 1st world, well educated opinion on people who were none of those things.
The does not make them irrational. Itâs not irrational to be wrong. Itâs irrational to contradict the facts you know to be true.
If you do bother with the looking at the history of work involved in this department. The knowledge of Godâs existence is in a range of between âmore probable than notâ to âcertaintyâ. People hate when I claim certainty, but a priori logic is binary. And if you cannot destroy the logic, what are you supposed to conclude? Itâs either right or wrong and their is no in between. a posteriori logic does function on the probability factor scale and thatâs what science uses.
There are to guys you should pay attention to, if you want to understand where I am coming from David Hume. Youâll like Hume heâs an atheist/ aganostic. He waffles a bit, but his insights on all your questions are stunningly vivid.
The other guy is not so old and dead, though he did die not long ago. Anthony Flew, prominent atheist, turned, very, very late in life, to theist⊠Though there is no indication he was ever religious. His claim in the book, after he lays out all the evidence and argumentation, was that he was âforce to follow the facts to where they led himâ. His last book is call âThere is a Godâ. Itâs a short, but technical read. You have to be familiar in the language of philosophy because it is so technical. But he builds a brick wall of argumentation.
What did this change cost him? All his friends, his standing in the very community he helped create, his position, etc. He stood strong, he didnât care. He wouldnât budge for glory, when he could not deny the facts.
So we come to the inevitable leap of faith, an act of irrationality.
We deal with subjectivity everyday, yes. But if thatâs all that matters itâs a shallow life. What to wear, who to screw, how to achieve said screw are all subjective.
If you want to ground yourself in rock hard concrete facts, you have to turn to metaphysics. Metaphysics is the basis for all that is physical and true. In this realm, there is no subjectivity, things are right or wrong.
We know subjective logic exists because itâs objectively true.
Not here.
And that doesnât change the fact that religious faith is irrational.
Yes, and your lack of religious understanding for someone who believes is typical.
You want it to be. But unless you have a theology background and have done the extensive research it would take to make a real determination, all you can say is you donât like it. And you donât have to.
Shoo, fly⊠your bugging me. I having a real conversation. If you want to be involved then donât be a dick.
No, I donât want it to be one way or the other. I simply know what faith means and what it requires. And you have obviously done no research in this area, certainly less than I.
You mean, stop being intellectually honest.
How do you falsify a lack of belief?
Thank you, but no.
I know, itâs a no from you on being intellectually honest.
If you are going to accuse me of dishonesty then be specific about it. You cannot levy the charge willy-nilly. What do you find dishonest about anything I said?
Except with hindsight showing they were patently wrong, they werenât dealing with facts. They were dealing with the lack of facts. If it were a fact they wouldnât be wrong in hindsight, methods aside.
From THIS perspective, how can anyone be illogical if theyâre simply uneducated? How are atheists irrational and theists rational if said atheists havenât been taught your truth?
Almost seems like rational/logical is subjective instead of objective eh?
If it falls ANYWHERE outside of âcertainty,â itâs not a fact. By definition. So by definition, to your own words, knowledge of Godâs existence isnât a fact?
So what youâre saying is people who believed the Earth was flat were being irrational/illogical as there is no in between? Im starting to get whiplash.
Saying the knowledge of Godâs existence is in whatever range is a bunch of BS. There is zero knowledge of Godâs existence.
You are dishonest by denying that faith is irrational. An honest discussion is impossible when you fail to understand that.
People have faith in all kinds of things. Just believing that the physics that exist today will exist tomorrow is leap of faith.
Do you believe in black holes? If so, how? Ever seen one?
What is counter factual about faith?