Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
And it's been replaced by? Shouldn't a self-declared Christian philosopher know this?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And it's been replaced by? Shouldn't a self-declared Christian philosopher know this?Logical empiricism.
A treatment of it can be found in Ayer's 1936 work entitled: Language, Truth and Logic.
It has been abandoned for nearly 50 years because it is self-refuting, as many of the views of young atheists here are who have not read Ayer's work.
Maybe it's just you they have trouble taking seriously? Yes, there is a rich history of philosophical discourse to engage with, but you don't engage with it. You just allude to it as a means of saving your reputation by fostering the impression that you have expertise in something other than apologetics. No one is fooled by this.Not at all.
Some here act like they do not know what the word means when philosophers use it in the context which I have referenced.
That is my point.
Philosophers have been having meaningful and fruitful conversations about God for hundreds of centuries.
I get on this forum and it is like stepping into the twilight zone. Atheists especially seem simply clueless regarding the rich history of philosophical discourse revolving around God and what attributes He would have if He existed.
I come here and the vast majority of atheists act like they do not know what I even mean when I use the word "God"!
I have trouble discerning whether or not some people here are even serious.
No it doesn't. See previous discussions with Jeremy E Walker.Plantinga's free will defense renders the Epicurean argument impotent.
Logical empiricism is self refuting.What is wrong with it, when it concerns claims about reality?
To win converts:What are the other reasons?
Why should we bother to prove our beliefs true if all you would do is say, "Ok, your beliefs are true." and go about your merry way. As ambassadors of Christ we are beseeching you ultimately to be reconciled to God, not just to give mere intellectual assent to some propositions.
I never claimed you used words with no meaning.Still waiting for your explanation of your claim that I use words with no meaning and I don't understand what I write.
See post 140 for clarification.
I never claimed you used words with no meaning.
I asked you if you made a habit of doing so. Obviously the answer is no, you don't make a habit of using words with no meaning. Neither do the Philosophers who write peer reviewed articles on topics about God.
Again, I would expect a philosopher of religion to mention the word God and do so often.
You seem to think this has some special meaning, because you are seriously grasping for straws.
Good luck with that.
It depends in what sense it is being used.The word "God", is not meaningless. That was my point.
Logical empiricism is self refuting.
That's the problem with it.
Arguably, in the sense in which it merely substitutes for other words, like "mystery" or "unknown," or in self-contradictory statements.In what sense would it be meaningless?
You're just making more assertions.
Let's recapitulate...
My stance is that claims concerning phenomena of reality require some form of testability in order to be able assess the truth value of those claims.
Please explain how and why this is a problem.
Arguably, in the sense in which it merely substitutes for other words, like "mystery" or "unknown," or in self-contradictory statements.
No. Read what I actually wrote, rather than what you have imposed on what I wrote.So the word "mystery" and the word "unknown" are words that are meaningless to you?
I don't.Why do you deny that these words have meaning?
The placement of the comma suggests a seperate clause.In what way is the word "God" used to substitute for self-contradictory statements?
No. Read what I actually wrote, rather than what you have imposed on what I wrote.
I don't.
The placement of the comma suggests a seperate clause.
I didn't say it was meaningless! Have you even be reading my posts? I said that it depends on the sense in which the word is being used. Used as a substitute for "mystery" and "unknown," it is meaningless; we already have words for things that are mysterious and for ignorance.I have just demonstrated to you that the word "God", even if used synonymously for "mystery" or "unknown", is not without meaning. The word still has meaning.
So as an intellectually honest person, you should abandon your view about the word "God" being meaningless.
Will you?
By the way, I don't know if, given your current status, you are in any position to be offering advice on intellectual honesty.So as an intellectually honest person, you should abandon your view about the word "God" being meaningless.
Will you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?