It depends on what you describe "God" as

'Well here we are something must have created us' is about as lame an argument as it gets. Ever thought of the possibility that we were here before, I mean as a cycle, expanding and collapsing and so on? Yea, I know who is making it cycle? But as asked before who made the "who is making it" and why is that not God?
Further more if God is nothing more than the "establisher" of the laws of physics, where is the loving, compassionate, just, all knowing aspect come into play?

 

I addressed what you wrote in a productive manner, which usually requires re-framing the issues away from the train wreck you provide us.

Not if you insist that existence claims can be adjudicated here... in that case, you have a lot of justification to do, particularly if you involve empirical entities that require a verified connection/correspondence with metaphysical entities, else...

... you can do all the so-called 'reasoning' you want, but it will mean squat.

Not a preponderance, and not yet shown to qualify AS evidence.

You engage in non-stop invective in EVERY post you make; this sort of 'riposte' nonsense gets old, and is unwelcome here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean, "A faith cannot exist if its own premises are false". You can believe that the earth is flat without it being so. However, I have discussed things here with you before and you are reasonable, so I assume that I have misunderstood what you meant.

There are some "Gods" which I do believe in. Bic pens are an integral part of my daily life. Well, not now, during my vacation, but otherwise. I do, beyond a shadow of a doubt believe in the existence of Bic pens.

There are some "Gods" I have not formed an opinion on to the extent that I would like to. Is there another beer in the fridge? I don't know, I don't think anyone has put another one there, but I could be wrong.

There are some "Gods" which I actively disbelieve. I have now had a look in my fridge. There was no beer. I do now actively disbelieve the beer-in-my-fridge-God.

Some "Gods" that I disbelieve, I disbelieve with less evidence than others. The Biblical God makes less sense than I would like it to. Sure, it is theoretically/theologically "possible" that there is a God who haphazardly happens to agree with a certain brand of modern Americans, who creates a world and wants to stay anonymous to most of the population. But the likelihood of that happening is much less than the likelihood that that god have been dreamt up. There are several other religions who managed to do this, so apparently, gods having been made up is not improbable.

 

God, God, God, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus it is all fiction to me. Anyone who does not understand that agnostic is the intellectual way to go is kidding themselves. I really like the concept of "a force greater than man." It avoids a lot of meaningless bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

​

 

The premise of an a priori faith is bound to the faith, not to anything else. If you assume on faith that the earth is flat then the flatness of the earth is a premise of that faith. It is either true or the faith can't exist.

This is what I meant when I said that every mention of a god entails the truth.

For example, another person may come along and assume on faith that the earth is cubic. This is based on premises that are just as true as the faith that the earth is flat. If it wasn't then that faith couldn't exist, either.

Therefore, two people who debate their a priori faiths will always present true premises for their respective issues. Such a discussion will not, as you said in the other post, hold premises that are both true and untrue. All premises are true. Per definition. And it's for that reason that the discussion will never end.


Now, you may have reason, a posteriori, to conclude that the earth is spherical (in the same way that you have reason to believe that Bic pens exist). And that makes a priori beliefs in a flat or cubic earth, or even a spherical earth, irrelevant.

 

Then the discussion between two opposing views is futile unless violence is brought into the debate and then it is no longer a discussion but a battle instead. The only way to win the game is to not play the game.

On the other hand, when two people agree on such basic premises, then the discussion can go forward productively. Only when an opposing view is brought in does conflict occur. Basic logic of warfare.

 

Evidence? He doesn't leave any unless He wants to. He can go back to before you were born and unmake you- where's the evidence of that? There is none. That's how God works.

 

And the problem here is again one of ignorance.

If someone came in claiming the Earth was flat .... that is pretty easy to disprove. And claiming that one cannot engage religious question with an ounce of intelligence is little more than a tired insult.

Generaly speaking, the side that has to introduce articles of absurdity in order to maintain a debate, has basically lost the debate. And when someone claims that a anyone with an absurd or unorthodox view is beyond rebuttal or study and comprehension of strengths and weaknesses .... that is pretty absurd.

It is an excuse.

We know what are no considered mythology, and what are NOW not considered to be valid religions - and we can easily disecrn why.

However, for some reason, while we can apply intellectual approaches to these things, the same approach to current religion, because it produces a different result, is coonserded the same nonetheless.

If you can disprove neither a cubric Earth nor religion .... a problem for atheists.

 

A faith based on a priori assumption is true by definition. This means that any opposing faith is false. Hence, the game is played with as many winners as there are contestants.

Well, if by productively you mean people who are in need of reassuring themselves of their absolute truths, then sure. Some of the largest structures made by man are made for that purpose. I guess you can say it's productive in its own quirky fashion.

If we are still talking about faith a priori then yes, due to the fact that each faith is true and only true to the respective debater, each faith also becomes false and only false to the opposite debater. Then you'll risk conflicts. Often seen in such cases as protestants vs. catholics and Christians vs. Muslims. To name a few examples based on faith.

 

And Theists vs. Atheists

 

It is indeed true that if the atheist claims a priori that there are no gods then that is the same conflict.

However, if that claim is a posteriori based then we'll only have one absolute truth in play, namely that of the theist. This is why I in the other post to Swensson hinted that Swensson uses another method to form beliefs about Bic pens.

 

Regardless of what label you place on the claim, the claim is one of absoluteness if the claim states the object to be a matter of fact. Matter of fact can be subjective as well as objective.

My conclusion then is equal to yours... such endless discussion is futile and if pursued, can result in that basic logic of warfare. The only way to win that game is to not play that game.

 

A fact is a statement made from observation. It does not cover assumption a priori. On the contrary, it is prone to change according to observation.

And it's not a label, it's a method.

Indeed, unless a discussion is based on actually discussionable matters then it is futile. If one party brings absolute truths to the table then the discussion is 'lost' in advance by the other party.

 

No... it is a label.. Now you are attempting to change the rules of this engagement by throwing in another parameter that has not been previously talked about..."assumption". That type of action is one which can be labeled as 'dishonest'... consequently... the discussion is placed on shaky ground.

Also... a fact is not limited to being "a statement". Actually the statement is merely an expression giving description to/about the 'fact'. So, yes, the statement is whimsical, but the 'fact' will not change.


Indeed, unless a discussion is based on actually discussionable matters then it is futile. If one party brings absolute truths to the table then the discussion is 'lost' in advance by the other party.[/QUOTE]

 

Such as what?

That sounds like a major presumption based on a unidentified qualifier. What is/are "absolute truths"? Please provide a detailed and exhaustive list of such items, omitting none.

 

You're being deliberately obtuse and obstructive here.

 

Black holes are not a good example, as we have a very precise mathematical model of them that explains what they are and why they are. (Did you know that relativity theory is empirically accurate to more than a millionth of a percent?)From this we can glean a number of the properties (meaning features of an object or process that distinguish it) of black holes, such as extreme gravitational lensing and relativistic polar jet emissions and search for signs of those properties and find black holes. We may not know what really happens inside a black hole, but we know a heck of a lot about black holes otherwise.

No one has ever found any hint of God in ANY scientific sense. Further, the way many people think of God, he can't even be said to have any properties.

 

Absolute truth is actually a redundancy. A truth is a proposition that is always holds within the context to which it applies.

Example:
context - Euclidean geometry
truth - the sum of the angles of a triangle equals the angle of a line

 

No! I am making a sincere request. Your response to that request is what is being deliberately obtuse and obstructive and is also an indicator of you projecting.

I, and some of the other readers (probably), desire to know what you mean by your use of the term "absolute truths". Because you have used the plural form, it is indicating that there are more than one, and therefore, in order to stay focused and informed of what it is that you speak about, the list has been requested. If there is no list of 'absolute truths', then I can only assume that the use of such term was a deliberate misrepresentation.

 

Well, that is one that can go on the list that I requested, but obviously not all of them.. the plural form was used in the put on the 'table' statement made by FW. Understanding also, that yours was merely an example of the probable millions of such 'absolute truths', and was intended only as an example, I will not ask you how "Euclidean geometry" has any relevance to this thread.

BTW Kmisho:

In the standard definition of truth, I do not find the word "proposition" used anywhere,,, though there are terms that could be construed to have the meaning of 'proposition'. Is that what you have done?
"truth (tro̵̅o̅t̸h)

noun pl. truths (tro̵̅o̅t̸hz, tro̵̅o̅t̸hs)

the quality or state of being true; specif.,
Obsolete loyalty; trustworthiness
sincerity; genuineness; honesty
the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact
reality; actual existence
agreement with a standard, rule, etc.; correctness; accuracy
that which is true; statement, etc. that accords with fact or reality
an established or verified fact, principle, etc.
a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one: often with the"

 

How 'bout just use "common" sense? It's way more practical and useful (usually) than "absolute truth".

 

"common" sense????? Hey that is cool with me. Looking at the definition of "common" we find the following:

Be careful of which selection you make.... as your selection may not be able to stay in context or be applicable to the subject. That 'subject' being "sense".

 

"Common" sense isn't really "common" because most people are delusional and ignorant and/or simply stupid on so many (especially complicated) issues.

By the way, any discussion on "absolute truth" is destined to fail and be a waste of EVERYONE'S time because for all you know, this is all a matrix simulation and even things like pure mathematics are delusions.

The most useful thing is to simply assume that this IS all real, because of consistency.

 

I agree with all of the above except for the last clause... "because of consistency." Nothing in this physical realm is consistent. Everything is always in a state of change.