Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Criterial Claim

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:31:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All reasoned objections to belief in God logically depend on unargued God-level assumptions to supervise arbitration of the issue of God's existence, assumptions which the objectors must appeal to for the same universal and ultimate authority over their thinking that those objections were supposed to challenge in the idea of God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:46:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 1:31:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
All reasoned objections to belief in God logically depend on unargued God-level assumptions to supervise arbitration of the issue of God's existence, assumptions which the objectors must appeal to for the same universal and ultimate authority over their thinking that those objections were supposed to challenge in the idea of God.

1) For example?
2) So?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 3:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's a confusing OP. Hard to guess what you're trying to say. But, as near as I can tell, it is false, or not truth apt, or self refuting.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 7:39:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 5:02:51 PM, Apeiron wrote:
"I don't know what you're talking about but it's not true"

^haha

What's the thought process here? You come into the thread, see two posts. One is a post asking a couple questions that would force you to expand upon and explain your point, providing relevant examples and justifying the relevance of the position, possibly generating some fruitful or worthwhile conversation, and another you feel you can just point to and laugh, thus generating absolutely not fruitful or worthwhile conversation, and you pick the latter.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 9:44:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 8:54:16 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
I'm a bit confused about what you are saying the claim is.

Same here.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 9:52:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 9:57:04 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/28/2012 1:31:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
All reason... depend[s] on unargued... assumptions

fix'd

That one always gets me.. (old people with loss of bowel control too!)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 6:32:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the main difference between religion, and atheism as it pertains to science is as follows:

Athiest:
1.) Stuff.
2.) Reason for stuff.
3.) End of reasons for stuff.

Theist:
1.) Stuff
2.) Reasons for stuff
3.) God
4.) End of reasons for stuff.

Now, it's true I beleive that at some point there stops being a reason for stuff. You could call that last Reason 'God', but you could also call it 'Chuck Norris'. Calling the last reason is Chuck Norris does not mean that the universe was roundhouse kicked into existance.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:36:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The OP is a restatement of the TAG.

Nuff said.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 12:11:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 1:31:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
All reasoned objections to belief in God logically depend on unargued God-level assumptions to supervise arbitration of the issue of God's existence, assumptions which the objectors must appeal to for the same universal and ultimate authority over their thinking that those objections were supposed to challenge in the idea of God.

What's a "god level" assumption? Is "A=A in language R" a god-level assumption? Is "1+1=2 under peano axioms" a god level assumption? How about "a triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees?"

Is "objects exist independent of my perception" a god level assumption?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 4:18:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 6:32:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I think the main difference between religion, and atheism as it pertains to science is as follows:

Athiest:
1.) Stuff.
2.) Reason for stuff.
3.) End of reasons for stuff.

Theist:
1.) Stuff
2.) Reasons for stuff
3.) God
4.) End of reasons for stuff.

Now, it's true I beleive that at some point there stops being a reason for stuff. You could call that last Reason 'God', but you could also call it 'Chuck Norris'. Calling the last reason is Chuck Norris does not mean that the universe was roundhouse kicked into existance.

Flawless reasoning.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 5:52:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 10:36:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The OP is a restatement of the TAG.

Nuff said.

So what's your problem with TAG's?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 5:53:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 12:11:40 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/28/2012 1:31:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
All reasoned objections to belief in God logically depend on unargued God-level assumptions to supervise arbitration of the issue of God's existence, assumptions which the objectors must appeal to for the same universal and ultimate authority over their thinking that those objections were supposed to challenge in the idea of God.

What's a "god level" assumption? Is "A=A in language R" a god-level assumption? Is "1+1=2 under peano axioms" a god level assumption? How about "a triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees?"

Is "objects exist independent of my perception" a god level assumption?

That's what I've been trying to figure out myself. I don't really know how to define a "God-level" assumption...

I'm not going the conceptualist route here. So all those questions I don't think apply.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 5:56:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He's stating that arguments against god that assert a belief in god is dogmatic subscribe to that same dogmatism to formulate such arguments.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 6:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 5:56:08 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
He's stating that arguments against god that assert a belief in god is dogmatic subscribe to that same dogmatism to formulate such arguments.

... I have to think about that one.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 9:43:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 5:56:08 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
He's stating that arguments against god that assert a belief in god is dogmatic subscribe to that same dogmatism to formulate such arguments.

After I gave thought to this I agree with this restatement of the criterial claim. It's necessarily an unargued imputed God-level authority in those assumptions---objectivist, absolute, and universal---which begs some of the same key questions raised against the possibility of God's existence.

The crucial step for the sucess of this criterial claim is the [implication of all the assumptions of thought, taken as a systemic whole, whether they both define and imply an ultimate personal mind].

This latter implication is the final step in the criterial argument for God. Ultimate general criteria + necessary presuppositions and criteria of personhood => God exists.

And so I welcome good arguments against that crucial step up there (since I'm not yet convinced)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 10:11:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The basic criteria of both thought and personhood constitutes a necessarily irreducible atomic system which is normative and therefore intentional---and perhaps indistinguishable from an ultimate mind. If that's true, then it needs nothing further to be ultimately real.

I hope this better explains the claim.