Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[2PhiloVoid]

In all seriousness, they reopened it because too many people were creating apologetic threads in the philosophy section (atheists and theists alike). After we got the apologetic section, the philosophy section closed because people stopped posting there since this is all anyone wanted to talk about on CF. If they closed it now, admins would have to start shutting down threads in the ethics and morality section, which is the catch-all for topics that don't fit well somewhere else. Basically, it was for practical purposes.

Yes, I got that part of it. But, thanks for the reminder.

I do find it strange how few threads are started by Christians to present arguments or evidence for Christianity though. NV is the only person regularly creating the type of threads we're supposed to see here.

Yeah, that's why NV (or many of the other atheists here) always follows the guidelines for this forum's Statement of Purpose regarding Polemics and Flaming, Blasphemy, Promotion, etc. when creating and perpetuating threads they create.

Somehow, I thought this Apologetics section was for people (like atheists or whomever) to have a place in the forums to "ask questions," kind of like in the Exploring Christianity section, except that here deeper, more varied discussion--and even some debate--would be allowed.

Anyway. Whatever. It is what it is, and I'm sure it will continue to be nothing more than it really is ... a stomping ground for some who are malcontent with Christianity.

As far as presenting "evidence," I'm not sure that can be done in some kind of universal way that will be counted as "sufficient" for all interlocutors... and I have my reasons why I say this, many of which aren't quite shared by all fellow Christians.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am self taught and haven't been in the formal education system since I was 8.

I'm not really aware of many Christian apologists or philosophers but am familiar with the works of the classical philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates as well as Neitzsche, Freud, and the favorite today, Mr. Dawkins.

Religious cosmology and simple etymology itself tend to be my primary source of apologetic arguments to atheism as well as religious superstition. The physical nature of cosmology in ancient religions seems to be secondary to psychology. Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew and Greek cosmology, magic, and mysticism appear to be more about the individual and collective psyche and it's influences and cognitions than anything physical in nature. I find that people like Dawkins and his theories on memetics are only just barely catching up to the Hebrew, Assyrian, and Babylonian understanding of sociology. The ancients just had a completely different (and quite eloquent) way of describing these very high level concepts... It was deamonology...

If love to read some good Christian philosophers or psychologists on the level Freud or Nietzsche but being outside of "institutions" I'm not exposed to many of them. I'll probably check out a few mentioned on here.

My main arguments against atheism is that the deification of principles is an inescapable condition of a cognitive mind and as such, concepts such as atheism or secularism are completely impossible within the current paradigm of human society and individual thought and behavior. The moment primitive man named the first "thing", he ceased from being capable of atheism.

Guano, if you'd like to read a philosophical, but Christian, treatment of Freud and/or Nietzsche, then you might check out the book, Suspicion & Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism - by Merold Westphal.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, that's why NV (or many of the other atheists here) always follows the guidelines for this forum's Statement of Purpose regarding Polemics and Flaming, Blasphemy, Promotion, etc. when creating and perpetuating threads they create.

All I said was that he creates threads that are of the type this board is intended to discuss. Your buddy UberGenius creates thread upon thread full of polemics and flaming without even making an argument, so you know, stones and planks and all that.

Somehow, I thought this Apologetics section was for people (like atheists or whomever) to have a place in the forums to "ask questions," kind of like in the Exploring Christianity section, except that here deeper, more varied discussion--and even some debate--would be allowed.

What isn't allowed in the Exploring Christianity section that is allowed here? You can ask whatever you want, and you can debate about the answers you receive till you're blue in the face. The big differences are that Christians can't start threads in the other, and in each thread, it's one atheist vs all the Christians. I think a lot of theists have a problem with unbelievers crowd sourcing their debate.

Anyway. Whatever. It is what it is, and I'm sure it will continue to be nothing more than it really is ... a stomping ground for some who are malcontent with Christianity.

I wish more Christians created threads here too. The fact they don't is just a little more circumstantial evidence that apologetics is for reinforcing faith in Christians, not for defending the faith against atheists.

I don't think most of us are malcontent. I think most just like to argue for arguing's sake.

As far as presenting "evidence," I'm not sure that can be done in some kind of universal way that will be counted as "sufficient" for all interlocutors... and I have my reasons why I say this, many of which aren't quite shared by all fellow Christians.

Gimme a break... Show me a discussion & debate section around here where evidence against a person's viewpoint is ever good enough. Do you see a lot of Republicans abandoning Trickle Down theory or Democrats abandoning identity politics? Do you see a lot of YECs accepting evolution or atheists accepting Intelligent Design? The fact that people are stubborn isn't a point against people in this section anymore than it is in any debate.

 

[Silmarien]

Call it what you will. It's still fallacious nonsense.

Is it? I would not know, as I haven't really done more than glance at Gödel's proof.

If you could elucidate exactly where Gödel goes wrong and what would be necessary for his approach to be sound and valid, that would certainly be more useful for everyone involved.

That is, after all, what atheists used to do before declaring something to be fallacious.

No idea what that is supposed to mean. But I get that people in this subform are completely obsessed with labels, -isms and -ists.

Here you go: Logical positivism.

Logical positivism as a philosophical school is dead, but its influence remains.

 

[variant]

Genetic Fallacy

No, I am making an observation that apologetics does not seem to convince either believers or unbelievers. This would definitely be a strike against what apologetics is, although not intended as a good argument against any specific apologetics argument.

 

[Dirk1540]

No, I am making an observation that apologetics does not seem to convince either believers or unbelievers.

Your claim that people using apologetics to try to convince themselves more than anyone else can certainly be true for some and not others, but there's a caveat to be added. The large majority of both believers & unbelievers don't tend to dig deep into the finer points of their beliefs. Most Christians are happy to just skim their Bible occasionally, and most atheists are content to not even think about atheism whatsoever.

So the intellectually disinterested exists on both sides, but the niche of popular level apologetics (as opposed to deep studiers like 2PhiloVoid) just isn't there for the intellectually disinterested non-Christian counterparts. When the topic of 'Christianity is intellectual suicide' comes up at the water cooler at work the Christian can find themselves in a very uncomfortable spot. An identical scenario for the non-Christians would be 100 times less likely...so there will be no need for an entire atheism apologetics section at Barnes & Noble.

You are destined to have Christians who are trying to convince themselves with apologetics more than anyone else when you combine the following...a majority of Christians who prefer very very light study of their belief system, a belief system that would require a rigorous amount of study to become proficient at when placed on the intellectual hot seat, a society with a fair share of intellectual challengers of that belief system, a society that is in love with sound bites and that not only launches valid and tough objections at that belief systems but also launches very poor bogus objections at it as well, and a majority of Christians who don't even realize that the bogus objections are bogus. This combination of scenarios just doesn't exist for the non-Christian counterparts.

However it's actually very difficult to be able to tell on the surface who is trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. Because education level is only a proper gauge sometimes. There are a boatload of people, religious or not, who build an immovable solid as a rock belief system (in their own mind) around the most flimsy pieces of reasoning.

 

[variant]

Your claim that people using apologetics to try to convince themselves more than anyone else can certainly be true for some and not others, but there's a caveat to be added. The large majority of both believers & unbelievers don't tend to dig deep into the finer points of their beliefs. Most Christians are happy to just skim their Bible occasionally, and most atheists are content to not even think about atheism whatsoever.

My observation is that I don't think apologetic arguments are why believers believe what they believe. You seem to agree.

I of course don't mean this to cover every single believer. But those people who tell me that rational arguments are why they believe are few and far between.

Atheists exist because they find the case for Gods lacking, but that's not so much an "apologetic" as a viewpoint on the current state of human understanding. It rests upon assumptions that are going to be difficult to kick out from under someone.

We can have plenty of arguments about such assumptions but it's difficult to change someones assumptions via a proper deductive philosophical argument.

So the intellectually disinterested exists on both sides, but the niche of popular level apologetics (as opposed to deep studiers like 2PhiloVoid) just isn't there for the intellectually disinterested non-Christian counterparts. When the topic of 'Christianity is intellectual suicide' comes up at the water cooler at work the Christian can find themselves in a very uncomfortable spot. An identical scenario for the non-Christians would be 100 times less likely...so there will be no need for an entire atheism apologetics section at Barnes & Noble.

Unbelievers usually spend their entire lives around large volumes of believers so I don't think your ratio is quite right.

It would, I suppose, require a lot of apologetics if atheism were a difficult position to defend.

The position that Gods can be ruled out of existence via argument might be difficult but I've actually encountered few atheists that met the definition of atheism that theists on boards like this wished atheists had.

 

[Dirk1540]

My observation is that I don't think apologetic arguments are why believers believe what they believe. You seem to agree.

...I of course don't mean this to cover every single believer. But those people who tell me that rational arguments are why they believe are few and far between.

On a personal note I am a mixed bag, I had an intense personal experience when I was 22 that was so 'Bizarre' (if I were to analyze it as a non-believer that's the word I would use) that I laid in bed for hours just repeating to myself "How is this even possible??" The only thing as intense in my life to rival that was my intense intellectual doubting Thomas side against believing that the Bible was true. It's not that I was stuck at 0% intellectual belief or anything, but just that I always wanted more of a slam dunk airtight case than I had.

I doubt many would not fully commit if they had happen to them what happened to me at 22, that's why I'm calling my doubting side intense. So I actually relied TOO heavily on the arguments to contribute in pushing me over the hump once and for all, but I'll also say that I know I fall into a rare category. I agree with you that my story is a few and far between one.

For the record philosophy wasn't my thing it was historical studies. I honestly think I'd have to call myself 50/50 on historical study vs personal experience being the ultimate reason I'm a believer. As much as I had back & forth historical reasoning, and as much as I threw the towel in during times of exhaustion over caring about it anymore...sometimes the memory of the experience would call me back like the green crystal calling to Clark Kent lol. And as powerful as the memory of that experience was...tough historical rebuttals still had the ability to throw me off my feet.

But I'm going to steal Craig Bloomberg's line here, we are in an apologetics forum so what I did was I took my Christian hat off and put it to the side, and I put my apologetics hat on. I agree with you that the vast majority of Christians do not become Christians because of arguments, but I agree for a different reason. I agree because I think that personal experience is by far the most powerful proof of conversion! So it's not that I'm trying to demote argumentation for Christianity, it's that I'm claiming that personal experience is the more powerful of the 2. But since I have an apologetics hat on, arguing personal experiences is not much help at all to the conversation.

Unbelievers spend their entire lives around large volumes of believers so I don't think your ratio is quite right.

I was speaking about odds, I wasn't claiming there were 100 non-Christians to every Christian, actually I'm not quite sure how my sentence came across to you.

 

[variant]

On a personal note I am a mixed bag, I had an intense personal experience when I was 22 that was so 'Bizarre' (if I were to analyze it as a non-believer that's the word I would use) that I laid in bed for hours just repeating to myself "How is this even possible??" The only thing as intense in my life to rival that was my intense intellectual doubting Thomas side against believing that the Bible was true. It's not that I was stuck at 0% intellectual belief or anything, but just that I always wanted more of a slam dunk airtight case than I had.

I doubt many would not fully commit if they had happen to them what happened to me at 22, that's why I'm calling my doubting side intense. So I actually relied TOO heavily on the arguments to contribute in pushing me over the hump once and for all, but I'll also say that I know I fall into a rare category. I agree with you that my story is a few and far between one.

For the record philosophy wasn't my thing it was historical studies. I honestly think I'd have to call myself 50/50 on historical study vs personal experience being the ultimate reason I'm a believer. As much as I had back & forth historical reasoning, and as much as I threw the towel in during times of exhaustion over caring about it anymore...sometimes the memory of the experience would call me back like the green crystal calling to Clark Kent lol. And as powerful as the memory of that experience was...tough historical rebuttals still had the ability to throw me off my feet.

Thanks for sharing. I've yet to experience anything that would convince me via personal experience.

How specific was your experience?

While I can imagine any number of experiences that may have helped convince you of theism in general, I am having a hard time trying to envision an experience that would give you specifics like historicity claims.

But I'm going to steal Craig Bloomberg's line here, we are in an apologetics forum so what I did was I took my Christian hat off and put it to the side, and I put my apologetics hat on. I agree with you that the vast majority of Christians do not become Christians because of arguments, but I agree for a different reason. I agree because I think that personal experience is by far the most powerful proof of conversion! So it's not that I'm trying to demote argumentation for Christianity, it's that I'm claiming that personal experience is the more powerful of the 2. But since I have an apologetics hat on, arguing personal experiences is not much help at all to the conversation.

Well I am talking about my personal experience with apologetics and my personal experience with believers. People tell me why they believe all the time and rarely does it sound anything like an apologetics argument.

I have the feeling that these aren't the "real" defenses, so, it seems to be a distraction from what religion actually is.

To me the entire thing seems a little hollow because the discussions are usually about trying to ferry in assumptions about how we can and should claim to know things without having some solid way to tell the difference between God and not God.

A favorite around here is trying to define atheism in a way that we're tasked with demonstrating that Gods don't exist even if Gods lack any testable qualities.

I'm wondering what people are trying to prove, and, who they are trying to prove it to.

I was speaking about odds, I wasn't claiming there were 100 non-Christians to every Christian, actually I'm not quite sure how my sentence came across to you.

I was speaking of the odds of getting into a religious discussion as an atheist. It happens all the time to me when I choose to be open about my lack of belief because there are so many of you. Religious ideas are topical because they are often prominent in society.

That Christians aren't usually standing around the water cooler talking about the lack of intellectual depth of atheism is true if you were being very specific.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All I said was that he creates threads that are of the type this board is intended to discuss. Your buddy UberGenius creates thread upon thread full of polemics and flaming without even making an argument, so you know, stones and planks and all that.

Ok. Point taken. Two points taken, actually.

What isn't allowed in the Exploring Christianity section that is allowed here? You can ask whatever you want, and you can debate about the answers you receive till you're blue in the face. The big differences are that Christians can't start threads in the other, and in each thread, it's one atheist vs all the Christians. I think a lot of theists have a problem with unbelievers crowd sourcing their debate.

As far as I understand, debate is not allowed in the Exploring Christianity section. Of course, there are people who respond there who don't know how to read site rules, so they sometimes debate anyway. (Or maybe some of them are just compulsive ... IDK. )

I wish more Christians created threads here too. The fact they don't is just a little more circumstantial evidence that apologetics is for reinforcing faith in Christians, not for defending the faith against atheists.

Well, look at the New Testament overall; in what ways and for what purposes does apologetics seem to be advocated?

I don't think most of us are malcontent. I think most just like to argue for arguing's sake.

I HATE arguing for arguments sake. Some people need to get a better hobby ...

Gimme a break... Show me a discussion & debate section around here where evidence against a person's viewpoint is ever good enough. Do you see a lot of Republicans abandoning Trickle Down theory or Democrats abandoning identity politics? Do you see a lot of YECs accepting evolution or atheists accepting Intelligent Design? The fact that people are stubborn isn't a point against people in this section anymore than it is in any debate.

I don't mind that people are stubborn as much as I mind that they dismiss an opposing view out of hand...and often without much explanation. Oops! I forgot. ... Christian's have the Burden of Proof to explain everything. [At least, that's what it feels like, sometimes. ]

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Dirk1540]

Thanks for sharing. I've yet to experience anything that would convince me via personal experience.

How specific was your experience?

I was an extremely back & forth believer, a friend of mine would sometimes rip on me (In a funny we are friends type of way) "So, what are your religious leanings now a days?" And when I dumped Christianity boy could I dump it!! And for long periods of time, TOTALLY out of sight and out of mind when I dumped. Christianity kind of went hand in hand with me simply being a very deep thinker about the meaning of life. Anyway, my experience was specific enough that in my most deep states of 'I am completely done with the Bible' I still had this afterthought "But what about that day on the 3rd floor??" But I'd just follow that thought up with the thought "Who knows, whatever!" So, it was specific enough that sometimes I would think about telling the story to a group of people just for the pure bizarreness factor of it...but I would decide not to because I wasn't religious any more and I didn't wanna weird anyone out by 'Going Religious' on them. The story was Jesus oriented, so it could definitely cause potential awkwardness to a non-religious audience.

While I can imagine any number of experiences that may have helped convince you of theism in general, I am having a hard time trying to envision an experience that would give you specifics like historicity claims.

Well the historical study was a completely separate category from the experience, as far as what I considered to be 'Reasoning' for being a believer. YET, in a way not totally separate due to the fact the experience was Jesus related, AND the historical study was Jesus related, in that the historical study was pretty much geared towards revealing an either bogus or a legit Jesus...see what I'm saying, how they were not related yet related?? I called myself a 50/50 mix because I know that I wouldn't be the believer I am today if I either only had the historical studying without the experience, or if I only had the personal experience without the historical study. But together they got me to where I am. Having said that I'm no stranger at all to the realization that one person's historical eye opener is another person's eye roll. So I'm not trying to wow you with historical claims here, just pointing out that I am an odd case of someone who falls into a weird category. The reason I consider myself to be in a weird category isn't necessarily because I find it weird to have both personal experience stories and historical arguments, but that when you say this...

Well I am talking about my personal experience with apologetics and my personal experience with believers. People tell me why they believe all the time and rarely does it sound anything like an apologetics argument.

..there is truth to this from what I've seen as well. When I see people being asked why they believe their answers seem way too short to me. Me, I turn into a motor mouth, I feel like I need at least an hour to answer ha. I feel like if I answer for 15 minutes and the person start running away from me I'll stop them "Wait, also because of..." My eyes get wide when someone asks me that question because I have no idea where to start. I feel like I have to at least briefly take them through my major objections and solutions through the years. So in that way I think that I am weird because everyone else answers the question so quickly. But now a days I'm wiser in that I know nobody wants to hear me ramble, I just give a very open ended reply that leaves the question basically unanswered (on purpose). So yeah you do make a good point people don't really answer in an apologetics way, except me lol.

To me the entire thing seems a little hollow because the discussions are usually about trying to ferry in assumptions about how we can and should claim to know things without having some solid way to tell the difference between God and not God.

I actually had a default of theist/deism, well at least a post study default of theist/deist. I was only atheist when I was young enough that I never thought about any deep questions about it at all yet. Even with me talking about all my wavering on the Bible I was still a default deist at the very least. I'm one of those people who just can not get my head wrapped around random chance. There's 1,000 things that stop me from comprehending random chance. Just as one example the moon, just the fact that it is in a perfect free fall around the Earth, and it is perfectly sized to fit like a glove during an eclipse to treat humanity to the knowledge that we wouldn't have without eclipses...the moon alone destroys the atheist inside of me. That's my big issue with common descent as well, not that it is...but that it would be random. Guided common descent, that's a different story in my book...Random? Ugh!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is it?

Yes.

I would not know, as I haven't really done more than glance at Gödel's proof.

I've yet to hear an apologetics argument which didn't turn out as a cesspool of fallacies.

If you could elucidate exactly where Gödel goes wrong and what would be necessary for his approach to be sound and valid, that would certainly be more useful for everyone involved.

It basicly says "you can imagine it, therefor it's true".

That is, after all, what atheists used to do before declaring something to be fallacious.

Or you could just google "rebuttals to ontological argument".

Here you go: Logical positivism.
Logical positivism as a philosophical school is dead, but its influence remains.

Uhu, uhu.

Like I said, I don't subscribe to such -isms and -ists.
I prefer content over labels. If you have a problem with something I said, be concrete in discussing the issue, instead of just slapping a label on it and then pretending as if it means something.

 

[Silmarien]

I've yet to hear an apologetics argument which didn't turn out as a cesspool of fallacies.

You could start by looking at the actual arguments, not strawmen. That would cut down on most of your problems.

It basicly says "you can imagine it, therefor it's true".

Like I said... strawman.

Or you could just google "rebuttals to ontological argument".

Sure, let's take on faith that random discussions found on Google are seriously addressing the strongest forms of the ontological argument. This is why we're in a place now where practically nobody even knows what the cosmological argument is.

Uhu, uhu.

Like I said, I don't subscribe to such -isms and -ists.
I prefer content over labels. If you have a problem with something I said, be concrete in discussing the issue, instead of just slapping a label on it and then pretending as if it means something.

Well, you guys have made "atheist" a meaningless label, so I am happy to toss out whichever labels still do apply.

I have two problems. The first is using concepts like falsifiability outside of the domain of science or making sweeping claims like "all knowledge must be capable of being tested scientifically." Good luck using science to test that claim.

The second is the anti-intellectualism inherent in constantly attacking strawmen of theistic arguments instead of putting the slightest bit of effort into understanding the actual arguments involved. There are a handful of atheists on this forum who are happy to discuss the topic seriously and productively--I have no idea what you're even doing here if you're not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You could start by looking at the actual arguments, not strawmen. That would cut down on most of your problems.

All the apologetic arguments I ever heared, I heared them straight from the source. The "source" being, an actual apologetic presenting these arguments. People like WLC, who is oftenly held up as the "champion" of apologetics.

I don't really see the point of looking up atheists who tell me about the arguments from apologists.... While I could just listen directly to the apologist.

Like I said... strawman.

That's what it says.

Sure, let's take on faith that random discussions found on Google are seriously addressing the strongest forms of the ontological argument. This is why we're in a place now where practically nobody even knows what the cosmological argument is.

Why would you have to take that 'on faith' any more then reading the rebuttals written here?

I have two problems. The first is using concepts like falsifiability outside of the domain of science or making sweeping claims like "all knowledge must be capable of being tested scientifically." Good luck using science to test that claim.

It's what the word means. "Knowledge" = demonstrable information about something.
The dictionary defines it as "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation;"

You can share and explain knowledge.

And I'm sorry dude, but when you start making claims like "x exists", then for all intents and purposes you are making claims about reality. This gives you a burden of proof to live upto. If you cannot support your claims about reality with evidence from reality, then what merrits do your claims have?

How do I, as a third party, verify if your claims are accurate or not, if not by comparing/testing them with observable reality and see if they check out?

The second is the anti-intellectualism inherent in constantly attacking strawmen of theistic arguments instead of putting the slightest bit of effort into understanding the actual arguments involved. There are a handful of atheists on this forum who are happy to discuss the topic seriously and productively--I have no idea what you're even doing here if you're not.

I merely stated that I have never been presented with an apologetics argument that didn't engage in one or more fallacies.

If there is a specific argument you wish to discuss, you are free to create a thread about it.

 

[Silmarien]

All the apologetic arguments I ever heared, I heared them straight from the source. The "source" being, an actual apologetic presenting these arguments. People like WLC, who is oftenly held up as the "champion" of apologetics.

I am not a fan of WLC. Have you looked at any apologists outside of Evangelical Protestantism? I find that group a little bit... difficult, since they're so clearly motivated by the desire to save souls, and that really calls their objectivity into question. I will not read them, as I do not trust them.

I would recommend Catholics and the more liberal Protestant apologists instead. Alister McGrath and especially John Polkinghorne if you're interested in scientific approaches. Paul Davies is a deist who's on my reading list. I've already recommended Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart earlier in this thread and would do so again--you do not know what theism is until you've been introduced to the God of Aristotle.

It's what the word means. "Knowledge" = demonstrable information about something.
The dictionary defines it as "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation;"

You can share and explain knowledge.

You've never studied anything that isn't science? Is knowledge concerning literature suddenly a contradiction of terms?

And I'm sorry dude, but when you start making claims like "x exists", then for all intents and purposes you are making claims about reality. This gives you a burden of proof to live upto. If you cannot support your claims about reality with evidence from reality, then what merrits do your claims have?

How do I, as a third party, verify if your claims are accurate or not, if not by comparing/testing them with observable reality and see if they check out?

"God exists" is a metaphysical claim, and therefore both it and its competing claims must be investigated philosophically, not scientifically. This makes it tricky, sure, as this is about as abstract as philosophy gets, but that was really the point of the whole thread. You don't get to preemptively whine about how useless philosophy is unless you want to be labeled anti-intellectual in response.

More specific religious claims are open to textual criticism and historic or scientific investigation, but unless you're going to go get a butterfly net and hunt down the Holy Spirit, I really have no idea how you think you're going to investigate the question of the existence of God empirically.

 

[Dirk1540]

I am not a fan of WLC.

Hey!! Stop That!!!! Lol

I went a little overboard with my recent Amazon shopping spree, but David Bentley Hart and Feser are in there. Haven't read them yet but I like getting people with different perspectives.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not a fan of WLC. Have you looked at any apologists outside of Evangelical Protestantism?

I don't filter them based on any particular denomination.

I find that group a little bit... difficult, since they're so clearly motivated by the desire to save souls, and that really calls their objectivity into question.

That's okay. I tend to ignore the preaching anyway.

I would recommend Catholics and the more liberal Protestant apologists instead. Alister McGrath and especially John Polkinghorne if you're interested in scientific approaches. Paul Davies is a deist who's on my reading list. I've already recommended Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart earlier in this thread and would do so again--you do not know what theism is until you've been introduced to the God of Aristotle.

Personally and honestly, I couldn't care less what the source is, per say.
Becaue in the end, it doesn't really matter who gives the argument. It falls and stands on its own merrits, not by who utters it.

You've never studied anything that isn't science? Is knowledge concerning literature suddenly a contradiction of terms?

Literature?
You mean a physical books with letters on them, that anyone can pick up and read?

Yes, I've read books. Its contents curiously didn't depend on my preconceived beliefs. The letters also don't magically change when someone from another culture picks it up.

But that's not the point now, is it?
The point is: I've never studied something that I didn't have access to, that was outside of my field of detection. Have you? I'm guess you haven't.

"God exists" is a metaphysical claim, and therefore both it and its competing claims must be investigated philosophically, not scientifically. This makes it tricky, sure, as this is about as abstract as philosophy gets, but that was really the point of the whole thread. You don't get to preemptively whine about how useless philosophy is unless you want to be labeled anti-intellectual in response.

I flat out will say that I don't see how "philosophy" could ever be used to actually establish the existance of undetectable things and to distinguish them from non-existant unfalsifiable things.

More specific religious claims are open to textual criticism and historic or scientific investigation, but unless you're going to go get a butterfly net and hunt down the Holy Spirit, I really have no idea how you think you're going to investigate the question of the existence of God empirically.

I haven't an idea either. I have even less of an idea on how you could ever establish the actual existance of such an entity, if it is completely undetectable.

It sounds as when you say "metaphysical claim", you really mean "unfalsifiable claim without supportive evidence". It sounds like branding it "metaphysical" is a cop-out all by itself.

I can only repeat my question:

How do I, as a third party, verify if your claims are accurate or not, if not by comparing/testing them with observable reality and see if they check out?

I'll also add to that:
what does "true" or "correct" mean in relation to a claim, if not "in accordance with reality"?


EDIT: furthermore... when one says "meta-physical", what exactly is meant by that word? One means "outside of space-time physics", yes? As in "outside of the bounds of our universe"?

One could ask the question: what could philosophers ever even know about such a state??? How could you make ANY kind of argument about a context that is even more alien to us then what goes on on the quantum level inside a black hole IN our universe? One would necessarily have to make assumption upon assumption. It's literally intellectual masturbation with no tie into reality, at all.

 

[Silmarien]

Personally and honestly, I couldn't care less what the source is, per say.
Becaue in the end, it doesn't really matter who gives the argument. It falls and stands on its own merrits, not by who utters it.

It does matter who gives the argument, because different people give different arguments. A physicist is going to give a different explanation than a philosopher or historian, and that is not counting the schism between classical theism and theistic personalism.

The arguments are different. Want to talk cosmological arguments with someone who thinks there's no reason why the universe can't have been eternal? Go find a Thomist.

Yes, I've read books. Its contents curiously didn't depend on my preconceived beliefs. The letters also don't magically change when someone from another culture picks it up.

You might want to take that up with the deconstructionists. The meaning you derive from any given book most certainly depends upon your preconceptions.

The point is: I've never studied something that I didn't have access to, that was outside of my field of detection. Have you? I'm guess you haven't.

I've studied metaethics, ontology, legal theory, and social theory more broadly. I would not consider any of these things to be within a field of detection.

I flat out will say that I don't see how "philosophy" could ever be used to actually establish the existance of undetectable things and to distinguish them from non-existant unfalsifiable things.

The first thing study of philosophy would teach you is to stop tossing the word "unfalsifiable" around like some sort of mantra. The philosophy of religion would specifically teach you how to properly think about this question, since referring to God as an "undetectable thing" makes no sense at all. The debate over the existence of God very much hinges upon questions concerning the nature of reality, so if you're going to compare it to fairies and goblins and unicorns, you're really just demonstrating your own ignorance on the topic.

It sounds as when you say "metaphysical claim", you really mean "unfalsifiable claim without supportive evidence". It sounds like branding it "metaphysical" is a cop-out all by itself.

No, it's been a metaphysical question for over 2000 years. Materialism and naturalism, though more recent, are likewise metaphysical positions.

EDIT: furthermore... when one says "meta-physical", what exactly is meant by that word? One means "outside of space-time physics", yes? As in "outside of the bounds of our universe"?

No, metaphysics is a field of philosophical study dealing with concepts like being, existence, and reality. The claim that there is nothing outside of space-time physics as as much a metaphysical claim as the one that there is.

One could ask the question: what could philosophers ever even know about such a state??? How could you make ANY kind of argument about a context that is even more alien to us then what goes on on the quantum level inside a black hole IN our universe? One would necessarily have to make assumption upon assumption. It's literally intellectual masturbation with no tie into reality, at all.

Well, you could always read some metaphysics and find out. I'd recommend starting all the way back with the Greeks, though. Plato and Aristotle, or even better, all the way back with Parmenides and Heraclitus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know, some of the theists around here seem to like pretending they're pretty good at philosophy.

I would love to see an epistemology that could even begin to deal with the problem that God is, by necessity, undefined in any testable or rational way.

If that horse were indeed dead (and everyone got the message) I would have accomplished everything I ever wanted here.

...well, let's see what the various Jewish Rabbi's have to say about the "nature" of God and why they would say what they say. Why this? Well, I'm only concerned with this concept of God because personally, I don't really don't give two-pence for the God of philosophy, whether as conceived of by Western philosophers, or by Eastern, Asian ones. For me, it's either the God of the Hebrews/Jews ... or bust.

 

[variant]

...well, let's see what the various Jewish Rabbi's have to say about the "nature" of God and why they would say what they say. Why this? Well, I'm only concerned with this concept of God because personally, I don't really don't give two-pence for the God of philosophy, whether as conceived of by Western philosophers, or by Eastern, Asian ones. For me, it's either the God of the Hebrews/Jews ... or bust.

The horse, preferably goes before the cart.

I wouldn't be too picky. God rather than not god is already difficult enough without being particularly picky about the exact details as religious folks usually are.