Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on October 05, 2021, 07:14:29 PM
-
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/alice-cooper-people-avoid-believing-in-jesus-because-they-dont-want-to-give-up-their-godship.html
-
The unfounded assertion of truth in your thread title is excellent work. Misleading. Untrue. But excellent. Gold star.
-
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/alice-cooper-people-avoid-believing-in-jesus-because-they-dont-want-to-give-up-their-godship.html
This is you back to telling people who don't believe in 'god' that they are lying. Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn!
-
Not only does Alice Cooper detect Goddodging he has a theory for it. I would say that God certainly challenges the ego for the highest place in the concerns of the self having found myself Goddodging.
-
Not only does Alice Cooper detect Goddodging he has a theory for it. I would say that God certainly challenges the ego for the highest place in the concerns of the self having found myself Goddodging.
I would suggest that a theory that you are right because you are you, as you have done here is a claim to some form of 'godship'
-
Not only does Alice Cooper detect Goddodging he has a theory for it. I would say that God certainly challenges the ego for the highest place in the concerns of the self having found myself Goddodging.
Strikes me that it is the religious people with the ego. They can't believe they stop. So they invent an afterlife in the sunlit uplands.
We all know how evasive they can be. Or as recent experience has shown, non-existent.
-
Don't believe in the mythic Jesus on the basis of the story of the mythic Jesus being unbelievable. I like some of Alice Cooper's music, but his understanding of the nature of unbelief is... lacking?
Not believing isn't an active pursuit, you don't choose to not believe, you just hear the claim and it doesn't carry enough weight...
O.
-
I would suggest that a theory that you are right because you are you, as you have done here is a claim to some form of 'godship'
I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here?
-
Strikes me that it is the religious people with the ego.
We all have an ego. And for many there is nothing they esteem more even to the point of acting as if there is no God even though they don't know there isn't. The giveaway is the reluctance even to contemplate the existence of a sentient perfection They can't believe they stop.
That is a caricature. I think it's because people in the presence of God realise they are not who they thought they were, i.e. the hero of there own story So they invent an afterlife in the sunlit uplands.
If when I say the afterlife isn't the motivator for some committing to God through Jesus Christ, you can say subconsciously it is, then I am allowed to say that people are subconsciously Dodging God.
-
Why is Vlad suddenly so obsessed with God dogging?
-
Why is Vlad suddenly so obsessed with God dogging?
He's got his websites mixed up.
-
We all have an ego. And for many there is nothing they esteem more even to the point of acting as if there is no God even though they don't know there isn't. The giveaway is the reluctance even to contemplate the existence of a sentient perfection That is a caricature. I think it's because people in the presence of God realise they are not who they thought they were, i.e. the hero of there own story If when I say the afterlife isn't the motivator for some committing to God through Jesus Christ, you can say subconsciously it is, then I am allowed to say that people are subconsciously Dodging God.
From my teens to my 40th year I contemplated and searched for "sentient perfection", even on occasion believing I'd had strong evidence of its existence - both from study and personal experience.
I eventually realised that this was all a wild goose-chase.
-
From my teens to my 40th year I contemplated and searched for "sentient perfection", even on occasion believing I'd had strong evidence of its existence - both from study and personal experience.
I eventually realised that this was all a wild goose-chase.
My experience was of my attention being arrested by Christianity but it sounds that you started your search from a different place. Why did you start your search in the first place, what was it that attracted you to the notion of God as something worth pursuing?
-
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/alice-cooper-people-avoid-believing-in-jesus-because-they-dont-want-to-give-up-their-godship.html
Oh dear - yet another christian hectoring the rest of us about what we are doing wrong ... yawn.
And in this case a washed up old rocker - why should we take any notice of what he has to say about the way we choose to live our lives and what we believe or do not believe. Frankly he has no idea what I (or I suspect anyone else on this forum) believes or does not believe, nor why we have come to those choices.
For the record - I think 'School's out for summer' is great.
-
My experience was of my attention being arrested by Christianity but it sounds that you started your search from a different place. Why did you start your search in the first place, what was it that attracted you to the notion of God as something worth pursuing?
No - my search in my early teens began with Christianity (albeit in a sect). Later, My search widened, before returning to Christianity during a very painful period. That was yet again abortive. I didn't abandon 'theism' as a possibility before finally giving it all up as a bad job.
Christian culture- music architecture and art, of course, remains important to me.
Oh yes, I felt a 'god shaped hole' in my life. I've learned to live with that. It's not difficult. All you have to do is adopt a philosophy of 'shit happens'. And sometimes good things happen too.
-
No - my search in my early teens began with Christianity (albeit in a sect). Later, My search widened, before returning to Christianity during a very painful period. That was yet again abortive. I didn't abandon 'theism' as a possibility before finally giving it all up as a bad job.
Christian culture- music architecture and art, of course, remains important to me.
Oh yes, I felt a 'god shaped hole' in my life. I've learned to live with that. It's not difficult. All you have to do is adopt a philosophy of 'shit happens'. And sometimes good things happen too.
I think finding you have a god shaped hole to be spiritually significant. How for instance does one know the hole to be God shaped without a knowledge of God?
Was it this discovery that motivated the search?
-
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/alice-cooper-people-avoid-believing-in-jesus-because-they-dont-want-to-give-up-their-godship.html
On what basis should we assume that Mr Furnier's views are in any sense authoritative?
-
On what basis should we assume that Mr Furnier's views are in any sense authoritative?
They aren't.
He is perfectly entitled to speak about his own faith and his own faith journey with obvious authority. However he has no authority when he starts to tell others who have come to a different conclusion that they are somehow wrong on a matter or belief nor does he have any authority to indicate he knows why they have come to that conclusion.
So Alice Cooper is no more authoritative in terms of defining what I believe (or don't believe) and why, that I have in terms of defining what he believes (or don't believe) and why.
The difference is, of course, that he, as a famous person, can snap his fingers and get christian evangelist media to act as a willing mouthpiece for his views. I have no such privilege.
-
He does seem a tad confused, or is it deluded. He says:
“[Jesus] the most written about character of all time in history, and yet people go out of their way to not believe in Him.”
So apparently despite the fact that people are ramming Jesus down people's throats all the time many don't believe the claims Cooper blames the listeners. Perhaps if you are constantly telling people something but they don't believe you it is a problem with the message - that it is simply unbelievable, and that is why people don't believe it.
-
He does seem a tad confused, or is it deluded. He says:
“[Jesus] the most written about character of all time in history, and yet people go out of their way to not believe in Him.”
So apparently despite the fact that people are ramming Jesus down people's throats all the time many don't believe the claims Cooper blames the listeners. Perhaps if you are constantly telling people something but they don't believe you it is a problem with the message - that it is simply unbelievable, and that is why people don't believe it.
It also confuses historicity with divinity
-
It also confuses historicity with divinity
He is falling into the classic trope of thinking that if you shout louder and more often that people will believe you. Standard modus operandum for christianity over the years. Why they've got away with it in the past is firstly by getting their claws into kids at a young and impressionably age sufficiently that they see christianity as simply something that they are by upbringing. Plus of course a healthy dollup of authoritarianism and threat.
But in many countries both of those elements are falling away, both due to freedom of religion (and freedom not to be religious), plus a broader and more balanced upbringing for many kids that doesn't bring up kids to be a specific religion, but recognises they can make their own choices. And guess what happens - in their droves kids and the adults they become go 'sure I know you keep ramming this christianity down my throat, but I just don't believe it'.
Bottom line - stop blaming individuals for not believing, stop blaming the messenger (in other words thinking that if you find some new and different manner to get across the christian message, then everyone will believe it) - start looking at the actual message. For huge numbers of people the reason they don't believe in the claims of christianity is because they are, frankly, unbelievable. No amount of telling us again and again and again, or using shadow puppets, living testimonies or washed up old rockers etc, etc is going to change the fundamental unbelievability of the message.
-
Just an observation that this forum shows abundant examples of non believers "cherry picking" the meagre evidence available to support what they proclaim yet choose to ignore the mountains of evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator and their own spiritual nature.
-
Just an observation that this forum shows abundant examples of non believers "cherry picking" the meagre evidence available to support what they proclaim yet choose to ignore the mountains of evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator and their own spiritual nature.
You have the remarkable ability to pack multiple mistakes into a single sentence, Alan.
All I'm 'proclaiming' is that I'm rejecting all the claims of a 'Creator' or 'spiritual nature' that I've encountered to date since the "mountains of evidence" that you cite turns out to be fallacious and/or incoherent. I offer no 'evidence' since I don't need to: all I need do is offer grounds to reject the claims made by the likes of yourself.
The burden of proof here isn't mine - it's yours.
-
You have the remarkable ability to pack multiple mistakes into a single sentence, Alan.
All I'm 'proclaiming' is that I'm rejecting all the claims of a 'Creator' or 'spiritual nature' that I've encountered to date since the "mountains of evidence" that you cite turns out to be fallacious and/or incoherent. I offer no 'evidence' since I don't need to: all I need do is offer grounds to reject the claims made by the likes of yourself.
The burden of proof here isn't mine - it's yours.
And again Gordon, where is the evidence for your philosophical empiricism?
-
I think finding you have a god shaped hole to be spiritually significant. How for instance does one know the hole to be God shaped without a knowledge of God?
Was it this discovery that motivated the search?
It's just a Christian cliche. Its general meaning would be that desire for life to have some ultimate meaning which somehow includes us personally. Some people feel this very keenly, others less so. The French atheist biochemist Jacques Monod seemed to suggest it was universal, but added that the idea that there is no 'ultimate meaning' is an uncomfortable truth humanity is just going to have to learn to live with. Well, I've been living with this idea for a long time now, and it's not so uncomfortable. You're just left with life and all its pains and pleasures, and maybe what Dawkins called "A sense of wonder"
-
And again Gordon, where is the evidence for your philosophical empiricism?
So we can add 'philosophical empiricism' to the list of terms that you routinely mangle.
-
I think finding you have a god shaped hole to be spiritually significant. How for instance does one know the hole to be God shaped without a knowledge of God?
Weirdly what you find is that people brought up in a christian tradition tend to find they have a 'christian-god-shaped hole', people brought up in a hindu tradition tend to find they have a 'hindu-god-shaped hole', those brought up in a ancient greek tradition (obviously millennia ago, so wouldn't have been ancient to them) tend to find they have a 'greek-gods-shaped hole'. And even more significantly, people who have never encountered christianity never wake up one day and find they have a 'christian-god-shaped hole' despite the fact that the christian god could surely talk to them directly. And the same is true for other religions.
What does this tell us - well that the notion of gods is always transmitted via people and via societal/cultural norms and expectations. So either god (or gods) are very, very shy or they are the product of human creation.
-
So we can add 'philosophical empiricism' to the list of terms that you routinely mangle.
Feel free to tell us howI am mangling philosophical empiricism.
-
I think finding you have a god shaped hole
Has this got something to do with the God dogging you keep banging on about?
Anyway, I've heard of this God shaped hole before. I guess it's analogous to the hole left when you have a tumour surgically removed. It's a hole but it's better than what was there before.
-
He does seem a tad confused, or is it deluded. He says:
“[Jesus] the most written about character of all time in history, and yet people go out of their way to not believe in Him.”
So apparently despite the fact that people are ramming Jesus down people's throats all the time many don't believe the claims Cooper blames the listeners. Perhaps if you are constantly telling people something but they don't believe you it is a problem with the message - that it is simply unbelievable, and that is why people don't believe it.
A lot has been written about Harry Potter but I don't believe in him either.
-
mountains of evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator and their own spiritual nature.
Mountains are created by the movement of tectonic plates. There's no room for a god in that process. Similarly, everything I observe in the Universe came about by a process that needs no god. I grant that there is a possibility that a god started the whole thing off in the first place, but everything that has happened since did so via natural processes with no room for any kind of deity.
There is no evidence that confirms the existence of God.
-
It's just a Christian cliche.
Is it? What about ''the Abyss'' of atheist existentialism. Something people like Sartre found in his inner delvings. The abyss is something the french existentialists encountered. Keirkegaard, the father of existentialism treats the encounter differently but then his world view took philosophical empiricism less for granted. Perhaps the atheist existentials thought that the abyss as they called it was unfathomable through mere intellect and therefore missed something. Its general meaning would be that desire for life to have some ultimate meaning which somehow includes us personally.
Forgive me but surely ultimate meaning has to cover everything including us Some people feel this very keenly, others less so. The French atheist biochemist Jacques Monod seemed to suggest it was universal, but added that the idea that there is no 'ultimate meaning' is an uncomfortable truth humanity is just going to have to learn to live with.
But surely only an atheist existentialist approach could really reach this understanding and as I have said I doubt whether that is as thorough as a kierkegardian approach. Well, I've been living with this idea for a long time now, and it's not so uncomfortable.
Do you think you went as far as the french existentialists though to find the full discomfort of the Abyss? You're just left with life and all its pains and pleasures, and maybe what Dawkins called "A sense of wonder"
Maybe Dawkins should explain what he means by that since I find myself in wonder of the atheist existentialist ''Abyss'' although I don't think what they encounter is what they think it is.
-
Just an observation that this forum shows abundant examples of non believers "cherry picking" the meagre evidence available to support what they proclaim yet choose to ignore the mountains of evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator and their own spiritual nature.
Just an observation that this forum shows abundant examples of believers "cherry picking" the meagre evidence available to support what they proclaim yet choose to ignore the fact that there is no evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator.
There you go AB - fixed it for you.
-
Weirdly what you find is that people brought up in a christian tradition tend to find they have a 'christian-god-shaped hole', people brought up in a hindu tradition tend to find they have a 'hindu-god-shaped hole', those brought up in a ancient greek tradition (obviously millennia ago, so wouldn't have been ancient to them) tend to find they have a 'greek-gods-shaped hole'. And even more significantly, people who have never encountered christianity never wake up one day and find they have a 'christian-god-shaped hole' despite the fact that the christian god could surely talk to them directly. And the same is true for other religions.
What does this tell us - well that the notion of gods is always transmitted via people and via societal/cultural norms and expectations. So either god (or gods) are very, very shy or they are the product of human creation.
Since various branches of hindu believe that we are all divine they can't believe that there is a God shaped hole and as i said to Dicky. The God shaped hole has it's homologue in Atheism with Sartre's ''Abyss.'' These facts make your argument seem trivial IMHO.
Besides an old agnostic like me couldn't possibly have had a Christian god shaped hole otherwise you'd have one as well. The shaped hole or abyss is something that one finds through existential examination experience or crisis. There is no evidence as far as I can see of such examination or crises in contemporary atheism hence broad and essentially merely intellectually remote speculation like yours.
-
Is it? What about ''the Abyss'' of atheist existentialism. Something people like Sartre found in his inner delvings. The abyss is something the french existentialists encountered. Keirkegaard, the father of existentialism treats the encounter differently but then his world view took philosophical empiricism less for granted. Perhaps the atheist existentials thought that the abyss as they called it was unfathomable through mere intellect and therefore missed something. Forgive me but surely ultimate meaning has to cover everything including us But surely only an atheist existentialist approach could really reach this understanding and as I have said I doubt whether that is as thorough as a kierkegardian approach. Do you think you went as far as the french existentialists though to find the full discomfort of the Abyss? Maybe Dawkins should explain what he means by that since I find myself in wonder of the atheist existentialist ''Abyss'' although I don't think what they encounter is what they think it is.
Oh yes, I certainly went as far as the French existentialists. I now realise theirs is a very shallow and poorly thought-through philosophy.
-
Oh yes, I certainly went as far as the French existentialists. I now realise theirs is a very shallow and poorly thought-through philosophy.
And I think you've clinched it in calling it a philosophy which I think is the point where they stopped and possibly drew back.
Can you give a deep and well thought through philosophy?
-
Since various branches of hindu believe that we are all divine they can't believe that there is a God shaped hole and as i said to Dicky.
Non-sense, what we are discussing here is a feeling of lacking or not being complete spiritually - the god shaped hole. And the point I was making is that people all around the world may feel this, but almost always they see this lack or non-completeness as being related to the god that resonates culturally, and never to a god they have not been culturally or societally introduced to by other people. That is just as relevant to hindus as to christians.
Besides an old agnostic like me couldn't possibly have had a Christian god shaped hole otherwise you'd have one as well.
Again non-sense, why should I have a christian god shaped hole just because you have one. This feeling of lacking isn't an anatomical feature, it is related to our individual psychology, background and experience.
So an example - for several decades I had a 'choral singing-shaped hole'. Until I was about 20 I sang in choirs all the time I was growing up, but stopped at that age. Decades later I had a kind of yearning for choral singing, somehow realising it was important to me, but various things kept me away. I wasn't good enough, couldn't read music, I didn't have the time, I was frankly a bit scared (sound familiar). Then eventually I bit the bullet, found a choir and took the plunge and have never looked back. I've realised just how important singing is to me, almost spiritually (not that I'd use the term) as it creates an almost visceral and hugely emotional impact on me (unsurpringly as these effects of communal harmony singing have been measured scientifically). So because I had a 'choral singing-shaped hole', does that mean you must have one too? I doubt it.
-
Non-sense, what we are discussing here is a feeling of lacking or not being complete spiritually - the god shaped hole. And the point I was making is that people all around the world may feel this, but almost always they see this lack or non-completeness as being related to the god that resonates culturally, and never to a god they have not been culturally or societally introduced to by other people. That is just as relevant to hindus as to christians.
Again non-sense, why should I have a christian god shaped hole just because you have one.
Without existential examination how will you know. What you say about choir shaped holes is just you trivialising again and that IMHO is merely a nasty personality quirk This feeling of lacking isn't an anatomical feature, it is related to our individual psychology, background and experience.
How then could the first christians have a Christian God shaped hole since they come from a plethora of different religions and none and indeed that has been true for centuries? You are ignoring what you proposed namely the commonality of the experience. Further we are to accept your regional sociological model of religion which is counter to the notion of world faiths? We are now at the point where we can select from the stock of world religions and finally, we have the atheist experience of ''The abyss'' which is the atheist homologue of the shaped hole, It would be interesting to hear your take on that and maybe existentialism in general.
-
How then could the first christians have a Christian God shaped whole [sic] ...
They didn't - they had a 'jewish' god shaped hole which was evolved into a 'christian' god shaped hold by people (early christians) interpreting the views and preaching of another person (Jesus).
-
What you say about choir shaped holes is just you trivialising again ...
How patronising of you. You have no idea how important singing is to me (and to many, many others) - I would suggest it is just as important in terms of emotional wellbeing, fulfilment, community and a range of other elements that people often ascribe as 'spiritual' is just as strong as religion is to many people. Why is this somehow 'second rate' because it doesn't involve a man-made god?
and that IMHO is merely a nasty personality quirk.
Why is enjoying choral singing and finding it personally important to me a 'nasty personal quirk' - you do realise that there are many more people in the UK who regularly participate in and enjoy choral singing in organised choirs than regularly participate in CofE and RCC worship put together. Are all these people suffering from some nasty personality quirk. And there are, of course, plenty who participate in both, include (whisper it quietly) some whose main reason for attending a church service is to participate in singing.
-
How patronising of you. You have no idea how important singing is to me (and to many, many others) - I would suggest it is just as important in terms of emotional wellbeing, fulfilment, community and a range of other elements that people often ascribe as 'spiritual' is just as strong as religion is to many people.Why is this somehow 'second rate' because it doesn't involve a man-made god?
Singing is not necessarily an existential phenomena. That makes it ''inferior'' to existential experience. For instance it is inferior in that sense to the atheists existential experience of the abyss.Why is enjoying choral singing and finding it personally important to me a 'nasty personal quirk'
I never said it was, trivialising is the nasty personal quirk. Any patronising? You started it. - you do realise that there are many more people in the UK who regularly participate in and enjoy choral singing in organised choirs than regularly participate in CofE and RCC worship put together.
Argumentum ad populum.
-
Singing is not necessarily an existential phenomena. That makes it ''inferior'' to existential experience.
But we know and can prove that singing exists and its effects - we cannot do the same for god and indeed there is no evidence for the existence of god or gods - so therefore the notion that god is an 'existential phenomena' is an unevidenced, hand-waving assertion and of course something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So actually until or unless you are able to actually provide some evidence for the existence of god (and therefore that god is an 'existential phenomena') then god doesn't even get on the 'ranking' list of superiority or inferiority. How can something be claimed to be inferior or superior to something else that we now exists unless we can be sure that other thing exists.
-
They didn't - they had a 'jewish' god shaped hole which was evolved into a 'christian' god shaped hold by people (early christians) interpreting the views and preaching of another person (Jesus).
But not just a jewish shaped whole because there were converts from across the roman empire so somehow these God shaped holes became christian God shaped holes something you've already said isn't possible............. unless you accept what you also and self contradictorily proposed, namely the commonality in religions and people.
-
I never said it was, trivialising is the nasty personal quirk.
It can only be trivialising if you consider the importance of singing to people to be inherently inferior to the importance of religion to people, which you doing. But that is, in itself inherently trivialising and patronising.
-
... there were converts from across the roman empire so somehow these God shaped holes became christian God shaped holes ...
And how many of those people instinctively converted to christianity without the transmission of christian beliefs to them by people. Oh yes that would be none. Come on Vlad give me an example of a group of people who spontaneously became christians without being introduced to christianity by people. Surely if the christian god wanted people to believe in him he wouldn't wait for christian missionaries to find tribes and communities in South America, or Southern Africa or Australia, he'd have been straight in there directly so that when the missionaries finally arrived they'd discover these people already worshiping Jesus... Except it never happens - hmm, I wonder why?
-
But we know and can prove that singing exists and its effects - we cannot do the same for god and indeed there is no evidence for the existence of god or gods - so therefore the notion that god is an 'existential phenomena' is an unevidenced, hand-waving assertion and of course something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So actually until or unless you are able to actually provide some evidence for the existence of god (and therefore that god is an 'existential phenomena') then god doesn't even get on the 'ranking' list of superiority or inferiority. How can something be claimed to be inferior or superior to something else that we now exists unless we can be sure that other thing exists.
But singing still remains inferior and less significant in a life than existential experience namely the atheists experience of the ''abyss''.
Singing can be what they call an ecstatic experience in that it take one out of oneself as can any interesting diversion but ecstatic experiences are but part of the religious experience and not perhaps essential to it and i'm sure that is true of atheist existential experience.
-
But singing still remains inferior and less significant in a life than existential experience namely the atheists experience of the ''abyss''.
But singing still remains inferior and less significant in a life than existential experience namely the christian experience of the "wrath of Thor".
But singing still remains inferior and less significant in a life than existential experience namely the christian experience of the "ultimate reckoning of the Great Leprechaun".
See the problem Vlad
-
Singing can be what they call an ecstatic experience in that it take one out of oneself ...
As can religion, which is why scientific study of the impacts of religious worship and singing are very similar.
as can any interesting diversion ...
Trivialising and patronising yet again.
but ecstatic experiences are but part of the religious experience and not perhaps essential to it and i'm sure that is true of atheist existential experience.
But the elements beyond that require god to exist, and there is no evidence that god does exist. Otherwise they are merely a variant manifestation of the ecstatic and other known physiological and psychological experiences that can be generated via meditation, exercise, singing etc etc etc. If you are going to assert something beyond our physiological and psychological responses you need to prove that this 'something beyond' i.e. god, actually exists.
-
And how many of those people instinctively converted to christianity without the transmission of christian beliefs to them by people.
Well there must be something that made them convert from one entrenched cultural belief to something they claimed now gave them a personal relationship with God. Something you have said is impossible and ultimately on a significant scale. Come on Vlad give me an example of a group of people who spontaneously became christians without being introduced to christianity by people.
People only become Christians through personal encounter with Christ, intellectual assent of the idea is insufficient. The New testament states that there will be people who encounter Christ but not realise it intellectually but in a saving way. Hence, for instance, the expectation of faithful pre Christian jews to be saved.
I would also be interested in how you think Christianity managed to displace the previous belief of these people. How does that work?
Karl Rahner's work on anonymous christianity might be useful.
-
As can religion, which is why scientific study of the impacts of religious worship and singing are very similar.
Trivialising and patronising yet again.
It is you that is trivialising existential experience and crises. What that leads to is everything having equal value which gives everything ultimately Zero value.But the elements beyond that require god to exist, and there is no evidence that god does exist.
To not include existential experience as valid leaves you well and truly stuck in philosophical empiricism.....for which there is no evidence of either and yet you find yourself sitting there. Perhaps if you are stuck there without seeing it then of course anything different is incomprehensible.
-
Just an observation that this forum shows abundant examples of non believers "cherry picking" the meagre evidence available to support what they proclaim yet choose to ignore the mountains of evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator and their own spiritual nature.
Is it against your religion to ever learn anything, Alan? For what feels like the 10,000th time: people do not need evidence for a lack of belief. If they have seen nothing that convinces them of some proposition, then that's quite sufficient. If you knew anything about logic, you'd understand this anyway (Burden of Proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))).
Would you care to give an example of this "cherry picking" of evidence that we don't need anyway?
As for these "mountains of evidence" of which you speak, where are they? Where is even the first hint of the tiniest morsel of any such evidence? Please do post even the smallest example.
-
...a god shaped hole...
...the atheists experience of the ''abyss''.
Meaningless white noise as far as I'm concerned. Trying to generalise one's personal, subjective experience is pointless if you're interested in the actual truth of the matter.
...existential experience...
What experience would that be?
What that leads to is everything having equal value which gives everything ultimately Zero value.
Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.
To not include existential experience as valid leaves you well and truly stuck in philosophical empiricism.....
More drivel. Not including some experience (whatever it is) does not lead one to a philosophy.
-
Meaningless white noise as far as I'm concerned. Trying to generalise one's personal, subjective experience is pointless if you're interested in the actual truth of the matter.
What experience would that be?
Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.
More drivel. Not including some experience (whatever it is) does not lead one to a philosophy.
Look, if atheists are finding ''the abyss'' as well then the personal experience aspect lessens. How do they arrive at the abyss? They make the appropriate introspection by taking the so called big questions to the limit and not merely out of mere intellectual interest.
Does value being subjective amount to zero value? I'm not sure it does.
-
Meaningless white noise as far as I'm concerned.
And that's not subjective or philosophical empiricism. Pull the other one Trying to generalise one's personal, subjective experience is pointless if you're interested in the actual truth of the matter.
What experience would that be?
Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.
More drivel. Not including some experience (whatever it is) does not lead one to a philosophy.
If one is having an experience which is common or other people can attest to why ignore it. In fact the only motivation for ignoring it is philosophical empiricism which itself has no evidence for it.
-
Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.
Absolutely but somehow Vlad is trying to objectify value - effectively to assert that experience that is ascribed by some people to 'god' is objectively more important and more valuable that experiences that are nor ascribed to god. That is unreasonable and unreasoned and also trivialising and patronising to people whose incredibly important-to-them experiences aren't about god.
No, to me, singing has incredible importance in my life and it therefore valuable. But that is entirely subjective and I fully accept that for the next person in the bus queue singing may be irrelevant or even negative, in that were I to force that person to sing it might induce huge embarrassment and anxiety.
And the same it the case for religion - I fully accept that it has incredible importance and value to some people, but that importance and value is subjective, not objective, and for others religion is irrelevant or negative.
-
Absolutely but somehow Vlad is trying to objectify value - effectively to assert that experience that is ascribed by some people to 'god' is objectively more important and more valuable that experiences that are nor ascribed to god. That is unreasonable and unreasoned and also trivialising and patronising to people whose incredibly important-to-them experiences aren't about god.
No, to me, singing has incredible importance in my life and it therefore valuable. But that is entirely subjective and I fully accept that for the next person in the bus queue singing may be irrelevant or even negative, in that were I to force that person to sing it might induce huge embarrassment and anxiety.
And the same it the case for religion - I fully accept that it has incredible importance and value to some people, but that importance and value is subjective, not objective, and for others religion is irrelevant or negative.
But you are studiously avoiding existential experience altogether. What about the atheist existential experience of the God shaped hole they refer to as ''the abyss''? So far i've seen nothing that addresses this. In other words the experience of a gap at the existential level is common to atheism and religion.
-
Is it against your religion to ever learn anything, Alan? For what feels like the 10,000th time: people do not need evidence for a lack of belief.
But they do need evidence for philosophical empiricism.
-
But you are studiously avoiding existential experience altogether.
Well until you actually define it discussion is pointless. If you mean 'god' then until or unless you provide evidence for the existence of god or gods the notion of god as an existential experience can be discounted in just the same manner as the flying spaghetti monster as as an existential experience can be discounted.
What about the atheist existential experience of the God shaped hole they refer to as ''the abyss''?
The is no generalised atheist view of a god shaped hole, let alone a God shaped hole. There is no generalised atheist view that people who do not believe in god or gods refer to this at all, let alone as ''the abyss''. If some individual atheist somewhere has made that comment I suggest you take it up this him or her. I am an atheist and there are so many aspect of that sentence make absolutely no sense as far as I am concerned and I would never make a statement of that kind.
-
Look, if atheists are finding ''the abyss'' as well...
The phrase is all but meaningless. Some atheists may have an experience they might call "the abyss" but it's just an experience and it isn't universal.
How do they arrive at the abyss? They make the appropriate introspection by taking the so called big questions to the limit and not merely out of mere intellectual interest.
Meaningless. We can answer some questions, we can't answer others. Get over it.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."
-- Richard Feynman
Does value being subjective amount to zero value? I'm not sure it does.
I'm sure it doesn't. It's you who were making assertions about zero value.
And that's not subjective or philosophical empiricism. Pull the other one
Philosophical empiricism is an intellectual belief. The fact that I find something you've said to be meaningless has bugger all to do with it.
If one is having an experience which is common or other people can attest to why ignore it.
Firstly, I'm stating that the experience of a "god shaped hole" or "the abyss" isn't common to everybody. Secondly, there are far more options with regard to some common experience besides ignoring it and making it the basis for some objective claims about reality (beyond the fact that humans seem to share it).
In fact the only motivation for ignoring it is philosophical empiricism which itself has no evidence for it.
Drivel.
-
But they do need evidence for philosophical empiricism.
Not if they are not proposing it.
-
If one is having an experience which is common or other people can attest to why ignore it.
I don't - indeed I am interested in, and have mentioned, studies that actually look at the physiological effects of experiences, such as collective worship and singing. But that doesn't make those experiences, or the value individuals find from those experiences objective. They remain subjective even if you can bring together a bunch of people who collectively feel the same importance and value from those subjective experiences. For them to be objective the experience and value would have to be 'true for all' - but it isn't as there are plenty of people who will experience nothing or negative feelings towards the same experiences. And to be objectively true it would need to remain true completely outwit human experience - and this makes no sense. It is nonsense to say that before any life had appeared in the universe that singing is important and of value, just as it is nonsense to say that before any life had appeared in the universe that religious worship is important and of value. These are human-centric subjective values and experiences.
-
Well there must be something that made them convert ...
In many cases looking down the barrel of a gun or at the blade of a sword. And in others a combination of that and the threat of eternal damnation.
-
The phrase is all but meaningless. Some atheists may have an experience they might call "the abyss" but it's just an experience and it isn't universal.
But it's an existential experience which presumably is operating on a level that demands asking or having in mind a particular suite of questions
Meaningless
Oh OH, A phrase used often by philosophical empiricists. We can answer some questions, we can't answer others.
But that depends on what questions we are asking
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."
-- Richard Feynman
'' I don't feel frightened by not knowing things '' I don't believe it from a guy involved in the pursuit of science his whole life. Pious unbelieveable bollocks.
Firstly, I'm stating that the experience of a "god shaped hole" or "the abyss" isn't common to everybody.
It is uncommon in those ''not going there.'' But it is still common to both religion and atheism. In fact I would say many atheists have been freeloading off the experience of the French existentialists.
-
In many cases looking down the barrel of a gun or at the blade of a sword. And in others a combination of that and the threat of eternal damnation.
A caricature of the early church. In any case other religions threaten awful things for apostacy from them vis the persecution of christians in the Roman empire, The stoning of Stephen, the anhillation of many of the apostles. You don't make converts by violence just nominal one's who secrete their real allegiance.
-
Not if they are not proposing it.
They do..... whenever they talk about ''evidence''
I think you answer the question of holding a belief and not realising it since there are many on this board who don't seem to realise that is their Weltbild.
-
A caricature of the early church. In any case other religions threaten awful things for apostacy from them vis the persecution of christians in the Roman empire, The stoning of Stephen, the anhillation of many of the apostles.
Doesn't really advance your argument by pointing out that other religions also ensured adherence and/or conversion via actual or promised threat.
You don't make converts by violence just nominal one's who secrete their real allegiance.
Sure you do, provided you implant methods to inculcate the next generation into your religion at the earliest possible age. Christians caught on to this pretty early.
-
But it's an existential experience which presumably is operating on a level that demands asking or having in mind a particular suite of questions
Haven't a clue - I'm not somebody who has this experience.
Oh OH, A phrase used often by philosophical empiricists.
This obsession of yours just makes you look silly.
But that depends on what questions we are asking
Duh!
'' I don't feel frightened by not knowing things '' I don't believe it from a guy involved in the pursuit of science his whole life. Pious unbelieveable bollocks.
I identify with it perfectly. It's telling that you insist that the experiences you think help you must be universal, whereas as soon as anybody expresses a different experience, it's "unbelievable". That's the thing with many subjective experiences, they aren't universal and people see things differently.
It is uncommon in those ''not going there.'' But it is still common to both religion and atheism.
As I said, it's perhaps the case that some atheists have some sort of experience they might describe in those terms, but claiming it as universal would be just as silly as me claiming Feynman's experience was universal because I share it with him.
Our experiences are not really a matter of choice, so "not going there" is meaningless because it implies that everybody experiences it but some of us are ignoring or avoiding it. This simply isn't the case.
-
They do..... whenever they talk about ''evidence''
Unmitigated drivel. Evidence is one way to provide a good reason to believe something, logic based on sound premises is another. If you think there is some other way to distinguish the probably true from fantasy and blind guessing, then feel free to bring it forward.
Nobody (that I'm aware of) is taking a fixed philosophical view on the matter.
I think you answer the question of holding a belief and not realising it since there are many on this board who don't seem to realise that is their Weltbild.
Maybe your little fantasies about other people's beliefs are a comfort to you...
-
As I said, it's perhaps the case that some atheists have some sort of experience they might describe in those terms, but claiming it as universal
I don't think I am claiming it is universal since i've said there are many atheists who won't go to where the French existentialists went to.
I would say though that culturally, the french existentialists are part of the stock of the belief or act that there is no God. And part of your belief in a Godless universe comes vicariously from their experience.
What I do think is that it is an experience common to atheism and religion.
I see no evidence that your arguments derive from anything other than a committed belief in philosophical empiricism.
-
And part of your belief in a Godless universe comes vicariously from their experience.
Fantasy. People have lacked belief in gods before existentialism was a thing.
What I do think is that it is an experience common to atheism and religion.
So what?
I see no evidence that your arguments derive from anything other than a committed belief in philosophical empiricism.
Try paying attention. ::)
-
I don't think I am claiming it is universal since i've said there are many atheists who won't go to where the French existentialists went to.
Let's be honest here Vlad.
We aren't talking about universality - i.e. all atheists
We aren't talking about most atheists
We aren't talking about many atheists
We aren't even talking about some atheists
We are actually talking about one atheist - Jean Paul Satre
So if you want to follow this line I suggest you take it up with him ... oops, a bit difficult, he's been dead for over 40 years.
-
I see no evidence that your arguments derive from anything other than a committed belief in philosophical empiricism.
Also, I'm not actually making an argument. I'm just pointing at the huge gaping holes in yours. The challenge for you is to put forward even the first hint of a reason to take your god seriously that doesn't instantly fall apart at the first hint of reason and logic.
-
Let's be honest here Vlad.
We aren't talking about universality - i.e. all atheists
We aren't talking about most atheists
We aren't talking about many atheists
We aren't even talking about some atheists
We are actually talking about one atheist - Jean Paul Satre
So if you want to follow this line I suggest you take it up with him ... oops, a bit difficult, he's been dead for over 40 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
-
Also, I'm not actually making an argument. I'm just pointing at the huge gaping holes in yours.
Those gaping holes just seem to appear through the tinted spectacles/welders goggles of philosophical empiricism The challenge for you is to put forward even the first hint of a reason to take your god seriously that doesn't instantly fall apart at the first hint of reason and logic.
And the challenge for you is to find empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism.
-
Those gaping holes just seem to appear through the tinted spectacles/welders goggles of philosophical empiricismAnd the challenge for you is to find empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism.
No, Vlad - the challenge is for you guys to offer a credible argument for 'God' that is neither fallacious nor incoherent: the burden of proof remains yours.
-
Those gaping holes just seem to appear through the tinted spectacles/welders goggles of philosophical empiricism
No, they appear entirely because you have given us not the first hint of a reason to take you god claim at all seriously that doesn't fall apart at the first attempt to look at it rationally. If you want to do so in some non-empirical way, do feel free. Stamping your little foot about "philosophical empiricism" is just empty posturing.
You either have some (any) objective methodology to distinguish your claims as probably true, as opposed to blind guesses or entirely subjective feelings, or you don't.
And the challenge for you is to find empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism.
No. I have no obligation to defend a position I don't hold. ::)
-
No, Vlad - the challenge is for you guys to offer a credible argument for 'God' that is neither fallacious nor incoherent: the burden of proof remains yours.
No Gordon. You have the challenge to find empirical evidence for the philosophical empiricism on which you are basing your definition of Credible..............Irrespective of what my challenges are or aren't.
-
No, they appear entirely because you have given us not the first hint of a reason to take you god claim at all seriously that doesn't fall apart at the first attempt to look at it rationally. If you want to do so in some non-empirical way, do feel free. Stamping your little foot about "philosophical empiricism" is just empty posturing.
You either have some (any) objective methodology to distinguish your claims as probably true, as opposed to blind guesses or entirely subjective feelings, or you don't.
No. I have no obligation to defend a position I don't hold. ::)
That there is a prime actuality which is not contingent is more reasonable than insisting on empirical proof and method and then abandoning those two things when challenged about the origins of the universe and the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism......which is where the best and most intelligent atheists are. I'm thinking here of Russell and Carroll.
If you are denying having a philosophical position then that is incredible because you are opposing my philosophical position.
-
No Gordon. You have the challenge is yours to find empirical evidence for the philosophical empiricism on which you are basing your definition of Credible..............Irrespective of what my challenges are or aren't.
Don't be silly: the credibility, or otherwise, of any argument you might make can't be determined until, you know, you actually make an new argument that can be critiqued and its credibility assessed.
Your 'philosophical empiricism' is just you indulging in evasive kite-flying again.
-
Don't be silly: the credibility, or otherwise, of any argument you might make can't be determined until, you know, you actually make an new argument that can be critiqued and its credibility assessed.
Your 'philosophical empiricism' is just you indulging in evasive kite-flying again.
You don't define what you mean by credibility or believability by just repeating the word credibility.
You cannot critique anything without having a position to critique from.
I'm stating your position because you don't seem to want to.
-
You don't define what you mean by credibility or believability by just repeating the word credibility.
You cannot critique anything without having a position to critique from.
I'm stating your position because you don't seem to want to.
Try looking up 'credibility' in a dictionary, Vlad: use several dictionaries if you wish to. I think you'll find the term is consistently defined, and then maybe you can stop evading.
Also stop putting carts before horses - in order to critique 'something' one must first know something about the 'something' that is to be critiqued .
-
That there is a prime actuality which is not contingent...
Whether there is or not has no direct connection to your god claims. This is firmly in the territory of things we don't know.
...is more reasonable than insisting on empirical proof and method...
I'm not insisting on anything but some objective reason to take your god claim seriously. How you want to approach that is up to you.
...then abandoning those two things when challenged about the origins of the universe...
Who's abandoning anything? I don't claim to know the origin of the universe (which in any case requires further defining to even turn it into a specific question).
...and the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism...
::)
If you are denying having a philosophical position then that is incredible because you are opposing my philosophical position.
What would that be? I've yet to see you put forward anything remotely coherent enough to be called a philosophical position.
-
Try looking up 'credibility' in a dictionary, Vlad: use several dictionaries if you wish to. I think you'll find the term is consistently defined, and then maybe you can stop evading.
Also stop putting carts before horses - in order to critique 'something' one must first know something about the 'something' that is to be critiqued .
It's the ability to be believed Gordon and that's about it. Philosophical empiricism makes the decision not to believe anything that cannot be measured empirically a priori.
-
Philosophical empiricism makes the decision not to believe anything that cannot be measured empirically a priori.
Which is still totally irrelevant outside of your own little fantasy world. What is missing is you coming up with a reason to think your god claim is credible without opening the door to every unfalsifiable crazy guess, myth, legend, or interpretation of subjective experiences, at the same time.
-
It's the ability to be believed Gordon and that's about it. Philosophical empiricism makes the decision not to believe anything that cannot be measured empirically a priori.
If you offer up an proposition for 'something' then you should be able to include what methodology applies whereby someone else can investigate your claim of 'something' since, presumably, you've used some form of methodology to convince yourself that you are correct - whether the method you've used can be described as 'empirical' depends on what it is, which for you to set out.
What we do then is look at your claim and also the method you propose. No matter how much you wriggle the burden of proof is still yours, and if your want to rail against empiricism then by all means propose and describe a non-empirical approach - but expect it to be critiqued.
If you can't then maybe you should, as they say, consider your position.
-
If you offer up an proposition for 'something' then you should be able to include what methodology applies whereby someone else can investigate your claim of 'something' since, presumably, you've used some form of methodology to convince yourself that you are correct - whether the method you've used can be described as 'empirical' depends on what it is, which for you to set out.
What we do then is look at your claim and also the method you propose. No matter how much you wriggle the burden of proof is still yours, and if your want to rail against empiricism then by all means propose and describe a non-empirical approach - but expect it to be critiqued.
If you can't then maybe you should, as they say, consider your position.
I've already stated how I come to a system of contingency and necessity and how this makes the idea of God reasonable and put it against what must be the atheist suite of positions used to counter the argument namely either everything being contingent imho unreasonable or everything being penetrable by scientific means but with the suspension of a necessary scientific answer on the issue of the origin of the universe or why we should be philosophical empiricists.
-
Which is still totally irrelevant outside of your own little fantasy world. What is missing is you coming up with a reason to think your god claim is credible without opening the door to every unfalsifiable crazy guess, myth, legend, or interpretation of subjective experiences, at the same time.
Credible means able to be believed. Well it seems God is capable of being believed.
Philosophical empiricism is cannot meet it's own demands.
Philosophical empiricism attempts to shoehorn an encounter with God into the subjective (the ''true for me'' category.
-
I've already stated how I come to a system of contingency and necessity and how this makes the idea of God reasonable...
You've asserted that you've done this. What is missing is anything remotely like a coherent argument.
...and put it against what must be the atheist suite of positions used to counter the argument namely either everything being contingent imho unreasonable or everything being penetrable by scientific means but with the suspension of a necessary scientific answer on the issue of the origin of the universe or why we should be philosophical empiricists.
Gibberish. You completely misunderstood all the responses and tried to shift the burden of proof.
-
Well it seems God is capable of being believed.
Any number of contradictory gods, along with alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster, COVID conspiracy theories, flat earth...
Philosophical empiricism ... Philosophical empiricism...
::)
-
Credible means able to be believed.
I don't think that is a correct definition.
It's not credible that the Earth is flat and yet people believe it.
It's not credible that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and yet people believe it.
It's not credible that aliens would travel across thousands of parsecs in order to create artistic patterns in crops, and yet people believe it.
It's not credible that a person can give a man a certain power and then punish him and all his descendants for using that power and then decide the only way to stop the punishment is to punish himself, and yet people believe it.
-
I don't think that is a correct definition.
It's not credible that the Earth is flat and yet people believe it.
It's not credible that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and yet people believe it.
It's not credible that aliens would travel across thousands of parsecs in order to create artistic patterns in crops, and yet people believe it.
It's not credible that a person can give a man a certain power and then punish him and all his descendants for using that power and then decide the only way to stop the punishment is to punish himself, and yet people believe it.
What does it mean then?
Does your alternative meaning pass the dictionary test?
-
What does it mean then?
You tell me. You're the one using it.
-
You've asserted that you've done this. What is missing is anything remotely like a coherent argument.
Gibberish. You completely misunderstood all the responses and tried to shift the burden of proof.
Not really, Philosophical empiricism has a burden of proof irrespective of any I have.
Argument from contingency is perfectly coherent. Insisting that God needs a scientific proof but the universe doesn't need one because it just is is more inconsistent than Mr inconsistent, care of Inconsistent House, Inconsistency Avenue Inconsistent City, United states of Inconsistency.
-
You tell me.
I already have.
-
Not really, Philosophical empiricism has a burden of proof irrespective of any I have.
Only on those who are proposing it, i.e. nobody on this forum that I'm aware of. ::)
Argument from contingency is perfectly coherent.
Then post it or reference a version of it that you're prepared to defend. I kept on asking you to do this last time you brought it up, to no avail.
Insisting that God needs a scientific proof but the universe doesn't need one because it just is is more inconsistent than Mr inconsistent, care of Inconsistent House, Inconsistency Avenue Inconsistent City, United states of Inconsistency.
*sigh*
- 'Scientific proof' isn't a thing.
- We have plenty of evidence that the universe exists.
- We have no evidence, or any other coherent reason to think that any of the thousands gods that humans have dreamt up exist.
- Nobody knows if the universe 'just is', it's just something we can't rule out.
- This must be one of the silliest assertions you've ever posted...
-
I already have.
And I rejected your definition, pointing out why it was wrong.
-
Forgive me but surely ultimate meaning has to cover everything including us
I specifically used the word 'personally' as a direct reference to the religious, particularly Christian, claim that their deity has a special interest in each of us and our destinies.
-
And I think you've clinched it in calling it a philosophy which I think is the point where they stopped and possibly drew back.
Can you give a deep and well thought through philosophy?
Probably not a philosophy which would satisfy you. I can only point out what I realised were the drawbacks and inconsistencies of French existentialism (which is basically that of Sartre, the Prof has noted - others were largely parasitic on his views. Sartre himself claimed indebtedness to Heidegger, whereas H himself called L'Etre et Le Neant unreadable dreck). Well, I'm not going to give a full resume of French existentialism either, but here are a few points. Though it doesn't actually deny unconscious processes in the human organism, it wishes to nullify their importance to insignificance. As many contributors to this forum have often pointed out, unconscious processes are practically everything that govern us, even down to the decisions we think we make with the pre-frontal cortex.
Sartre in particular seemed obsessed in asserting a 'self' against what he perceived as the nothingness of being (this, along with mescalin, no doubt, prompted his agonisings about 'the Abyss). His way of asserting selfhood and freedom was to prove his existence by a succession of actes gratuits which run counter to all nature's constraints (the idea began with the novelist Gide). That's a pretty hopeless scenario - no one can hope to behave in this unpredictable way at every moment, and of course, no one has ever done.
For better or worse, we are bound up with the whole of nature and the universe, and such frantic self-assertion is the act of people who have lost any sense of unity with the world. By saying that, I'm not letting 'spirituality' in by the back door. We may be made of 'star-stuff', but that doesn't mean the universe is sentient.
Sartre was a good novelist, I think, and dramatist. Such a pity he couldn't see through Stalin. But that resulted from another of his benighted mental escapades - the attempt to link existentialism and Marxism. At the risk of being accused of dragging in an argumentum ad consequentiam , I'll shut up.
That'll do yer.
-
And I rejected your definition, pointing out why it was wrong.
And I rejected your definition, pointing out why it was wrong.
No you didn't you gave sentences which merely repeated the word credible. How does that define credible and prove i'm wrong?
-
No you didn't you gave sentences which merely repeated the word credible. How does that define credible and prove i'm wrong?
Your definition of "credible" was "able to be believed"
I gave some counter examples of people believing things that are not credible. This falsifies your definition. You need to, at least, qualify who is able to believe a credible thing.
-
Your definition of "credible" was "able to be believed"
I gave some counter examples of people believing things that are not credible. This falsifies your definition. You need to, at least, qualify who is able to believe a credible thing.
And I asked you for your alternative and you don't have one. I suggest that credible is the wrong word to use since it depends on ones weltbild and therefore the only commonality is it's believability.
In other words it is credible to them. This is why argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
-
And I asked you for your alternative and you don't have one. I suggest that credible is the wrong word to use since it depends on ones weltbild and therefore the only commonality is it's believability.
In other words it is credible to them. This is why argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
I would have thought that for something to be credible it would need to be able to stand up to scrutiny.
-
I would have thought that for something to be credible it would need to be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Not if it's a question of belief rather than say empirical fact, it wouldn't be. Again whose ground rules of scrutiny would be used?