Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Archaeopteryx]

And you are wrong. But that's ok. Even the best of us sometimes draw erroneous conclusions from what people write here on this forum. It happens sometimes.

What exactly is he wrong about?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And yet in all your dialogue with me you have quoted no professional philosophers.
What you have succeeded in doing is making certain judgments about me after having read several posts I have written on an online forum. Judgments which have lead you to an erroneous conclusion.
Rather than resort to concluding that you are not really a professional philosopher at all, I will simply reserve judgment and give you the benefit of the doubt as I respectfully ask you to do for me.

As @Aelred of Rievaulx noted, claiming you are a philosopher fosters the impression that you have studied philosophy formally and that you are broadly familiar with the philosophical literature. In other words, calling yourself a philosopher implies that you have a sufficient level of expertise to claim the title. That doesn't appear to be the case. You are an apologist.

 

[anonymous person]

As @Aelred of Rievaulx noted, claiming you are a philosopher fosters the impression that you have studied philosophy formally and that you are broadly familiar with the philosophical literature. In other words, calling yourself a philosopher implies that you have a sufficient level of expertise to claim the title. That doesn't appear to be the case. You are an apologist.

Thanks.

 

[bhsmte]

I Googled it.

As a self professed philosopher, did you need to google it to understand what the term meant?

 

[bhsmte]

And like I said, you have come to the wrong conclusion.

I think he pretty much nailed it.

 

[Chriliman]

Clearly, you have not followed along in this thread, and seen what Chrillman has posted.

He essentially said, no one could teach him anything about logic, so I made an obvious statement based on Chrillman's posts, that anyone trying to help him with logical thinking, had the chips stacked against them.

Correction, I said sound reasoning is not a "truth" to be convinced of. We are capable of engaging in sound reasoning, which can lead to an acceptance of a truth. Please don't misslead people about what I said because you misunderstood me.

I'm truly sorry if you honestly think that I feel I can't learn anything about logic or reasoning because I feel I can learn from others. I honestly can't understand how you would come to that conclusion anyway. You must think very low of me, which you're entitled to your opinion

 

[bhsmte]

Correction, I said sound reasoning is not a "truth" to be convinced of. We are capable of engaging in sound reasoning, which can lead to an acceptance of a truth. Please don't misslead people about what I said because you misunderstood me.

I'm truly sorry if you honestly think that I feel I can't learn anything about logic or reasoning because I feel I can learn from others. I honestly can't understand how you would come to that conclusion anyway. You must think very low of me, which you're entitled to your opinion

I don't believe your post content, has displayed sound reasoning and or logic.

Just my opinion.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't believe your post content, has displayed sound reasoning and or logic.

Just my opinion.

If your reasoning leads to the opposite conclusion that my reasoning leads to, can either of us really say the other's reasoning is wrong without some reference to truth?

Or is it your opinion that sound reason should not have to rely on truth?

 

[bhsmte]

If your reasoning leads to the opposite conclusion that my reasoning leads to, can either of us really say the other's reasoning is wrong without some reference to truth?

Or is it your opinion that sound reason should not have to rely on truth?

Again, it is my opinion based on the content of your posts. As you are aware, several others have made the same observations as well.

You use the terms; logical and truth very often, like you need to convince yourself you have a handle on the same. There is a difference between mentioning the words and actually demonstrating what the truth likely is.

 

[Chriliman]

"This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God."

You said this...and unsurprisingly, you failed to mention what you meant by "the fact that we exist in the way we do". So...what did you mean by that? What is the "way that we exist" that is so extraordinary to you?

I've seen a lot of atheists discuss human anatomy and all of its myriad flaws in conversations with christians who believe in intelligent design....so it's certainly not as if "atheists" or "scientists" haven't considered mankind and the possibility that a god has created us. The evidence would seem to favor the view that we evolved and weren't miraculously created by something "intelligent". Somehow though, I don't think this is what you were referring to when you wrote about "the fact that we exist in the way we do".

So what do you mean?

I mean that I exist as a being who is capable of reflecting upon why and how I exist. This fact is extraordinary, especially considering the unimaginable odds against my existence.

I did not choose to exist, yet I exist and can make choices. It's either my choices are an illusion and thinking my choices matter is wishful thinking - or - I exist to make choices for a reason. This reason would be beyond my control because I did not choose to exist, something made me to exist and wants me to make correct choices to fulfill a purpose.

I believe the latter because of my personal experiences in life.

Do you think I'm telling you the truth?

 

[Chriliman]

Again, it is my opinion based on the content of your posts. As you are aware, several others have made the same observations as well.

You use the terms; logical and truth very often, like you need to convince yourself you have a handle on the same. There is a difference between mentioning the words and actually demonstrating what the truth likely is.

Are you evading? I posed a simple question in an attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

I realize you think I have some warped view of truth and it makes sense that you would think that, since you know I believe in God and you do not. If you concluded that I had a correct view of truth then you'd have to admit that it's true that God exists and I understand you can't do that at this time.

Just continue to evade so you can keep thinking my logic and reasoning are wrong.

I think you are a completely reasonable and logical person in many respects, except for when it comes to the logical possibility that God is true.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you evading? I posed a simple question in an attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

I realize you think I have some warped view of truth and it makes sense that you would think that, since you know I believe in God and you do not. If you concluded that I had a correct view of truth then you'd have to admit that it's true that God exists and I understand you can't do that at this time.

Just continue to evade so you can keep thinking my logic and reasoning are wrong.

I think you are a completely reasonable and logical person in many respects, except for when it comes to the logical possibility that God is true.

Listen, many on these boards (including myself) have explained why your reasoning and logic is faulty. You often will say; "isn't is reasonable to conclude this", or, you are seeking and or believe the truth, etc. etc..

Yet, you don't demonstrate it is logical to conclude as you do and or, that you have a handle on what is likely the truth, because you do not demonstrate the same.

And, since I was a Christian for 40 years, I have already demonstrated, that I will accept new knowledge and change my stance on something very important. Therefore, your claim that "I can't believe at this time", is not based on logic. Lastly, were have you demonstrated, that this God exists?

 

[Davian]

I mean that I exist as a being who is capable of reflecting upon why and how I exist. This fact is extraordinary,

How so?

especially considering the unimaginable odds against my existence.

You exist. The odds are "1".

I did not choose to exist, yet I exist and can make choices. It's either my choices are an illusion and thinking my choices matter is wishful thinking - or - I exist to make choices for a reason.

False dichotomy.

This reason would be beyond my control because I did not choose to exist,

A choice that was not yours to make

something made me to exist

Begging the question.

and wants me to make correct choices to fulfill a purpose.

Unevidenced assertion.

I believe the latter because of my personal experiences in life.

My personal experiences include meeting Santa. How cool is that?

Do you think I'm telling you the truth?

You will need to be quite specific in regards to which part of your post you are referring to.

 

[Davian]

Are you evading?

 

[Chriliman]

Listen, many on these boards (including myself) have explained why your reasoning and logic is faulty. You often will say; "isn't is reasonable to conclude this", or, you are seeking and or believe the truth, etc. etc..

Yet, you don't demonstrate it is logical to conclude as you do and or, that you have a handle on what is likely the truth, because you do not demonstrate the same.

And, since I was a Christian for 40 years, I have already demonstrated, that I will accept new knowledge and change my stance on something very important. Therefore, your claim that "I can't believe at this time", is not based on logic. Lastly, were have you demonstrated, that this God exists?

Saying that my logic and reasoning is faulty implies that you think my conclusions are wrong. Yet you don't agree with any Christian's logic or reasoning for their belief in God on this thread. This implies that you think all our logic and reasoning is faulty, no?

If you thought all our reasoning and logic for our belief in God was correct, then you'd believe in God as well, but you don't, so you must think we're wrong.

You have your reasons for not believing in God and we have our reasons for believing in God. You shouldnt tell us that we're wrong and we shouldnt tell you that your wrong, all we should do is reason together and help each other understand our views.

Is this not reasonable and logical? If it is reasonable and logical, how can you say my reason and logic is faulty?

 

[bhsmte]

Saying that my logic and reasoning is faulty implies that you think my conclusions are wrong. Yet you don't agree with any Christian's logic or reasoning for their belief in God on this thread. This implies that you think all our logic and reasoning is faulty, no?

If you thought all our reasoning and logic for our belief in God was correct, then you'd believe in God as well, but you don't, so you must think we're wrong.

You have your reasons for not believing in God and we have our reasons for believing in God. You shouldnt tell us that we're wrong and we shouldnt tell you that your wrong, all we should do is reason together and help each other understand our views.

Is this not reasonable and logical? If it is reasonable and logical, how can you say my reason and logic is faulty?

I just told you why it was faulty. Many on this forum have explained why your logic is faulty.

Let me ask you a question; do you believe in a God based on sound logical reasoning, or do you believe in a God based on faith?

 

[Chriliman]

I just told you why it was faulty. Many on this forum have explained why your logic is faulty.

Let me ask you a question; do you believe in a God based on sound logical reasoning, or do you believe in a God based on faith?

I was capable of having faith before I was capable of sound reason and logic. So my faith came first.

 

[Chriliman]

I was capable of having faith before I was capable of sound reason and logic. So my faith came first.

See not that hard to answer a simple question

 

[bhsmte]

I was capable of having faith before I was capable of sound reason and logic. So my faith came first.

And I take no issue with someone that claims they believe in a God on faith.

I only take issue and or challenge, when they claim they have evidence that non believers are missing and or they use logic and reasoning in an objective way to determine God exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the meantime, you should be able to read the entire work edited by Thomas Morris entitled: God and the Philosophers.

Why?