Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2010, 07:56 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Um guys I wasn't trying to define anything. I didn't need to for that argument to work which is why I don't think Fr0d0 understood any of what I was saying.

But since were on the topic. Dictionary.com lists faith as "belief not based on proof". That is why I reject the idea of "knowledge by faith" because to have knowledge required some form of proof that something is true.

Knowledge by faith is by definition an impossibly illogical thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 11:08 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Right. Knowledge and faith are opposites. Knowledge by faith is an oxymoron of the highest level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 12:06 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ah, but here's the twenty-dollar question: is this non-empirical evidence valid?
Of course.

(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The evidence is primarily in the biblical text, and then in personal experience.
And the answer appears to be a "no".

The Bible cannot be evidence for God's existence. That is circular logic. The Bible is the source of the claims. It isn't evidence for them.
Incorrect

If the bible were evidence for the bible, or God evidence for God, then that would be circular logic. Smoke is evidence for fire, not smoke. your reasoning is flawed.

(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As for personal experience... that is notoriously unreliable.
Absolutely. Scripture would support your view there.

(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The creed is the direct interpretation of scripture that Mainstream Christians all agree upon - it's exactly what we're talking about.

No. It's not. We aren't talking about what Christians agree upon. We're talking about what they disagree upon.

At this point, though, I'm pretty sure that you are not going to admit your mistake. You're wrong, but harping on it isn't going to get the point through, so I'll let it drop.
All I saw stated was that Christians disagree on everything... which I have demonstrated to be incorrect. I absolutely concur that Christians strongly disagree on a lot of things, and that's absolutely correct and fully supported by the Christian tradition. It isn't as you'd like to infer, problematic in any way to the coherent model of Christianity as embodied by the doctrine of the Universal Christian Church.

What exactly do you have to respond to there? It seems there is nothing.

(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-11-2010 02:56 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Non empirical evidence is reliant upon the observer. Assuming God: everything extant is evidence of his handiwork, for example.

That's not evidence, but not because it's not empirical. It's simply circular.
You're committing a huge fallacy there. "that non empirical evidence of the non empirical subject is not valid because it's not empirical evidence".

Nonsense.

(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Giving intellectual assention to such claims constitutes non empirically obtained evidence.

No, it doesn't. It constitutes incredibly obvious flawed logic.
How?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 03:17 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(15-11-2010 12:06 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The evidence is primarily in the biblical text, and then in personal experience.
And the answer appears to be a "no".

The Bible cannot be evidence for God's existence. That is circular logic. The Bible is the source of the claims. It isn't evidence for them.
Incorrect

If the bible were evidence for the bible, or God evidence for God, then that would be circular logic. Smoke is evidence for fire, not smoke. your reasoning is flawed.

Uh, no, it's not. The Bible is the source of the claim for God. You may as well claim that the Harry Potter series is evidence of Hogwarts.

Saying that it isn't circular doesn't make it so. Please read up on circular logic. Here are some links that you may find helpful:

Nizkor (also contains a list of the other logical fallacies)
Wikipedia

Quote:
(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As for personal experience... that is notoriously unreliable.
Absolutely. Scripture would support your view there.

Then you don't think that personal experience is evidence for God's experience, then?

Quote:
(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The creed is the direct interpretation of scripture that Mainstream Christians all agree upon - it's exactly what we're talking about.

No. It's not. We aren't talking about what Christians agree upon. We're talking about what they disagree upon.

At this point, though, I'm pretty sure that you are not going to admit your mistake. You're wrong, but harping on it isn't going to get the point through, so I'll let it drop.
All I saw stated was that Christians disagree on everything... which I have demonstrated to be incorrect.

And which I never said.

Quote:It isn't as you'd like to infer, problematic in any way to the coherent model of Christianity as embodied by the doctrine of the Universal Christian Church.

I never said that it was.

Quote:What exactly do you have to respond to there? It seems there is nothing.

Apparently there isn't. But this is becoming a recurring theme with you: you say one thing, I prove it wrong, and then you say that you never meant it that way. Please do try to be more clear.

Quote:
(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-11-2010 02:56 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Non empirical evidence is reliant upon the observer. Assuming God: everything extant is evidence of his handiwork, for example.

That's not evidence, but not because it's not empirical. It's simply circular.
You're committing a huge fallacy there. "that non empirical evidence of the non empirical subject is not valid because it's not empirical evidence".

No, I'm not. Please read my post, carefully this time.

(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That's not evidence, but not because it's not empirical. It's simply circular.

Quote:
(14-11-2010 07:12 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Giving intellectual assention to such claims constitutes non empirically obtained evidence.

No, it doesn't. It constitutes incredibly obvious flawed logic.
How?

It's circular.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:07 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(15-11-2010 03:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The Bible is the source of the claim for God. You may as well claim that the Harry Potter series is evidence of Hogwarts.
Crap argument. God is the source of the claim of God. How can you deny so badly that this is not so? What about all the other literal and aural sources that reference God? And those of disparate societies and cultures? They're all circular logic of themselves I suppose?

The Harry Potter series is evidence of the fictional Hogwarts.

In the example linked - to form the fallacy the author had to create the strawman: "God wrote the bible". God didn't write the bible: he inspired it. Unless you are making that claim and have proof for me? The bible is never written in the first person.


(15-11-2010 03:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Apparently there isn't. But this is becoming a recurring theme with you: you say one thing, I prove it wrong, and then you say that you never meant it that way. Please do try to be more clear.
You have proved nothing of what I've said to be wrong my friend - you've engaged in battle against your own strawmen. Please try to remain rational and not try to score points with petty insults.

(15-11-2010 03:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-11-2010 02:56 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  You're committing a huge fallacy there. "that non empirical evidence of the non empirical subject is not valid because it's not empirical evidence".
No, I'm not. Please read my post, carefully this time.
The thrust of your whole argument as I see it is to deny the possibility and logicality of non empirical evidence. To demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject is strictly fallacial according to the fallacy of question begging. Stop trying to dodge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:21 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
How can you honestly say "God is the source of the claim of God." within the first 2 sentences and yet deny you are using circular logic?

What Unbeliever is trying to desperately to point out is that you are using very blatant circular logic and trying to give it window dressing as some form of evidence which it is not in any way shape or form.

I'm sorry but if you don't get that part then fine I've already gone in depth to show how your arguments are very ontological in nature. I just hope someday you understand that how you see the arguments for Allah is precisely what you are arguing for Yahweh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:25 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(15-11-2010 04:07 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 03:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The Bible is the source of the claim for God. You may as well claim that the Harry Potter series is evidence of Hogwarts.
Crap argument. God is the source of the claim of God.

Circular logic again.

Quote:How can you deny so badly that this is not so?

Because it's circular.

Quote:What about all the other literal and aural sources that reference God? And those of disparate societies and cultures?

What about them?

Quote:They're all circular logic of themselves I suppose?

Not necessarily. Many of them are simply bare assertion. The Mayans, for example, simply asserted that their beliefs were true.

You are attempting to change the subject. I was not commenting on other arguments or beliefs about God. I was commenting on the specific argument that the Bible could contain evidence for God.

Quote:The Harry Potter series is evidence of the fictional Hogwarts.

Then the Bible is evidence of a fictional God and Jesus.

Quote:In the example linked - to form the fallacy the author had to create the strawman: "God wrote the bible". God didn't write the bible: he inspired it. Unless you are making that claim and have proof for me? The bible is never written in the first person.

Which is irrelevant, because I never said that the circular argument that you were forming was identical to the example given in the link.

You claim that the Bible is evidence of God. It isn't. It's what claims that God exists.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Apparently there isn't. But this is becoming a recurring theme with you: you say one thing, I prove it wrong, and then you say that you never meant it that way. Please do try to be more clear.
You have proved nothing of what I've said to be wrong my friend - you've engaged in battle against your own strawmen.

No, I haven't. I can even quote the posts in question - and have - so please don't try to do this. If you misspoke, it's no big deal, but please don't lie.

Quote:Please try to remain rational and not try to score points with petty insults.

I haven't insulted you, and I am entirely rational.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, I'm not. Please read my post, carefully this time.
The thrust of your whole argument as I see it is to deny the possibility and logicality of non empirical evidence.

No, it isn't.

Quote:To demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject is strictly fallacial according to the fallacy of question begging.

And I have not done so. You are strawmanning.

Quote:Stop trying to dodge.

I've dodged nothing. Answer the objections I have raised - not the ones that you imagine that I have - or admit that your argument is fallacious.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:39 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(15-11-2010 04:07 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  God is the source of the claim of God.

Did you really just say that?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:43 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Just to give this some context so you can see how silly that is.

"Gravity is the source of the claim of gravity."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 05:18 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
The circular argument is thus: God says he's God.

Ok hand me the shovel Big Grin

When I said "God is the source of the claim for God", what I meant is: that God is the source of evidence for claims for him. Same as water is the source of evidence for the existence of water. If there were no water, there would be no evidence. Of course we wouldn't be able to use sensory evidence of God, because God isn't testable by the senses, by definition. We have finely honed evidence in multitudes of religious endeavour describing God and his/her/it's nature. We can test those with logic to see if anything is contradictory. I am convinced that my model of God is logically consistent. I test that all the time. If my thinking was flawed, I'd hope to discover how.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: