Today on secular outpost. The topic was actually them trying to get William Lane Craig for the 40th time this week. This little exchange just fell into place. I don't think it even needs commentary.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/03/05/william-lane-craigs-logic-lesson/#disqus_thread
Cygnus • 2 days ago
Yes, there seems to be a contradiction between the proposition, "I disbelieve the claim that God exists" while saying "God is a meaningless and incoherent concept". In the end one, who wold like to entertain the idea of "God", would ask: "Do you believe God exists or that it *is* a meaningless and incoherent concept?"
Nice conundrum :)I tried to bring some logic in a domain where logic doesn't apply: religion. So I made that proposition: "God = is", then ask if that proposition is true or false. It is an equation. Solve for x, where x is what is yet to be know about God:
Godx = is
x = is/God, but then you'll get a division by zero :)
Joe Hinman Cygnus • 2 days ago
see moreIf no theist can put the money where the mouth is, thus they cannot support their claim about the existence of God, why even consider their claim about the existence of God?...
circular reasoning. how do you know no theist can make good the claim if you don't bother to check out the claims? You can never say :why even consider the claim." After all You have not read my book.I have data not known to the theological communityIt is not the evidence "against" theism, it's only that theists ask for evidence against their claims about God existence, and all what they get is disbelief.Not all theists do that just the one's who don't understand argument.What can still entertain theists are those who have time to waste into bringing arguments for why they don't believe theistic claims about the existence of God.If you are entertained by wastes of Time you must love Barker and Victer StingerI don't find your last logic coherent. Why can't I disbelieve that God exists when a theist cannot support his/her claim about the existence of God?You can disbelieve anything you wish but you can't pin it on lack of proof. a lack of proof is not warrant for non- existence it's merely a failure to warrant belief.God, after all, is a meaningless, incoherent, disputable, and even a false concept that grasp at straws to be proven true just because one can say "God".O do go on. Can I trouble you for a reason?are you the Cygnus who used to Post on CARAM a long time ago back in the turn of the century?
Cygnus Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
"You can disbelieve anything you wish but you can't pin it on lack of proof. a lack of proof is not warrant for non- existence it's merely a failure to warrant belief."
===
Lack of proof from the side of those making unsubstantiated claims warrants the success of disbelief.
Joe Hinman Cygnus • a day ago
Proof is unnecessary, warrant is"substantiation. Don't need to believe what is proved. Don't need to prove to believe warrant is justification.'
Cygnus Joe Hinman • 14 hours ago
If proof of God existence is unnecessary, then claims about God existence are not even claims, just expression of delusions.
Joe Hinman Cygnus • 29 minutes ago
False. We all partially proven hypotheses all the time. Warrant warrants belief. It can't be a delusion if it's warranted proof is not warrant. Read Stephen Toolman
Ryan M Cygnus • 13 hours ago
He means to say that proof of theism is not necessary to have justified belief that God exists. In general this is correct. Proofs are rarely required outside of mathematics. I disagree that good arguments for theism are not required for justified belief that God exists, but I also disagree that assuming the opposite implies God does not exist as you seem to imply by calling the expressions "delusions".
Cygnus Ryan M • 11 hours ago
You're still mixing what *is* with what is claimed that *is*
Nobody is talking about what *is* just what is claimed as *is* and the fact that that claim about what *is* is made by appealing to delusions, and yes, it cannot be denied that delusions exist.
Joe Hinman Cygnus • 25 minutes ago
Your use of the term delusion is Orwellian,. What you mean by it is "boo that." You have no clinical diagnosis and I dae you to get one because they studies show those who have religious experiences are more self actualized that those who don't. Self actualized precludes delusional states.
Joe Hinman Cygnus • 2 days ago
I don't find your last logic coherent. Why can't I disbelieve that God exists when a theist cannot support his/her claim about the existence of God? God, after all, is a meaningless, incoherent, disputable, and even a false concept that grasp at straws to be proven true just because one can say "God".
I can. you did say "or inductive" 200 studies ispretty inductive. you are not attacking belief I understand,but your statement is dismissing warranted that we do have.
...
I have a rational warrant for belief. zit is backed by 200 studies.
Cygnus Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
I never said that I disbelieve that God exists, I said that I disbelieve the claims about God existence.
When you claim X exists, but you have no way to substantiate your claim, why would it be wrong not to believe X exists?
Joe Hinman Cygnus • a day ago
I told you I have substantiated itd my claims. a vast body of empirical research supports my major God arguments.
Tje Trace of God on
Amazon., by Me.
Cygnus Joe Hinman • 13 hours ago
Too bad that a vast body of empirical research you wish to support your major God arguments is waste of time and space. The arguments are not credible nor testable, just bad placed faith.
Joe Hinman Cygnus • 23 minutes ago
too bad you have never heard of begging the question cause you are doing it. you are not even jugging the book by it's cover. You are judging it by it's topic. In fact it has a cool cover so feel free to judge it by that.
Cygnus Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
Substantiate the claim that God exists. If I claim that a horse exists and you ask me to substantiate that claim, do you want me to ask you back: "What do you mean by substantiate?"
Joe Hinman Cygnus • a day ago
It wouldn't hurt. Always a good idea to know what we're talking about.
...most complete grouping of evidence with statements opf my argument is in my book The trace of God Rational Warrant for Belief by joesph Hinman.l on Amazon
...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Trac...
;;;If you want to discuss it more thoughly I;m doing some articles on it on my blog.
...
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/...
...
Part 2
...
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/...
Cygnus Joe Hinman • 13 hours ago
Saying about faith that it is "rationally warranted" is simply saying that anything can be rationally warranted no matter how absurd, incoherent or nonsensical whatever you come up with is.
Joe Hinman Cygnus • 20 minutes ago
No it's not it's saying that I have empirical data that substantiates my reasoning. I think this on is called poising the well. Before you even know what I would argue you have decided it's not good.
\
No comments:
Post a Comment