Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?
Collapse
X
-
Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBecause that would be flawed reasoning. Not to mention fear mongering. There are good reasons in the interests of the state to deny sibling marriages, as well as polygamous marriages, whereas there are no good reasons for the state to deny two consenting adults who happen to be Gay to marry.
Nor do I buy the argument that the government may violate the constitution if it has a "good reason" for wanting the unconstitutional statute.
Also, I'm not "fear mongering". I'm just trying to reason to logical conclusions. And it seems obvious to me that if "equal protection of the laws" demands licenses equally for everyone, then logically it demands licenses for siblings, and for groups of 6 people, and for single people--everyone.
It is also changing the subject. If you have good reason to deny the same rights to Homosexuals that are afforded to Heterosexuals, other than your personal belief that homosexuality is unatural, then argue that case alone. If you don't have good reason, then you have no case.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostUnlike between homosexuals, there's a biological cost to incest, especially with first degree relatives such as one's sister. But if you feel you can make a case for incestuous unions then go ahead.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAre you one of them thar "New Atheists"?
Oh year and your quote from 2 Tim is a forgery. 1 & 2 Tim and Titus are well known forgeries.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostDunning-Kruger, seer. The term "clear and distinct perceptions" is straight-up Descartes and, despite your claim, Descartes does write that one can indeed conclude things have external existence without circular reasoning. He does this by grounding belief systems in axioms. You might say "Well, maybe Descartes is wrong and we can't be sure our axioms are correct" — but that's exactly the argument you denied earlier when I was trying to show you the epistemological problem of your claims regarding ontology.
The syllogism is wholly valid, as the conclusion proceeds from the premises and is distinct from them.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostAre you suggesting that the circular argument theists have to make to try and show that god is the source of good is a basic belief that is asserted without any evidence?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostReally Sam? Descartes never could make a deductive argument for trusting sense perception. His only way out was to invoke God. If you think otherwise please link me to where he claimed this.
It was not in the least valid Sam, how does C1 prove that you are perceiving something external?
Like I said earlier, read "Principa Mathematica". If you're arguing for the difficultly of proving something on the one hand, you will not be able to rest your arguments on the existence of God. If it takes a book to prove "1 + 1 = 2", you're setting yourself up for failure. The best you could say, as I wrote in the other thread is "IF God exists, THEN ..."
God isn't reducible to maths."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYou are confused. While Descartes could not externally verify his belief system without invoking God (and that is where Descartes ran into a circle), his belief system itself was predicated on basic beliefs/axioms. The pragmatist completely avoids Descartes' problem because she says her beliefs are true in that they "work" — what gets you through the day is "true". The empiricist gets around Descartes' problem for much the same reason — those ideas that are consistent through experience are more likely to be true. The logical positivist avoids Descartes' problem by saying only that which is axiomatic or derived from axioms has any meaning — "meaningful," in a sense, replaces "true".
If you don't know the meaning of the term "valid" when it comes to logic, you really need to step back from trying to argue philosophy, seer. Valid means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. That's it. As far as the syllogism I used goes, it is both valid and sound, though it could be contested.
Like I said earlier, read "Principa Mathematica". If you're arguing for the difficultly of proving something on the one hand, you will not be able to rest your arguments on the existence of God. If it takes a book to prove "1 + 1 = 2", you're setting yourself up for failure. The best you could say, as I wrote in the other thread is "IF God exists, THEN ..."
God isn't reducible to maths.
You could have said:
P1) I have clear and distinct perceptions of the external world.
P2) I perceive this thing to be a red apple in the external world.
C1) This thing is therefore a red apple and exists in the external.
But there is no way to show that PI is valid or true.Last edited by seer; 07-10-2015, 01:01 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Thinker, we are not on either horn, since said moral standard in internal to God, not external.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostThere is no way out of the dilemma. Asserting the "moral standard [is] internal to God" is just an assertion, you need a logical argument showing so. But you cannot show that.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Sam, Descartes could not deductively justify sense perception - period. None of these other theories change my original point. You can not logically (i.e. deductively) show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. It does not follow that because you perceive a red apply that that apple is therefore necessarily external to your mind. That does not follow from your fist two premises.
You could have said:
P1) I have clear and distinct perceptions of the external world.
P2) I perceive this thing to be a red apple in the external world.
C1) This thing is therefore a red apple and exists in the external.
But there is no way to show that PI is valid or true.
You're out of your league here, seer, and you're digging your own argumentative grave. Whether you're saying (rightly) that all belief systems are contingent upon axioms or (wrongly) that all belief systems are contingent upon circular arguments, you've just killed your own argument. If all belief systems are axiomatic, claiming God as an axiomatic moral source is fine, though the axiom can be disputed or disregard by someone who doesn't hold it as true. If all belief systems are based on fallacious reasoning then there's no sound reasoning that can preference your belief system over another's, as they both appeal to a fallacy.
Where angels fear to tread ..."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostLet me ask again Thinker. Why is something good because your objective standard of morality says it's good? How is that standard not arbitrary?Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
There was a lot in your post I'd love to reply to but I decided to focus down to the following, which seems to be the root of our misunderstanding:
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostOriginally posted by JoelNeither.
"Loving is good" is an attribute of God's nature. But I'm not claiming that that property makes God good.
Rather, what makes God good is a different property: that God conforms to the Standard.
That's why it's not circular: they are two different properties. (Like I said elsewhere, one could possibly attempt to imagine an evil god that both is the standard (including the property "loving is good"), and yet is evil (is not loving)).
First note that "God conforms to the Standard," simply implies that there exists a standard, and says nothing about whether that standard is internal or external to God. There is nothing contradictory or circular about saying that the Standard (e.g. "loving is Good") is a property of God, and that God also has the property that God conforms to the standard (e.g., "God is loving"). Those are two different propositions. They do not contradict. And they are not circular (because the former does not depend on the latter being true).
God is good because of the latter property. Loving is good because of the former property. Again, no contradiction and no circularity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not following Thinker - why is something right because this objective standard says it's right?Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIf P1 is an axiom then you don't need to show that it's true (valid doesn't even make any sense here).
You're out of your league here, seer, and you're digging your own argumentative grave. Whether you're saying (rightly) that all belief systems are contingent upon axioms or (wrongly) that all belief systems are contingent upon circular arguments, you've just killed your own argument. If all belief systems are axiomatic, claiming God as an axiomatic moral source is fine, though the axiom can be disputed or disregard by someone who doesn't hold it as true. If all belief systems are based on fallacious reasoning then there's no sound reasoning that can preference your belief system over another's, as they both appeal to a fallacy.
Where angels fear to tread ...Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostAnswering my question with a question, how wonderful. Let's be honest now, you don't actually have a logical argument to show objective morality cannot exist independently from god, you just assert it, over and over again. I think that's very apparent by now.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 07:25 AM
|
12 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by mossrose
Today, 08:20 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 03:45 PM
|
16 responses
75 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:17 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
21 responses
98 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by EvoUK
Today, 01:46 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:58 AM
|
26 responses
134 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 06:24 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 07-01-2024, 01:20 PM
|
46 responses
248 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 10:38 PM
|
Comment