[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Chriliman]

So then basically your whole objection where you said knowledge required omniscience was just a smokescreen and you didn't really mean it. Why did you post it in the first place?

Because True Scotsmen claimed to believe God does not exist. This claim implies he was presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and he accepted this proof as truth. Unfortunately, in order to prove God does not exist, one would have to know everything at all times and I don't think it's reasonable for True Scotsmen to claim he knows everything at all times in order to claim to have accepted the truth that God does not exist. Therefore, to believe God does not exist, is actually unreasonable. At best you can assume God does not exist because this is more reasonable, but I don't believe we should base our reasoning on assumptions.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, I'm not certain, but based on your answers to my questions it seems you do not base your reasoning on assumptions. Again, clarify if I'm wrong.

Yes, I try my best to avoid that. There are, however, axioms I can´t get around accepting.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, I try my best to avoid that. There are, however, axioms I can´t get around accepting.

That is expected. We all believe there is truth to accept and should realize that when considering the universe and why we're all here, there may not be physical evidence to support that truth, which is why we must accept any evidence as true if it makes sense. I've accepted the truth of God, because it makes sense and He has confirmed my beliefs in Him. Believing in God will at first be the hardest thing, but then become the easiest and most fulfilling thing you've ever done.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because True Scotsmen claimed to believe God does not exist. This claim implies he was presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and he accepted this proof as truth.

Yes, exactly. People can draw conclusions from limited but still convincing evidence. It is what you do when you conclude that, say, the sky is blue. It could be that there's a conspiracy to fabricate evidence to trick people into thinking that. But realistically, the most obvious conclusion from the evidence is that it actually is that color. Likewise, people can make conclusions about gods despite there being some small hypothetical chance that they are wrong.

Unfortunately, in order to prove God does not exist, one would have to know everything at all times

Not true. See above, in addition to proofs related to logical contradictions or problems with incoherence.

 

[bhsmte]

Because True Scotsmen claimed to believe God does not exist. This claim implies he was presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and he accepted this proof as truth. Unfortunately, in order to prove God does not exist, one would have to know everything at all times and I don't think it's reasonable for True Scotsmen to claim he knows everything at all times in order to claim to have accepted the truth that God does not exist. Therefore, to believe God does not exist, is actually unreasonable. At best you can assume God does not exist because this is more reasonable, but I don't believe we should base our reasoning on assumptions.

Do you believe the God, Thor exists?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you believe the God, Thor exists?

No because I've never been presented with any convincing reason to believe in a god called Thor. I suspect when I start to question this god, I would find out he is a myth made up by man.

However, I would love it if you truly questioned God of the Holy Bible, however in order to truly question Him you must accept the possibility that He exists. If you can't accept this possibility then you can't truly question Him and find out for sure that He either exists or does not exist. By questioning God of the Holy Bible, the same God who created the universe, you are also questioning truth. Ultimately, this is a very good thing that will inevitably lead you to the truth.

 

[quatona]

That is expected. We all believe there is truth to accept

Speak for yourself.

and should realize that when considering the universe and why we're all here, there may not be physical evidence to support that truth, which is why we must accept any evidence as true if it makes sense.

Doesn´t follow.

I've accepted the truth of God, because it makes sense and He has confirmed my beliefs in Him. Believing in God will at first be the hardest thing, but then become the easiest and most fulfilling thing you've ever done.

Has this become a preaching thread, or something?

 

[bhsmte]

No because I've never been presented with any convincing reason to believe in a god called Thor. I suspect when I start to question this god, I would find out he is a myth made up by man.

However, I would love it if you truly questioned God of the Holy Bible, however in order to truly question Him you must accept the possibility that He exists. If you can't accept this possibility then you can't truly question Him and find out for sure that He either exists or does not exist. By questioning God of the Holy Bible, the same God who created the universe, you are also questioning truth. Ultimately, this is a very good thing that will inevitably lead you to the truth.

No, I don't have to accept the possibility he exists, that would be jumping the gun.

What I need, is a basic concept (description) of what basically describes this Christian God and analyze this compared to the realities of the universe and only then, will I be able to determine whether there is any possibility I can reconcile this God, with those well evidenced realities.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, exactly. People can draw conclusions from limited but still convincing evidence. It is what you do when you conclude that, say, the sky is blue. It could be that there's a conspiracy to fabricate evidence to trick people into thinking that. But realistically, the most obvious conclusion from the evidence is that it actually is that color. Likewise, people can make conclusions about gods despite there being some small hypothetical chance that they are wrong.



Not true. See above, in addition to proofs related to logical contradictions or problems with incoherence.

Did you read anything else I wrote in that comment?

The very concept of the God of the Holy Bible, the same God that created the universe is that He is all knowing and all present, meaning He cannot contradict Himself. He is also timeless and massless, but able to interact with us in time and space. Ultimately, it is our free will that is keeping us from knowing God in His entirety. If we freely choose to believe in Him, there will come a moment in our lives when we realize He has sacrificed His son Jesus for all of our sins and in that moment we will give our entire selves to Him and He will make us new in every way through the power of Jesus Christ. After this moment the only thing we want is God's will in our lives, we become like Christ and God becomes like our Father who's will is perfect in every way and to chose not to follow His perfect will would be to choose eternal death instead of eternal life. Fortunately, for those chosen by God, it is impossible for them to be lost, because God's will is perfect. Do you understand? If you even kind of understand, rest assured God will lead you to the truth of His son Jesus.

 

[Chriliman]

Speak for yourself.

Oh sorry, you don't believe in truth?

Has this become a preaching thread, or something?

This scripture has to be fulfilled somehow:

Matthew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

 

[quatona]

Oh sorry, you don't believe in truth?

Well, the term "truth" comes in a great variety of definitions, i.e. refers to a great variety of concepts - many of which are of minor (if any) significance, in my worldview.

This scripture has to be fulfilled somehow:

Matthew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

I take that for a "yes".
I should have been warned when you pretended to start a philosophical thread but didn´t even manage to express yourself in a consistent terminology.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, the term "truth" comes in a great variety of definitions, i.e. refers to a great variety of concepts - many of which are of minor (if any) significance, in my worldview.




I take that for a "yes".
I should have been warned when you pretended to start a philosophical thread but didn´t even manage to express yourself in a consistent terminology.

The thread speaks for itself as far as my philosophical argument that there is a problem at the bottom of reason. To ignore the problem is, well ignorant. Do you want to be ignorant? If not, then don't ignore the problem, but rather question the problem in order to find the solution. Seems intelligent right? Except, the solution leads to God, which is exactly why you'll continue ignoring the problem, unless you value truth, then we might get somewhere in life.

God bless!

 

[bhsmte]

The thread speaks for itself as far as my philosophical argument that there is a problem at the bottom of reason. To ignore the problem is, well ignorant. Do you want to be ignorant? If not, then don't ignore the problem, but rather question the problem in order to find the solution. Seems intelligent right? Except, the solution leads to God, which is exactly why you'll continue ignoring the problem, unless you value truth, then we might get somewhere in life.

God bless!

This thread does speak for itself, but it doesn't say what you want it to say.

 

[quatona]

The thread speaks for itself as far as my philosophical argument that there is a problem at the bottom of reason. To ignore the problem is, well ignorant. Do you want to be ignorant? If not, then don't ignore the problem, but rather question the problem in order to find the solution. Seems intelligent right? Except, the solution leads to God, which is exactly why you'll continue ignoring the problem, unless you value truth, then we might get somewhere in life.

I agree: The thread speaks for itself.
The fact that you find your own arguments convincing is noted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because True Scotsmen claimed to believe God does not exist. This claim implies he was presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and he accepted this proof as truth. Unfortunately, in order to prove God does not exist, one would have to know everything at all times and I don't think it's reasonable for True Scotsmen to claim he knows everything at all times in order to claim to have accepted the truth that God does not exist. Therefore, to believe God does not exist, is actually unreasonable. At best you can assume God does not exist because this is more reasonable, but I don't believe we should base our reasoning on assumptions.

To "believe" something is not the same as to "know" something.

The way you address True Scotsmen "belief" that god does not exist, you are actually pretending that he said that he knows that god does not exist. That would imply that he has proof.

But that's not at all what he said.

But I know by now that you just love to sow confusion and obfuscate what people really mean by playing with words that can have different meanings in different contexts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No because I've never been presented with any convincing reason to believe in a god called Thor. I suspect when I start to question this god, I would find out he is a myth made up by man.

Then why do you find it so surprising that some people come to a similar conclusion about the deity you happen to believe in?

However, I would love it if you truly questioned God of the Holy Bible, however in order to truly question Him you must accept the possibility that He exists.

What makes you think we haven't done that?

By questioning God of the Holy Bible, the same God who created the universe, you are also questioning truth. Ultimately, this is a very good thing that will inevitably lead you to the truth.

I love how you talk about this stuff as if it is completely impossible that your religious beliefs are wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The thread speaks for itself as far as my philosophical argument that there is a problem at the bottom of reason. To ignore the problem is, well ignorant. Do you want to be ignorant? If not, then don't ignore the problem, but rather question the problem in order to find the solution. Seems intelligent right? Except, the solution leads to God, which is exactly why you'll continue ignoring the problem, unless you value truth, then we might get somewhere in life.

God bless!

Nothing you said in this thread leads to any kind of deity - the one you believe in or another.

 

[KCfromNC]

Did you read anything else I wrote in that comment?

Do you have anything to say about what I did reply to, or are you just here to preach?

The very concept of the God of the Holy Bible, the same God that created the universe is that He is all knowing and all present, meaning He cannot contradict Himself. He is also timeless and massless, but able to interact with us in time and space.

Logical contradiction #1.

If we freely choose to believe in Him

Belief isn't a choice. So here's a good example of a concrete claim about this being contradicting reality.

there will come a moment in our lives when we realize He has sacrificed His son Jesus for all of our sins and in that moment we will give our entire selves to Him and He will make us new in every way through the power of Jesus Christ. After this moment the only thing we want is God's will in our lives, we become like Christ and God becomes like our Father who's will is perfect in every way and to chose not to follow His perfect will would be to choose eternal death instead of eternal life. Fortunately, for those chosen by God, it is impossible for them to be lost, because God's will is perfect. Do you understand? If you even kind of understand, rest assured God will lead you to the truth of His son Jesus.

Any evidence for these claims?

See, that's the problem. Most of this is just preaching with nothing to back it up. The stuff which actually makes testable claims seems to either contradict itself or reality. The reasonable conclusion is to reject it.

 

[True Scotsman]

The point of this thread has been clearly made, by means of the thread itself.

True Scotsman you seem reasonable and you claim your philosophy is not based on assumptions. (Even though the only assumption you make is that God does not exist. I understand you disagree with this )

For the second time, my rejection of the idea of God is not an assumption but a conclusion arrived at by perfectly valid and sound reasoning, namely "God's" violation of the axioms and the primacy of existence principle. I've given my reasoning and you've not shown where it is in error. No assumptions on my part.

Objectivism has solved your perceived problem (as well as so many others!). It begins with incontestable truths, the axioms. These ground reason in reality. It recognizes the primacy of existence, that things exist independent of anyone's conscious activity. this lays down the foundation of objectivity. And it has a fully integrated and validated objective theory of concepts which is fully consistent with its metaphysics to guide the process of reasoning- For the first time in the history of the world. You will not find these things in the bible or anywhere else for that matter. In fact the Bible leaves its readers completely in the dark with no guidance on how to acquire and validate knowledge.

So you see, we need not be omniscient in order to be certain that there is no universe creating and ruling god or square circles. These things would be a contradiction and contradictions can't exist in reality. Only in the imagination.

If you would actually look at what I've presented to you and use it as a springboard to further study of these issues you will find that I'm handing you pure gold at no charge. You can be free of that nagging fear and uneasiness.

 

[True Scotsman]

Actually That is what I'm saying. I can prove it quite easily because I have studied the issue from the standpoint of fundamental principles (something no theist I've ever met has done) and I have an objective theory of concepts. So yes I say unflinchingly that there are no gods, at least the ones portrayed in the Bible or the Koran or the Talmud. This is not a case of proving a negative however. I would not even attempt such a thing. But rather it is a proof that Christianity is false based on the claims it makes about the fundamental nature of existence. Those claims are well withing the realm of cognition and they are completely and incontravertably at odds with the facts of reality.