- Aug 12, 2003
- 5,373
- 998
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm sorry, I should read before snapping off a reply.That history repeats because of sin in man.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, I should read before snapping off a reply.That history repeats because of sin in man.
Can you present the foundation for your faith without the foundational unproven presuppostions that you rely on?So, convince me. Show me all this evidence, without foundational unproven presuppostions.
The details are different in every religion. The concept is the same - breaking out of a cycle to better things by redemptive thought and/or action.The serpent is still biting it's tail for them. Man isn't causing karma everything is as it's supposed to be for them. Human life is cyclic for Eastern religions.
A new idea is at the end of the age (tail) the serpent will try to swallow it's tail but it a foot. A foot that crushed it's head. Breaks human life out of the endless loop of repeated history.
I see no evidence that you are arguing in good faith, but rather a series of pre-emptive assertions, implicit and explicit, that seem designed to provide a convenient back door through which you can escape any necessity to actually study any material I might present. When you are ready to treat this discussion seriously and sincerely I shall re-engage. Sadly, I expect a very long wait. I would be delighted to be disappointed.So, convince me. Show me all this evidence, without foundational unproven presuppostions.
Oh no. Nonono. I already know my foundational presuppositions are not provable to you by your methods.Can you present the foundation for your faith without the foundational unproven presuppostions that you rely on?
For some the fundamentals are too.The details are different in every religion.
Conceptually major differences. As explained. Whether a cow is sacred or food is a major difference.The concept is the same
Breaking out? Is that possible?breaking out of a cycle
That is because all presuppositions are not provable - didn't you know that? I used to teach a freshman science class that discussed some philosophy of science a while back and this was covered. I'm wondering if you even know what the presuppositions of science are? There are different variations and such, but generally the basic ones are that the universe exists, it is amenable to being studied by using our senses, and our senses are generally reliable.Oh no. Nonono. I already know my foundational presuppositions are not provable to you by your methods.
Cop out. Cause and effect has its place, but First Cause is just sad theology/apologetics. You must be afraid that your little 'logical' argument cannot withstand much scrutiny. If that is your presupposition, then it is an illogical and arbitrary one, established SOLELY to prop up your failed theology.If Cause-and-effect isn't reliable to you, then First Cause certainly is not. No point in proceeding further.
That is because all presuppositions are not provable - didn't you know that? I used to teach a freshman science class that discussed some philosophy of science a while back and this was covered. I'm wondering if you even know what the presuppositions of science are? There are different variations and such, but generally the basic ones are that the universe exists, it is amenable to being studied by using our senses, and our senses are generally reliable.
Is that so horrible?
Cop out. Cause and effect has its place, but First Cause is just sad theology/apologetics. You must be afraid that your little 'logical' argument cannot withstand much scrutiny. If that is your presupposition, then it is an illogical and arbitrary one, established SOLELY to prop up your failed theology.
If presuppositions of science are not provable, then why say that Darwinian Evolution is established fact, and that Quantum Mechanics is based on what we already KNOW?
To add on to the last post. All findings of science are provisional. But those findings tend to be far more reliable than any other "facts" that you will find in life. As I have pointed out before. Gravity is only tentatively true. It is still never a good idea to walk off of a cliff on the side of a mountain, unless you have special gear and a lot of training.If presuppositions of science are not provable, then why say that Darwinian Evolution is established fact, and that Quantum Mechanics is based on what we already KNOW?
Scrutinize all you want. So far, First Cause is the only reasonable explanation for existence. EVERYTHING else I have heard so far, is illogical —as in, circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goalposts, etc etc. To me, at least, it makes more sense that First Cause should exist, than even that I exist.
It seems you are attributing your superior notions, concerning my motivations, with more substance than they deserve. It would make more sense to say that I am using confirmation bias, than to say that I am employing the cosmological argument SOLELY to buttress my theology. How would you know of my reasons?
Without going back and re-reading all I have said to you on this thread, I don't recall what I have or have not claimed, re 'evidence'. I'm guessing that I have said that logical argument can serve for evidence, as it is what science does all the time. But since you don't consider my logical sequences to be logical, then what's the point? You may even have tried to show me how they are illogical, but I don't consider your rebuttal logical, so what's the point? To arrogantly call it 'pretense', however, smacks of condescension and suggests weakness to your own argument. You certainly have not convinced me of anything, nor motivated me to whimper my way back out of your withering gaze. Baugh!
Yeah, sure. You pushed the need for an explanation back a generation. None of that pesky need for theories and evidence. Just a handy God slapped onto everything and you're done.So far, First Cause is the only reasonable explanation for existence. EVERYTHING else I have heard so far, is illogical —as in, circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goalposts, etc etc. To me, at least, it makes more sense that First Cause should exist, than even that I exist.
Gravity is a fine example. We know that things fall but why? We believe that time causes gravity. But it could be that invisible fairies are everywhere and their only purpose in life is to grab things as you release them and pull them towards the earth. Since that's not completed IMpossible it's best not to annoy them. Or one day they might decide to just let you float off into space.To add on to the last post. All findings of science are provisional. But those findings tend to be far more reliable than any other "facts" that you will find in life. As I have pointed out before. Gravity is only tentatively true. It is still never a good idea to walk off of a cliff on the side of a mountain, unless you have special gear and a lot of training.
If presuppositions of your faith are not provable, why claim God is real?If presuppositions of science are not provable, then why say that Darwinian Evolution is established fact, and that Quantum Mechanics is based on what we already KNOW?
Assertions are cool.Scrutinize all you want. So far, First Cause is the only reasonable explanation for existence.
Yes yes, you say that, but I have not seen a single example from you, just repeated slurs to make yourself feel better about your choices, I suppose.. We'll see how you deal with evidence below.EVERYTHING else I have heard so far, is illogical —as in, circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goalposts, etc etc.
Not to me, so your point is moot. You use your presupposition to support your mere beliefs, whereas in science, we just presume that we can learn.To me, at least, it makes more sense that First Cause should exist, than even that I exist.
You pretty much lay it all out, perhaps unwittingly.It seems you are attributing your superior notions, concerning my motivations, with more substance than they deserve.
Seems pretty obvious to me.It would make more sense to say that I am using confirmation bias, than to say that I am employing the cosmological argument SOLELY to buttress my theology. How would you know of my reasons?
Clearly - you ignored it both times I posted it for you - the first time, you merely omitted it from your reply.Without going back and re-reading all I have said to you on this thread, I don't recall what I have or have not claimed, re 'evidence'.
No, you just ignored it - which I guess you feel you must do in order to keep believing your inflammatory and unsupported charges of circular reasoning and the like. Third time a charm?I'm guessing that I have said that logical argument can serve for evidence....
I refer to Darwinian Evolution as opposed to the simple obvious fact that things change.(I should also caveat that modern evolutionary theory is not specifically Darwinian Evolution; the theory of evolution has moved on quite a bit since Darwin's time).
'First cause' is also illogical - it is the fallacy of special pleading....So far, First Cause is the only reasonable explanation for existence. EVERYTHING else I have heard so far, is illogical —as in, circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goalposts, etc etc. To me, at least, it makes more sense that First Cause should exist, than even that I exist.
I refer to Darwinian Evolution as opposed to the simple obvious fact that things change.
Well you brought it up as Eastern religion not me.is that relevant? The journey is more important than the destination.
How so? I didn't think the word applied to Eastern religion. There is no redeemer that I know of.is if you strip it of the baggage associated with the Christian notion of redemption.
No, I didn't. I think that was @FrumiousBandersnatch. So, I was responding to your reaction to his post, not to his post.Well you brought it up as Eastern religion not me.
What makes you think a redeemer is required in order to achieve redemption? Can you demonstrate a redeemer is always a pre-requisite?How so? I didn't think the word applied to Eastern religion. There is no redeemer that I know of.
So you guys keep saying, and I keep saying then all unproven scientific presupposition is special pleading. You see a line of logic that goes unanswered, propose a hypothesis, and see if it works.'First cause' is also illogical - it is the fallacy of special pleading.