Adrestia Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312682763' post='2282723']So god does things for no reason, no purpose?[/quote] Still on my phone, but you can google logic fallacies when you have time. An all powerful hypothetical god didn't have to create us. If this hypothetical god did create us, it would suggest to me that he or she did have a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312686818' post='2282765'] Still on my phone, but you can google logic fallacies when you have time. An all powerful hypothetical god didn't have to create us. If this hypothetical god did create us, it would suggest to me that he or she did have a reason. [/quote] I have no need to google logical falicies, I do not believe philosophical arguments can prove anything. They all contain many assumptions, their premises are bad and hence their conclusions are bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312688083' post='2282782'] I have no need to google logical falicies, I do not believe philosophical arguments can prove anything. They all contain many assumptions, their premises are bad and hence their conclusions are bad. [/quote] What did this "If you think philisophically that you can prove god, then I would certainly suggest that the unnecessary creation of existence by an all perfect, all complete, no requirements necessary god, would prove philisophically that god does not exist and did not creat existence" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312688816' post='2282790'] What did this "If you think philisophically that you can prove god, then I would certainly suggest that the unnecessary creation of existence by an all perfect, all complete, no requirements necessary god, would prove philisophically that god does not exist and did not creat existence" mean? [/quote] Exactly what it says, it start with an "if" doesn't it. I have no knowledge of god, there is no proof either way. Some people on this site have suggest god can be proven logically and philosophically, I thought you were one of them, so thought you would at least make an attempt to philosophically reason why a complete and perfect god would have the motivation to create existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312689465' post='2282801'] Exactly what it says, it start with an "if" doesn't it. I have no knowledge of god, there is no proof either way. Some people on this site have suggest god can be proven logically and philosophically, I thought you were one of them, so thought you would at least make an attempt to philosophically reason why a complete and perfect god would have the motivation to create existence. [/quote] You assumed that I would make an argument to you that appeals to faith when you have stated multiple times that you have none. That's just silly! Besides, an a hypothetical all powerful god that doesn't need us has no need to prove his or existence to us, hypothetically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312689727' post='2282804'] You assumed that I would make an argument to you that appeals to faith when you have stated multiple times that you have none. That's just silly! Besides, an a hypothetical all powerful god that doesn't need us has no need to prove his or existence to us, hypothetically. [/quote] I had no assumption, I did not know what you would come back with. I've not had this discussion with a theist before so was interested to know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) stevil, "I thought you were one of them" is an assumption. So you won't have to make any more assumptions about me: I believe that God exists. I believe that faith is a gift from God. I believe that God has offered this gift to everyone, but some people refuse to accept it. The bible says that "Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things [i][b]not[/b][/i] seen." Emphasis mine. My faith is my evidence, and it's all I need. Edited August 7, 2011 by Adrestia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312692906' post='2282826'] stevil, "I thought you were one of them" is an assumption. [/quote] Yes, sorry I did make an assumption about you. I actually did find your first answer funny btw. Guess i was pushing for a serious answer, but I shouldn't have assumed you would take my philisophical, non evidential question seriously. I certainly wouldn't have. [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312692906' post='2282826'] So you won't have to make any more assumptions about me: I believe that God exists. I believe that faith is a gift from God. I believe that God has offered this gift to everyone, but some people refuse to accept it. The bible says that "Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things [i][b]not[/b][/i] seen." Emphasis mine. My faith is my evidence, and it's all I need. [/quote] I believe that I have not refused to accept the gift of faith. I have not seen such a gift, nor been presented with one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312695880' post='2282844'] Yes, sorry I did make an assumption about you. I actually did find your first answer funny btw. Guess i was pushing for a serious answer, but I shouldn't have assumed you would take my philisophical, non evidential question seriously. I certainly wouldn't have. [/quote] I will try to give a serious answer, but please ask the question again as clearly as possible - defining any terms that might be vague. I think a lot of misunderstandings come from differences in semantics and terminology. [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312695880' post='2282844'] I believe that I have not refused to accept the gift of faith. I have not seen such a gift, nor been presented with one. [/quote] Three questions: Are you open to accepting such a gift? What would this gift look like to you? Have you ever asked to see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312749370' post='2283068'] I will try to give a serious answer, but please ask the question again as clearly as possible - defining any terms that might be vague. I think a lot of misunderstandings come from differences in semantics and terminology. [/quote] It's probably best you don't answer it, especially if you don't think philosophy alone can prove or disprove god's existence. [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312749370' post='2283068'] Three questions: Are you open to accepting such a gift? What would this gift look like to you? Have you ever asked to see it? [/quote] I don't think faith can be gifted. By my understanding faith must be earned. e.g. If I am given an important task but I delegate it to someone else, then I need to have faith in that person because I share the responsibility of that task. I can't know beyond all doubt that this person will deliver, but given my experiences of that person and my perception of them and maybe checking in from time to time, I can feel comfortable delegating tasks, in this way I have faith in this person, not because they have gifted it to me, but because I have deemed that they haved earnt it. The more faith, the less I need to check-in with them. I just find it an odd thing for a person to say "...but some people refuse to accept it ". it is an attempt at putting the burdon on to the disbeliever instead of the theory, this may have emotional appeal to some people, but not me. I am not emotionally invested with regards to whether there is a god or not. I am open to see any proofs one way or the other, but I am currently of the understanding that there is no proof, hence the requirement for faith and belief. All religions have this requirement, strangely enough and if you apply the same logic to all of them you couls easily accept all of them or none of them. The problem with accepting all of them is that they contradict each other. So to me at this point in time it seems that there is only one reasonable answer and that is to remain in my default Atheist position until such time that substantial evidence is discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312683188' post='2282731'] People belonging to religions should be able to vote, just like everyone else. [/quote] Agreed, the problem remains though that according to your world view all discourse is a discourse of power since there is no "should" or "shouldn't" that philosophy can provide. Accordingly, all discourse of opposing views is a conversation of competing desires and it is whoever has the most means and power who will triumph ultimately. Your view of relating precludes holding the position that certain people shouldn't be oppressed and should be able to act according to how they feel about things. To say religious outfits shouldn't participate in law, but religious people should vote also involves a negation for reasons stated above. The only way to hold all of your views is to give up the principle of non-contradiction, in which case rational discourse becomes impossible. [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312803948' post='2283287'] It's probably best you don't answer it, especially if you don't think philosophy alone can prove or disprove god's existence. [/quote] What was the original question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 [quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312829361' post='2283394'] Agreed, the problem remains though that according to your world view all discourse is a discourse of power since there is no "should" or "shouldn't" that philosophy can provide. Accordingly, all discourse of opposing views is a conversation of competing desires and it is whoever has the most means and power who will triumph ultimately. Your view of relating precludes holding the position that certain people shouldn't be oppressed and should be able to act according to how they feel about things. To say religious outfits shouldn't participate in law, but religious people should vote also involves a negation for reasons stated above. The only way to hold all of your views is to give up the principle of non-contradiction, in which case rational discourse becomes impossible. [/quote] Accourding to my view, nothing is set in stone, people are free to use their own brain power to discuss, explain and above all listen to each other's point of view. Then they can make an informed decision by analysing the information and concluding what they feel as appropriate. With there conclusions they then have the power to vote for an appropriate governing body. When rich organisation give governments money in order to influence policy then this is corruption. When religious outfits threaten government over policy this is blackmail. religions have the power to sway many of their members because many of them trust their religious outfit more than they do their own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312803948' post='2283287'] I don't think faith can be gifted. By my understanding faith must be earned. e.g. If I am given an important task but I delegate it to someone else, then I need to have faith in that person because I share the responsibility of that task. I can't know beyond all doubt that this person will deliver, but given my experiences of that person and my perception of them and maybe checking in from time to time, I can feel comfortable delegating tasks, in this way I have faith in this person, not because they have gifted it to me, but because I have deemed that they haved earnt it. The more faith, the less I need to check-in with them. [/quote] If I understand you correctly, faith must be tested in order to be earned. How would you test it? How could some hypothetical god "earn" your faith? This has nothing to do with emotion or religious affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312831646' post='2283408'] Accourding to my view, nothing is set in stone, people are free to use their own brain power to discuss, explain and above all listen to each other's point of view. Then they can make an informed decision by analysing the information and concluding what they feel as appropriate. With there conclusions they then have the power to vote for an appropriate governing body. When rich organisation give governments money in order to influence policy then this is corruption. When religious outfits threaten government over policy this is blackmail. religions have the power to sway many of their members because many of them trust their religious outfit more than they do their own minds. [/quote] It seems we are going around in circles. I am sorry that I could not explain my point better so as to avoid this circle; however, I still maintain that the positions that you hold (this one above about everyone having a voice and not being oppressed, the fact that you believe philosophy gives you no answers, and the fact that you believe religious "outfits" should not participate in law-making) are mutually exclusive. [quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312834398' post='2283436'] If I understand you correctly, faith must be tested in order to be earned. How would you test it? How could some hypothetical god "earn" your faith? This has nothing to do with emotion or religious affiliation. [/quote] I apologize for the length but this might be a way: The only way that "faith" (which may have been used equivocally up to this point) can be "earned" by a God (if such a thing could be said) would be to examine the material world and see if there is an influence from Him. For example: One examines the world around him and finds different material objects. One asks: is matter eternal? If it is eternal why is there such change and such motion involved. If matter were eternal, why does it change or how is change even possible? Wouldn't eternal matter just be inert? Is change an illusion and everything is simply static materiality or is everything change and nothing is really a substance? The ancients were actually the first to ask these questions. Heraclitus proposed that in reality all things were just "change." Motion and things becoming other things and reproducing meant that nothing was real but all things were change and there are no real substances. Parmenides, however, concluded that matter and substances are really just one and since matter is eternal a principle of change could not be introduced into it; therefore change is an illusion of thing in that it hasn't really changed and the thing is still what it was. A third opinion is that of Aristotle, a realist. He supposed that change was real but that things individuals encountered were in fact things/substances. He said that if matter was eternal, there need not be a principle of change within it. One thinks of an inert matter, maybe something like the big bang here. However, we know there is change so we must conceive of substances in a certain way: matter (as the principle of individuation) and a quiddity (that which makes the thing what it is/that which is common to all things that fit this category). The quiddity can change so that a thing becomes something else and the matter is given a different form according to the quiddity or essence and we see a new object that really is something new. Now if matter is eternal why does it change and a better question: why do things move (Aristotle understood well the idea of inertia that "objects will remain at rest of in motion until acted upon by an outside force)? Wouldn't all of matter just have been inert the whole time and never changed and never given a new form/quiddity (Parmenides)? Or wouldn't matter just have been eternally moving and therefore nothing be really real but in eternal flux (Heraclitus)? Aristotle proposes that for there to be motion and change and real substances at the same time there must be this mechanism of matter and quiddity/form within the matter (two principles that aren't really anything without one another since without form there are no things that the matter can be and without matter there is no principle of individuation that allows a form to be something) as well as one that imposes these principles. If matter an eternal principle there must be one that accounts for the principle of change and the ideas of the form. Aristotle calls this eternal, necessary being "Nous" or Mind that thinks and makes these forms a reality to be educed in matter for us to come to know. However, one must note that this "Nous" is not understood as the creator God for the greeks but it does show that simply having an eternal but changing universe does not fit into an atheistic philosophy, that is if one wants to be a realist and hold that there are actual things that we come to know rather than saying everything is simply "change." This is of course provided that one would argue that the material world were not created by God, which I assume is the position most atheists or agnostics would take. Assuming that, then one would ask these question through observing the world and come to this conclusion. To use the previous construction of "earning faith" (though I still think faith is being used here equivocally and saying that God "earns" our faith is a tad flawed) one would test the material world and as such learn that there is a God--though we would not know who He is but rather that He is. As such we would be able to trust in God in so far as we can know that He at least introduced motion/change into matter in order for substances to be truly real, which in turn makes us truly real. Edited August 9, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 AMDG - your response, while appreciated, is a little off the point. I am trying to understand stevil's point of view regarding faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now