Reason and faith???

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Reading Gibbon?

No. Though I am certain that I could find appropriate source material if you really want me to blither at you.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
No. Though I am certain that I could find appropriate source material if you really want me to blither at you.

Go ahead. I always respect a decent bibliography.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Go ahead. I always respect a decent bibliography.

www.google.com

Knock yourself out.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
www.google.com

Knock yourself out.

Do you actually want to support your claim that Christianity was a cause in the fall of the Roman Empire? Or are you just going to engage in shadow boxing?

For all the stick we Christians get about being illogical, we're not the ones who think that wit equals proof.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you actually want to support your claim that Christianity was a cause in the fall of the Roman Empire? Or are you just going to engage in shadow boxing?

For all the stick we Christians get about being illogical, we're not the ones who think that wit equals proof.

My primary point was not intended to be that Christianity contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire. My frustration evolves from the fact that just like Marauder and some of the other monkeys, you take a close minded approach to any discussion and delight in eroding the arguments of others for no good reason.

May I make a suggestion, I think this forum would be infinitely more interesting if, instead of irrational debates, some exploration of spirtual truth was focused on. This can easily, and prefarably, be made non demoninational. Leave religious doctrine at the door and explore personal spiritual experiences. Focus on what practices lead to a good life, harmony and hopefully hapiness. Humor has a place in spirituality even if you would rather it didn't.

My previous post follows for your review.
Come on Powershaker!?! I try to stay out of the Spirituality arguments as these debates go nowhere and I find I can't learn anything from the such blind devotion to one side or another. No one here seems to be truly interested in the Spiritual growth of anyone else, just fixated on their own perception of the truth.

My comment is that you can't assume something is true to prove its true, this is circular reasoning. You can't assume Jesus has moved men's hearts to prove that he has. This is faulty critical thinking.

Plus, men fight and die for trivial crap all the time: drugs, oil, money, women, land, poverty, starvation, taxes, greed, politics... For example, I would hazard a guess that a good many men have died for political reasons. Using your argument as a model, a conjecture could be made that not only do politicians not lie, but, they are somehow divine for bringing war to the world. From what I have read, Jesus and his followers were politicians of the first order. Hell they brought the Roman Empire to its knees and ultimately dominated the Western world for 2000 years.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but, please, I'm begging you, cease and desist with the circular arguments your frigging killing me.

Originally posted by dottewell
I'm sorry, but this just seems like your usual mix of jargon-laden, dodgy reasoning.

You can't use an analogy with logic. The reason you can't "prove logic is true" (or false) is that it is "built in", as it were; it is part of the framework we operate in. The same is not true of God.

You also say that to prove the existence of God would require "a p on't know. Should we? No. That's copping out; it's not what we are here for.

Originally posted by dottewell
... If God came to me in my bedroom and explained himself, did a couple of impressive miracles, etc., I would consider him to have "proved" his existence.

Would it really? Honestly, if I saw someone do something that seemed to defy the laws of physics, I'd assume it was a magic trick or illusion. Since I bet your even more skeptical than I am, I bet even a personal appearance by God, with some miracles thrown in, would really to convince you - much less prove to you God exists.

Originally posted by dottewell
... can we have good reasons for believing (or not-believing) in God? This is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of weighing evidence and arguments.

Evidence is all around you. All of nature and the universe is evidence of God. Your mind is evidence of God. The Bible is evidence. The problem isn't a lack of evidence or good reasons. But the evidence is insufficient to prove God does or does not exist. If one assumes for the sake of argument that God exists, that explains a lot of what we see and think. And if one assumes that God does not exist, then evolution seems to be the most likely explanation. I think the evidence leans towards God, but I'm probably not an unbiased observer. 🙂 Then again, who is?

Originally posted by dottewell
Can I prove that there are no green elephants living inside the sun? No. Are there green elephants living inside the sun? No.

The analogy is a strawman. There is no evidence for green elephants in the sun. There is plenty of evidence for God.

Originally posted by dottewell
Your argument from the existence of the Bible is obvious question-begging.

Only if I said it proved God's exists. I never said the the Bible is proof that God exists: I only said it was evidence for God's existence. The Bible would not be evidence against God's existence.

Originally posted by dottewell
The "apparent moral order" could be explained in a variety of ways that do not require God.

I agree. But the fact that there are a "variety of ways" just show that none of those other ways can disprove God exist. Rather it shows the it is another piece of evidence for God. You can explain the evidence in many ways. God just happens to be one of the better explanations in my opinion.

Originally posted by dottewell
Can we chose to believe whatever we want? I don't know. Should we? No. That's copping out; it's not what we are here for.

I agree, that's not what we're here for. But if we have any purpose for being here, then there must something that is external to man. There has to be some kind of over-arching will that is independent of man to determine that purpose. Otherwise, there is no purpose we have in common. Purpose is whatever we feel like, and no one has the authority to say man in general has a purpose.

Originally posted by Coletti

Originally posted by dottewell
[b]... If God came to me in my bedroom and explained himself, did a couple of impressive miracles, etc., I would consider him to have "proved" his existence.

Would it really? Honestly, if I saw someone do something that seemed to defy the laws of physics, I'd assume it was a magic trick or illusion. ...[text shortened]... we feel like, and no one has the authority to say man in general has a purpose.[/b]

You seem to have missed the point of the first point of my post, which was not that there was (or was not) evidence for the existence of God.

The point is that the question whether God exists is a perfectly reasonable one which we can indeed assess. Simply saying we can't "prove" it either way is irrelevant. We can have good reasons to believe, or not to believe, in God.

The Bible is not even evidence for God's existence, unless you beg the question.

No, of course other means of explaining morality do not "disprove God exists". But they show there are other perfectly reasonable explanations for our apparent moral order.

In other words, you need better evidence for the existence of God.

Finally, you say: "If we have any purpose to for being here, then there must be something that is external to man... some kind of over-arching will. Otherwise there is no purpose we have in common."

I refer you back to the possibility of secular morality, which is not just simply a matter of judging actions right or wrong. It also about living an individual and collective life of virtue.

Originally posted by dottewell
You seem to have missed the point of the first point of my post, which was not that there was (or was not) evidence for the existence of God.

The point is that the question whether God exists is a perfectly reasonable one which we can indeed assess. Simply saying we can't "prove" it either way is irrelevant. We can have good reasons to believe, or not t ...[text shortened]... ctions right or wrong. It also about living an individual and collective life of virtue.

Not to be quarrelsome...

Said virtues and morals must be based upon something. Forget morals for the moment, and instead consider beauty. Joe considers B beautiful because B agrees with one or more of his standards.

For instance, we can all agree that at some point or another, Mariah Carey is beautiful. One may like her singing voice. Another may like her delivery. Another her life story. Another her outlook on life. Another may appreciate the fullness of her lips. Another the fullness of her, uh, can and/or other physical assets. What may repel one person may attract another. One may find all other aspects of her being repulsive, save one which they find beautiful insofar as that one aspect agrees with their norms and standards for that aspect externally from her.

Even if there is not complete agreement with their external source of measurement (standard), beauty can be acknowledged for those areas of agreement.

In a similar manner, morals and virtues necessitate an immovable standard to vouchsafe their existence. Without an external source against which to compare the moral/virtue any such held belief is purely subjective and transient, and as such, self-contradictory. It is akin to saying, "Nothing is always."

Originally posted by dottewell
...The Bible is not even evidence for God's existence, unless you beg the question.

No, of course other means of explaining morality do not "disprove God exists". But they show there are other perfectly reasonable explanations for our apparent moral order.

In other words, you need better evidence for the existence of God.

Finally, you say: "If we ...[text shortened]... g actions right or wrong. It also about living an individual and collective life of virtue.

Originally posted by dottewell
The Bible is not even evidence for God's existence, unless you beg the question.

You have an unusual definition of "begging the question". What could the Bible be evidence for if not the God of the Bible? Buddha? Zeus? Since the Bible defines who the God of Christianity is, then it may rightly be called evidence for the God of Christianity. Or maybe you would say the Bible is evidence that God is imaginary?!?

Besides, "existence" as a property is meaningless. One might as well say "cats are..." or "love is..." then say "a cat exists" or "love exists". The question should be what is the truest definition of cat, and the truest meaning of love. God is [fill in the blank]. The Bible is evidence that God is [fill in the characteristics of God given in the Bible]. The Koran is evidence that God is [fill in the what the Koran says of God]. The Book of Mormon is evidence that God is.... See the point? God is what? What is the truest definition of God? Is God an omnipotent and omniscient being? Is God a construct of human myths and imagination? Clearly what the Bible is evidence of is God being what the Bible says God is, and not what it doesn't say or the opposite of what it says.

Originally posted by dottewell

No, of course other means of explaining morality do not "disprove God exists". But they show there are other perfectly reasonable explanations for our apparent moral order.

I wouldn't say "perfectly" reasonable, but I agree there are hypothetically reasonable alternative explanations.

Originally posted by dottewell

I refer you back to the possibility of secular morality, which is not just simply a matter of judging actions right or wrong. It also about living an individual and collective life of virtue.

Now here we have "begging the question". How do you define "virtue". Is that somehow unrelated to "right and wrong"?

Originally posted by Coletti

Originally posted by dottewell
[b]The Bible is not even evidence for God's existence, unless you beg the question.

You have an unusual definition of "begging the question". What could the Bible be evidence for if not the God of the Bible? Buddha? Zeus? Since the Bible defines who the God of Christianity is, then it may rightly be o you define "virtue". Is that somehow unrelated to "right and wrong"?[/b]

The Bible, on its own, is evidence for nothing at all.

You are confused when you say "existence as a property is meaningless". Just because existence is not a property in the same way as e.g. being blue, does not mean it is meaningless to ask whether something exists.

I am glad we agree there are other explanations for "moral order".

As I have explained, I see no reason why we cannot say moral facts, facts about virtue, are discovered rather than invented. This is the case with other facts and does not require some agent to have built them into the universe. It is certainly not question-begging to start with (discovered) moral facts and not postulate anything about their cause, rather than work the other way around based on (it seems) nothing more than the existence of the bible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to be quarrelsome...

Said virtues and morals must be based upon something. Forget morals for the moment, and instead consider beauty. Joe considers B beautiful because B agrees with one or more of his standards.

For instance, we can all agree that at some point or another, Mariah Carey is beautiful. One may like her singing voice. Anot ...[text shortened]... ve and transient, and as such, self-contradictory. It is akin to saying, "Nothing is always."

No; all this necessitates is that there are some facts of the matter. That does not require any external being or agent.

And you are wrong about Mariah Carey. She is hideous.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For instance, we can all agree that at some point or another, Mariah Carey is beautiful. One may like her singing voice. Another may like her delivery. Another her life story. Another her outlook on life. Another may appreciate the fullness of her lips. Another the fullness of her, uh, can and/or other physical assets. What may repel one person may ...[text shortened]... ve and transient, and as such, self-contradictory. It is akin to saying, "Nothing is always."

You start by showing that the measurement of beauty is based on purely subjective and transient attributes and then go on to say that this shows that morals and virtues necessitate an immovable standard to vouchsafe their existence? Where is the logic here? I dont get it at all.

Originally posted by dottewell
The Bible, on its own, is evidence for nothing at all.

You are confused when you say "existence as a property is meaningless". Just because existence is not a property in the same way as e.g. being blue, does not mean it is meaningless to ask whether something exists.

I am glad we agree there are other explanations for "moral order".

As I h ...[text shortened]... work the other way around based on (it seems) nothing more than the existence of the bible.

Just to clarify two points:

The bible on its own is evidence for nothing at all, i.e. a book that describes the activities of a supernatural being is not in itself evidence for the existence of that supernatural being. We read the bible utterly differently if we assume (a) that God exists, or (b) that God does not exist. It should not persuade us to adopt attitude (a) or attitude (b).

The matter of existence, [Ex][bx] where b equals e.g. "is blue", is only true if there actually exists a blue x. So this is far from an irrelevant question.

Originally posted by dottewell

And you are wrong about Mariah Carey. She is hideous.
I should have clarified, "For the heterosexuals..."

You other guys can at least appreciate her costumes, right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You start by showing that the measurement of beauty is based on purely subjective and transient attributes and then go on to say that this shows that morals and virtues necessitate an immovable standard to vouchsafe their existence? Where is the logic here? I dont get it at all.

The subjective and transient attributes were not the point; the external source agreeing with an internal standard was the point.