1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiI see I believe, but isn't there the danger of flawed logic even if you
Kelly,
I'll give you an example of logical necessity using deductive logic:
All A is B and All B is C, then it is logically necessary that All A is C.
To say something (usually referred to as the conclusion) is "logically necessary", is to say if some statement is true (usually referred to as a premise), then the conclusion m e conclusion of a "good" inductive argument does not follow "necessarily".
have seemly all your ducks in a row so to speak? I can give several
true statements and still come up with the wrong 'logical necessity'
so to speak, for example:
5 pennies make a nickel
2 nickel makes a dime
10 pennies make a dime
Wouldn't now a false statement be, all pennies are worth less than
a dime? Even though my first three points were all true?
Can’t we just simply miss a point through this process and end up
thinking X is true when in fact it really isn’t? I’m sure there is more
than likely a word to describe what I just said, besides comparing
apples to oranges. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderI actually agree with you on that , it's sometimes best to reserve judgement on things. I can see where you are coming from. But for the purposes of debate is it not useful to speculate? You are saying it is not possible to know if eternity is real or not, to which I would agree , but sometimes making logical guesses on what is likely is rational. You might say concerning God " we just don't know" , but this would make you an agnostic would it not? Science itself is in the bussiness of making reasonable guesses based on what we already know. It all depends where your starting point is. Is truth knowable or not?
Sometimes the words "I don't know" are the most rational you can ever utter.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA very interesting line of reasoning, but this doesn't suggest there is a creator any more than it suggests that there is a cause for the existence of things that we either do not yet know, or are incapable of comprehending.
Atheists claim that there is insufficient evidence for belief in a creator. Does the existence of things constitute at least partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?
Being an Atheist, as far as i am concerned, is being comfortable with 'Not knowing'. An atheist is a person with the absense of a belief system. Quizing an athiest foir their beliefs is counter productive, as no two atheists are likely to have the same belief. There is no church of the Atheist where all atheists recieve training in a belief, so looking for such a belief is like looking for something that doesn't exist.
So, in answer to your question above, no - there is not sufficient evidence for belief in a creator. The existence of things suggests an ultimate cause, or beginning, but does nothing to suggest devine creation what so ever. Being an Atheist, after all, is only believing that the Universe wasn't created by a God. Therefore, the only correct way to look at the beginning of the Universe from an Atheists perspective, is to take an inverted perspective to that of a person of faith. Nothing more.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGuess you can't read.
Or, as the phrase is more commonly known, "three words No1 will never utter."
EDIT: Stupidity like yours really annoys me; to try to get a pithy one liner you're willing to fundamentally lie about my positions. Since I've stated many times on this forum that I am an agnostic, "I don't know" is pretty much my spirituality credo (though I'm starting to like the concept of the Tao and pantheism more and more).
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are misunderstanding my "problem of evil" as some sort of General Argument From Evil/GAFE (which has been widely discussed in these forums). As stated before, pantheism makes no OOO (the three omni's) claims, so it should not be confused as such. It is merely an attempt to reconcile the pantheistic worldview with the resident reality of good and evil.
I'm sorry, but I find your objection incoherent. I also find your answer to BDN to be flippant. I don't see any "problem of evil from a pantheistic view" mainly because the "Argument from Evil" that has been discussed so often in this forum does not apply to pantheism. Nor do I understand why you seem to think it should.
If it is true as the pantheistic view claims, that "all is one" and "all is God", then any meaningful moral distinction between good and evil disappears, for God is both good and evil, life and death, love and hatred; World War I & II, Hitler, murder, rape, cancer, HPV, and the like are merely manifestations of God.
How can God be both good and evil? I'm afraid Bosse's “dualistic” view smacks of polytheism rather than pantheism. Two equal yet opposite forces locked in eternal conflict? What gives the one credence over the other? Why even bother to choose? This leaves me feeling ethically dissatisfied to say the least.
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're approaching a pantheistic view from a theist perspective. To you, the "solution" to the existence of "evil" has to be some all-powerful, "good" deity (who for some odd reason decided to create a universe with LOTS of evil built into it) v. a minor, "bad" semi-Deity who the "good" deity truimphs over in the end. This might make a decent old Western with the characters wearing the appropriate hats, but makes a rather incoherent view of the universe.
You are misunderstanding my "problem of evil" as some sort of General Argument From Evil/GAFE (which has been widely discussed in these forums). As stated before, pantheism makes no OOO (the three omni's) claims, so it should not be confused as such. It is merely an attempt to reconcile the pantheistic worldview with the resident reality of good and evil. ...[text shortened]... even bother to choose? This leaves me feeling ethically dissatisfied to say the least.
Pantheists do make moral distinctions of good and evil. In effect, you are simply shifting the unwarranted claim that theists have made here many times against atheists to pantheists i.e. that they have no standards of morality. The non-existence of a Big Daddy God looking down at us with disapproval and severely punishing transgressions of this or that moral code based on his infinite whim does not remove the Natural Law of the universe. It merely removes the shelter of an arbitrary creation like the theist God and "Cuz God says so" to hide behind.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I am approaching it from a theistic perspective, you are doing it from a deistic one. A pantheistic natural law? Are you implying a creator? Interesting. I'd like to see a Taoist "thou shalt not".
You're approaching a pantheistic view from a theist perspective. To you, the "solution" to the existence of "evil" has to be some all-powerful, "good" deity (who for some odd reason decided to create a universe with LOTS of evil built into it) v. a minor, "bad" semi-Deity who the "good" deity truimphs over in the end. This might make a decent old Western ...[text shortened]... of an arbitrary creation like the theist God and "Cuz God says so" to hide behind.
I guess you didn't get the memo: theists don't have to argue that this is the best of all possible worlds; they merely contend that this is the best way to the best of all possible worlds.
Originally posted by HalitoseI realize it's hard for you to shuck the blinders. This paragraph from the Pantheism site sums up my general view in a nutshell (no creator needed):
If I am approaching it from a theistic perspective, you are doing it from a deistic one. A pantheistic natural law? Are you implying a creator? Interesting. I'd like to see a Taoist "thou shalt not".
I guess you didn't get the memo: theists don't have to argue that this is the best of all possible worlds; they merely contend that this is the best way to the best of all possible worlds.
Pantheism leaves the option between ethical naturalism and ethical nonnaturalism open. For the pantheist, though perhaps not for the theist, value-properties and predicates may be empirical or natural, or supervene upon natural properties, even if they are not entailed by such properties. So pantheists may be ethical naturalists. This may be the case even if assertions containing value predicates are not taken to be empirically verifiable in any straightforward way as they often are for naturalism. Such value-predicates are not "empirical" in a narrow sense in which facts in the physical or even psychological sciences are empirical; but neither are they facts about some transcendent reality. Pantheism may, in a sense, deny the existence of any properties that are not "natural." It depends on how much one is willing to broaden one's notion of "natural."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
Originally posted by no1marauderIn effect, you are simply shifting the unwarranted claim that theists have made here many times against atheists to pantheists i.e. that they have no standards of morality.
You're approaching a pantheistic view from a theist perspective. To you, the "solution" to the existence of "evil" has to be some all-powerful, "good" deity (who for some odd reason decided to create a universe with LOTS of evil built into it) v. a minor, "bad" semi-Deity who the "good" deity truimphs over in the end. This might make a decent old Western ...[text shortened]... of an arbitrary creation like the theist God and "Cuz God says so" to hide behind.
Strawman. The claim is not that atheists/pantheists have no morals, but rather that morality isn't dictated by their belief systems. Pantheism seems to even discourage it in my view, since how could you morally judge/question God?