First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last

Presuppositionalism

Post Reply
1691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Which is why it would be best if I could not only refute their basic argument in that manner, but also turn their reasoning around and say they are actually the ones who can't know anything.

But how can you do that when they already know that? They understand the diction of the word "faith", but they do not understand that it is not synonymous with 'truth'. As paradoxical as that sounds.

And when you point that out, the next reiteration point is "Well, it doesn't matter if I think it's real or not; as long as I believe, I get a special apartment in Heaven with my name on it.". The whole concept is based around not critically thinking. The same points are regurgitated over and over. Whenever you do succeed in telling them they are wrong, often times they will go look up a counter argument instead of thinking about the basis of where their logic is flawed.


I think we're having a mixup. I'm not trying to prove to them that there's no God. I Just want to get through to them how arrogant and douchy that particular line of reasoning is, and that it doesn't work. Basically, I want to turn the conversation back into a conversation, and force them to actually grapple with real arguments and evidence, instead of the kind of mindless disagreement that Humms has been posting here.
36324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

foraslan wrote:

I think we're having a mixup. I'm not trying to prove to them that there's no God. I Just want to get through to them how arrogant and douchy that particular line of reasoning is, and that it doesn't work. Basically, I want to turn the conversation back into a conversation, and force them to actually grapple with real arguments and evidence, instead of the kind of mindless disagreement that Humms has been posting here.

Actually I believe we are still on the same wavelength. I just emphasized my point incorrectly. The second paragraph largely subjugated my point, however the main point that I wanted you to take away from is that they admit that in the back of their mind that they don't know, but their faith is what they choose to believe in.

You can't reason that away because it has no foundation built upon reason to begin with.
2851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Which is why it would be best if I could not only refute their basic argument in that manner, but also turn their reasoning around and say they are actually the ones who can't know anything.

But how can you do that when they already know that? They understand the diction of the word "faith", but they do not understand that it is not synonymous with 'truth'. As paradoxical as that sounds.

And when you point that out, the next reiteration point is "Well, it doesn't matter if I think it's real or not; as long as I believe, I get a special apartment in Heaven with my name on it.". The whole concept is based around not critically thinking. The same points are regurgitated over and over. Whenever you do succeed in telling them they are wrong, often times they will go look up a counter argument instead of thinking about the basis of where their logic is flawed.


So what you are trying to say is that I am wrong no matter what I say 100% of the time? That sounds rather dumb to me. Bear in mind when do you ever succeed in saying they are wrong?
2851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


Humms wrote:

I will not acknowledge there are 2 sides to the argument

so you can't refine your arguments


What's the point of a debate if you aren't willing to listen to both sides? Just thinking the other side is wrong without actually hearing any evidence won't get you anywhere in life. Your own argument cannot be valid if you don't here points from all sides

It would be more fruitful for you to debate a _____ in why your god is real and theirs is make-believe.

Feel free to fill in the blank with any of these religions.


AnimeObserver123 wrote:

Why is it so hard to believe something outside of human logic can exist?? It isn't impossible. There are many things within this world we still can't decipher so for something to exist that is outside human logic isn't impossible. We cannot understand everything.

Because rain used to exist outside of the realm of human knowledge. So did season cycles. So did the moon cycle. And the list continues.


I don't believe in all religions. To be specific I am a Christian. Also please bear in mind that as you said it is faith or belief. I can never give you with 100% certainty whether God is real or not.

Yes rain is part of this world. Moon cycles are part of this human universe as well. But God is not he cannot be defined by human logic. Let me remind you that there is still many things within this world that haven't been comprehended yet and no evidence they will be.
2851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

I think we're having a mixup. I'm not trying to prove to them that there's no God. I Just want to get through to them how arrogant and douchy that particular line of reasoning is, and that it doesn't work. Basically, I want to turn the conversation back into a conversation, and force them to actually grapple with real arguments and evidence, instead of the kind of mindless disagreement that Humms has been posting here.

Actually I believe we are still on the same wavelength. I just emphasized my point incorrectly. The second paragraph largely subjugated my point, however the main point that I wanted you to take away from is that they admit that in the back of their mind that they don't know, but their faith is what they choose to believe in.

You can't reason that away because it has no foundation built upon reason to begin with.


As I said before, ultimately It is a faith I cannot show you God himself. If that makes my whole argument invalid so be it but I am trying to tell you that it is not impossible for God or even a God to exist.
12497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Although, I'm not really a fan of philosophy of which I view as extremely archaic and increasingly more so obsolete in the face of modern science


Worth pointing out that 'modern' empirical science is:

1) A branch of philosophy
2) About five hundred years old
3) Was founded by Catholic clergymen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

1691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

AnimeObserver123 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Which is why it would be best if I could not only refute their basic argument in that manner, but also turn their reasoning around and say they are actually the ones who can't know anything.

But how can you do that when they already know that? They understand the diction of the word "faith", but they do not understand that it is not synonymous with 'truth'. As paradoxical as that sounds.

And when you point that out, the next reiteration point is "Well, it doesn't matter if I think it's real or not; as long as I believe, I get a special apartment in Heaven with my name on it.". The whole concept is based around not critically thinking. The same points are regurgitated over and over. Whenever you do succeed in telling them they are wrong, often times they will go look up a counter argument instead of thinking about the basis of where their logic is flawed.


So what you are trying to say is that I am wrong no matter what I say 100% of the time? That sounds rather dumb to me. Bear in mind when do you ever succeed in saying they are wrong?


I can't tell if you're talking to me or DarkSasu. If me, then no. That's obviously not what I'm saying, and you need to reread this whole thread starting with the OP. If DarkSasu, I still can't find anything that is even close to saying that in his comment.
1691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

karatecowboy wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Although, I'm not really a fan of philosophy of which I view as extremely archaic and increasingly more so obsolete in the face of modern science


Worth pointing out that 'modern' empirical science is:

1) A branch of philosophy
2) About five hundred years old
3) Was founded by Catholic clergymen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science



Thanks. Those are definitely things worth mentioning. Granted, the last one is more complicated than you make it sound, but still is important. Also worth mentioning is that principles of logic were first expounded by philosophers, and just about every branch of science has had a philosophical precursor that did some important work framing questions and positing lines of further thought.
12497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

foraslan wrote:


Granted, the last one is more complicated than you make it sound, but still is important. Also worth mentioning is that principles of logic were first expounded by philosophers, and just about every branch of science has had a philosophical precursor that did some important work framing questions and positing lines of further thought.




Definitely! I think it's Aristotle who is considered the "father" of the scientific method, whereas Bacon et. al developed it into the Empirical method which we know and love so much today.
2851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

foraslan wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


foraslan wrote:

Which is why it would be best if I could not only refute their basic argument in that manner, but also turn their reasoning around and say they are actually the ones who can't know anything.

But how can you do that when they already know that? They understand the diction of the word "faith", but they do not understand that it is not synonymous with 'truth'. As paradoxical as that sounds.

And when you point that out, the next reiteration point is "Well, it doesn't matter if I think it's real or not; as long as I believe, I get a special apartment in Heaven with my name on it.". The whole concept is based around not critically thinking. The same points are regurgitated over and over. Whenever you do succeed in telling them they are wrong, often times they will go look up a counter argument instead of thinking about the basis of where their logic is flawed.


So what you are trying to say is that I am wrong no matter what I say 100% of the time? That sounds rather dumb to me. Bear in mind when do you ever succeed in saying they are wrong?


I can't tell if you're talking to me or DarkSasu. If me, then no. That's obviously not what I'm saying, and you need to reread this whole thread starting with the OP. If DarkSasu, I still can't find anything that is even close to saying that in his comment.


We may of interpreted things a little differently but I've highlighted what I see in that
36324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

karatecowboy wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Although, I'm not really a fan of philosophy of which I view as extremely archaic and increasingly more so obsolete in the face of modern science


Worth pointing out that 'modern' empirical science is:

1) A branch of philosophy

By a vast stretch, yes. By logical reasoning, no. Philosophy is a search for the truth. Science is a search for understanding.


2) About five hundred years old

Correct, and also the mark of the industrial era which spurred into the technological era. Also worth mentioning that philosophy is a couple thousand years old, and when you compare 600 BC and 900 AD they are quite similar, yet when you compare 1500 to today it is a difference of a thousand light years. Not sure what point you just attempted to make.


3) Was founded by Catholic clergymen

... So?


AnimeObserver123 wrote:

So what you are trying to say is that I am wrong no matter what I say 100% of the time? That sounds rather dumb to me. Bear in mind when do you ever succeed in saying they are wrong?

No. I am saying that, by virtue of your faith, you cannot admit when you are wrong.


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:

I don't believe in all religions. To be specific I am a Christian. Also please bear in mind that as you said it is faith or belief. I can never give you with 100% certainty whether God is real or not.

Yes rain is part of this world. Moon cycles are part of this human universe as well. But God is not he cannot be defined by human logic. Let me remind you that there is still many things within this world that haven't been comprehended yet and no evidence they will be.

Reeeeeeeally missed the point. The point was there are thousands of other religions that also believe they have it right. In your eyes, they're wrong. In their eye's, you're wrong.

Also lol. I was referencing how once people worshipped the seasons, the moons, volcanoes, and all sorts of erratic things due to their lack of knowledge.


AnimeObserver123 wrote:

As I said before, ultimately It is a faith I cannot show you God himself. If that makes my whole argument invalid so be it

It does.


but I am trying to tell you that it is not impossible for God or even a God to exist.

And on the same token, there's also no reason to believe one exists.
12497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

By a vast stretch, yes. By logical reasoning, no. Philosophy is a search for the truth. Science is a search for understanding.


Ehhhh? I'm curious where you are getting this? I always thought epistemology is the search for truth, and "philosophy" was "philos + sophie" eg love of wisdom. I thought empiricism was a subset of epistemology...?



Correct, and also the mark of the industrial era which spurred into the technological era. Also worth mentioning that philosophy is a couple thousand years old, and when you compare 600 BC, and 900 AD they are quite similar, yet when you compare 1500 to today it is a difference of multiple light years. Not sure what point you just attempted to make.

Just fun FYI.




... So?

same as above

Humms 
14688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

AnimeObserver123 wrote:


Humms wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


Humms wrote:

I will not acknowledge there are 2 sides to the argument

so you can't refine your arguments


What's the point of a debate if you aren't willing to listen to both sides? Just thinking the other side is wrong without actually hearing any evidence won't get you anywhere in life. Your own argument cannot be valid if you don't here points from all sides



-_-

Because enough time is wasted arguing if god exists.

Go ahead.

You go right on and explain why God exists. Then when im done making my money for the day, and im back to my drawing tablet, ill see if you responded.

God exists in our hearts, my lord almighty get that through your head.



God doesnt actually exist. God is a blessing, god is this being we ask for guidence.

But no matter what we do, we have earthquakes, tsunamis, wild fires, floods, pollution.

If you owned a house, would you just let people destroy it, ah its ok, they know not what they do, ya that's god talking. Ok god, just let it slide when your house is reduced to ashes.

But please, enlighten me child.



I'm not going to write if you are not going to listen. What's the point? I don't just debate for the fun of it. Yet I repeat God gave us free will.
And where have you head God telling people to let there house be destroyed???



My son, all will be revealed.

But you will have to probably pay me 1$ a month
36324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

karatecowboy wrote:

Ehhhh? I'm curious where you are getting this? I always thought epistemology is the search for truth, and "philosophy" was "philos + sophie" eg love of wisdom. I thought empiricism was a subset of epistemology...?


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

By a vast stretch, yes.

Also not going to play semantics. You can be literal about the etymology of the word, but truth and wisdom are fairly synonymous, so you're really just wasting more bytes.
2851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/4/18 , edited 12/4/18

Humms wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


Humms wrote:


AnimeObserver123 wrote:


Humms wrote:

I will not acknowledge there are 2 sides to the argument

so you can't refine your arguments


What's the point of a debate if you aren't willing to listen to both sides? Just thinking the other side is wrong without actually hearing any evidence won't get you anywhere in life. Your own argument cannot be valid if you don't here points from all sides



-_-

Because enough time is wasted arguing if god exists.

Go ahead.

You go right on and explain why God exists. Then when im done making my money for the day, and im back to my drawing tablet, ill see if you responded.

God exists in our hearts, my lord almighty get that through your head.



God doesnt actually exist. God is a blessing, god is this being we ask for guidence.

But no matter what we do, we have earthquakes, tsunamis, wild fires, floods, pollution.

If you owned a house, would you just let people destroy it, ah its ok, they know not what they do, ya that's god talking. Ok god, just let it slide when your house is reduced to ashes.

But please, enlighten me child.



I'm not going to write if you are not going to listen. What's the point? I don't just debate for the fun of it. Yet I repeat God gave us free will.
And where have you head God telling people to let there house be destroyed???



My son, all will be revealed.

But you will have to probably pay me 1$ a month

Someone who is not willing to listen to both sides of a point has no place in this debate.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.