One piece, the Kalam

[durangodawood]

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.

He is slippery like that.
Sliding into a different word-meaning when the jaws of the argument clamp down.

 

[durangodawood]

No qualms with this.

But when I exposed the crux of the flaw, you didnt challenge me head on.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Dictionary definition of faith
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

You have faith if your confident that what you just said above is true.

 

[Chriliman]

But when I exposed the crux of the flaw, you didnt challenge me head on.

I have no doubt that Kalam has faith that he is right and that you also have faith that you are right. It does matter who or what we put our faith in.

 

[durangodawood]

Dictionary definition of faith
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

You have faith if your confident that what you just said above is true.

There you go again.

Rational argument/debate stands on its own merits regardless of the presenters feelings.

If you just heard a lackluster presentation of the kalam argument, would that make the inherent reasoning any better or worse?

 

[Chriliman]

There you go again.

Rational argument/debate stands on its own merits regardless of the presenters feelings.

If you just heard a lackluster presentation of the kalam argument, would that make the inherent reasoning any better or worse?

Our logic and reasoning can only get us so far, eventually we realize that we honestly just don't know the truth, but we still trust there is truth.

However, I'm confident I do know the truth and I've presented my reasoning for why I'm confident. You're free to accept it or not.

Thanks for your time.

 

[durangodawood]

I have no doubt that Kalam has faith that he is right and that you also have faith that you are right. It does matter who or what we put our faith in.

So you can see right here^^^ how ones convictions about an argument dont improve its quality as a piece of reasoning.

If you disagree, then all I need to defeat kalam to your satisfaction is for me believe in my own position more.

Seriously this is dumb as rocks.
If you can judge reasoning on its own merits, then "philosophy" is the wrong forum for you.

 

[bhsmte]

Our logic and reasoning can only get us so far, eventually we realize that we honestly just don't know the truth, but we still trust there is truth.

However, I'm confident I do know the truth and I've presented my reasoning for why I'm confident. You're free to accept it or not.

Thanks for your time.

If some comes to you with an argument on anything, and they present a passionate emotionally filled argument that what they argue is true, but have no objective evidence to support what they state, do you believe them because they are committed?

On the other hand, if someone devoid of emotion, calmly presents an argument and supports the argument as true, with independent objective evidence, do you belive the argument is not true, because they dont display the same passion?

 

[The Cadet]

Dictionary definition of faith
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

You have faith if your confident that what you just said above is true.

And, again, this is not what @durangodawood meant (faith is a word with multiple definitions), so your objections are utterly moot and you should drop this line of argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have faith if your confident that what you just said above is true.

Depends on your definition of faith and of evidence.

Hey, this philosophy stuff is easy!

 

[Chriliman]

Hey, this philosophy stuff is easy!

We are most reasonable when we use the most reasonable definitions of words.

Faith: Trusting in truth

Evidence: Available body of facts(including the fact that claims have been made)

Claims are evidence of truth(either the truth that the claim is wrong or right). Now most claims can be shown to be wrong either through questioning or other evidence that disproves the claim.

The claim "unicorns are real" can never be shown to be wrong, but the fact that no one is honestly claiming this is reason to believe unicorns are not real.

The claim "God is real" can never be shown to be wrong, but the fact that many people make this claim, is reason to believe God is possibly real. The question is which God? Again, it comes down to how reasonable the claims are. If Christians make the most reasonable arguments for the existence of God, then it's reasonable to assume the Christian God is real because of the fact(evidence) that Christian's make the most reasonable arguments for the existence of God. If their arguments make you think in new and different ways, then that's a good thing, if their arguments make you think their dumb, then that's obviously not a good thing.

At the end of the day, the person who has better reasons and logic behind what they believe, is the most reasonable person to believe. However, you're still free to not believe them and resort back to skepticism because of the implications of their beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

We are most reasonable when we use the most reasonable definitions of words.

I'd think it would be more reasonable to use the meanings of words the people using them actually meant rather than playing word games trying to twist their words into something totally unrecognizable.

 

[Hieronymus]

DNA is a molecule which is sometimes represented by characters for simplicity and ease of understanding.

But it does not consist of characters. It consists of molecules.

Yes, and the molecules are characters, they're used as such.
There's no point in denying this.

 

[Chriliman]

I'd think it would be more reasonable to use the meanings of words the people using them actually meant rather than playing word games trying to twist their words into something totally unrecognizable.

Agreed! So why did you cut out everything I said in my post?

 

[Hieronymus]

But the Kalam argument is not about a specific God, it's about the necessity of God's existence.
The question Who exactly this God is, is a different subject.

I made an unreasonable leap here...
The Kalam argument is only about cause and effect, not about the original cause being God.

Also, who is to say there is just one uncaused cause(r)?
In principle there could be / have been multiple uncaused cause(r)s.
Somehow this 'feels' unlikely, i can't exactly put my finger on it, (yet).
But a company of cause(r)s could have caused the universe (to be as we know it).

 

[Hieronymus]

...at least not in its current appearance.

That's not all too relevant i.m.o., because the question remains: What caused the universe to be as it is in its current appearance?
How did the apparent fine tuning come about?

Does "cause" include that which the universe possibly transformed from?

Not really, the question would be: What caused the (trans)formation?

 

[Hieronymus]

I'd think it would be more reasonable to use the meanings of words the people using them actually meant rather than playing word games trying to twist their words into something totally unrecognizable.

This is why we have dictionaries.

 

[bhsmte]

We are most reasonable when we use the most reasonable definitions of words.

Faith: Trusting in truth

Evidence: Available body of facts(including the fact that claims have been made)

Claims are evidence of truth(either the truth that the claim is wrong or right). Now most claims can be shown to be wrong either through questioning or other evidence that disproves the claim.

The claim "unicorns are real" can never be shown to be wrong, but the fact that no one is honestly claiming this is reason to believe unicorns are not real.

The claim "God is real" can never be shown to be wrong, but the fact that many people make this claim, is reason to believe God is possibly real. The question is which God? Again, it comes down to how reasonable the claims are. If Christians make the most reasonable arguments for the existence of God, then it's reasonable to assume the Christian God is real because of the fact(evidence) that Christian's make the most reasonable arguments for the existence of God. If their arguments make you think in new and different ways, then that's a good thing, if their arguments make you think their dumb, then that's obviously not a good thing.

At the end of the day, the person who has better reasons and logic behind what they believe, is the most reasonable person to believe. However, you're still free to not believe them and resort back to skepticism because of the implications of their beliefs.

Trusting in truth?

No problem with that, as long as you can objectively demonstrate what this truth is.

 

[durangodawood]

This is why we have dictionaries.

Dictionaries dont help.

They give multiple meanings, and can abet the person who's argument flounders. The poor loser can unilaterally switch meanings without switching terms, and fancy themselves some sort of rhetorical Houdini... at the expense of coherent discussion, of course.

 

[Hieronymus]

Dictionaries dont help.

Yes they do, of course they do.
It prevents people using words wrongly.