Theism's fatal flaw
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 01:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 11:26 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Sorry it took me so long to get back to you Q,

My starting point is the concept "existence". It is a single word concept that references everything that exists. You can call it nature or existence or the universe. If it is stated in the form of a proposition it is: existents exist or things exists or reality exists. It really can't be thought of in isolation. When combined with its corollaries it forms a base of knowledge that is incontestably true. This is only the starting point though, the foundation for a fully integrated philosophy.

Existence does meet all of the criteria of a proper starting point. In fact no other concept does. It is undeniably true. It is the most fundamental concept. What could come before it and what would it reference if not something that exists. It is perceptually self evident. It is conceptually irreducible. It is universal, subsuming everything that exists, has existed or will exist in the future. It is implicit in all knowledge and any statement of knowledge.

Then what would you ask me to do in response? I find both my own person and God's to be self-evident in nature.

Really? How is God perceptually self evident?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 01:22 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or put another way,

If the universe (and us inside it) just "is" how come God just "isn't"?

Because existence exists and is perceptually self evident. Not only is there no evidence for a God, the very notion is self contradictory.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
[/quote]
I have done just this several times and pretty much what happens is they either fail to see the failure of their logic, or they simply don't care. I have spoken to several christians who, when asked whether if their god is the wrong god would they want to know, have responded "no". Now some have quickly answered "yes", but the fact that there are people who say that they care about truth yet completely admit that they aren't actually interested in truth is where the real problem lies IMO. They are only interested in THEIR truth. I think that pointing out the serious foundational problems is rather simple. The difficulty arises in whether they want/can see the implications. It's like the people who openly say that the story of Adam and Eve is only a story and not necessarily true but completely miss the implication of without that story, there is NO basis for their entire belief system. I'm looking at you Dr. Collins.
[/quote]

This is so true. I am in the process of starting to share my errr..."waning / lack of belief" with Christians and I get the same responses. They truly fail to see how their logic doesn't add up. They don't want to see it. I attribute this to the comfort level that their worldview holds. The idea that they could be incorrect is not only unfathomable but pretty much heresy and any attempt to address leads to anger...a LOT of it. People fail to put the information together. Hell, if I had not started deep diving into the bible in an attempt to get closer to god, i would have not in the least started asking questions and seeing the flags.
I have only come across one person who has been open to a small amount of discussion, in particular about the historicity of Jesus. Oddly enough, she has stated that our nominal discussions have produced doubt in her mind but that if she would ever entertain it enough to do research and found the evidence to be lacking, she would not believe in ANYTHING. If Jesus ain't true then F*ck, nothin' is . ;-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 04:53 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 04:57 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 01:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  A starting point must be undeniably true, since the rest of the hierarchy of the worldview is dependent upon its truth. If the starting point is at all questionable, then the rest will be at best questionable. "God" is not undeniably true. I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true. So "God" as a starting point fails in this regard.

So basically the starting point, has to be one that meets the criteria of being scientifically rigorous, i.e. clearly defined terminologies, quantifiable, reproducible and, given to highly controlled experimental conditions. It has to hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, or else it wouldn't be justifiable? Does this sum it up?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 04:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 01:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  A starting point must be undeniably true, since the rest of the hierarchy of the worldview is dependent upon its truth. If the starting point is at all questionable, then the rest will be at best questionable. "God" is not undeniably true. I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true. So "God" as a starting point fails in this regard.

So basically the starting point, has to be one that meets the criteria of being scientifically rigorous, i.e. clearly defined terminologies, quantifiable, reproducible and, given to highly controlled experimental conditions. It has to hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, or else it wouldn't be justifiable? Does this sum it up?

There is no evidence for any gods, so making a god's existence the starting assumption is not logical.

Also, starting without that assumption leads to no contradictions.

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
16-02-2015, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 06:13 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 04:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically the starting point, has to be one that meets the criteria of being scientifically rigorous, i.e. clearly defined terminologies, quantifiable, reproducible and, given to highly controlled experimental conditions. It has to hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, or else it wouldn't be justifiable? Does this sum it up?

There is no evidence for any gods, so making a god's existence the starting assumption is not logical.

Also, starting without that assumption leads to no contradictions.

But you mean something particular when you say "evidence", likely the sort of evidence that would survive scientific scrutiny.

The point I'm highlighting is that when truth, evidence, reality, is typically spoken of by many atheists, it tends to be confined within the realm of scientific observations and methodologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 06:24 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 06:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no evidence for any gods, so making a god's existence the starting assumption is not logical.

Also, starting without that assumption leads to no contradictions.

But you mean something particular when you say "evidence", likely the sort of evidence that would survive scientific scrutiny.

The point I'm highlighting is that when truth, evidence, reality, is typically spoken of by many atheists, it tends to be confined within the realm of scientific observations and methodologies.

Because that is the only methodology ever found that actually works at generating knowledge.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-02-2015, 06:48 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 06:51 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because that is the only methodology ever found that actually works at generating knowledge.

Is it though?

In reality it's method reserved for a handful of questions, particularly questions malleable to a systemizing perspective.

If we were to tell the story of the three little pigs to a group of school age kids, and then ask them what is the moral of the story. The ways in which the children derive this knowledge, wouldn't be the scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 07:43 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 06:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because that is the only methodology ever found that actually works at generating knowledge.

Is it though?

In reality it's method reserved for a handful of questions, particularly questions malleable to a systemizing perspective.

If we were to tell the story of the three little pigs to a group of school age kids, and then ask them what is the moral of the story. The ways in which the children derive this knowledge, wouldn't be the scientific method.

I thought it clear that I meant knowledge about reality; apparently not.

A claim that a god or gods exist is a claim about the nature of reality.
Science is the only functional method we have for that kind of knowledge.

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
16-02-2015, 08:16 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(16-02-2015 07:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I thought it clear that I meant knowledge about reality; apparently not.

A claim that a god or gods exist is a claim about the nature of reality.
Science is the only functional method we have for that kind of knowledge.

But what if certain questions about reality, are in some sense explored the same we consider questions about the moral of a story?

One such question could be, why did religions develop?

In order to answer such a question, you would likely have to understand the sort of questions religions attempted to answer, you would have to engage religious scriptures, attempting to derive the meanings and purposes those writings were attempting to convey. You'd have to be attuned to the life of the communities in which these religious traditions belonged to.

Other questions could be how has our moral imagination developed over time, the transitioning from religious to secular moral frames, and perceptions of reality.

These sort of questions involve the same sort of abstract thinking, involved in contemplating the meaning of a narrative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: