The taditional arguments for the existence of God, having supposedly been dashed by Kant and Hume, were ignored for almost two centuries. Since the 1960s, however, a whole new breed of intrepid philosophers (the "back to God movement") has been working steadily to revive the arguments. This revitalization of God talk presents a whole new dynamic with which the atheist must deal. Some of these arguments, and more besides, are presented in the following pages. Below I present my own view of God, which is greatly influenced by the work of Theologian Paul Tillich.It was theologian Karl Barth, who kicked off the back to God movment when realized that Anselm actually had several more versions of his famous argument, whith which Hume, Kant, and Russell never dealt.
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is
red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
Pages
▼
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Introduction to God Arguments
The taditional arguments for the existence of God, having supposedly been dashed by Kant and Hume, were ignored for almost two centuries. Since the 1960s, however, a whole new breed of intrepid philosophers (the "back to God movement") has been working steadily to revive the arguments. This revitalization of God talk presents a whole new dynamic with which the atheist must deal. Some of these arguments, and more besides, are presented in the following pages. Below I present my own view of God, which is greatly influenced by the work of Theologian Paul Tillich.It was theologian Karl Barth, who kicked off the back to God movment when realized that Anselm actually had several more versions of his famous argument, whith which Hume, Kant, and Russell never dealt.
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is
red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is
red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Atheist Truth Regeime
My brother and I got together with an atheist friend form the CARM board. We found out that this guy lives in Dallas, so we started talking on the phone, then got together at a restaurant to discuss the existence of God. It was daunting because not being on a message board meant I had to listen to him steak. No, I'm Kidding. It was great because we got a lot further into the discussion than we would have had it been on a board.
The thing is this guy still did the same atheist trick I describe in the post bellow; trying to barrow the area of science as truth finding technique and pretend that it rubs off on atheism via the atheist admiration or science. Everything I would say would be met by "that's not meaningful because you have to assume God to begin with." But of cooers I am assuming God, as the foundation of my belief system, in the expression of any belief that I want to disclose. I can't begin with the cogit and work my way out to God there in causal conversation. I might just as well issue a 1000 page book "how to converse with Metacrock," it could begin with the material in the Russell's Whistehaead's Pinckipa, (which establishes the basis in logic for doing the math problem 1 + 1--said to be the most complex book ever written) and then Wittenstine's Tractatus, which establishes the basis of logic in language, and finally wind up with Descartre's Discourse on the Method which demonstrates how to go from "I think, therefore, I am to the proving the rest of the world. There just might be some who would find it a daunting task to read all these things just to hold a converstaion with me.
In fact the atheist is still doing what I accuse him of doing; setting up a truth regime based upon the presentness ha this world is established because he hitchhikes off the credibility of science. The he accuses me of arguing from incredulity by saying things "that can't be verified." Of course when pressed to verify his own position he resets to his own from of incredulity; dyeing that he has any need to verify the reality of the world or other minds or the meaning of life on the basis that it's not a meaningful question to question these because no one else does. Of course the fact that the majority, the vast majority of world pop accept God as a valid starting point for knowledge isn't enough in his mind to justify assumptions about the divine, but it's far more established because of the larger community that takes these questions seriously.
He would not admit that finding may own experiences significant was enough of a reason to doubt them so, but did admit that a community of believers can't be dismissed merely on the basis of their belief, because they do create a context in which belief is taken seriously. Well, so? Isn't this the same principles? There's nothing to privilege a position on if everything has to have a community of speakers to make meaningful satinets to, then why is my community any worse off than his?
He couldn't answer that that's the way we left it.
The thing is this guy still did the same atheist trick I describe in the post bellow; trying to barrow the area of science as truth finding technique and pretend that it rubs off on atheism via the atheist admiration or science. Everything I would say would be met by "that's not meaningful because you have to assume God to begin with." But of cooers I am assuming God, as the foundation of my belief system, in the expression of any belief that I want to disclose. I can't begin with the cogit and work my way out to God there in causal conversation. I might just as well issue a 1000 page book "how to converse with Metacrock," it could begin with the material in the Russell's Whistehaead's Pinckipa, (which establishes the basis in logic for doing the math problem 1 + 1--said to be the most complex book ever written) and then Wittenstine's Tractatus, which establishes the basis of logic in language, and finally wind up with Descartre's Discourse on the Method which demonstrates how to go from "I think, therefore, I am to the proving the rest of the world. There just might be some who would find it a daunting task to read all these things just to hold a converstaion with me.
In fact the atheist is still doing what I accuse him of doing; setting up a truth regime based upon the presentness ha this world is established because he hitchhikes off the credibility of science. The he accuses me of arguing from incredulity by saying things "that can't be verified." Of course when pressed to verify his own position he resets to his own from of incredulity; dyeing that he has any need to verify the reality of the world or other minds or the meaning of life on the basis that it's not a meaningful question to question these because no one else does. Of course the fact that the majority, the vast majority of world pop accept God as a valid starting point for knowledge isn't enough in his mind to justify assumptions about the divine, but it's far more established because of the larger community that takes these questions seriously.
He would not admit that finding may own experiences significant was enough of a reason to doubt them so, but did admit that a community of believers can't be dismissed merely on the basis of their belief, because they do create a context in which belief is taken seriously. Well, so? Isn't this the same principles? There's nothing to privilege a position on if everything has to have a community of speakers to make meaningful satinets to, then why is my community any worse off than his?
He couldn't answer that that's the way we left it.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Poor raguments
That anynomous guy is still sending in comments trying to prove that I"m so stupid I dont' know anything and I never went to school. I never owned a book and I don't know how to read. He is clealry in the dark about the nature of dyslexia i suggest he do some basic research.
I already amitted I was wrong. I got lazy and trusted a secondary source, which led me astray. That is an unscholarly thing to do. I guess all this time out of class has dulled my schoarly habits. But what else does he want me to say? Why is he still harping on the "Metacrock is wrong" Hpothesis?
His argument that the Christians were just a small unknown cult in 135 AD (Bar Kaba rebellion) doesn't wash. They were not an unnkown cult at that time. They probably almost outnumbered Jews at that time. The real point is they were Jews. Jewish Christiaans so the Romans would have percieved them as sect of Judausm. That's what they would cover the tomb site and all venerted Chrsitian sites.
That they did cover sites with Roman things and changed the name of the city and destroyed the temple and put Roman icons on the site of the temple is beyond dispute.
That guy needs a new hobby. Hating Metacrock is not nearly as healthy as coin collecting
I already amitted I was wrong. I got lazy and trusted a secondary source, which led me astray. That is an unscholarly thing to do. I guess all this time out of class has dulled my schoarly habits. But what else does he want me to say? Why is he still harping on the "Metacrock is wrong" Hpothesis?
His argument that the Christians were just a small unknown cult in 135 AD (Bar Kaba rebellion) doesn't wash. They were not an unnkown cult at that time. They probably almost outnumbered Jews at that time. The real point is they were Jews. Jewish Christiaans so the Romans would have percieved them as sect of Judausm. That's what they would cover the tomb site and all venerted Chrsitian sites.
That they did cover sites with Roman things and changed the name of the city and destroyed the temple and put Roman icons on the site of the temple is beyond dispute.
That guy needs a new hobby. Hating Metacrock is not nearly as healthy as coin collecting
Extraordinary Proof
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary proof: Or do they?
Examining the dictim, often used as a hedge against any sort of justification argument for belief, the phrase is half baked at best. The following four precepts form the basis for my argument:
(1) "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder
(2) One would epxect the extraordinary to be a break with norms, such that we cannot think of the usual run of the mill daily concerns as extraordinary claims.
(3) One would think that any concept which holds presumption would pass teh test as an ordinary claim
(4) any view has presumpumption when it prestends a premia facie case.
Taking these four precepts, we can make two arguments such that the atheist hedge of the extraordinary claim is a half baked peice of "spin doctoring" rather than a sound philosphical prnicipel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (1): Religious belief is Normative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef is the norm for humanity:not only is this so but it is also the upshot of our body chemestry.
The vast majority of humans who ever lived have been religious. This is not only so today, when 90% of the world pop is religiouis, but it has always been the case as far back as we can recognize our distant cousins's ancestors (Neanderthal) as being human; human-like people have always been predominately religious.
Moreover, it is part of our make up to be religious:
(a) the "God pod" means that the concept of God is wried into our brains.
(b) psychological archetypes show up the world over on all psychoanalytical tests, indicating that the same symbolism world over is universal to humanity--including religious symbols.
(c) mental and physical health is much bettr for religious participants.
What all this means is that it is normative for humans to be religious. Thus it cannot be an extraordinary claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (2) Presumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef meets PF case
Empirical studies of RE estabish a PM case since they show us that the same affects are foud in all religioins the world over. This means that, while particular religiosu traditions are cultural constructs, the basic core idea of religion itself is part and pacell of human experine, is the norm and normative for human beings, and seems to indicate a co-dermeinate of God belif.
That frees the believer from any need to prove, because belief is prima facie. It is the job of the skeptic to now show that the evidence is inadequate and that the case has not been established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:That means it is the atheist who must get past the extraordinary claim problem. With 90% of huamnity beileving in some form of God it is an extraordinary calim to suggest that there is nothing beyond human experince that we might label "divine."
Examining the dictim, often used as a hedge against any sort of justification argument for belief, the phrase is half baked at best. The following four precepts form the basis for my argument:
(1) "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder
(2) One would epxect the extraordinary to be a break with norms, such that we cannot think of the usual run of the mill daily concerns as extraordinary claims.
(3) One would think that any concept which holds presumption would pass teh test as an ordinary claim
(4) any view has presumpumption when it prestends a premia facie case.
Taking these four precepts, we can make two arguments such that the atheist hedge of the extraordinary claim is a half baked peice of "spin doctoring" rather than a sound philosphical prnicipel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (1): Religious belief is Normative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef is the norm for humanity:not only is this so but it is also the upshot of our body chemestry.
The vast majority of humans who ever lived have been religious. This is not only so today, when 90% of the world pop is religiouis, but it has always been the case as far back as we can recognize our distant cousins's ancestors (Neanderthal) as being human; human-like people have always been predominately religious.
Moreover, it is part of our make up to be religious:
(a) the "God pod" means that the concept of God is wried into our brains.
(b) psychological archetypes show up the world over on all psychoanalytical tests, indicating that the same symbolism world over is universal to humanity--including religious symbols.
(c) mental and physical health is much bettr for religious participants.
What all this means is that it is normative for humans to be religious. Thus it cannot be an extraordinary claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (2) Presumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef meets PF case
Empirical studies of RE estabish a PM case since they show us that the same affects are foud in all religioins the world over. This means that, while particular religiosu traditions are cultural constructs, the basic core idea of religion itself is part and pacell of human experine, is the norm and normative for human beings, and seems to indicate a co-dermeinate of God belif.
That frees the believer from any need to prove, because belief is prima facie. It is the job of the skeptic to now show that the evidence is inadequate and that the case has not been established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:That means it is the atheist who must get past the extraordinary claim problem. With 90% of huamnity beileving in some form of God it is an extraordinary calim to suggest that there is nothing beyond human experince that we might label "divine."