Logic and Christianity
Replies
-
The argument I've given is not a "God of the gaps" argument. That kind of argument is based on saying something like this: "Since we don't know how this happened or what this means, we must postulate God to account for what we don't presently know." This is precisely the opposite of what the cosmological reasoning that I've suggested here does. It is because we do know that the things we observe in this world are dependent on other things that we draw the valid inference that there must be a first ground of being. Again, this conclusion is the result of reasoning from what we do know to recognize dependence and therefore conclude to an independent reality. When physicists postulate "gravity" it is by inference from the behavior of physical bodies. When philosophers conclude to the existence of God it is based on inference from the nature of the universe. This is quite the opposite of "God of the gaps."
Impressive post, and thank you for addressing the 'god of the gaps,' as I skipped it to address a different issue. I think, perhaps, the biggest issue with the understanding of cosmological arguments is the idea that, one day, we will be able to eliminate them with some scientific discovery. I am more of the mind that the universe will always call out for a cause, no matter what random forces we finally blame for the material world. For the most part, indeed, science has only broadened and deepened my awe of the designer of it, far from undercutting it.0 -
Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.0
-
Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.
No intellectual argument to support your opinion?0 -
I probably should have been clearer, either in the OP or the title, that not all of the arguments are going to be specific to Christianity, but are merely arguments for theism as a whole, and that most were CREATED by Christians in an effort to create some kind of evidential basis for belief (as a whole). In and effort to make the main thing the main thing, you have to start with theism, and then work foward with other evidences. After my run, I will attempt to bring a few more points up, a few more arguments. I hope that there are those who will engage, at least past commenting on just the thread title. Although, it is a free country, knock yourself out!0
-
Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.
No intellectual argument to support your opinion?
I believe in what I can touch, see, feel, analyze. Not fairy tales handed down from generation to generation without proof.0 -
There is no logic necessary in religion. It's called faith because you believe despite logic, not because of it.Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.
No intellectual argument to support your opinion?0 -
There is no logic necessary in religion. It's called faith because you believe despite logic, not because of it.Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.
No intellectual argument to support your opinion?
Exactly, which is why it's so funny when religious people try to say that their beliefs are logical, but then flip around to say "well, i have faith so it's okay, we can't understand god." You can't have it both ways.0 -
There is no logic necessary in religion. It's called faith because you believe despite logic, not because of it.Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.
No intellectual argument to support your opinion?
That is really not supported by church history. It is called a fideist approach, and there are those that do, and have, advocated it. It is possible, I think, to draw a conclusion like that from a certain kind of reading of Scripture, but not a comprehensive one that I support. Most of the truly great Christians of the enlightenment, of course, utterly opposed such a notion (such as John Locke). Heck, Leibniz practically invented rationalism, and was the forerunner of contemporary analytic philosophy. Locke even said that revealed truths (those, perhaps, unattainable by reason) cannot contradict reason itself. Really, to imply that religion is faith alone is more along the lines of Goulds NOMA, and just an effort to dismiss the annoyance of it to the realm of values.
There is a friend of mine, a researcher in neuropsychology at the UW, who thinks that faith is something real. Perhaps not describable through our typical analytics and reductionist methods, but that can perhaps be described through the apophatic means of saying what it is not. He sees it, potentially, as a tool for gathering empirical knowledge of a realm that is not otherwise knowable. Who knows?0 -
Logic and Christianity? What';s the word I am looking for? Oh yeah....Oxymoron.
No intellectual argument to support your opinion?
I believe in what I can touch, see, feel, analyze. Not fairy tales handed down from generation to generation without proof.
Interesting (you forgot hear and smell). However, with a plea to some metaphysical discipline (such as properly basic beliefs, or incorrigible truths, neither of which can be verified by your standard), how can you claim that your senses are reliable? Faith?0 -
Why I value atheism
Atheists, whether they like it or not, are my partners in faith. I value atheists, themselves, the same way and for the same reasons that I value everyone. It is my duty, my honor, and my pleasure to respect my fellow person, and atheists are persons (last I checked). However, atheism has its own value to me. Much of the power of my conviction, what allows me to function as a disciple rather than a nominal believer, comes from that the fact that I have been able to confront some of the great defeaters of religious belief. These have, by and large, been presented to me by atheists in a number of different formats. That means that my own devotion has been created by the ability to engage with people that have come to different conclusions about many of the same questions. They say ‘iron sharpens iron’ and I am of a mind to believe it.
That is by no means all, though. Atheists have a way of forcing Christians to confront their own hypocrisy. This is of multifold benefit, in that nominal believers (those that have not allowed the gospel to change them in any way, or use religion to merely justify their own greed or bigotry) can be compelled to either reengage the Gospel, or move on to something more fitting. The tepid we do not need. It forces the church to confront its own ignorance, inertia, and laxity. It has improved theology, apologetics, and outreach. Frankly, it has the power, especially now, of forcing some effort for ecumenism. Maybe.
It is worth stating, though, that iron cannot sharpen iron if contact between the pieces is never made. Those unwilling to engage, who revert to broad stereotypes, or are too unwilling to examine their own beliefs to be of any use in a discussion (this is directed at both sides) are of little use as a sharpening tool. In fact, I think that sort of behavior has more power to produce the same sort in response, ie, ignorant and graceless behavior will increase the degree of ignorance and gracelessness present in discussion. I suppose it all really boils down to, why kind of adherent to my world view do I wish to be, and what kind of world to I wish to make of it?0 -
Exactly, which is why it's so funny when religious people try to say that their beliefs are logical, but then flip around to say "well, i have faith so it's okay, we can't understand god." You can't have it both ways.
I actually think that it is inevitable that we do. That is, there will always be a huge epistemic gap between what we can personally attest to and what we claim to know. Most of can attest to hav seen or otherwise experienced current evidence that dinosaurs existed (skeletons, fossils, tar, crocodillians), but none of us has ever known one. No human ever has. We assume that the evidence proves it, but there is no personal verification. We can claim that there were dinsaurs. But, we take it on faith, well, that history exists (no one has any experience before the 19th century), that no skeletons come from non-living things (that actually fails the criterion of falsifiability from logical positivism, the tradition view of uber rational scientists), etc. We make a lot of claims about what dinosaurs were like, what they ate, how they lived. We cannot actually prove, from our own personal experience, though, that they existed. I think it takes faith to believe that things have always been as they are, sufficient to make such hypothosis as "dinosaurs" going back millions and millions of years. We even have to assume that time as always been the way that it is (and scientists now dispute that).
The same thing? No. But it is an indication as to how much the most basic assumptions rely on metaphysical and philosophical truths, especially about ontology and epistemology.0 -
There is no logic necessary in religion. It's called faith because you believe despite logic, not because of it.
Of course there is logic in religion. Are you kidding me? That doesn't mean that parts of religion are not based on faith, though. You have both.0 -
Again, you're missing the point that one can logically believe in religion, while relying on faith to explain certain mysteries (as in the Catholic faith).Exactly, which is why it's so funny when religious people try to say that their beliefs are logical, but then flip around to say "well, i have faith so it's okay, we can't understand god." You can't have it both ways.0 -
What logic is there in religion? Unless you are going off the preconceived assumption that there is a God and that it is the God you already believe in you cannot make a logical argument for religion. Even if you try, how will that prove YOUR (any, not directed at anyone in particular) specific diety and not the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?0
-
Have you not read any of the posts in this thread?What logic is there in religion? Unless you are going off the preconceived assumption that there is a God and that it is the God you already believe in you cannot make a logical argument for religion. Even if you try, how will that prove YOUR (any, not directed at anyone in particular) specific diety and not the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?0 -
One can have logic without proof. If it is illogical to believe that God does exist and created the world then it is also illogical to believe that he does NOT exist and did NOT create the world. Any theory for how the earth came into existence is merely a theory as is the theory of creation. It is not illogical to believe any of these theories, they all exist for a reason but all of them also require faith because each is merely a logical conclusion that one came through with what little "facts" or "ideas" we have about the age of the earth and how it came into being.
If one believes that God does not exist then they are still have faith because as Bahet pointed out the non-existance of anything can not be proved. The only way to approach the concept of any god which does not require faith is complete indifference "perhaps he/she exists perhaps he/she does not exist, I do not know."
Faith is not entirely devoid of logic nor is logic entirely devoid of faith in something.0 -
grr double post0
-
double grr...tripple post0
-
Faith is not entirely devoid of logic nor is logic entirely devoid of faith in something.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Have you not read any of the posts in this thread?What logic is there in religion? Unless you are going off the preconceived assumption that there is a God and that it is the God you already believe in you cannot make a logical argument for religion. Even if you try, how will that prove YOUR (any, not directed at anyone in particular) specific diety and not the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Unless you are going off the preconceived assumption that there is a God and that it is the God you already believe in you cannot make a logical argument for religion. Even if you try, how will that prove YOUR (any, not directed at anyone in particular) specific diety and not the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?0 -
Unless you are going off the preconceived assumption that there is a God and that it is the God you already believe in you cannot make a logical argument for religion. Even if you try, how will that prove YOUR (any, not directed at anyone in particular) specific diety and not the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
In my comments I argued that valid arguments can be made for the existence of a first ground and source of all changing reality. I argued that this being can be shown to have attributes like eternity, immutability, immateriality, self-existence, necessity, freedom, infinity, etc. These attributes match the God that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in (minus the distinctive claims of these religions about what this God has done to reveal himself in human history).
When we move from showing that God exists to considering why to be a Christian, or something else, this cannot be reduced to a mere intellectual argument. You can no more reduce Christian faith to an argument than you can reduce the love of a parent for her child or a husband for his wife to a mere argument. I am a Christian in part because I believe the claims of Christianity are historically compelling but also because I love Jesus. I cannot bring myself to look at the Christian faith (as properly presented, not some distortion or parody of it) and turn away. So I would argue that Christian faith is both factually-based as well as an existential choice or decision in the presence of divine love revealed through Jesus.0 -
One can have logic without proof. If it is illogical to believe that God does exist and created the world then it is also illogical to believe that he does NOT exist and did NOT create the world. Any theory for how the earth came into existence is merely a theory as is the theory of creation. It is not illogical to believe any of these theories, they all exist for a reason but all of them also require faith because each is merely a logical conclusion that one came through with what little "facts" or "ideas" we have about the age of the earth and how it came into being.
If one believes that God does not exist then they are still have faith because as Bahet pointed out the non-existance of anything can not be proved. The only way to approach the concept of any god which does not require faith is complete indifference "perhaps he/she exists perhaps he/she does not exist, I do not know."
Faith is not entirely devoid of logic nor is logic entirely devoid of faith in something.
LOL at the idea that atheists 'have faith' that god doesn't exist. LOLWUT??!
The vast majority of atheists will consider themselves Agnostic Atheist (as beliefs range on a scale from strong theism to strong atheism). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't consider himself a Strong Atheist in terms of saying "I know there is no god" because you cannot 100% say that you know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
And the statement that we have little knowledge or facts about the age of the earth is just flat out wrong. A scientific THEORY is not the same 'theory' as used in everyday language. It's not just a guess or idea. Do you think that theory of GRAVITY is just a "theory" in the way you're using that word also?0 -
Unless you are going off the preconceived assumption that there is a God and that it is the God you already believe in you cannot make a logical argument for religion. Even if you try, how will that prove YOUR (any, not directed at anyone in particular) specific diety and not the Christian God, Allah, Krishna, Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
In my comments I argued that valid arguments can be made for the existence of a first ground and source of all changing reality. I argued that this being can be shown to have attributes like eternity, immutability, immateriality, self-existence, necessity, freedom, infinity, etc. These attributes match the God that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in (minus the distinctive claims of these religions about what this God has done to reveal himself in human history).
When we move from showing that God exists to considering why to be a Christian, or something else, this cannot be reduced to a mere intellectual argument. You can no more reduce Christian faith to an argument than you can reduce the love of a parent for her child or a husband for his wife to a mere argument. I am a Christian in part because I believe the claims of Christianity are historically compelling but also because I love Jesus. I cannot bring myself to look at the Christian faith (as properly presented, not some distortion or parody of it) and turn away. So I would argue that Christian faith is both factually-based as well as an existential choice or decision in the presence of divine love revealed through Jesus.
But it isn't "shown" Patti. It's stated. The logical exercises in this thread are the realm of philosophy. Not science. No one has ever proven that any creator exists, merely worked to illustrate that it's possible. If it can't be proven that a creator exists you can't say that creator has been shown to have certain attributes. As far as proof goes there is still none. That's why it's faith. There is no evidence for it. The universe exists, anything beyond that is opinion.
So you can't move from the first step because you haven't proven it. You (royal you, and all other religions) can't simply state, "God is all encompassing/God is outside the physical realm/God controls the physical realm/God is everywhere/God is all knowing/etc. etc." and have them be accepted as fact. These are claims stated by you and other believers. That's fine. But none of them are proven fact.
So it's faith. Which you shouldn't argue against. The reason I call it faith is because that's what religious believers call it. You have every right to it. But if you want to enter into the realm of science you need evidence. Religion has evidence but none of it is of the good variety. And when we start examining religious claims for evidence of truth is when we start to find all the problems. Biblical stories being completely wrong. Forged writings and faked relics.
Faith I can't touch. You choose to believe it and that's your right and I support that. But if we want to talk facts that's a whole 'nother matter.0 -
Science relies on and functions according to logical principles. What justifies your implicit assumption that only what falls in the realm of "science" constitutes "proof"? As I've argued before, science itself depends on a series of unproven premises that must be true in order for science to progress (e.g., reliability of sense perception, validity of induction and deduction when applied to sensory data, the future and past regularity of nature/natural "laws"). I could easily play the role of the skeptic and say that we really don't know that anything exists except our "thoughts." Whether those thoughts reveal something that exists independently of our thoughts is unproveable. If I take that approach, I can accuse you of merely having the opinion that there is a world outside your mind. I can also engage in a critique of "science." Many philosophers of science have developed very sophisticated critiques of the scientific methods and shown that simply because a scientific theory "works" when applied to our sense experience does not at all prove that it is objectively true. In the final analysis, science is rooted in philosophical assumptions that science itself cannot justify within its own method. Concerning God, I think powerful arguments can be made for the existence of God appealing only to reason.But it isn't "shown" Patti. It's stated. The logical exercises in this thread are the realm of philosophy. Not science. No one has ever proven that any creator exists, merely worked to illustrate that it's possible. If it can't be proven that a creator exists you can't say that creator has been shown to have certain attributes. As far as proof goes there is still none. That's why it's faith. There is no evidence for it. The universe exists, anything beyond that is opinion.
No, and I never claimed to have offer complete demonstrations of these points (I'm happy to discuss a few but my brief summaries or suggestions of these arguments have not been addressed so I don't yet see a need to pursue that, nor have I seen anything offered that would challenge the validity of such arguments). Because I didn't offer full-scale arguments in support of every claim I made doesn't mean it cannot be done, however. Again, on "proven fact" I suppose you are referring to the arbitrarily chosen framework of the scientific method. I refer to my points in reply to your first paragraph on that topic.So you can't move from the first step because you haven't proven it. You (royal you, and all other religions) can't simply state, "God is all encompassing/God is outside the physical realm/God controls the physical realm/God is everywhere/God is all knowing/etc. etc." and have them be accepted as fact. These are claims stated by you and other believers. That's fine. But none of them are proven fact.
Lots of ways I could reply to your final remarks. Your generalizations about evidence of religious claims is unfair. What if I cobbled together 10 or 15 stories of scientific hoaxes (not a hard task to accomplish) and then concluded that science as a whole is discredited? You would certainly think that is foolish. What if I found evidence of a bunch of husbands who were unfaithful to their wives. Would this prove that every husband is unfaithful? I think you are doing something like that in this case. My second remark is to highlight the broader implications of your approach. If you limit human knowledge to the hard sciences, you will have to reject history as "opinion." The same would have to be said about morality and psychology (since psychology is, in part, introspective and also based on generalizing about human behavior and causes when there are exceptions to rules). I think you are taking one "layer" of reality and saying that nothing else counts towards the pursuit of truth. This is needlessly reductionistic. Perhaps one more observation is in order. When you write your responses, implicit in your claims is the assumption that (a) you are right and I am wrong, (b) I can change my mind about this stuff if I think about it and follow the evidence, and (c) I can also choose to reject your arguments, "stick my head in the sand," and go on thinking as I do. In light of this, please answer the following questions:So it's faith. Which you shouldn't argue against. The reason I call it faith is because that's what religious believers call it. You have every right to it. But if you want to enter into the realm of science you need evidence. Religion has evidence but none of it is of the good variety. And when we start examining religious claims for evidence of truth is when we start to find all the problems. Biblical stories being completely wrong. Forged writings and faked relics.
Faith I can't touch. You choose to believe it and that's your right and I support that. But if we want to talk facts that's a whole 'nother matter.
1. Do you believe there is such a thing as "truth" about reality that the human mind can know? Or do you rather believe that what we think is "truth" is nothing more than chemical, physical processes in our brain? If you think our conviction of having "truth" is nothing more than a chemical process, how can "truth" be anything meaningful? How can you have a "true" or "false" chemical process? Chemical processes are just brute facts. Thinking we have the "truth" about something is really just a by-product of a chemical process and the chemical process functions according to the physical laws by which such things happen. If true, I can't help but think what I'm thinking and you can't help but think what you are thinking.
2. Do you believe there is such a thing as genuine "freedom"? Are human beings able, through the power of thought and will able to direct themselves aways from what is false towards what is true? If so, how does a scientist accomodate "free will"? Where is the "scientific basis of "freedom"?
I hope you see my points. Our entire conversation is proceeding based on the assumptions of "truth" and "freedom," neither of which are proper subjects of science. If you deny these two things, you also must admit, as far as I can tell, that you opposing my position is an illusion and, objectively speaking, a waste of time.0 -
Hi guys! Have not abandoned my own thread, but I only have a few days here and there where I am off and not committed to other projects (or, of course, family). I have an intended reply to the notion of particular skepiticism, that is, to skepticism to religious notions that fails apply itself to other related metaphysics, or fails to commit itself consistently to the philosophy that can support it (such as materialism, or logical positivism, etc). Maybe later tonight! Otherwise, love the comments, you guys are all brilliant in my regard.0
-
The idea of an atheist, and huge proponent of materialism, talking about degrees of belief is interesting to me. Belief is part of what we call a "propositional attitude." Propositional attitudes concern how cognition relates to propositions. All statements about belief (or desire, hope, knowledge, etc), positive or negative, are a report of your propositional attitude. What is interesting to me is that materialism, eventually, will eliminate such reports. That is, eliminative materialism, proposes that such statements reflect no actual brain state. None of us really believe anything.
LOL at the idea that atheists 'have faith' that god doesn't exist. LOLWUT??!
The vast majority of atheists will consider themselves Agnostic Atheist (as beliefs range on a scale from strong theism to strong atheism). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't consider himself a Strong Atheist in terms of saying "I know there is no god" because you cannot 100% say that you know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
And the statement that we have little knowledge or facts about the age of the earth is just flat out wrong. A scientific THEORY is not the same 'theory' as used in everyday language. It's not just a guess or idea. Do you think that theory of GRAVITY is just a "theory" in the way you're using that word also?
This is all part of what I was talking about, in regards to the consequences of fully realized philosophies. It is fine to speak of degree of certitude or belief, so long as materialists recongnize that the inevitable outcome of their own approach is that such talk is eventually doomed. All semantic statements about mental states will likely go, as the brain appears to follow a connectionist model, not a computational one. The brain is not a computer using a distinct language, it is a series of neural connections resting on the weight of the interconnections, it is action potentials and waves. All of our current common sense language about love, identity, free will, are all based on a mistake.
Honestly, though, what is identity? A concept that we have unity and consistency, at least sufficient to merit a view of wholeness. But unity is not biological (especially for transplant patients), and we have not non-biological parts in materialism. Consistency is not biological, frankly we change (especially in the brain) physically and in our roles continuously. What about narrative unity and constinency? Does the story of my life constitute identity? It could, if propositional statements of feelings, hopes, and beliefs were considered reflections of true events in the brain! But not for eliminative materialists.
Free will is easy one, though. Hard materialism say lives and dies by causation, physical causation. All brain states are physicala and material. All brain states are brought about by causes, are utterly caused. We have no non-physical parts to exert a will outside of determinism, and are completely subject to it. Not much to argue about here.
Stuff like this, it really makes me wonder, if anyone took materialism to heart, and with seriousness, why they would talk about much of anything?0 -
But it isn't "shown" Patti. It's stated. The logical exercises in this thread are the realm of philosophy. Not science. No one has ever proven that any creator exists, merely worked to illustrate that it's possible. If it can't be proven that a creator exists you can't say that creator has been shown to have certain attributes. As far as proof goes there is still none. That's why it's faith. There is no evidence for it. The universe exists, anything beyond that is opinion.
One has to be very careful how we refer to logic and philosophy. Materialism starts as philosophy, and now guides the sciences. It is stated, not shown. Interestingly, materialism lives and dies by causation. Everything is contigent, this is implicit to the system. Causation must continue, all things are caused. It absolutely abhors the notion of a first cause, non contingent scenario, which is why scientists will avoid the idea of a first universal event at all costs, even if it is unreasonable to do so. Most will still speculate about the idea of a preexistance of some state prior to the Big Bang event that results in an actually infinite number of prior moments in universal history. Can you fathom that? An actually infinite (not a potential infinite, the real deal) number of moments of history, just to avoid a non-contingent agent. Unreal. Now, you must see, the idea that there is unending causation versus a first cause, well, this is a philosophical dispute. And the ability to propose, logically, that there can be a first cause, non contingent being as an alternative to an infinitude of caused moments is a legitimate discussion.So you can't move from the first step because you haven't proven it. You (royal you, and all other religions) can't simply state, "God is all encompassing/God is outside the physical realm/God controls the physical realm/God is everywhere/God is all knowing/etc. etc." and have them be accepted as fact. These are claims stated by you and other believers. That's fine. But none of them are proven fact.
This, I think, is simply logical positivism, and following this will eliminate all talk about ethics, morals, and all metaphysical discussion. That is why postivism was abandoned, even by scientists.
I don't wish to enter science, except as a professional of medical health, or as it relates to other relevant matters. I want to talk philosophy, metaphysics, and theology, and will use science as a sub discipline to inform those things. I will point out that your statement "so it's faith. Which you shouldn't argue against" is not a scientific claim. It is either philosophical or ethical, depending on your motive. "you have every right to it" meets no standards of evidence, but is either a matter of law or ethics, neither of which is science. Etc. None of those things can be discussed using logical positivism, and just barely with materialism. Actually, not with eliminative materialism.So it's faith. Which you shouldn't argue against. The reason I call it faith is because that's what religious believers call it. You have every right to it. But if you want to enter into the realm of science you need evidence. Religion has evidence but none of it is of the good variety. And when we start examining religious claims for evidence of truth is when we start to find all the problems. Biblical stories being completely wrong. Forged writings and faked relics.
Faith I can't touch. You choose to believe it and that's your right and I support that. But if we want to talk facts that's a whole 'nother matter.0 -
One can have logic without proof. If it is illogical to believe that God does exist and created the world then it is also illogical to believe that he does NOT exist and did NOT create the world. Any theory for how the earth came into existence is merely a theory as is the theory of creation. It is not illogical to believe any of these theories, they all exist for a reason but all of them also require faith because each is merely a logical conclusion that one came through with what little "facts" or "ideas" we have about the age of the earth and how it came into being.
If one believes that God does not exist then they are still have faith because as Bahet pointed out the non-existance of anything can not be proved. The only way to approach the concept of any god which does not require faith is complete indifference "perhaps he/she exists perhaps he/she does not exist, I do not know."
Faith is not entirely devoid of logic nor is logic entirely devoid of faith in something.
LOL at the idea that atheists 'have faith' that god doesn't exist. LOLWUT??!
The vast majority of atheists will consider themselves Agnostic Atheist (as beliefs range on a scale from strong theism to strong atheism). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't consider himself a Strong Atheist in terms of saying "I know there is no god" because you cannot 100% say that you know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
And the statement that we have little knowledge or facts about the age of the earth is just flat out wrong. A scientific THEORY is not the same 'theory' as used in everyday language. It's not just a guess or idea. Do you think that theory of GRAVITY is just a "theory" in the way you're using that word also?
I will return to this later, but please tell me where I even used the word atheist? I didn't....I am well aware than man Atheists are more agnostic in fact it really irritates me when people say "oh well atheists claim they can prove God doesn't exist." No, most atheists do no such thing. I was merely saying that it requires no less faith to say God does exist than it does to say that he doesn't exist.
Second. Gravity isn't a theory. You through something up and it comes back down is a law. The THEORY of why that happens is that part that is theory and yes, there is good reason to believe it because most of these theories are based on facts.
The part I will come back to is how much we truely KNOW about the age of the earth and how much is based off of hypothesis. Mt. Saint Helen erupted 20 years ago and there is not argument about that, yet if you extract a fossil from that eruption it dates back to WAY before so perhaps we do not know as much as we think about the age of the earth
On a side note. What is WUT? Is that an abbreviation or are you just trying to say what?0 -
First argument:
1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.
This argument is substantiated by the argument:
1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
Second argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is followed by the Leibnitz argument at the beginning of this thread, which I will not repeat here. How with get from here to the possibility of a more personal God is the next argument.
Ontological argument, per Plantinga, based on the many worlds theory:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
From here there are a series of arguments that lead one to contemplate how personal beings (human) might have arrived from non-personal sources (and if that is consistent with a physical, causal universe), and on from there.
I must say that people, up to this point, seem to be making the same mistake. The assertion that logic must contain proven facts is not the worst of them, but rather the argument that logic can say nothing of about science or the real universe. Allow me to say that the statement "logic can say nothing about science of the real universe' is a statement whose truth can be verified through science, and requires an appeal to logic for its veracity. Therefore, it is self refuting, and internally incoherent (which Lawrence Krauss found out, much to his dismay, when debating Craig).0 -
Jesus was born of a virgin, correct? Human biology tells us that in order for a developing child to be a male, it needs a Y-Chromosome. Which can only be provided from the embryo's father/sperm. Mary's production of a boy child necessitates SOMEONE'S Y-Chromosome was used. Whose?
Well if, as a christian, you accept that God is able to do all sorts of magic tricks, including impregnation of a virgin, producing an additional Y chromosone must be a simple add-on ?0
This discussion has been closed.