Godlessness and choice

[HitchSlap]

Neither!

There is no "from."

Yeah, that's what people say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the really cool part is that if we all reject any idea that challenges our own, under the guise of “properly basic beliefs” and “defeater defeaters”, there would be a lot less arguing. No need for debates, no changing of minds. Logical fallacies suddenly mean nothing. We’re firmly grounded in believing anything without fear of successful contradictions.

It would almost be like using philosophy to destroy philosophy, in a sense.

And maybe that’s the ultimate goal of philosophy anyway...

...no, philosophy is kind of like being inquisitive, and wondering, really, really wondering just what is in those two little holes in the wall that mommy and daddy use all the time to run the vacuum cleaner. So, the good philosopher will stick his little pinky in there and fin.......**************** * ******* *********

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Premises in arguments don't require certainty of a mathematical proof. Science doesn't certainly doesn't require that level of certainty and philosophy requires that premises be more plausibly true then their opposite.

That "more plausibly true" part seems to be the sticking point...

If you required certainty of the type you describe all you would accomplish is rueucing what anyone could "know" to the smallest fraction of what we now know.

What you quoted doesn't seem to indicate that the poster is looking for evidence above and beyond what is usually required by most people.

Premises that are accepted by theists and atheists alike:

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation transcends the universe
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5.Intentional states of consciousness do exist.

And also rejected by theists and atheists alike, I'm sure...

 

[HitchSlap]

Here, I'll let this young chap school ya'll.

 

[anonymous person]

I would rather listen to someone like Graham Oppy interact with the Kalam. Graham Oppy is actually a professional philosopher who has interacted with Dr. Craig in peer reviewed publications.

 

[anonymous person]

Here, I'll let this young chap school ya'll.

"Who's to say?" and "perhaps this or that" seem to be two phrases this intelligent young lad mentions quite often in the video.

Possibilities come cheap.

Perhaps the premises of the Kalam that he didn't really interact with are more plausible than their contradictories.

Who's to say that the Kalam is not sound?

See how easy that is?

If you consider anything this young lad said as evidence of him having "schooled" Dr. Craig, then I would suggest you go back to school yourself.

 

[HitchSlap]

Possibilities come cheap.

Indeed.

 

[anonymous person]

And the really cool part is that if we all reject any idea that challenges our own, under the guise of “properly basic beliefs” and “defeater defeaters”, there would be a lot less arguing. No need for debates, no changing of minds. Logical fallacies suddenly mean nothing. We’re firmly grounded in believing anything without fear of successful contradictions.

It would almost be like using philosophy to destroy philosophy, in a sense.

And maybe that’s the ultimate goal of philosophy anyway...

Philosophy doesn't have a goal. Philosophers have goals.

Maybe we should seek truth and pursue it, even if it means at the end of the journey, we find a person that presents us with a choice of either living a self centered life which ultimately leads to destruction, or a life of selflessness, self sacrifice, servanthood and obedience to the will of God which leads to eternal life.

I've lived both and I can tell you now that only despair, destruction, and sorrow await you if you continue on the path you are on. You must repent and be born again.

 

[HitchSlap]

Philosophy doesn't have a goal. Philosophers have goals.

Maybe we should seek truth and pursue it, even if it means at the end of the journey, we find a person that presents us with a choice of either living a self centered life which ultimately leads to destruction, or a life of selflessness, self sacrifice, servanthood and obedience to the will of God which leads to eternal life.

I've lived both and I can tell you now that only despair, destruction, and sorrow await you if you continue on the path you are on. You must repent and be born again.

There's really no good reason to believe this. If you need the crutch of supernatural beliefs to keep you on "the straight and narrow," then please, by all means, keep believing.

As for myself, I'm obligated to accept reality as it is, unencumbered by mythological nonsense.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Philosophy doesn't have a goal. Philosophers have goals.

Yes, lad, I realize that. Sometimes people say things for effect.

Maybe we should seek truth and pursue it, even if it means at the end of the journey, we find a person that presents us with a choice of either living a self centered life which ultimately leads to destruction, or a life of selflessness, self sacrifice, servanthood and obedience to the will of God which leads to eternal life.

I've lived both and I can tell you now that only despair, destruction, and sorrow await you if you continue on the path you are on. You must repent and be born again.

So, down to just proselytizing I see. When I was a Christian, I was taught that one of first rules of soul winning was to know your audience.

You should probably remember that.