XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: Dean"@gmail.com
On 10/12/2014 9:19 AM, August Rode wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 11:01 PM, R.Dean wrote:
>> On 10/11/2014 8:33 AM, August Rode wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>> I think the continued use the term "non-existent" instead of
>>>>>>>> "non-material" is arrogance, since non-existent does not apply
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>> Christians are concerned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't? Surely either something exists or it doesn't, right?
>>>>>>> Believing that God exists doesn't automatically mean that God
>>>>>>> exists,
>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm... you don't seem to like answering questions. Is there a
>>>>> particular
>>>>> reason for that?
>>>> >
>>>> We've addressed this before. I've never _claimed_ it does.
>>>
>>> That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even
>>> remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:
>>>
>>> Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that
>>> the claim is true?
>> >
>> Not in and of itself. Regardless of how strong one's believes in the
>> fidelity of one's mate, that doesn't mean he/she is faithful.
>> Neither does it mean he/she is not.
>
> Absolutely correct. Regardless of how strongly one believes in the
> existence of God, that doesn't mean that God exists. Nor does it mean
> that God does not exist. So clearly belief is irrelevant when it comes
> to existential claims.
>
>>>> When you
>>>> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?
>>>
>>> I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a
>>> sound argument in place of natural explanations.
>>>
>> Forgive me, but I question that statement.
>
> I'm sorry but it's true. I have yet to see any argument from a Christian
> about the truth of some aspect of Christianity that doesn't have a
> logical fallacy at its heart.
>
>>>>>>>> In my view, It's strictly an anti-religious
>>>>>>>> proclivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that continuing to claim that God exists is a
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> proclivity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is this in reference to? Who _claims_ that God exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much
>>>>> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?
>>>>>
>>>> Christians _believe_ God exist.
>>>
>>> Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't make
>>> such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to
>>> believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you
>>> cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God
>>> exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference between
>>> making a claim and believing a claim to be true.
>>>
>> The point is, and most Christians will tell you that it all comes down
>> to a matter of faith. You cannot _know_.
>
> And yet many have told me that they *do* know.
>
There is only two things anyone can know for certain: death and taxes.
>
>>>> They cannot prove he does.
>>>
>>> Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.
>>> Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to
>>> demonstrate something.
>>>
>> If one does not have an apriori and overriding adherence to naturalism.
>> then design could be seen as indirect evidence of a designer.
>
> So if one believes that a designer exists, design could be seen as
> indirect evidence of that designer. And you don't see a problem with
> that logic? (Hint: assuming your conclusion)
>
This is not my line of thought. In fact it's the exact opposite. Actual
design could be seen as inferring a designer. A designer is not first
assumed. The cognitive acceptance of design would have to be acknowledge
first. But even if evidence of design were acknowledged,
this would not identify the designer. That would be a matter of personal
opinion, nothing more.
>
>> However,
>> if design is disallowed up front and not allowed to show up for the
>> game, then it's not even in play.
>
> Design is allowed provided that it can be shown to be a cognitive action
> rather than simply emerging from natural processes.
>
It's possible to look as certain objects as designed, but by whom how
and for what reason, nevertheless, their existence infer design.
Furthermore, there is no known natural action that could create
these objects. This is the situation with some old artifacts discovered
within the last few decades.
Showing that design
> in nature has its roots in cognition is the step that lacks a sound
> argument.
>
>> Naturalism may NOT be the better
>> explanation, nevertheless, it wins, but _only_ through default.
>
> Supernaturalism doesn't offer any explanations, does it? If it does, how
> can such explanations be tested?
>
First things first. Indirect evidence of design must be first, which I
suspect is the reason the very idea of design in nature in verboten by
atheistic scientist and atheist in general. These people, in my view
have a strong bias against design consequently, they employ such as
seems designed and "apparent design"
>
>>>> It's a matter
>>>> primarily of faith.
>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> since by things we concede that such
>>>>>>>>>>>> is made up of matter, and no Jews or Christians believe that
>>>>>>>>>>>> deity
>>>>>>>>>>>> consist of matter. So what you wrote has no significence to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> christian, but for you, it's strictly self gratification.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
