Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

It's certainly not an approach that I agree with, but some reasonable arguments have been made for such an approach (reasonable in that they deserve serious engagement). The most significant contemporary philosopher in this area, as far as I know, is probably Alvin Plantinga who has a three volume work on 'warrant' (in the sense of knowledge) in which he tries to show that belief in god can be rational in the absence of empirical evidence. See also reformed epistemology.

This is the kind of thing I have in mind when I talk about a theist being serious about challenging the notions of 'knowledge'/'warrant'/'justification' as they exist in the scientific framework. I do know a couple theists who can defend their beliefs at this level - which I find very impressive. Unfortunately, my experience suggests that the vast majority of 'the faithful' don't have such reasoned grounding for their faith-driven claims - most often a hodge-podge of such scholarly views which have filtered down to the masses. To be fair though, many atheists also fail to engage at this level.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!Some one has heard of my way of thinking...or similar anyway.

 

[Kwayera]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!Some one has heard of my way of thinking...or similar anyway.

Except... not really. You fit his description of what ISN'T hard to find.

 

[*TRUE*]

Except... not really. You fit his description of what ISN'T hard to find.

Your interpretation....

 

[Kwayera]

"Unfortunately, my experience suggests that the vast majority of 'the faithful' don't have such reasoned grounding for their faith-driven claims - most often a hodge-podge of such scholarly views which have filtered down to the masses."


Discussions with you have proved that you fit this description entirely.

 

[*TRUE*]

"Unfortunately, my experience suggests that the vast majority of 'the faithful' don't have such reasoned grounding for their faith-driven claims - most often a hodge-podge of such scholarly views which have filtered down to the masses."


Discussions with you have proved that you fit this description entirely.

I dont actually Kwayera.
I have probably displayed elements of fideism, but not a hodge podge of scholarly views.
I have not argued creationism for this reason: That I would be using arguments i have heard from Christian scholars which my own study has shown weak.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

true puts the fun in fundamentalism!

 

[*TRUE*]

true puts the fun in fundamentalism!

why having fun?
oh that sounded bad!

 

[Slidey]

True, I would be more than happy if you did just one thing:

When somebody mentions something scientific which you feel goes against God's teachings, don't automatically dismiss it. Keep an open mind, do some research if you want, but don't come to a firm conclusion unless it conflicts with your FAITH in God (not in claims of what God does or how he did it).

For example: the theory of evolution has caused man to elevate his knowledge of medicine beyond anything we had before. Now whether or not you believe in evolution, the immense good medicine does for this world, and the improved living conditions it has provided (by things as simple as antibiotics), are far more in accord with your knowledge of God than in conflict, so it would make sense to assume for now that evolution may not be wrong, or at the very least, opposing it is opposing further advances in medicine; something which would prevent more good being fostered - which it's unlikely God would support. Could opposing evolution be akin to opposing God? Neither you or I could say for sure, but it would certainly seem like a logical conclusion.

Note we have said nothing about the validity or correctness of evolutionary theory, merely noted that opposing it would remove good from the world, which is extremely close to fostering evil.

 

[Omium]

God really exists because it says so in the Bible and he preached to millions on the true gospel !! in terms of creation It's true not so much for science!!

Im so ashamed i live in the same suburb as you.

 

[darkliight]

It's amazing how many people from both sides of the fence love to use Einstein quotes. Not that there is anything wrong with noting what someone else said, but I get the feeling a lot of people use them as a sort of 'proof by authority'.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I personally am an atheist. I find it hard to believe in God when there are so many scientific arguments disputing his existence.

And to all of those who say that you should believe in God because there is a Heaven, and God will not be pleased when you do not believe, if there is a Heaven, I don't think I would like to worship a God who sends you to eternal damnation simply because you had a different faith or none at all.

Yeah i'm sure a 15 year old girl is smarter than all the ppl who believed in god

btw if u think there are scientific arguments disputing His existence then u don't understand science

 

[darkliight]

Yeah i'm sure a 15 year old girl is smarter than all the ppl who believed in god

So only the smartest person should have an opinion?

btw if u think there are scientific arguments disputing His existence then u don't understand science

Yeah that was pretty bad.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

It's certainly not an approach that I agree with, but some reasonable arguments have been made for such an approach (reasonable in that they deserve serious engagement). The most significant contemporary philosopher in this area, as far as I know, is probably Alvin Plantinga who has a three volume work on 'warrant' (in the sense of knowledge) in which he tries to show that belief in god can be rational in the absence of empirical evidence. See also reformed epistemology.

This is the kind of thing I have in mind when I talk about a theist being serious about challenging the notions of 'knowledge'/'warrant'/'justification' as they exist in the scientific framework. I do know a couple theists who can defend their beliefs at this level - which I find very impressive. Unfortunately, my experience suggests that the vast majority of 'the faithful' don't have such reasoned grounding for their faith-driven claims - most often a hodge-podge of such scholarly views which have filtered down to the masses. To be fair though, many atheists also fail to engage at this level.

Sure, there are definitely philosophies which are quite accommodating to a god/the supernatural... If someone in this thread wants to challenge us on fundamental epistemological issues then they can, but other than some guy a ways back there have been no efforts to do so. I imagine this is because people tend to utilise/display a belief in physicalism/verificationalism in everyday life and are only called to move beyond this when they need a defense for something they wish were true that just cannot be using their everyday modus aperendi.

That's why I sorta think the best way to critique a philosophy is on its consistency, people who use neuroscience as a part of a weapon in defense of their non-verificationalist stance seem to be at odds with themselves even while making their point.

- NTB

 

[Slidey]

Yeah i'm sure a 15 year old girl is smarter than all the ppl who believed in god

btw if u think there are scientific arguments disputing His existence then u don't understand science

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What the hell are you talking about?

tying to provoke a response from her, obviously

 

[KFunk]

That's why I sorta think the best way to critique a philosophy is on its consistency, people who use neuroscience as a part of a weapon in defense of their non-verificationalist stance seem to be at odds with themselves even while making their point.

- NTB

Food for thought: a paper by the philosopher Graham Priest Called What is so bad about contradictions? (I assume you have uni access to Jstor) - his answer is "maybe nothing much."

For an interesting look at how contradiction may be a structural feature of certain kinds of philosophical enquiry I would recommend his book Beyond the limits of thought (I'm reading it at the moment and it's quite fantastic). In particular he considers things like infinity, Aristotle's prime matter, arguments about the limits of conception/expression/meaning, Russell's paradox, etc... etc...

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

While I obviously find contradictions important, that isn't the entire thrust of my thoughts on the matter... It's also just that in general I find a philosophy rather useless if a human mind can't actually accept its validity other than as a philosophical possibility, i.e. I imagine there might be some logical 'truths' built into our physical minds that even while perhaps being inaccurate, are as accurate for us as we'll ever be able to accept (this probably includes contradictions)... though I am cautious about going down that line of argument too far.

And btw, I haven't read his paper... but I imagine I'd be disappointed if it's going to end up being some wishy washy crap that attempts to reject all objective analysis.

 

[Sammy-Blue]

Everyone is free to believe what they want, however if you believe in god, your view differs from mine, so you are wrong /thread

 

[darkliight]

RE: Schroedinger.

I agree (well, did he ever say anything about his religous convictions as a child?). I just find it interesting that so many people quote from Einstein of all people - from both sides of the fence.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

RE: Schroedinger.

I agree (well, did he ever say anything about his religous convictions as a child?). I just find it interesting that so many people quote from Einstein of all people - from both sides of the fence.

Well they're not exactly going to support their arguments by attempting to show that Hitler agreed with them are they?