Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Utility of Strong Atheism

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Neo-Paganism the most intellectually rigorous? I'm quite surprised... what makes you say them?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:15:21 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Neo-Paganism the most intellectually rigorous? I'm quite surprised... what makes you say them?

I find it to be the most plausible. The creation of the Universe in the most prominent pagan cultures was not driven by any supernatural being; supernatural beings sprung after the universe was created and thus are bound by the laws of the Universe. The Akhaian gods, for example, thus do not fall prey to the "inability to gain knowledge" argument, a contention that I personally find to be the most compelling argument against the existence of God. Ultimately, then, I am forced to reject Neo-Paganism on the grounds that there is no evidence.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:21:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Wow, I totally agree.

I would word it this way:

Christianity
Occultism
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

"Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against"

I like arguing against the existence of an intelligent creator of the cosmos, I try not to really argue against religion because they all use the same arguments anyway.

"and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?"

The Fine-tuning Argument, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of these arguments can be used to justify any intelligent creator. Therefore, no religion itself is more problematic than another.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:34:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:20:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:15:21 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Neo-Paganism the most intellectually rigorous? I'm quite surprised... what makes you say them?

I find it to be the most plausible. The creation of the Universe in the most prominent pagan cultures was not driven by any supernatural being; supernatural beings sprung after the universe was created and thus are bound by the laws of the Universe. The Akhaian gods, for example, thus do not fall prey to the "inability to gain knowledge" argument, a contention that I personally find to be the most compelling argument against the existence of God. Ultimately, then, I am forced to reject Neo-Paganism on the grounds that there is no evidence.

I was going to say, yeah Neo-Paganism seems to have a lot of metaphysical excess. But not only that it seems to me that a creation coming from nothing, then springing gods appears far less plausible then a creation from a causal mind.

I've also noticed "the inability to gain knowledge" argument isn't taken seriously, except on the popular level. God's omniscience is defined as "knows all true propositions" on the scholarly level; and so such an argument becomes irrelevant.

But in any case I understand your reluctance with theism.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:35:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:21:03 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Wow, I totally agree.

I would word it this way:

Christianity
Occultism

And what makes it Occultism for you Crazy?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:26:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

"Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against"

I like arguing against the existence of an intelligent creator of the cosmos, I try not to really argue against religion because they all use the same arguments anyway.

"and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?"

The Fine-tuning Argument, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of these arguments can be used to justify any intelligent creator. Therefore, no religion itself is more problematic than another.

Rational, I don't see how the bold ^ follows... can you expand?

It seems to me the moral argument doesn't prove a designer but only gives a ground for morals in a metaphysically necessary being rather than (more arbitrary & less plausible) Platonic morals.

But the moral argument itself requires the Christian Trinity (or at minimum a di-nity.. but 3's a crowd ;). Why? Because all love or goodness can't be so without another person to receive & reciprocate... & this thinking is more in line with Christianity, right?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:20:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:34:16 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:20:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:15:21 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Neo-Paganism the most intellectually rigorous? I'm quite surprised... what makes you say them?

I find it to be the most plausible. The creation of the Universe in the most prominent pagan cultures was not driven by any supernatural being; supernatural beings sprung after the universe was created and thus are bound by the laws of the Universe. The Akhaian gods, for example, thus do not fall prey to the "inability to gain knowledge" argument, a contention that I personally find to be the most compelling argument against the existence of God. Ultimately, then, I am forced to reject Neo-Paganism on the grounds that there is no evidence.

I was going to say, yeah Neo-Paganism seems to have a lot of metaphysical excess. But not only that it seems to me that a creation coming from nothing, then springing gods appears far less plausible then a creation from a causal mind.

I've also noticed "the inability to gain knowledge" argument isn't taken seriously, except on the popular level. God's omniscience is defined as "knows all true propositions" on the scholarly level; and so such an argument becomes irrelevant.

Can you explain how it is possible for a being to have a posteriori knowledge without undergoing the experience?
But in any case I understand your reluctance with theism.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 5:20:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:34:16 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:20:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:15:21 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:13:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against,
Christianity
and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

Neo-Paganism

Neo-Paganism the most intellectually rigorous? I'm quite surprised... what makes you say them?

I find it to be the most plausible. The creation of the Universe in the most prominent pagan cultures was not driven by any supernatural being; supernatural beings sprung after the universe was created and thus are bound by the laws of the Universe. The Akhaian gods, for example, thus do not fall prey to the "inability to gain knowledge" argument, a contention that I personally find to be the most compelling argument against the existence of God. Ultimately, then, I am forced to reject Neo-Paganism on the grounds that there is no evidence.

I was going to say, yeah Neo-Paganism seems to have a lot of metaphysical excess. But not only that it seems to me that a creation coming from nothing, then springing gods appears far less plausible then a creation from a causal mind.

I've also noticed "the inability to gain knowledge" argument isn't taken seriously, except on the popular level. God's omniscience is defined as "knows all true propositions" on the scholarly level; and so such an argument becomes irrelevant.

Can you explain how it is possible for a being to have a posteriori knowledge without undergoing the experience?
But in any case I understand your reluctance with theism.

I guess there would be no need right? What is contradictory of knowing a priori all true propositions, like,

If X occurs, Z, T, U, ~F will happenstance upon R, But if Y occurs, ~Z, ~T, ~U but F will happenstance, etc

^there seems to me nothing inconsistent with an ultra-mundane mind immediately aware of such maximal descriptions of reality, or the way reality might be given such and such.

Also, I got technical there but by 'happenstance' I mean 'accident' in the way the old philosophers mean... today we would call this 'contingent.' I just used it since it fit better.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:33:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can you explain how it is possible for a being to have a posteriori knowledge without undergoing the experience?
But in any case I understand your reluctance with theism.

I guess there would be no need right? What is contradictory of knowing a priori all true propositions, like,

If X occurs, Z, T, U, ~F will happenstance upon R, But if Y occurs, ~Z, ~T, ~U but F will happenstance, etc

^there seems to me nothing inconsistent with an ultra-mundane mind immediately aware of such maximal descriptions of reality, or the way reality might be given such and such.

Also, I got technical there but by 'happenstance' I mean 'accident' in the way the old philosophers mean... today we would call this 'contingent.' I just used it since it fit better.

Further, how do we know, externally, our mental states like, "I am being appeared to redly" when we see a red light? It seems to me we're aware of the external world in a similar way perhaps a non-contingent mind is...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even a priori knowledge depends on prior knowledge. In order to know that a bachelor is definitionally not married, I need to know what a bachelor is, what a human is, what marriage is, have a language to describe these things, etc.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 6:09:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 5:42:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Even a priori knowledge depends on prior knowledge. In order to know that a bachelor is definitionally not married, I need to know what a bachelor is, what a human is, what marriage is, have a language to describe these things, etc.

Ah awesome question! ... Nearly everything in philosophy regarding this topic is footnoted to either Aristotle, Plato or Kant. Aristotle was an empiricist (a post), Plato a rationalist (a priori)... and Kant set the foundation for a synthesis of the two,

"although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience"

a priori is beyond as a sort of 'form' of possible worlds... such a form, as Christians think, can only be grounded in a mind. This is consistent with knowing all true propositions.

The distinction now comes between contingent and necessary propositions, apriority, God knows all possible worlds (necessary propositions), but such an ability can also spill over into contingent propositions if conditionals in the subjunctive mood are thrown into the mix. In other words,

"Necessarily, if X happens upon P, then C will occur"

^ this is what I mean by knowing, apriority, all true propositions.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 7:01:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 6:09:06 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 5:42:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Even a priori knowledge depends on prior knowledge. In order to know that a bachelor is definitionally not married, I need to know what a bachelor is, what a human is, what marriage is, have a language to describe these things, etc.

Ah awesome question! ... Nearly everything in philosophy regarding this topic is footnoted to either Aristotle, Plato or Kant. Aristotle was an empiricist (a post), Plato a rationalist (a priori)... and Kant set the foundation for a synthesis of the two,

"although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience"

a priori is beyond as a sort of 'form' of possible worlds... such a form, as Christians think, can only be grounded in a mind. This is consistent with knowing all true propositions.

The distinction now comes between contingent and necessary propositions, apriority, God knows all possible worlds (necessary propositions), but such an ability can also spill over into contingent propositions if conditionals in the subjunctive mood are thrown into the mix. In other words,

"Necessarily, if X happens upon P, then C will occur"

^ this is what I mean by knowing, apriority, all true propositions.
I am not sure I understand this . . . I apologize, my background in philosophy is purely in political philosophy. Can you explain this further?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 7:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Like, could you start from the basics? I attempted to do some reading online earlier because I was having an argument with my boyfriend about this (he is a theist), but I could not find anything that was very clear. I would appreciate it if you could explain, preferably in lay-person's terms, exactly what your argument and the basic ideas behind your argument are.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 8:30:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 7:08:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Like, could you start from the basics? I attempted to do some reading online earlier because I was having an argument with my boyfriend about this (he is a theist), but I could not find anything that was very clear. I would appreciate it if you could explain, preferably in lay-person's terms, exactly what your argument and the basic ideas behind your argument are.

I'm sorry- it's tough to put such abstract concepts into speech. Maybe if you have the actual argument in question we can go over the premises and that would be easier (maybe haha).

My point is this: given rationalism,

at the most fundamental level the judgment of truth is not sensory, but intuitive-intellectual-rational-involving insight- perspective, etc

^ now I don't agree with this theory of knowledge specifically for us humans (and perhaps other material creatures)... it's a mix between rationalism and empiricism of experience, etc... But that's irrelevant to the question you posed earlier of how God can know all true propositions.

Because if something like rationalism is even possible and coherent, it follows that the argument from inability of a posteriori knowledge dissolves.

I'm leaving a bunch out but does that jive?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 9:58:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 7:08:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Like, could you start from the basics? I attempted to do some reading online earlier because I was having an argument with my boyfriend about this (he is a theist), but I could not find anything that was very clear. I would appreciate it if you could explain, preferably in lay-person's terms, exactly what your argument and the basic ideas behind your argument are.

When did we argue about a priori knowledge?

Anyway, I think the confusion you are having arises from equivocation. Let's take a simpler example. We can easily say that one can determine a priori that a man cannot be both bald and not bald. There is no need to contest that point. Now, the only reason your questioning of how we can know that a bachelor is definitionally not married from a priori knowledge can be broken down. A bachelor is, by definition a non-married person. So that is to say that we can know that somebody who is not married cannot be married. In this manner, most a priori knowledge arises from the law of non-contradiction. To say that we require a posteriori knowledge to understand this is simply to commit the fallacy of equivocation unnecessarily. Does that make more sense?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 10:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 9:58:29 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/28/2012 7:08:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Like, could you start from the basics? I attempted to do some reading online earlier because I was having an argument with my boyfriend about this (he is a theist), but I could not find anything that was very clear. I would appreciate it if you could explain, preferably in lay-person's terms, exactly what your argument and the basic ideas behind your argument are.

When did we argue about a priori knowledge?

We didn't. We were discussing the LCA and contingency.
Anyway, I think the confusion you are having arises from equivocation. Let's take a simpler example. We can easily say that one can determine a priori that a man cannot be both bald and not bald. There is no need to contest that point. Now, the only reason your questioning of how we can know that a bachelor is definitionally not married from a priori knowledge can be broken down. A bachelor is, by definition a non-married person. So that is to say that we can know that somebody who is not married cannot be married. In this manner, most a priori knowledge arises from the law of non-contradiction. To say that we require a posteriori knowledge to understand this is simply to commit the fallacy of equivocation unnecessarily. Does that make more sense?

Ok, but you have to know several things from experience before you can make that point.

You have to know what marriage is.

You have to know what a person is.

You have to know what a bachelor is.

On top of it, you have to have the language to express all of these concepts.

Like, suppose my mother never taught me about marriage and I never learned anything about it. I would not know that a Bachelor is not married. A prior knowledge depends on prior information being existent.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:15:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 10:01:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:58:29 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/28/2012 7:08:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Like, could you start from the basics? I attempted to do some reading online earlier because I was having an argument with my boyfriend about this (he is a theist), but I could not find anything that was very clear. I would appreciate it if you could explain, preferably in lay-person's terms, exactly what your argument and the basic ideas behind your argument are.

When did we argue about a priori knowledge?

We didn't. We were discussing the LCA and contingency.
Anyway, I think the confusion you are having arises from equivocation. Let's take a simpler example. We can easily say that one can determine a priori that a man cannot be both bald and not bald. There is no need to contest that point. Now, the only reason your questioning of how we can know that a bachelor is definitionally not married from a priori knowledge can be broken down. A bachelor is, by definition a non-married person. So that is to say that we can know that somebody who is not married cannot be married. In this manner, most a priori knowledge arises from the law of non-contradiction. To say that we require a posteriori knowledge to understand this is simply to commit the fallacy of equivocation unnecessarily. Does that make more sense?

Ok, but you have to know several things from experience before you can make that point.

You have to know what marriage is.

You have to know what a person is.

You have to know what a bachelor is.

On top of it, you have to have the language to express all of these concepts.

Like, suppose my mother never taught me about marriage and I never learned anything about it. I would not know that a Bachelor is not married. A prior knowledge depends on prior information being existent.

Yes, we learn from experience, I agree. See but we don't have an all knowing rational, we have a limited rational dependent on empiricism.

But ultimately there's a stopping point, right? That stopping point is internal to the knower.

I know the events external to my knower because they impress upon my knower. Likewise, God can know the events 'external' to his knower because they impress upon his knower... the only difference is, his knower knows all possible events and what event would occur given an infinite set of conditions.

For example, just like when you see a bride. <--that's not the end of what happens-

Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:16:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, we learn from experience, I agree. See but we don't have an all knowing rational, we have a limited rational dependent on empiricism.

But ultimately there's a stopping point, right? That stopping point is internal to the knower.

I know the events external to my knower because they impress upon my knower. Likewise, God can know the events 'external' to his knower because they impress upon his knower... the only difference is, his knower knows all possible events and what event would occur given an infinite set of conditions.

For example, just like when you see a bride. <--that's not the end of what happens-

Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"

^these aren't words meant to trick you but just read them in plain speech, it's funky but it helps you conceptualize the coherency of rationalism.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:16:31 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Yes, we learn from experience, I agree. See but we don't have an all knowing rational, we have a limited rational dependent on empiricism.

But ultimately there's a stopping point, right? That stopping point is internal to the knower.

I know the events external to my knower because they impress upon my knower. Likewise, God can know the events 'external' to his knower because they impress upon his knower... the only difference is, his knower knows all possible events and what event would occur given an infinite set of conditions.

For example, just like when you see a bride. <--that's not the end of what happens-

Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"

^these aren't words meant to trick you but just read them in plain speech, it's funky but it helps you conceptualize the coherency of rationalism.

When I perceive a dove, my eyes are picking up the reflections of light from the dove, conforming to my parallax to yield depth perception of distinct shapes of the doves wings, etc,

but what's really happening, is I am being appeared to dove-ly + Light-ly + White-ly + 20 ft away-ly, etc
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:21:32 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:16:31 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Yes, we learn from experience, I agree. See but we don't have an all knowing rational, we have a limited rational dependent on empiricism.

But ultimately there's a stopping point, right? That stopping point is internal to the knower.

I know the events external to my knower because they impress upon my knower. Likewise, God can know the events 'external' to his knower because they impress upon his knower... the only difference is, his knower knows all possible events and what event would occur given an infinite set of conditions.

For example, just like when you see a bride. <--that's not the end of what happens-

Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"

^these aren't words meant to trick you but just read them in plain speech, it's funky but it helps you conceptualize the coherency of rationalism.

When I perceive a dove, my eyes are picking up the reflections of light from the dove, conforming to my parallax to yield depth perception of distinct shapes of the doves wings, etc,

but what's really happening, is I am being appeared to dove-ly + Light-ly + White-ly + 20 ft away-ly, etc

When I see a red color, I don't just sense it with eyes, I become aware of being appeared to red-ly.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:33:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:43:09 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:26:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

"Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against"

I like arguing against the existence of an intelligent creator of the cosmos, I try not to really argue against religion because they all use the same arguments anyway.

"and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?"

The Fine-tuning Argument, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of these arguments can be used to justify any intelligent creator. Therefore, no religion itself is more problematic than another.

Rational, I don't see how the bold ^ follows... can you expand?

It seems to me the moral argument doesn't prove a designer but only gives a ground for morals in a metaphysically necessary being rather than (more arbitrary & less plausible) Platonic morals.


But the moral argument itself requires the Christian Trinity (or at minimum a di-nity.. but 3's a crowd ;). Why? Because all love or goodness can't be so without another person to receive & reciprocate... & this thinking is more in line with Christianity, right?

Then why do Muslims use it?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:51:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:33:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:43:09 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:26:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

"Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against"

I like arguing against the existence of an intelligent creator of the cosmos, I try not to really argue against religion because they all use the same arguments anyway.

"and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?"

The Fine-tuning Argument, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of these arguments can be used to justify any intelligent creator. Therefore, no religion itself is more problematic than another.

Rational, I don't see how the bold ^ follows... can you expand?

It seems to me the moral argument doesn't prove a designer but only gives a ground for morals in a metaphysically necessary being rather than (more arbitrary & less plausible) Platonic morals.


But the moral argument itself requires the Christian Trinity (or at minimum a di-nity.. but 3's a crowd ;). Why? Because all love or goodness can't be so without another person to receive & reciprocate... & this thinking is more in line with Christianity, right?

Then why do Muslims use it?

Why wouldn't they?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:51:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:15:19 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 10:01:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 9:58:29 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/28/2012 7:08:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Like, could you start from the basics? I attempted to do some reading online earlier because I was having an argument with my boyfriend about this (he is a theist), but I could not find anything that was very clear. I would appreciate it if you could explain, preferably in lay-person's terms, exactly what your argument and the basic ideas behind your argument are.

When did we argue about a priori knowledge?

We didn't. We were discussing the LCA and contingency.
Anyway, I think the confusion you are having arises from equivocation. Let's take a simpler example. We can easily say that one can determine a priori that a man cannot be both bald and not bald. There is no need to contest that point. Now, the only reason your questioning of how we can know that a bachelor is definitionally not married from a priori knowledge can be broken down. A bachelor is, by definition a non-married person. So that is to say that we can know that somebody who is not married cannot be married. In this manner, most a priori knowledge arises from the law of non-contradiction. To say that we require a posteriori knowledge to understand this is simply to commit the fallacy of equivocation unnecessarily. Does that make more sense?

Ok, but you have to know several things from experience before you can make that point.

You have to know what marriage is.

You have to know what a person is.

You have to know what a bachelor is.

On top of it, you have to have the language to express all of these concepts.

Like, suppose my mother never taught me about marriage and I never learned anything about it. I would not know that a Bachelor is not married. A prior knowledge depends on prior information being existent.

Yes, we learn from experience, I agree. See but we don't have an all knowing rational, we have a limited rational dependent on empiricism.

But ultimately there's a stopping point, right? That stopping point is internal to the knower.

I know the events external to my knower because they impress upon my knower. Likewise, God can know the events 'external' to his knower because they impress upon his knower... the only difference is, his knower knows all possible events and what event would occur given an infinite set of conditions.

For example, just like when you see a bride. <--that's not the end of what happens-

Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"

I a priori knowledge depends upon knowing prior information, it is not possible for a being that is definitionally omniscient to exist.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:53:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:33:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:43:09 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:26:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

"Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against"

I like arguing against the existence of an intelligent creator of the cosmos, I try not to really argue against religion because they all use the same arguments anyway.

"and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?"

The Fine-tuning Argument, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of these arguments can be used to justify any intelligent creator. Therefore, no religion itself is more problematic than another.

Rational, I don't see how the bold ^ follows... can you expand?

It seems to me the moral argument doesn't prove a designer but only gives a ground for morals in a metaphysically necessary being rather than (more arbitrary & less plausible) Platonic morals.


But the moral argument itself requires the Christian Trinity (or at minimum a di-nity.. but 3's a crowd ;). Why? Because all love or goodness can't be so without another person to receive & reciprocate... & this thinking is more in line with Christianity, right?

Then why do Muslims use it?

They think morals are willed by God only so....
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 6:58:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"

I a priori knowledge depends upon knowing prior information, it is not possible for a being that is definitionally omniscient to exist.

I see, you're mixed up with the definitions, etc. A priori is just your intuition, rational insight, internal states, first order mental conditions, etc.

Don't think of it as like just information you get before going to a meeting, etc... or something- that's not what it means. Rather just think of it as rational insight.

Now it's that rational insight that becomes impressed upon by exterior evidence, the material world etc.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:09:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 6:58:03 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Rather you are "being impressed upon bride-ly"

I a priori knowledge depends upon knowing prior information, it is not possible for a being that is definitionally omniscient to exist.

I see, you're mixed up with the definitions, etc. A priori is just your intuition, rational insight, internal states, first order mental conditions, etc.

Don't think of it as like just information you get before going to a meeting, etc... or something- that's not what it means. Rather just think of it as rational insight.

Now it's that rational insight that becomes impressed upon by exterior evidence, the material world etc.
Ok, so I understand your position, but it doesn't adequately address my point. Here's why:

You have the sense of sight, correct? Now suppose you lived in a world in which all light was outside the visible spectrum (or in which light did not exist). You could not exercise your ability to see. Ergo, you would not be able to describe to me what an apple looks like.

This example demonstrates that something must be present for me to exercise my senses and cognitive powers on in order for me to even use said things.

A priori knowledge may be one's reason (or cognitive power), but if one exists in a world in which nothing exists, cognitive power cannot be exercised. If a bachelor does not exist, I cannot describe it to you or tell you that it is definiationally someone who is not married. Moreover, I need a language set to even think about concepts. I need a language to form the concept of marriage, for example. In order for a priori reasoning to have power, an external world must necessarily exist.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:24:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 3:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Some Christians often demur the efforts of devote atheists to show various religions to be false. Such an effort however is viewed by Christian apologists as not only useful for taking the burden of a polemic from the apologist, but also for giving an opportunity to contrast the survivability differences between the major religions.

My question for the atheist thinker is,

Given all the major religions which one do you polemicize the most against, and which one has proved the most difficult for your polemic in terms of intellectualism?

I would point out, as a person who was agnostic and converted to Christianity...

I would have most scoffed at the concept of Jesus, but the concept proved to be undefeatable.

Christianity represented the pinnacle of Intellectualism, thus I converted.