[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[True Scotsman]

He seems to think that what makes sense to him is what has to make sense to everyone else, and if what makes sense to other people is different, then they are just doing it wrong and he can't be at fault. (And, if all else fails, make some pious comment how they will find Jesus one day.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes that's right. If he would say to me, Scotsman, I can't say that your argument is not sound so let me consider these new ideas before I go any further. I'm not saying I agree with you or your argument but I have to give it some thought. That would have been the rational thing to do. But he wants to claim that it is unsound without any proof, i.e. he assumes it is not sound, the very thing he said was a problem for reason. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

 

[True Scotsman]

Exactly, read my signature. It's either you who is unwilling to really question your beliefs for fear of being wrong and thus having to accept that God exists, or its me who already fears God who is unwilling to deny God for obvious reasons, why would I deny the very thing that brought me into existence?

So then you're not really concerned with any problem at the bottom of reason. You aren't using reason to start with. So as I suspected, you started this thread as an attack on reason.

 

[Chriliman]

So then you're not really concerned with any problem at the bottom of reason. You aren't using reason to start with. So as I suspected, you started this thread as an attack on reason.

Nope, I am concerned with the problem at the bottom of reason, you are not because you think your reasoning is the only reasoning that matters. It seems your only here to show me that I'm wrong about God and your unwilling really think about the concepts I'm presenting because they point to God. This is a problem that neither of us have the ability to resolve. I believe only God has the power to resolve this problem and I believe he will in time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So I said that historians have little evidence for Jesus...and you quote a christian website that sources it's evidence as coming from "some atheist" friend of christian propagandist C.S. Lewis?

Is that about right?

 

[True Scotsman]

Nope, I am concerned with the problem at the bottom of reason, you are not because you think your reasoning is the only reasoning that matters. It seems your only here to show me that I'm wrong about God and your unwilling really think about the concepts I'm presenting because they point to God. This is a problem that neither of us have the ability to resolve. I believe only God has the power to resolve this problem and I believe he will in time.

I never said my reasoning was the only reasoning that matters. I presented one argument dealing with one question. The only thing that matters is whether an argument is valid and sound. That's it. I have considered what you presented and I have explained, and demonstrated, why it falls flat on its face. I've shown why any attack on either premise is doomed to fail. If you think I'm wrong it is up to you to show how on my arguments own terms. I did this to back up my claim that my reasoning rests on no assumptions. I don't claim things I can't back up.

 

[ScottA]

So I said that historians have little evidence for Jesus...and you quote a christian website that sources it's evidence as coming from "some atheist" friend of christian propagandist C.S. Lewis?

Is that about right?

So it matters to you where historical facts come from?

Facts are facts. If you think they are not true, prove it. Don't just take a jab and run.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So it matters to you where historical facts come from?

Facts are facts. If you think they are not true, prove it. Don't just take a jab and run.

We're discussing evidence...not what I consider evidence, not what you consider evidence...certainly not what CS Lewis' mysterious nameless atheist friend considers evidence.

We're discussing what historians consider evidence...and you haven't presented any so far.

 

[ScottA]

We're discussing evidence...not what I consider evidence, not what you consider evidence...certainly not what CS Lewis' mysterious nameless atheist friend considers evidence.

We're discussing what historians consider evidence...and you haven't presented any so far.

It is an unreasonable person who considers a host of historical evidence with dates and names of real people, etc., and simply will not hear it.

I am dusting off my sandals. I will not be discussing ANYTHING with you any further.

 

[dlamberth]

Lord
Liar
Lunatic
Mistaken
Misunderstood
Misrepresented
Mythical

I lean towards a combination of Misrepresented/Misunderstood/Mythical.

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...xist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

It is an unreasonable person who considers a host of historical evidence with dates and names of real people, etc., and simply will not hear it.

I am dusting off my sandals. I will not be discussing ANYTHING with you any further.

Lol no...such a loss...

Anyways, here's a little article on the current scholarship on the matter. Enjoy!

 

[dlamberth]

Perhaps that's an indication that there is no why in the first place. If you keep asking the wrong questions you're never going to get a good answer.

As one who does ask why, I have found that a greater sense of sacredness keeps bubbling up. I have to think that's pointing towards a pretty good answer because it has had the effect of changing me for the good.

.

 

[bhsmte]

It is an unreasonable person who considers a host of historical evidence with dates and names of real people, etc., and simply will not hear it.

I am dusting off my sandals. I will not be discussing ANYTHING with you any further.

What host of historical evidence? You haven't shown anything is historically credible as of yet, as a historian would do, using the historical method.

 

[ScottA]

What host of historical evidence? You haven't shown anything is historically credible as of yet, as a historian would do, using the historical method.

Comment #481. But I don't consider myself a historian, so I am not apt to use any classic method. In fact, I don't require such data personally. I just did some quick research and in an instant found plenty that others had compiled. Which is the point...there's plenty (of evidence), if one cares to hear it.

Personally, rather than quoting the hearsay of historical data, I would rather that skeptics not look at people like me who have just as much direct contact with the entity in question as the millions of historic characters, like some crazy bald-face liar, and say, "Hey, obviously history is full of people making claims, maybe I should listen."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Comment #481. But I don't consider myself a historian, so I am not apt to use any classic method. In fact, I don't require such data personally. I just did some quick research and in an instant found plenty that others had compiled. Which is the point...there's plenty (of evidence), if one cares to hear it.

Personally, rather than quoting the hearsay of historical data, I would rather that skeptics not look at people like me who have just as much direct contact with the entity in question as the millions of historic characters, like some crazy bald-face liar, and say, "Hey, obviously history is full of people making claims, maybe I should listen."

Historian or not...my claim was about what historians call evidence. If you're going to call me out on my claim....then provide actual historical evidence. Some list that Joe Blow compiled and you cited doesn't have anything to do with my claim.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It seems your only here to show me that I'm wrong about God and your[sic] unwilling really think about the concepts I'm presenting because they point to God.

Projecting much?

It seems that you're only here to show atheists that they are wrong about God, and I don't see you putting much effort into understanding the arguments that atheists are generously offering you.

This is a problem that neither of us have the ability to resolve. I believe only God has the power to resolve this problem and I believe he will in time.

So, you are only here to bash reason and declare yourself correct.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Only that they are lopsided: Faith has accepted science and offered information to the realm of space, time, and matter universe in which science exists. But science has NOT accepted faith, has NOT offered information to the spiritual realm of faith...because it refuses to go there. No comparison.

Ever stop and wonder why science can ignore faith and still get so much useful work done?

That is what the naysayers said about the Americas.

Uh, what?

And to call it fiction...is just plain derogatory.

All you have to do is demonstrate facts backing up the mythology and we can move it into the non-fiction category. Have at it or not, but don't blame the messenger.

Oh, I don't know...maybe because you have such a big opinion about somewhere you have never been.

Theology isn't a place, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Okay. Imagine two worlds (Example: the old, pre-Americas world, and the new world). Now, imagine you are an expert in the old world, but emphatically refuse to consider the new world and at the same time belittle it. If you can't see from history just how naive that is...at least know that history (even here in your reality) does not support your position.

Was America supposed to be supernatural and invisible to all of our senses? I'm not seeing what this has to do with the discussion.

How about instead we imagine someone who uses bad analogies to try and convince others that a certain approach maybe can produce knowledge rather than just showing us the knowledge that practice has produced. At least that doesn't require too much of a stretch, given the dodging and weaving here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your right the question isn't why, the question is who. Maybe your the one who's been asking the wrong questions.

I'm not losing any sleep over other people's guessing games.

 

[HitchSlap]

As best we know, He didn't write anything except when he wrote in the dirt and no one knows what He wrote there and it was soon gone with the wind.

So what?

So, it's nothing but assertion, when one claims anything "according to Jesus."

 

[HitchSlap]

"Nothing survives that Jesus wrote?"

Not so! I did.

I suppose hyperbole has it's place with the faithful.

 

[HitchSlap]

What did Jesus write that didn't survive?

Zilch.