• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The God Question

Angel said:
Then we're both happy. My point, however, carries. There is such a thing as personal knowledge.
Click to expand...

Obviously, we simply disagree on what "Knowledge" entails in this situation as the subject is confused by the definition. Your "Personal" experience in this is useless in global debate and mutual discussion as it is relegated to opinion at the core. Stories and tales fall to the wayside in rational debate once facts come into play because the data is simply unavailable for review.

This is where the Unicorn analogies begin.
 
pinqy said:
Well, that depends on the claim. Life would be really tedious if we had to provide proof for every single thing we did or saw to those not there.I

If I said I had lunch with my brother yesterday, you know that brothers exist and people eat lunch. My claim conforms to known reality, so there's no reason to doubt that I have a brother or ate lunch with him. It could be a lie, but there's no reason to think so. And there's no need for proof unless there was some strong need to verify, such as one of us needing an alibi.

BUT....if you knew my brother lives in the other side of the country, you would have reason to doubt, and consider my claim unlikely unless I could explain that I was there, or he here or us both somewhere else. and if that exp!a nation was reasonable, then again, no need for proof. But if I claimed that we had lunch in Pyongyang, you would rightfully doubt and need evidence to accept as true.

No personal experience can be verified by anyone else, but that doesn't mean they are all equally believable or unbelievable or that all unverified claims need proof to accept.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy.....switch "Brother" with "Santa".
 
tecoyah said:
Obviously, we simply disagree on what "Knowledge" entails in this situation as the subject is confused by the definition. Your "Personal" experience in this is useless in global debate and mutual discussion as it is relegated to opinion at the core. Stories and tales fall to the wayside in rational debate once facts come into play because the data is simply unavailable for review.

This is where the Unicorn analogies begin.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the personal knowledge we're talking around is the most important knowledge there is because it it useful in "global debate and mutual discussion"?
And by the by there is no rational debate by atheism or scientism, and stories and tales are the most important things Mankind possesses.
 
Angel said:
Do you really think the personal knowledge we're talking around is the most important knowledge there is because it it useful in "global debate and mutual discussion"?
And by the by there is no rational debate by atheism or scientism, and stories and tales are the most important things Mankind possesses.
Click to expand...

Considering the fact you are engaging in debate on an internet forum designed to do so in a section delegated to religious discussion and in discussion concerning the existence of God, Yes, in this case it is most important. Also, rational debate is the whole point of "scientism" and Atheism exists because of it. You seem to be again projecting your opinion as fact to derail the rational debate you comment on, which is at a minimum disingenuous and runs counter to useful discussion.
 
tecoyah said:
Considering the fact you are engaging in debate on an internet forum designed to do so in a section delegated to religious discussion and in discussion concerning the existence of God, Yes, in this case it is most important. Also, rational debate is the whole point of "scientism" and Atheism exists because of it. You seem to be again projecting your opinion as fact to derail the rational debate you comment on, which is at a minimum disingenuous and runs counter to useful discussion.
Click to expand...
Then you're kidding yourself if that's what you think.
And enlighten me then: What is the rational argument of atheism or scientism on behalf of atheism or scientism? I must have missed that in the two years I've been listening to atheist and scientismist talking points.
 
Angel said:
Then you're kidding yourself if that's what you think.
And enlighten me then: What is the rational argument of atheism or scientism on behalf of atheism or scientism? I must have missed that in the two years I've been listening to atheist and scientismist talking points.
Click to expand...

Rationally, when hundreds of things in a group claim to be the only one in the group they cannot be accurate. When they are confronted with this and then claim they are actually only one thing but continue to act as separate things they are seen as dishonest by the rational mind. When these hundreds are also mute and must rely on the voices of disperate millions to speak for them and those millions disagree on what was said the rational mind must dismiss what is stated as inaccurate. Scientifically there is a need for data to review and evaluate which is completely missing from any God hypothesis, rendering the process impossible to progress so Atheism is the rational and logical position until or unless data comes to light for review. Opinion is simply not sufficient in science without the possibility of minimal evaluation.
 
tecoyah said:
Poor analogy.....switch "Brother" with "Santa".
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the likelihood a brother existing is the same as the likelihood of Santa existing? You’ve never met anyone who has a brother? The concept of a woman having two or more children, at least one of which is a boy is foreign to you?

“I had lunch with my brother” is a reasonable claim. “I had lunch with Santa Claus” is not.
So you changed the parameters of my example into the exact opposite, and claim the example is wrong?
 
Angel said:
My belief is justified true belief, yes. Your scientific petticoats are showing with that demonstration business.
Click to expand...

Well, the criterion that the thing has to actually be true is still firmly philosophy.

That all swans are white was believed by many people, the belief was completely reasonable, based on inductive logo, and if you asked, people would have said they knew that all swans were white.
But they didn’t know that because it is not true.

So you could not claim knowledge that your god exists unless your god actually exists.

Therefore, unless it can somehow be confirmed your god exists, your claim (or anyone’s) does not meet the criterion of actually being true.

And that is still philosophy, not science.
 
Elvira said:
gods, yes...Jehovah God, no...
Click to expand...

6 of one, half dozen of the other, as nobody knows what God is for certain - if God is. All that's left are the stories.


OM
 
pinqy said:
You are claiming that the likelihood a brother existing is the same as the likelihood of Santa existing? You’ve never met anyone who has a brother? The concept of a woman having two or more children, at least one of which is a boy is foreign to you?

“I had lunch with my brother” is a reasonable claim. “I had lunch with Santa Claus” is not.
So you changed the parameters of my example into the exact opposite, and claim the example is wrong?
Click to expand...

The original basis of you Bother example was God so Santa is fitting.
 
Omega Man said:
Nobody knowing for certain, that is, lack of proof, has nothing to do with speaking for myself.


OM
Click to expand...

Sure it does...there are many things in this world a person can know for sure without another knowing...it's called life experiences...
 
Elvira said:
Sure it does...there are many things in this world a person can know for sure without another knowing...it's called life experiences...
Click to expand...

Faith and certainty are antonymous.


OM
 
Elvira said:
Not true...feed your faith and doubts will starve to death...Hebrews 11:1...
Click to expand...

All that does is implore believers (not "knowers") to sustain themselves on faith. The FACT remains, faith and certainty are antonymous. It's called "faith" for a reason. Having a *strong belief* in something, is not the same as certainty. Sorry.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
All that does is implore believers (not "knowers") to sustain themselves on faith. The FACT remains, faith and certainty are antonymous. It's called "faith" for a reason. Having a *strong belief* in something, is not the same as certainty. Sorry.


OM
Click to expand...

Yes, it is...sorry...
 
Elvira said:
Yes, it is...sorry...
Click to expand...

That is where you're wrong, by description even. Question: Do you possess faith? If so... why? Because it is only a strong belief in something that you cannot otherwise prove. You can *feel* that you are certain, but you do not in fact possess certainty. With certainty, who needs faith?

Sorry, that's just how it works. That's not an opinion.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
That is where you're wrong, by description even. Question: Do you possess faith? If so... why? Because it is only a strong belief in something that you cannot otherwise prove. You can *feel* that you are certain, but you do not in fact possess certainty. With certainty, who needs faith?

Sorry, that's just how it works. That's not an opinion.


OM
Click to expand...

Sure it is...it is your opinion...
 
Elvira said:
I do because I know they are real...see how that works?
Click to expand...

Except that doesn't work. You have faith because you BELIEVE they are real. THAT is faith. That is how that works.


OM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom