|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Logical arguments can and have proven truth. They may not be enough to convince an illogical person, but that speaks to the ignorance of that person, not to the efficacy of the argument. |
First, thnx for responding to all my posts in this thread in detail. Much appreciated.
Logical arguments, even if uninimously accepted as valid and 'logically' true based on accepted premises don't nessarily represent real truth! This has been shown over and over throughout history. As research and mankind continue to learn and science moves forward old theories, which in their time had strong evidence and were considered truth, are being destroyed by new ones based on new evidence. This happens all the time. At one time it was believed to be that the sun revolved around the earth. Logical arguments with premises base on scientific evidence of that time were substantiated and considered true. We know today this conclusion was false and the premises were also false. If you believe an argument has proven real truth you have to irrationally also believe that no new evidence could come along to destroy the truthfulness of those premises. That would be irrational in itself. This is why logical arguments are really meaningless except for the purpose of debate and forming discussion. They should not be taken or accepted as a representation of real truth. Therfore, whether someone chooses to believe a logical argument or not should not be considered ignorant. If they choose to just close their ears to the argument that would be ignorance.
In this discussion of the existance of God, it is just that. A discussion. It can't be logically proven or disproven to another person. The evidence as I've suggested is personal and experienced on a personal level and so it becomes truth to him that recieves it. The fact that God can't be proven logically and yet He has proved Himself to so many throughout time may suggest a universal truth and that material truth as we percieve it edit:from the material world could possibly be very false. Just a thought.
| quote: | | You haven't understood my ideas at all. God easily could have permitted sin without allowing people to gas each other to death by the millions. For example, people could still choose to carve graven images, or covet their neighbors' wives. However, he unnecessarily allowed people to kill each other - serving no purpose which could not be accomplished in a myriad of other, less offensive, ways. An omnibenevolent being, by definition, simply would not and could not make this choice. |
But here you are making a mistake. To interfere with the actions of a dictator such as a Hitler, or his regime, is to take away their free agency also. That is not right. Each person much have complete free agency no matter how evil or how many people that may affect or how terrible you may consider it to be. In this respect I agree with deism. However, not entirely because God or more likely the Lord Christ has intervened in the course of human history for His own purposes. Yet each person must have their agency. This is vital for learning and growth of humankind. This began with the fall of Adam.
| quote: | | Well if you want me to think then why don't you give me something to think about? You know, like facts, or logic, or maybe even both? Conjecture and demagoguery doesn't really do it for me. |
Facts? Honestly, facts are only facts in the eye of the beholder. Funny how two people in the same place seeing the same incidenct can claim they where there and have the 'facts' but yet they have different stories. hmmmm....
Well in a sense I agree with you. But isn't all science like this? I mean all theory which eventually becomes science evolved from this kind of bias did it not? So everything we believe to be true in the sciences came from some kind of bias. Can man really be completely unbiased in their research to find the truth? I don't believe it's possible. But I will tell you that my experience was not expected. I could never have ever expected what occured and the incredible power that it was manifested to me. That experience has changed my life forever and if I were to throw out the validity and accuracy of everything my eyes have seen or my ears have ever heard, I could never deny that experience. It is possibly the one and only truth that I can say I really know is 'real' truth. I know these are big claims but that is what an experience like this can do to you.
| quote: | | Once again, this is a flawed/invalid form of cognition. It really isn't a matter of conjecture at this point what organ emotions are located in. It is universally accepted biological fact that emotions occur in the brain, primarily in the limbic system where emotions such as fear, anger, and pleasure have been confirmed to arise. Other emotions may be more complex and/or use different mechanisms in order to manifest themselves, but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't come from the heart. |
I know you believe that the brain is where everthing resides. However, there is interesting evidence now in science that suggests that organs particularly the heart have a 'memory'. I find this fascinating in particular after my experience. This experience is not an easy thing to explain and I fear I've done a bad job of it. It's beyond description with words. The sensation felt like it indeed began as a swelling in the heart yet then filled my entire body. I was a real percieved sensation. So I am left to believe that the heart may be unique in some way. It may be the container of our souls or personalites.
http://home.wxs.nl/~keesnoor/heart.htm
"We have two sets of muscles. One set -- the voluntary muscles -- is under the control of the will, can be moved by desire, and is striped both lengthwise and crosswise. The other set -- the involuntary muscles -- is not under the control of the will, cannot be moved by desire' and is striped lengthwise only.
The heart is the only exception to this. It is an involuntary muscle not normally under the control of the will, yet is beginning to show cross stripes like a voluntary muscle. The physical scientist has been unable to determine the reason for this." http://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/pamen023.htm
Ok, I know I'm really going off on another tangent here lol. I agree this really should be all put into a different thread. Oh well.
| quote: | | Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because the hypothesis is not verifiable, nor is the induction that "God" is the source of one's feeling falsifiable. Ergo, it provides evidence for nothing. |
This is where you are so wrong. It is evidence. When having faith enough try the experiment and you get personal confirmation through the experiment it is proven to you. Verifiable by others no. Obviously because it is a personal experiment. Yet I can tell you that if you do the same experiment, I guarantee you will get the same results and then you will have verified it. As I said, the existance of God, His Son and the truthfulness of the gospel of Christ are all testable. God does not expect us to believe without evidence. And God does not feel anger towards the skeptic. Skepticism is healthy and has brought about some of the strongest testimonies on earth. I was a skeptic also. I have always longed to know the ways of the universe. One day I just decided to study the gospel for myself and pray durring that study. Why? Well, I was desiring to learn things that universities don't teach. things that professors have no understanding or even conception of. I basically was seeking knowlege and truth and didn't care where I had to go to find it. So I did exercise some faith and studied and prayed and removed all presupositions of God, religion, Christ ect ect. Only having the faith that indeed there was some loving God who was indeed listening. Well enough of my stories.
| quote: | | Faith is the antithesis of valid rational cognition. Any postulate which requires faith to justify or demonstrate is false. |
Well suppose I am doing that experiment to see if air exists ie. invisible gasses. I have to have some faith that the experment will work or why would I try it. Other scientists claimed it proved the existance of gas so therfore I excercised some faith and try the same experiment and the experiment confirmed it. If there was never any faith exercised to prove a theory, there would be no evidence ever generated in science. Forever skepticism.
| quote: | | Certainly, there may be things we cannot perceive, but so what? We can neither claim to know they exist, or claim to know they do not exist, so long as they possess internally consistent characteristics. To make either claim would be irrational and have no sound basis. |
Well I suppose if you are satisfied only understanding the material world and have no interest in expanding your learning, then it really doesn't matter(no pun intended lol). However, I think all people, even you, will at some point be ready to seek that truth which escapes you at some point in your life and you will have the opportunity to gain that knowlege if you are willing.
| quote: | | It is not a phsyical observation, it is a serious of non sequitur leaps of faith based on confirmation bias and a priori assumptions. Thus, it is not a valid analogy. |
That is true, the faith part is a'priori, however the experience of confirmation is a'posteriori most certainly and physicaly sensed as I've mentioned before. Intersting that most science that you and I believe is a'priori is it not? Have you done experiments or even seen experiments done on everything that is taught to you in school or in science books? Have you personally witnessed history? If you haven't then according to your statement you should not believe in those things.
| quote: | Yes, the opposite of this statement would be a contradiction - that is exactly why the statement must logically be true. It is impossible for it to be false, just as it is impossible for a contradiction to be true.
It is a valid argument whether you have the education in logic to understand it or not. If it is a fallacy, then what fallacy is that? It is no fallacy: it is perfect and irrefutable mathematical reasoning; hence, your failure to refute it. |
Again, tautologies are NOT valid arguments. They are considered in philosophy as meaningless and uninformative statements.
God exists or God does not exist.
We were talking about logical arguments originally where we not? Please can we move on now...?
| quote: | | That's called oversimplification and just plain ignorance. |
Not sure what this was in reference to..
| quote: | | It's fairly simple, to be honest. I collect as many different points of view on a single piece of information as possible, and examine which side better refutes the arguments of the other side. If one side tends to rely on logical fallacies and the other side provides falsifiable evidence which has not been falsified, then I'll tend to believe the latter. |
How do you know if something is falsified or not? You don't. You have to just believe or not believe. This proves my point. Reviewing evidence can only lead you so far until it leads one into the area of speculative reasoning or assumption of truth. It has to or else you would be forever without a decision. The true philospher if one ever existed, who only relied on edit erfect reasoning would come to the conclusion that nothing is true. That gets you into that dark corner I spoke of in our earlier post.
| quote: | | In some cases, neither side makes a compelling rational case and I have a choice between relying on my "intuition" or simply not professing a belief in either. In such a case, I will not believe either, but rather simply say "I do not know." |
Exactly, but upon close examination you will find that what is 'compelling' is really not always based on logic. More often as you said 'intuition'. 'I do not know' would be the most logical of all conclusions for most everything ironically.
| quote: | | You've rejected my arguments, yes. But have you provided a sound basis for such rejection? Most certainly not. I have proven or disproven several "things" by logical arguments in this thread alone - a refusal to accept them is mere ignorance. |
On the existance of God, I have. On the basis that you have not proven to me God does not exist. Your argument entirely consists of the fact that you haven't personally experienced something so therfore it doesn't exist. Which is contrary to my own evidence. My empirical evidence strongly supports the existance of God on the other hand. It is also as I suggested testable by others.
On the polical discussion, I am currently reviewing yours and Occriders evidence and have also found alot of my own which i will present. I am learning a lot actually. I will form my conclusions in a day or two.
| quote: | | Your philosophical ideology is one which will simply affirm whatever you wish to believe. Your methodology for the determination of truth is one which will never yield a result inconsistent with your preconceived ideas which were likely based on no evidence, or misinterpreted evidence. It is, ultimately, the philosophy of ignorance, as it seeks to avoid obtaining new information at any cost. |
Whether someone misinterprets evidence or not is only speculation on your part. As I suggested the truth of evidence is only in the eye of the beholder. Can anyone trully be neutral or impartial, unbiased in anyway? I doubt it is humanly possible. I haven't seen it yet and don't expect I ever will. If you examine most things including the sciences you will find it is all based on some form or another of bias. But this is how we indeed reason is it not? We form opinions, judgement based on what we have learned and experienced in life. So everything must be biased in some way or nothing would be believed. Ignorance is altogether different and should be avoided as much as possible. As for what I wish to believe? There is no wishing about it. What I believe is based on my empirical evidence. I'm not as ignorant as you might think. peace.
Last edited by tecnolover on Oct-30-2004 at 11:27
|
