One piece, the Kalam

[Davian]

...
The reason so many people believe(and claim to know) God is true is because those very people have experienced God.

You mean, they have claimed to have experienced god. They may have only imagined it.

If we can't experience these other concepts of yours then we can't know that they are true. It's that simple.

Then we cannot know that your god claims are true in the absence of corroborative evidence. As I do not find your claims to be compelling, I remain unconvinced.

 

[durangodawood]

I actually did say some things regarding this and I will say another thing. The reason no one believes in those concepts with any confidence is because there is no way we could know them to be true. We can't know that there is a multiverse that sprouts "new" universes, unless we were somehow able to bridge the gap between universes and actually know it's true. There's also no way to know if the universe is an eternal expansion contraction cycle, unless we somehow live through the cycle and experienced it as being true.

The reason so many people believe(and claim to know) God is true is because those very people have experienced God. If we can't experience these other concepts of yours then we can't know that they are true. It's that simple.

If a personal sense of God is what ultimately backstops the kalam argument, then it truly is an argument from faith.

But if the argument wants to contend in the arena of reason, then my speculations about an eternal-universe are on par with your speculations about the creator-God. And so we find kalam line of inquiry utterly inconclusive.

 

[Chriliman]

If a personal sense of God is what ultimately backstops the kalam argument, then it truly is an argument from faith.

All arguments are from faith. We all trust that there is truth to our arguments, otherwise we wouldn't make them.

But if the argument wants to contend in the arena of reason, then my speculations about an eternal-universe are on par with your speculations about the creator-God. And so we find kalam utterly inconclusive.

The difference is that we have evidence of people who confidently claim God is real and their claims are backed by sound reason(mostly) and evidence of a changed life(if you got to know them) that reflects the values of said God who claims to be love and encourages us to love one another as ourselves.

 

[bhsmte]

All arguments are from faith. We all trust that there is truth to our arguments, otherwise we wouldn't make them.



The difference is that we have evidence of people who confidently claim God is real and their claims are backed by sound reason(mostly) and evidence of a changed life(if you got to know them) that reflects the values of said God who claims to be love and encourages us to love one another as ourselves.

All arguments are not based on faith.

 

[durangodawood]

All arguments are from faith. We all trust that there is truth to our arguments, otherwise we wouldn't make them.....

You are dodging the legit distinction between arguments that hinge on personal conviction (faith-arguments) and those that rely on empirically demonstrable facts (reason-arguments).

 

[Chriliman]

You are dodging the legit distinction between arguments that hinge on personal conviction (faith-arguments) and those that rely on empirically demonstrable facts (reason-arguments).

You have no personal conviction that what you just said is true?

 

[Chriliman]

All arguments are not based on faith.

If all arguments are based on personal conviction then yes they are. You can't have personal conviction unless you have faith that what you're saying is true.

 

[durangodawood]

You have no personal conviction that what you just said is true?

Doesnt matter.
My assertion stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of my feelings about it.
Thats the nature of argument too.

 

[bhsmte]

If all arguments are based on personal conviction then yes they are. You can't have personal conviction unless you have faith that what you're saying is true.

Then faith is an all encomposing term to you and applies to all claims. This is not how most people apply term faith, except for those, who have a desire to put all knowledge, in the faith bucket.

 

[Chriliman]

Doesnt matter.
My assertion stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of my feelings about it.
Thats the nature of argument too.

If your not personally convinced that what your saying is true then your assertion falls flat.

 

[bhsmte]

If all arguments are based on personal conviction then yes they are. You can't have personal conviction unless you have faith that what you're saying is true.

Personal conviction is not required, when objective external evidence is available.

 

[durangodawood]

If your not personally convinced that what your saying is true then your assertion falls flat.

You should be able to judge my assertion or argument on its own merits.
Why cant you do that?

If you cant, and its conviction that matters, then you are a clear sucker for huckers, cons, and charlatans who hook you with emotion. The one with the most wailing and tears wins the day. Great.

 

[Chriliman]

Then faith is an all encomposing term to you and applies to all claims. This is not how most people apply term faith, except for those, who have a desire to put all knowledge, in the faith bucket.

I do think we all have faith, meaning we all trust there is truth that can justify our claims. Its just that some claims will be truly justified by the truth and some will be revealed as false.

 

[bhsmte]

I do think we all have faith, meaning we all trust there is truth that can justify our claims. Its just that some claims will be truly justified by the truth and some will be revealed as false.

Truth can be demonstrated and does not require faith, it requires evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

You should be able to judge my assertion or argument on its own merits.
Why cant you do that?

I am doing that. Your claims are not holding up, especially if you're not even convinced of them yourself.

 

[bhsmte]

I am doing that. Your claims are not holding up, especially if you're not even convinced of them yourself.

Weird

 

[durangodawood]

I am doing that. Your claims are not holding up, especially if you're not even convinced of them yourself.

Im totally convinced that kalam fails as a reasoned argument.
But I'm convinced of that based on reasoning, and not on faith.

(That doesnt mean I'm sure there is no creator God.... Just that the Kalam argument does not force me to that conclusion, because of its massive flaws.)

 

[The Cadet]

All arguments are from faith. We all trust that there is truth to our arguments, otherwise we wouldn't make them.

Except that this is not what @durangodawood meant with "faith". This meaning of the word is completely unrelated to his usage of it. This is like objecting to someone saying "I got here on the plane" because you can't use a woodworking tool as a vehicle.

 

[Chriliman]

Truth can be demonstrated and does not require faith, it requires evidence.

Depends on your definition of faith and of evidence. I trust that the truth will justify my claims and my claims are evidence of the truth, which is Jesus Christ. I owe my life to Jesus who strengthens me and makes me righteous.

 

[Chriliman]

Im totally convinced that kalam fails as a reasoned argument.
But I'm convinced of that based on reasoning, and not on faith.

(That doesnt mean I'm sure there is no creator God.... Just that the Kalam argument does not force me to that conclusion, because of its massive flaws.)

No qualms with this.