Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can we trust what God says?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    So how do you know that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality?
    Under normal circumstances, I just assume it, and try to stay alert for indications that I've gotten into a situation where the assumption is unwarranted.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      Under normal circumstances, I just assume it, and try to stay alert for indications that I've gotten into a situation where the assumption is unwarranted.
      So we just assume that the Bible is the Word of God.
      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 Post
        So we just assume that the Bible is the Word of God.
        Do you also stay alert for indications that the assumption is unwarranted, and revise it to accommodate those indications? Or do you treat this assumption as infallible?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          Do you also stay alert for indications that the assumption is unwarranted, and revise it to accommodate those indications? Or do you treat this assumption as infallible?
          The fact is, you do assume (pardon the pun) that your assumption is perfectly correct. How exactly could you falsify your assumption without falling into a circular argument?
          Last edited by seer; 10-01-2014, 12:20 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 Doug Shaver View Post
            You say so. No argument can prove itself, and your convenient redefinition of circularity won't change that.
            agreed
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              The fact is, you do assume (pardon the pun) that your assumption is perfectly correct. How exactly could you falsify your assumption with falling into a circular argument?
              'Perfectly Correct' has connotations of 'absolute knowledge, which I do not think Doug Shaver ever even hinted that he claimed. We are debating on the fallible human level, which precludes any such claims for any of us. Such accusations smack of logical fallacies, can you guess which ones

              Can Mr. Black or you make such claims such as, ah . . . being 'perfectly correct'?

              Interesting line of reasoning, 'you do not know that you are 'perfectly correct,' therefore your argument does not have any 'ontic base' so to speak, or other legitamate foundation in logic.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-01-2014, 12:10 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                'Perfectly Correct' has connotations of 'absolute knowledge, which I do not think Doug Shaver ever even hinted that he claimed. We are debating on the fallible human level, which precludes any such claims for any of us. Such accusations smack of logical fallacies, can you guess which ones.
                Really? What is the logical fallacy for the idea that an all powerful, all knowing God can impart absolute truth? Please spell out the fallacy.
                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
                  So how do you know that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality?

                  Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                  Under normal circumstances, I just assume it, and try to stay alert for indications that I've gotten into a situation where the assumption is unwarranted.
                  Originally posted by seer
                  So we just assume that the Bible is the Word of God.
                  Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                  Do you also stay alert for indications that the assumption is unwarranted, and revise it to accommodate those indications? Or do you treat this assumption as infallible?
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  The fact is, you do assume (pardon the pun) that your assumption is perfectly correct.
                  I do not. I have vivid memories of occasions when the goings-on in my mind had only a vague correspondence with reality.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  How exactly could you falsify your assumption without falling into a circular argument?
                  I'm not sure you understand falsification. Circular arguments usually prevent it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Really? What is the logical fallacy for the idea that an all powerful, all knowing God can impart absolute truth? Please spell out the fallacy.
                    It is not a fallacy. Too, too many people claim to know the absolute truth revealed to them, and unfortunately many are different. Do you know the absolute truth?

                    Argument from ignorance for one.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-01-2014, 08:44 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by whag View Post
                      So you really actually dry skin was introduced by human beings?
                      You're dodging again, ignoring the argument, begging the question in the process.
                      How can you, in terms of your worldview, be sure what "dry skin" is?
                      Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        No argument can prove itself...
                        Prove this please.


                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        ..and your convenient redefinition of circularity won't change that.
                        Not a "redefinition." Just an important distinction between two different types of circularity.

                        Regarding your above claims, how you, in terms of your worldview, be sure what "argument", "prove", and "circularity" even mean?
                        Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          I don't know all things, and neither do i deny a reference frame as the source of all knowledge, and that source, in my opinion is the universe that bore me, not God.
                          Wait a minute. Are you saying that the universe knows things? Not that it houses facts of reality within its boundaries----but that the universe has knowledge? Is the universe alive in your worldview? is it personal?

                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          From your point of view, God is the source of all knowledge, but being that your notion of God could and does lie...
                          Straw man. I said no such thing, and the Bible flatly contradicts it (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).
                          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            'Perfectly Correct' has connotations of 'absolute knowledge, which I do not think Doug Shaver ever even hinted that he claimed. We are debating on the fallible human level, which precludes any such claims for any of us. Such accusations smack of logical fallacies, can you guess which ones

                            Can Mr. Black or you make such claims such as, ah . . . being 'perfectly correct'?

                            Interesting line of reasoning, 'you do not know that you are 'perfectly correct,' therefore your argument does not have any 'ontic base' so to speak, or other legitamate foundation in logic.
                            I believe Seer's point (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that, without a standard of absolute certainty (and here I speak of epistemic certainty, not mere psychological confidence), you have no grounds for asserting even the probability of a knowledge claim. Suppose you deny knowing anything for certain, but then claim that it's very probable that your senses aren't deceiving you. I respond by asking, "Are you certain that the standard by which you measure the respective probability of a given claim is reliable?" To be consistent, you would have to say no. So not only do you not know that your worldview is true, but you don't even know that it's likely (nor what the word "likely" entails). You could bring up another claim to try to justify your claim that it's likely, but when asked if your absolutely certain of that new claim's veracity, you would again have to say no.
                            Where would it end? It wouldn't. You jump into a pit of infinite regress.
                            Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              It is not a fallacy. Too, too many people claim to know the absolute truth revealed to them, and unfortunately many are different. Do you know the absolute truth?
                              What? So you agree that the idea of an all powerful, all knowing God imparting absolute truth is not a fallacy?

                              Argument from ignorance for one.
                              And how exactly would that apply?
                              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 Mr. Black View Post
                                I believe Seer's point (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that, without a standard of absolute certainty (and here I speak of epistemic certainty, not mere psychological confidence), you have no grounds for asserting even the probability of a knowledge claim. Suppose you deny knowing anything for certain, but then claim that it's very probable that your senses aren't deceiving you. I respond by asking, "Are you certain that the standard by which you measure the respective probability of a given claim is reliable?" To be consistent, you would have to say no. So not only do you not know that your worldview is true, but you don't even know that it's likely (nor what the word "likely" entails). You could bring up another claim to try to justify your claim that it's likely, but when asked if your absolutely certain of that new claim's veracity, you would again have to say no. Where would it end? It wouldn't. You jump into a pit of infinite regress.
                                Could you be wrong about this?

                                Both seer and you have failed to present a coherent argument for 'a standard of absolute certainty (and here I speak of epistemic certainty' other then 'I believe it so.'

                                Still waiting . . .
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-02-2014, 08:22 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X