Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 10:41 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:08 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I simply disagree. I know what I have learned in this short span.

I'm not asking for your agreement.

As for knowing what you learnt - you haven't dazzled me with brilliance so far.

Quote:You and others appear to be holding me to the standard of experts in their field.

No. I simply say that 4 years of so called research without simple grounding that University courses would gave you means shit. You're free to disagree with me, but your posts show different story.

You don't even know that what you do is special pleading which RS post showed.

Quote:I claim no such title. I just claim that I do know the subject well. It will be my minor when I start college this year though. Perhaps then more responses will be directed at my arguments instead of my credentials.

Perhaps when you start college you will realize stupidity of all that necessary being shit?


So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers (and arguably standard theistic atributes given the principle of proportionate causality) is a valid inference. I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this. Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Christian Philosophy's post
03-02-2017, 10:45 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I'm not asking for your agreement.

As for knowing what you learnt - you haven't dazzled me with brilliance so far.


No. I simply say that 4 years of so called research without simple grounding that University courses would gave you means shit. You're free to disagree with me, but your posts show different story.

You don't even know that what you do is special pleading which RS post showed.


Perhaps when you start college you will realize stupidity of all that necessary being shit?


So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers is a valid inference. I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this. Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy

What theist user give is a pile of shit. You should know as you made another one.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:45 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:11 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The being we're talking about is necessary.

However, there is no valid proof of a necessary being.

Don't see why we even need one.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
To be fair I'm not sure he was claiming scientific evidence per se it sounded more like a claim that the philosophical arguments were evidence, I don't agree with him but I don't remember any specific scientific claims being made unless I've missed some posts or something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
03-02-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  However, there is no valid proof of a necessary being.
The 'necessary' is a bit of hand-waving, but the big problem is the 'being'.
You are going to end up with infinite regress or special pleading; there is no escape.

This is an attempt to prove a negative. You're claiming there exists no valid argument. Have you heard every argument for the necessary being? Also, I gave many.

I would say that it isn't that there isn't a valid argument but that no argument presented so far has been valid; at least none that I am aware of.

I have seen you make many assertions in this thread. If you made an argument for the existence of anything "necessary", let alone a "being", please point out where it was. It might help if you first define what you mean by "necessary" since others have used it in a way that required equivocation on the meaning.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
03-02-2017, 10:52 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:45 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers is a valid inference. I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this. Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy

What theist user give is a pile of shit. You should know as you made another one.

Hi user!,

I am sorry you feel as such. If you felt I was spreading things that weren't clear I do apologize. I did not mean to mislead any one, if I was doing as such (I am not sure I was).

Thanks for the concern,


Christian Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:55 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers (and arguably standard theistic atributes given the principle of proportionate causality) is a valid inference. I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this. Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy

This is reminiscent of WLC's word-salad that he often uses in a vain attempt to confound his opponents in debates.

When you see this, "...it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist" you know you've run into a problem. It very much is special pleading by any measure one wishes to use, as well as begging the question and assuming a priori.

The best definition of theology I ever heard was:

Theology: made-up stuff about made-up stuff.

That's exactly what CP is doing here. I like the way he/she (sorry, didn't look) made the argument even if the argument itself collapses under the weight of it's own fallacies and assumptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
03-02-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:52 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:45 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  What theist user give is a pile of shit. You should know as you made another one.

Hi user!,

I am sorry you feel as such. If you felt I was spreading things that weren't clear I do apologize. I did not mean to mislead any one, if I was doing as such (I am not sure I was).

Thanks for the concern,


Christian Philosophy

I feel that you're just spouting shit. Heath_Tierney put it better than me though.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:05 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
At work.

I seem to have gotten lost in the posting rush.

In case you missed it Naielis. Thumbsup

(03-02-2017 09:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello Naielis! Big Grin

(02-02-2017 02:52 PM)Naielis Wrote:  ...... I have evidence for the necessary being.......

Cool! What is your evidence? Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:05 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  However, there is no valid proof of a necessary being.
The 'necessary' is a bit of hand-waving, but the big problem is the 'being'.
You are going to end up with infinite regress or special pleading; there is no escape.

This is an attempt to prove a negative. You're claiming there exists no valid argument. Have you heard every argument for the necessary being? Also, I gave many.

I have probably seen them all, and none of them are at all compelling. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: