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.
This is strong theism, I don't think I personally know any theists that are this strong, although I've met a few of Dawkins equivalents (yes I know what number he scores himself)It really isn't.
"a god exists!" = claim of theism
"i don't believe you" = response to the claim of theism.
Well that’s a little arrogant, isn’t it? Couldn’t his argument be against your errant use of logic?This is strong theism, I don't think I personally know any theists that are this strong, although I've met a few of Dawkins equivalents (yes I know what number he scores himself)
I think God exists, its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.
Your argument isn't with me, it's with logic, if you want to have that argument, I'm sure logic will indulge you.
If he can find any, then by all means, he's completely free to do so. I will check back later, meanwhile I have a 15 month old demanding my attention, that I can't just tell to grow up.Well that’s a little arrogant, isn’t it? Couldn’t his argument be against your errant use of logic?
This is strong theism
I don't think I personally know any theists that are this strong, although I've met a few of Dawkins equivalents (yes I know what number he scores himself)
I think God exists, its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.
Your argument isn't with me, it's with logic, if you want to have that argument, I'm sure logic will indulge you.
If he can find any, then by all means, he's completely free to do so. I will check back later, meanwhile I have a 15 month old demanding my attention, that I can't just tell to grow up.
Platitudes like this don't do much to inspire me to believe there's anything of substance to discuss on this side-topic.Interesting, can I suggest that next time you take a chainsaw to a branch, maybe make sure you are not harnessed to the wrong side.
Then perhaps it's terms like "rationalism" and "empiricism" you don't understand in your anti-philosophical zeal.
Physics has not been purely empirical for quite some time.
What about it? That's not sensory perception, as it's not dealing with things we can touch, see, and hear.
Your anti-intellectualism really never gets old, does it?
And what is it we want, besides justification for our beliefs?Yes, I understand that definition. I actually studied portions of Peirce, Dewey, and James in college. So, I get what you're saying.
....well, not the kind that's going to simply get us "what we want."
So, I assume by your response you read through that brain-in-a-vat article and became familiar with Putnam's actual arguments, right?
Ok. So, by our technology, then, we've established that it is "useful" to think that the 'Dark Side' of the Moon is essentially composed of the same surface material as the Light Side, even though we don't see it with the naked human eye, correct?
So, what do we mean by a "useful" belief in this context? What are we going to "do" with this useful belief? Anything? Colonize the Dark Side?
And do we really need to have an orbiter to see the so-called "Dark Side" of the moon?
No, because there really isn't a permanent Dark Side, just a (far) side that we don't see. So, is our belief that the Dark Side of the Moon is the same as the Light Side "useful" because the orbiter saw it and confirmed it for us, or is it because the Far Side is indeed the same as the Near Side and this idea was already "useful" before we sent the orbiter?
And what is it we want, besides justification for our beliefs?
So, you "know" then that Hilary Putnam, was wrong? And you "know" this how?I provided more substance to the discussion than your initial name dropping. Read up if you feel the need to learn more. Not my job to try and make your point for you.
What makes you ask this?
You're the one who asked for a way to observe the dark side. Why are you asking me what you want to do with that information?
Yes, it is a maximally great orbiter therefore, if I've learned anything from philosophy, it must necessarily logically exist in all possible worlds.
Speaking of questions, is this going anywhere?
So, you "know" then that Hilary Putnam, was wrong?
No, because pragmatism always has its limits ... despite the claim to the contrary.
I provided more substance to the discussion than your initial name dropping. Read up if you feel the need to learn more. Not my job to try and make your point for you.
Ok. And I am the one who actually doesn't believe a god exists and I'm telling you that I don't consider my life to be meaningless at all.
So what now?
This is an impossible task, because you believe this stuff as an extension of your religious beliefs. It's quite clear that you are dogmatic about this. Indeed, there's nothing I can say to you. Not because I have nothing to say, but simply because there's nothing you will accept. Because you will dissmiss anything that doesn't include your god-view.
There you go again, for the upteenth time, pretending that atheism and nihilism are the same thing.
Good grief.... atheism is not something that is "true" or "false". Because atheism is not a claim. It is the response to a claim.
I'll take this dodge to mean that despite accusing other people of not understanding modern physics you haven't actually passed a modern physics course. You might want to be careful of flinging around accusations like that (or the one above) given than it isn't actually that hard to find people around here who actually have. I mean, sure, it is easy and fun to make grand pronouncements about a field you've never actually studied but it is far from convincing.
You're confused here. Realizing the emperor has no clothes isn't anti-intellectual in the least.
Round and around we go..................
It is not.
Strong atheism, is the claim that god does NOT exist.
I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand the difference between
"I don't accept claim X as true"
and
"I claim that X is false".
By contrast, the kind of pragmatic application Jesus speaks of, as is seen from the overall context supplied in the gospel of John, suggests that if we will to put God's Will into effect in our lives by "abiding" in Christ (i.e. through pragmatic application via our appropriate response and obedience), then we'll gain more substantial understanding of God's truth as it manifests in the world, and we'll see our prayers answered; once we see God's truth in the world and in our lives, we'll know the true nature of Jesus' teaching, that it doesn't come from "man," and that Jesus isn't just speaking from his own human mind as a mortal philosopher.
What I'm seeing here is that you can't make any concrete predictions that could be falsified by any particular outcome. The prediction you've provided amounts to "If you perform action X, the results you observe will aid your understanding of the one who instructed you to perform action X." This can be applied to absolutely anyone. Instead of predicting exactly what will happen, your prediction pertains to our understanding of the very thing that is being tested. Whatever happens and whatever conclusion I come to about God, that's what you define as God's will, God's truth. This isn't so much a way to test the truth of a god-claim as it is a way to test how well a certain lifestyle suits you. To be fair, you did already acknowledge that this wouldn't be a truly pragmatic test for God's existence. I'm OK with you choosing a metaphysical belief-system that comforts you - in a way, that's something we all do. I just don't think "truth" is a term that can be meaningfully applied to anything metaphysical.
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?