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.
It is strange, I don't need prof for my faith only conviction and conviction I have. Only the Jews need proof; are you a Jew?
My reply to your earlier post was meant for Christian readers while you avoid serious discussion.
In the event that a defeater were presented, wouldn't you insist upon your "defeater-defeater"?
The Messianic Manic addresses this point well:
As I recall, I asked you to elucidate what that entailed earlier, but you haven't. DogmaHunter asked a similarly relevant question to this. So did KCfromNC. Most recently, I asked you what you would have us base our methods of inquiry on. No answer.
WLC makes arguments to try and make it seem to believers that someone in their group can hold up to rigorous skeptical scrutiny, and to try to form a rational basis to deflect such scrutiny at it's basis.
It isn't true because he only engages in an entirely dishonest manner, but it seems that way to people who want to believe it.
Skepticism isn't his audiences strong suit to begin with.
I expounded upon what soft agnosticism looks like.What would that look like? A logical argument against which you had no reply?
I'm asking you to describe what you think it entails. I'm not that familiar with Plantinga. But then I don't feel the need to pretend to be, unlike certain apologists in this thread.If you're familiar with Plantinga, you should know what it is. Or are you only interested in atheist apologetics?
If you're familiar with Plantinga, you should know what it is.
How vague. What do you mean it depends on the defeater presented?Depends on the defeater presented. You have something against defeater-defeaters?
What ad hominem? Aren't we allowed to discuss the arguer's strategy and whether his approach to these matters is intellectually honest or not?Classic ad hominem. Attacking the man instead of his arguments.
Can we please just cut to the chase, @anonymous person? I've seen this movie far too many times. You challenged us to convince you once before, knowing the entire time that you would never be convinced, no matter what we presented. It's disingenuous for you to expect us to simply ignore this and to pretend otherwise.
If all you bring to the table is a confession of ignorance, then that is not a defeater that is going to defeat my beliefs which are grounded on good evidence, arguments, and beliefs which are grounded on other beliefs properly basic.How vague. What do you mean it depends on the defeater presented?
Of course you can.What ad hominem? Aren't we allowed to discuss the arguer's strategy and whether his approach to these matters is intellectually honest or not?
Of course you can.
Is that what people do who have good arguments?
No.
They just present their arguments in a respectful and charitable manner and let the arguments and evidence speak for themselves.
When you resort to attacking the man, all it shows is that you have no good arguments.
The critique was in regards to willy's arguments and tactics and were not personal.
But your repeated expressions of the confidence you have in the veracity of your beliefs implies that you feel that they are.The proper basicality of beliefs about God do not imply they are indubitable.
Not necessarily. Incompatible beliefs can be accommodated with compartmentalization.These beliefs are defeasible; that is to say, they can be defeated by other incompatible beliefs which come to be accepted by the theist.
That would be an improper application of the concept of falsification to a single, unreproducible event.With regards to Ayer's principle of empirical verifiability and Flew's principle of empirical falsifiability, suffice it to say that these principles were principles formulated by their respective creators to be used to determine whether or not statements are meaningful. IOW, they are criteria of meaning and that is why verificationism as a semantic theory has been abandoned since the 50's and falsifiability in the narrow sense, has been abandoned as a tenable criteria of meaning. Of course, in the broader sense, falsifiability as a principle is alive and helpful, for unless there are criteria for truth and falsity, no truth claims could be supported.
In addition, Hick points out that not everything that is verifiable need be falsifiable in the same manner. IOW, the relationship between the two is asymmetrical. An example can be given to illustrate this. I can verify my own immortality if I consciously observe my funeral. I cannot falsify my immortality however, for if I do not survive my death, I am not there to disprove my own immortality.
Still driving that Dodge?I don't recognize such designations.
Of course you have used the wrong question; the question would be, do you believe in a god, yes or no?I would simply be agnostic. I would answer "I don't know, but it is possible." to the question,"Does God exist?"
I would not answer "No.", nor would I answer the question by saying, "the question is meaningless."
Are you ever going to answer my question about your ideas for a better way to investigate reality?
Evolutionarily speaking, we only need to comprehend sufficiently so as to survive as a species. More than that is simply gravy.Logic requires that there is a big reality existing before the human mind tries to comprehend it but the human mind has no reference point to know when it has comprehended the universe;
Perceptions of reality are created. Religions are just ritualized versions.other wise realities are created;
That is your perception. Others have other gods. Or no gods.God has created a reality for us;
No, atheism is simply "I am not convinced of your perception of a god as reality"Atheism is a set of realities;
Indeed, like there is no actual god(s) behind all of those religions to point them in a single direction.mankind creates infinite realities and the result is confusion.
But your repeated expressions of the confidence you have in the veracity of your beliefs implies that you feel that they are.
However, there is your refusal - or inability - to define this thing that you say you believe in, in some testable manner; this could be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the fragility of your beliefs... like a house of cards that you can brag about ("powerfully warranted"), but must be kept shielded from the lightest of breezes (post #3).
Not necessarily. Incompatible beliefs can be accommodated with compartmentalization.
Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)
You live a world where science is used to explore the moons of Saturn, put computers on your desk, and kill disease, but it must be doubted or dismissed when it is applied to virtually all of the observable world (YMMV).
That would be an improper application of the concept of falsification to a single, unreproducible event.
Of course you have used the wrong question; the question would be, do you believe in a god, yes or no?
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?