10 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84Now we're getting into metaphysics and that obscure branch of philosophy. How do you know you're at a computer right now? Can your senses be decieving you? In a dream, you feel with conviction that what is happening is real. Then, when you wake up, you realize that it wasn't. Forget "cogito, ergo sum" and think about your definitions of faith and reality a moment.
NO IT'S NOT! You don't need faith to believe in something that's real. I know I'm looking ay my computer, I don't need faith to tell me that.
Faith is only required when there is no logical grounds to believe in something.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by scherzoWell put!
Now we're getting into metaphysics and that obscure branch of philosophy. How do you know you're at a computer right now? Can your senses be decieving you? In a dream, you feel with conviction that what is happening is real. Then, when you wake up, you realize that it wasn't. Forget "cogito, ergo sum" and think about your definitions of faith and reality a moment.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by scherzoYour presupposition is that it is a necessary condition to know P that one be epistemically certain that P. This presupposition is what informed Descartes' infamous method of doubt employed in The Meditations. Once you give up that presupposition, the mere possibility that you could be mistaken about being at your computer, or about being awake, fails to entail that you don't know that you are at your computer or that you are awake. Anyway, this isn't metaphysics, it's epistemology.
Now we're getting into metaphysics and that obscure branch of philosophy. How do you know you're at a computer right now? Can your senses be decieving you? In a dream, you feel with conviction that what is happening is real. Then, when you wake up, you realize that it wasn't. Forget "cogito, ergo sum" and think about your definitions of faith and reality a moment.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrNote two things that I said in my post:
Your presupposition is that it is a necessary condition to know P that one be epistemically certain that P. This presupposition is what informed Descartes' infamous method of doubt employed in The Meditations. Once you give up that presupposition, the mere possibility that you could be mistaken about being at your computer, or about being awake, fails ...[text shortened]... at your computer or that you are awake. Anyway, this isn't metaphysics, it's epistemology.
#1: Forget "cogito, ergo sum" in this post. It is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with spirituality.
#2: metaphysics and that obscure branch of philosophy, or something like that. This does fall under the category of metaphysics.
11 Dec 07
Noted, but those two points are irrelevant to the content of my post. Nothing in my post is predicated upon the Cogito, nor on Descartes' alleged demonstration that one cannot doubt one's existence. Further, the issues here are primarily epistemological; they are concerned with belief, evidence and knowledge, not with ontology or existence. So, nobody here is "getting into metaphysics" at all. Perhaps you meant epistemology when you made reference to "that obscure branch of philosophy", but then I'd be interested to know why you take epistemology to be obscure. Anyway, the real point of the post is that there is any easy answer to your questions about how your antagonist can know he is at his computer or not dreaming. The answer is that his perceptual states provide him with evidence sufficient unto knowledge that he is in front of his computer and not dreaming. The mere fact that it is logically possible that he is wrong about the accuracy of his perceptions is compatible with this knowledge. To deny this is simply to presume that knowledge is incompatible with the possibility of error; that is, that knowledge requires epistemic certainty. But there is no reason to grant this presumption.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrCorrect. You just proved my point. You cannot presume anything, least of all whether or not some God exists.
To deny this is simply to presume that knowledge is incompatible with the possibility of error; that is, that knowledge requires epistemic certainty. But there is no reason to grant this presumption.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by scherzoThat is so dumb. I am living my life assuming it's not all one big dream, or we'll all put here by aliens. I know Bertrand Russel's proposition: if you sit before a table and close your eyes how can you prove it didn't disapear until your eyes reopened? By your definition everything you know in your entire life requires faith.
Now we're getting into metaphysics and that obscure branch of philosophy. How do you know you're at a computer right now? Can your senses be decieving you? In a dream, you feel with conviction that what is happening is real. Then, when you wake up, you realize that it wasn't. Forget "cogito, ergo sum" and think about your definitions of faith and reality a moment.
If that's your definition of faith then fine, but there are certain degrees of faith. For example, it should take almost no faith to believe I was looking at a computer since I typed something and you responded to it! On the other hand, It requires a MOUNTAIN of faith to believe for no other reason aside from faith alone that some unearthly thing created the world, everything in it, he's watching us, he's everywhere, he can send us to heaven or hell, etc.
In theory the post I thought I wrote could really have been typed by an alien on a blackberry and your post was written by an alien who responded to something I'm reading on someting other than a computer. If someone is willing to make that leap of faith than they can choose to believe in God.
This isn't about an obscure branch of philosophy, only common sense.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84All right.
That is so dumb. I am living my life assuming it's not all one big dream, or we'll all put here by aliens. I know Bertrand Russel's proposition: if you sit before a table and close your eyes how can you prove it didn't disapear until your eyes reopened? By your definition everything you know in your entire life requires faith.
If that's your definiti ...[text shortened]... elieve in God.
This isn't about an obscure branch of philosophy, only common sense.
I rest my case.
The title of the post is correct. Common sense.
3 arguments:
1. If a God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?
2. If a God exists, why didn't He engineer everybody to believe in him from the start?
3. I cite Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by scherzoYour argument applies only if god is real. If god is not real, then anything can apply (thanks to freaky for that concept).
All right.
I rest my case.
The title of the post is correct. Common sense.
3 arguments:
1. If a God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?
2. If a God exists, why didn't He engineer everybody to believe in him from the start?
3. I cite Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able bu ...[text shortened]... e and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThat's my point. That's an argument against the existence of a God. You are free to believe what you want (I don't want to insult any of your beliefs with or without reason), but that's my argument for my belief.
Your argument applies only if god is real. If god is not real, then anything can apply (thanks to freaky for that concept).
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by scherzoIf God is willing to prevent evil then he is willing to prevent his creation from rejecting him. After all, Biblically evil is simply a deviation from God's perfect will that is grounded in love. What then does this make God? Is it not a controlling manipulative task master?
3. I cite Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?[/b]
As far as where evil comes from, it does not exist, rather, it is simply a deviation from what does exist which is God's perfect will.
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodey[FLAME ON]
If God is willing to prevent evil then he is willing to prevent his creation from rejecting him. After all, Biblically evil is simply a deviation from God's perfect will that is grounded in love. What then does this make God? Is it not a controlling manipulative task master?
As far as where evil comes from, it does not exist, rather, it is simply a deviation from what does exist which is God's perfect will.
You're flip-flopping. ðŸ˜
Your argument makes a certain kind of sense. If it's done in the right concept. Earth is no utopia. Look at Iraq. Look at Israel. Look at the White House. I'm not saying God has to control everything in our lives, but couldn't he have engineered us (which he didn't; evolution did0 to be more benevolent? Couldn't he have corrected "Eve's" err in eating the apple for future generations?
As for evil, it does exist, but not purely. It is the balance between good and evil that makes everything what it is, not some obscure nonomnipotent and/or malevolent diety.
[FLAME OFF]