Fundamental Question in the Philosophy of Religion - Page 6

bohemian · #51 07-08-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Never heard of them. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Our seminar read Sellars, McDowell, Davidson, Brandom, Stroud, Evans and Peacocke.

[/ QUOTE ]

<gasp> Dude, we need to seriously change that. Plantinga has been the leading thinker in the philosophy of religion for about 15-20 years now. Check out Plantinga's collection of online papers. Particularly, see Theism, Atheism, and Rationality. The paper deals with rationality of belief without evidential support. A classic, whether you will agree with it or not.

bohemian · #52 07-08-2005, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'd like you to pick a position on the question "Does God exist?".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a well-formed question until a definition of "God" is provided. Ask ten people what they think "God" is and you'll get ten different answers.

Let's say I come across some super-powerful being who can move mountains with his pinky. How am I supposed to evaluate whether he qualifies as a God?

[/ QUOTE ]

The linguistic problem is not the one I care about (use the one in webster's if you wish). What is in question here is the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes as an explanation.

maurile · #53 07-08-2005, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'd like you to pick a position on the question "Does God exist?".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a well-formed question until a definition of "God" is provided. Ask ten people what they think "God" is and you'll get ten different answers.

Let's say I come across some super-powerful being who can move mountains with his pinky. How am I supposed to evaluate whether he qualifies as a God?

[/ QUOTE ]

The linguistic problem is not the one I care about (use the one in webster's if you wish).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll use the definition that I think makes the most sense: A god is an entity that merits our worship.

Under that definition, I believe that no gods exist. To worship another being means to say to it, "Not my will, but thy will be done," no matter what it's will is. If it wants me to throw acid in a child's face, I should do it. If it wants Abraham to murder Isaac, he should do it.

I believe that worship is morally irresponsible, and therefore that no entity merits our worship. I have a duty to use my own best judgment and do what I think is right -- not to just blindly follow orders from some priest or some book or some god.

Since no entity merits our worship, no gods exist. QED.

jthegreat · #54 07-08-2005, 01:48 PM

Bohemian,

This will probaby end up going over my head, or at least will get into detail that I've never studied, but my last question got lost in the shuffle.

Any valid chain of reasoning has to start with first principles, i.e. - axioms. If it doesn't then the conclusions are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. I'm not sure I understand why you would discuss "foundational beliefs" if those aren't meant to be axiomatic.

drudman · #55 07-08-2005, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'd like you to pick a position on the question "Does God exist?".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a well-formed question until a definition of "God" is provided. Ask ten people what they think "God" is and you'll get ten different answers.

Let's say I come across some super-powerful being who can move mountains with his pinky. How am I supposed to evaluate whether he qualifies as a God?

[/ QUOTE ]

The linguistic problem is not the one I care about (use the one in webster's if you wish).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll use the definition that I think makes the most sense: A god is an entity that merits our worship.

Under that definition, I believe that no gods exist. To worship another being means to say to it, "Not my will, but thy will be done," no matter what it's will is. If it wants me to throw acid in a child's face, I should do it. If it wants Abraham to murder Isaac, he should do it.

I believe that worship is morally irresponsible, and therefore that no entity merits our worship. I have a duty to use my own best judgment and do what I think is right -- not to just blindly follow orders from some priest or some book or some god.

Since no entity merits our worship, no gods exist. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is analytic, and says nothing. You define God in such a way that it is contradictory to an opinion you have, which you then put forth as a premise. Both the premise and the definition are very easily assailed.

Keep in mind that any arguments or propositions that deal with metaphysical entities are literally meaningless. But no one will discuss sensible things on this forum.

bohemian · #56 07-08-2005, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But no one will discuss sensible things on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that way. You included.

Should have known before posting to zoo.

bohemian · #57 07-08-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bohemian,

This will probaby end up going over my head, or at least will get into detail that I've never studied, but my last question got lost in the shuffle.

Any valid chain of reasoning has to start with first principles, i.e. - axioms. If it doesn't then the conclusions are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. I'm not sure I understand why you would discuss "foundational beliefs" if those aren't meant to be axiomatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foundational beliefs are not principles. They are beliefs.

drudman · #58 07-08-2005, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But no one will discuss sensible things on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that way. You included.

Should have known before posting to zoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm not mistaken, I didn't post to the Zoo. This is the SMP forum, not the Internet Gambling forum.

jthegreat · #59 07-09-2005, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Foundational beliefs are not principles. They are beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll read that paper you linked. I don't understand why we'd even care about arbitrary foundational beliefs.

LargeCents · #60 07-10-2005, 01:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But no one will discuss sensible things on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that way. You included.

Should have known before posting to zoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm not mistaken, I didn't post to the Zoo. This is the SMP forum, not the Internet Gambling forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zoo birds don't know where they are posting half the time. I think we lose half of the potenial zoo posts to GOP blogs throughout the internet. It's a growing problem.