I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2014, 05:16 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:05 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  And yet the only Epistemologist you pay attention to is Plantinga, ignoring coherentism and every other possible view.

I do not even know what his epistemological leanings are so this is just false. Nor have you shown how this is pertinent to the kalam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of past events but not an actually infinite number of future events?

I never said it was possible to traverse an actually infinite number of future events.

This is a red-herring.

So if you can't traverse an actually infinite number of future events, how can God be eternal? How can Heaven and Hell be eternal? How can your soul exist in Heaven and Hell?

There is no god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
02-06-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  These are theological questions and in order to have answers, you must take up the disciplines of metaphysics and theology. Empiricism is impotent here.


And this is why I can dismiss absolutely everything that you say. This is why you can't argue for the existence for a god any more than you argue against me stating that there is no god. This is also why your argument is no more valid than all the other mythologies out there.

LOL why do you dismiss it? Because it conflicts with your epistemological presuppositions?

You have offered no rebutters to either premise that have not been addressed by the proponents of the Kalam. You just set it to the side because it brings you to a conclusion that empiricism is impotent to speak on.

(02-06-2014 05:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why are you attempting, and failing to use Occam's razor if you aren't interested in empiricism?

I am interested in the Kalam right now, not empiricism. I told you where you needed to look for the answers to your questions and that the answer is not found via empiricism. That is it.



(02-06-2014 05:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Sorry but I am only interested in reality, not your own personal fantasy.
I am glad you are, but that in no way addresses what I have written about the Kalam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  And this is why I can dismiss absolutely everything that you say. This is why you can't argue for the existence for a god any more than you argue against me stating that there is no god. This is also why your argument is no more valid than all the other mythologies out there.

LOL why do you dismiss it? Because it conflicts with your epistemological presuppositions?

You have offered no rebutters to either premise that have not been addressed by the proponents of the Kalam. You just set it to the side because it brings you to a conclusion that empiricism is impotent to speak on.

(02-06-2014 05:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why are you attempting, and failing to use Occam's razor if you aren't interested in empiricism?

I am interested in the Kalam right now, not empiricism. I told you where you needed to look for the answers to your questions and that the answer is not found via empiricism. That is it.



(02-06-2014 05:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Sorry but I am only interested in reality, not your own personal fantasy.
I am glad you are, but that in no way addresses what I have written about the Kalam.

That doesn't even make sense as a rebuttal to what I said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:17 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I never said it was possible to traverse an actually infinite number of future events.

This is a red-herring.

So if you can't traverse an actually infinite number of future events, how can God be eternal? How can Heaven and Hell be eternal? How can your soul exist in Heaven and Hell?

There is no god.

I did not say you could not traverse an actually infinite number of future events, but I get your point. Given the superiority of a relational over a non-relational (Newtonian) view of time, God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:34 PM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:05 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  And yet the only Epistemologist you pay attention to is Plantinga, ignoring coherentism and every other possible view.

I do not even know what his epistemological leanings are so this is just false. Nor have you shown how this is pertinent to the kalam.

Red herring.

Quote:Coherentism - Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
Externalism - Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
Foundationalism - Self-evident basic beliefs justify other, non-basic beliefs.
Foundherentism - A combination of foundationalism and coherentism, proposed by Susan Haack.
Infinitism - Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons.
Internalism - The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_justification

Oh gee. Look at all these solutions to regress, most of them not involving God.

Infinite regress is not a problem. You should take an epistemology class.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:17 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  So if you can't traverse an actually infinite number of future events, how can God be eternal? How can Heaven and Hell be eternal? How can your soul exist in Heaven and Hell?

There is no god.

I did not say you could not traverse an actually infinite number of future events. This is another red-herring.

So can you traverse an actually infinite number of future events or not?

If yes then why not an actually infinite number of past events?

If no then God, Heaven and Hell do not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
02-06-2014, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2014 05:40 PM by rampant.a.i..)
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Right, they're simply presupposed, unsupported assertion. That's why the argument is circular. I feel... I feel like we've been over this before, do you not remember?
[hide]

not presupposed at all. what I have listed as minimum requirements for the cause of the universe is not controversial. Matter could not create all matter. A temporal being could not create time. A being in space could not create the space-time manifold for in each scenario, said cause would have had to exist before it existed.


(02-06-2014 04:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never stated that the kalam proves that the cause is omnibenevolent for example. This is somthing that the Kalam cannot prove.

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Then how does it indicate the Christian God?

by pointing to a timeless, immaterial, space-less, more plausibly personal efficient cause of the entirety of the space-time manifold.

This give you a place to start and takes you from atheism to theism. Other arguments are then introduced for the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview i.e. monotheism


(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  An unsupported, unrelated ad hoc "solution" doesn't qualify.
[/hide]
It is not ad hoc at all, nor is it unsupported. It is an inductive inference to a cause of the universe via conceptual analysis of the minimum requirements of the cause of the universe.

1. Wrong, see debates you lost.
2. Wrong, see debates you lost.
3. Wrong, see debates you lost.
4. Wrong, see debates you lost.

See also:

http://youtu.be/IUttbZcv7WI

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:48 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2014 05:52 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:34 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I do not even know what his epistemological leanings are so this is just false. Nor have you shown how this is pertinent to the kalam.

Red herring.

Quote:Coherentism - Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
Externalism - Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
Foundationalism - Self-evident basic beliefs justify other, non-basic beliefs.
Foundherentism - A combination of foundationalism and coherentism, proposed by Susan Haack.
Infinitism - Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons.
Internalism - The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_justification

Oh gee. Look at all these solutions to regress, most of them not involving God.

Infinite regress is not a problem. You should take an epistemology class.

an infinite regress of explanations is a problem. if one needs an explanation for an explanation in order to recognize it as the best explanation for a given set of data, then you automatically embark on a never ending journey of explanation seeking.

a team of astronauts could land on mars and discover a pile of what appears to be ancient machine parts in a cave and have no idea where it came from, who made it, or how long it had been there or what it was for, but I guarantee you they would be killing each other to get back to the spaceship to tell the world that they had discovered evidence of some intelligent life. They recognize that that would be the best explanation even while knowing little to nothing about the machinery.

If they did what Mathilda is suggesting, they would just throw their hands up and say:

"Drats! I have a lot of questions, therefore I cannot say that this pile of machinery is more plausibly the handiwork of some intelligent life."

Such a view is absurd and simply unscientific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 05:52 PM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(02-06-2014 05:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 05:34 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Red herring.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_justification

Oh gee. Look at all these solutions to regress, most of them not involving God.

Infinite regress is not a problem. You should take an epistemology class.

an infinite regress of explanations is a problem. if one needs an explanation for an explanation in order to recognize it as the best explanation for a given set of data, then you automatically embark on a never ending journey of explanation seeking.

a team of astronauts could land on mars and discover a pile of what appears to be ancient machine parts in a cave and have no idea where it came from, who made it, or how long it had been there or what it was for, but I guarantee you they would be killing each other to get back to the spaceship to tell the world that they had discovered evidence of some intelligent life. They recognize that that would be the best explanation even while knowing little to nothing about the machinery.

If they did what Mathilda is suggesting, they would just throw their hands up and say:

"Drats! I have a lot of questions, therefore I cannot say that this pile of machinery is more plausibly the handiwork of some intelligent life."


http://youtu.be/J---aiyznGQ

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: