Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Disappointed with modern philosophy

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 10:41:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
After a long time, I have become a bit disappointed with the way people treat God. I usually hear the people using the same arguments that others have come up with (ontological, cosmological, problem of evil, etc.) but not many are coming up with their own arguments and counter-arguments in defense. I see the same process happening and not much progress being made. That's why in debates, some people lose because once their arguments are gone, they lack creativity to back them up. We should always keep an open mind and coming up with innovative new philosophical ideas.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:00:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 10:41:12 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
After a long time, I have become a bit disappointed with the way people treat God. I usually hear the people using the same arguments that others have come up with (ontological, cosmological, problem of evil, etc.) but not many are coming up with their own arguments and counter-arguments in defense. I see the same process happening and not much progress being made. That's why in debates, some people lose because once their arguments are gone, they lack creativity to back them up. We should always keep an open mind and coming up with innovative new philosophical ideas.

After having debated yours, I find "first cause" arguments more effective than the one you employ; based on anecdotal evidence. And even if (my assumption is that that is the "proof" you talk about) you condemn ontology, then why are you using ontological arguments? "I've seen God, henceforth He exists" is ontology is it not? As ontology deals with being, and being deals with existence, henceforth, all arguments developing from being and proves existence is ontology.

Philosophy is not creative; philosophy is the ability to find the truth of the nature of our existence. And if that truth has already been found by others, it would not be a LACK OF CREATIVITY to adopt them, but a rather LACK OF THE NEED FOR CREATIVITY.

To be disappointed with modern philosophy is very abnormal, and I could even add, ABSURD. Modern philosophy has developed a strong language in which every proposition may be created, and proven; analytical philosophy and the fields of formal/proposition logic, modal logic, and even ethics (deontics) has developed a formal touch to it.

I believe, and correct me if I'm incorrect, that you are only disappointed in modern philosophy because it had atheist origins; from Russell to Wuttgenstein. I believe that modern philosophy has become too complicated for the normal person (like you and me) and that is why many Christians are turning there heads on it.

Apart from this, I find Christian Apologists bad at defending their positions; or at least the normal ones. There are some exceptional ones; zmikecuber, Toviyah etc. But not many of them do as much debates as the fundamentalist Christians.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:12:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:00:31 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 10:41:12 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
After a long time, I have become a bit disappointed with the way people treat God. I usually hear the people using the same arguments that others have come up with (ontological, cosmological, problem of evil, etc.) but not many are coming up with their own arguments and counter-arguments in defense. I see the same process happening and not much progress being made. That's why in debates, some people lose because once their arguments are gone, they lack creativity to back them up. We should always keep an open mind and coming up with innovative new philosophical ideas.

After having debated yours, I find "first cause" arguments more effective than the one you employ; based on anecdotal evidence. And even if (my assumption is that that is the "proof" you talk about) you condemn ontology, then why are you using ontological arguments? "I've seen God, henceforth He exists" is ontology is it not? As ontology deals with being, and being deals with existence, henceforth, all arguments developing from being and proves existence is ontology.

Philosophy is not creative; philosophy is the ability to find the truth of the nature of our existence. And if that truth has already been found by others, it would not be a LACK OF CREATIVITY to adopt them, but a rather LACK OF THE NEED FOR CREATIVITY.

To be disappointed with modern philosophy is very abnormal, and I could even add, ABSURD. Modern philosophy has developed a strong language in which every proposition may be created, and proven; analytical philosophy and the fields of formal/proposition logic, modal logic, and even ethics (deontics) has developed a formal touch to it.

I believe, and correct me if I'm incorrect, that you are only disappointed in modern philosophy because it had atheist origins; from Russell to Wuttgenstein. I believe that modern philosophy has become too complicated for the normal person (like you and me) and that is why many Christians are turning there heads on it.

Apart from this, I find Christian Apologists bad at defending their positions; or at least the normal ones. There are some exceptional ones; zmikecuber, Toviyah etc. But not many of them do as much debates as the fundamentalist Christians.

1) I did not use the ontological argument. The ontological argument is the logical deduction that God exists not from observation (look it up on standard encyclopedia of philosophy)

2) The argument from experience is relatively new and contested

3) It requires creativity to come up with arguments for defense and offense. I'm not saying that you cannot use previous philosophically arguments, but that you shouldn't just blindly follow them.

4) I agree, sometimes Apologists do have bad arguments, but that's typicallyn ot the case.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:25:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:12:21 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:00:31 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 10:41:12 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
After a long time, I have become a bit disappointed with the way people treat God. I usually hear the people using the same arguments that others have come up with (ontological, cosmological, problem of evil, etc.) but not many are coming up with their own arguments and counter-arguments in defense. I see the same process happening and not much progress being made. That's why in debates, some people lose because once their arguments are gone, they lack creativity to back them up. We should always keep an open mind and coming up with innovative new philosophical ideas.

After having debated yours, I find "first cause" arguments more effective than the one you employ; based on anecdotal evidence. And even if (my assumption is that that is the "proof" you talk about) you condemn ontology, then why are you using ontological arguments? "I've seen God, henceforth He exists" is ontology is it not? As ontology deals with being, and being deals with existence, henceforth, all arguments developing from being and proves existence is ontology.

Philosophy is not creative; philosophy is the ability to find the truth of the nature of our existence. And if that truth has already been found by others, it would not be a LACK OF CREATIVITY to adopt them, but a rather LACK OF THE NEED FOR CREATIVITY.

To be disappointed with modern philosophy is very abnormal, and I could even add, ABSURD. Modern philosophy has developed a strong language in which every proposition may be created, and proven; analytical philosophy and the fields of formal/proposition logic, modal logic, and even ethics (deontics) has developed a formal touch to it.

I believe, and correct me if I'm incorrect, that you are only disappointed in modern philosophy because it had atheist origins; from Russell to Wuttgenstein. I believe that modern philosophy has become too complicated for the normal person (like you and me) and that is why many Christians are turning there heads on it.

Apart from this, I find Christian Apologists bad at defending their positions; or at least the normal ones. There are some exceptional ones; zmikecuber, Toviyah etc. But not many of them do as much debates as the fundamentalist Christians.

1) I did not use the ontological argument. The ontological argument is the logical deduction that God exists not from observation (look it up on standard encyclopedia of philosophy)

False; "Ontology is the study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations." "As a first approximation, ontology is the study of what there is. Some contest this formulation of what ontology is, so it's only a first approximation. "

All arguments from experience of (x) happening is purely ontological.

2) The argument from experience is relatively new and contested

And fallacious.


3) It requires creativity to come up with arguments for defense and offense. I'm not saying that you cannot use previous philosophically arguments, but that you shouldn't just blindly follow them.

Objection; a man is born into a state of tabula rasa, is he not? If he is so, then he has used reason when he adopts a type of philosophically doctrine, for tabula rasa destroys the fact that innate ideas exist. Anyways, save that for another conversation; when a man decides on a philosophical doctrine, he has reasoned about it long. For Descartes, if philosophy were to be the blind ignorance, would have become an irrationalist; Hume would probably become a Kantist.

But man uses reasoning when assuming a philosophical , and reasoning is not ignorance


4) I agree, sometimes Apologists do have bad arguments, but that's typicallyn ot the case.

Apologists have faith; defenders of the Christian religion have beliefs. Faith is ignorance; belief is not.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink