Jason and Implicator,
I am enjoying your conversation immensely. Thank you.
Regardless of what some have posted about it, I also find this conversation interesting. I continue to follow this with interest.
I find it to be a hailstorm of words
upon words
upon words
Yea, but the word of God consists of mere words.
Yeah, what Intrepid said.
I really am finding this conversation quite interesting and informative.
Do you actually read the full text of all the posts?
There is nothing that compares the fun and fury of vaporware or number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Much ado about nothing!
Neo,
Are you asking me if I read them? Yes, I do. I may not agree with everything I read but I do find it an interesting conversation.
Momma Angel wrote:Jason and Implicator,
I am enjoying your conversation immensely. Thank you.
I am finding it increasingly frustrating, but thanks for the encouragement to go on!
I
Jason Proudmoore wrote:JLNobody wrote:Jason and Implicator should be married. Even if its a gay marriage. I agree with Edgar and that's revealed by the fact that I simply could not force myself to read their theological ravings. Reality simply IS. Getting "with it" is one's highest spiritual accompllishment, not believing this or that about its is-ness.
I do not believe in a No-God and I'm quite satisfied that one cannot prove a negative, or in the case of a God, a positive.
You are totally right, JLNobody (not about the "marrying Implicator" comment). I think it's pointless to continue with this. I have put up this thread to try to understand why people think God exist, what physical, logical evidence they have to support it. I'm still more confused more than ever. If God exists, maybe this is a way in telling me that I belong in Hell. Oh well. It's gonna be very hot down there.Thank you, JLNobody and you too Implicator.
Jason, I am sorry to hear you are no longer interested in continuing. I have done my best to point out the problems I see with your line of argumentation, and the assumptions that I feel you have been making, but I haven't done too good a job, I guess.
If you decide at some point in the future to return to this thread, please do so, and I will be here to continue as well.
I
Man, am I glad I'm not paying for the storage requirements of this site!
StSimon wrote:Man, am I glad I'm not paying for the storage requirements of this site!
Ah, but you are "paying" ... you are being exposed to advertisements
I
Many philosophers and theologies have examined the properties of Evidentialism (the theory which is mainly to find the truth of a certain proposition) have come to the conclusion that people believe for a variety of psychological, social, and emotional reasons that have very little to do with whether a belief is supported by evidence or whether It is likely to be true. In the Fundamental Questions (578-583) there is a short story written by Plato, an analysis called "The Allegory of the Cave." The purpose for this short narrative is to understand the connotation that exists between the perception of reality that the slaves have in the story and people's perception of reality.
According to "The Allegory of the Cave," there are three people who have been imprisoned in a cave since childhood, alienated from the outside world. To prevent them from escaping, a stone wall has been placed in the middle of the cave. On the other side of the wall, there is a fire that casts shadows over the wall. Since the slaves are chained on the other side of the wall, they are only able to see forms, figures of shadow created by other slaves carrying objects on their shoulders. The figures that the slaves chained by the wall see have become their reality; they mistake appearance for reality. If a prisoner sees a vase and calls it by its name, he thinks that the word "vase"is the figure he's seeing, a shadow. He can't see the actual vase. One of the prisoners manages to get out of his chain, climbs the wall, and gets to the other side; he sees the fire that is responsible for his perception of "reality" that made him see only shadows. He then gets out of the cave and finds himself a free man while witnessing the other "reality" that takes place outside the cave. Through this metaphor, Plato deduces that the lower segment (the slaves in the cave) is represented by empirical knowledge and the upper segment (the outside world) is represented by rational or intelligible knowledge. Empirical knowledge is how humanity sees the world through sense of perception and the objects of which are physical or material. Plato deemed this knowledge ambiguous because human awareness is subjective and imperfect, revealing to us the appearance of objects which change and are transitory. It is necessary for humankind to find proofs that support the existence of God through relational evidence, not through empirical knowledge, because any things that are based on empirical knowledge are nothing but a collection of inconsequential opinions, and cannot be taken for granted.
Interesting that you would post this in a thread titled "The arguments of God's nonexistence." Is there something you find in Plato's analogy of the cave that you think provides proof of the non-existence of God, or is your point that we can't use empirical observation to prove that he does exist?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:It is necessary for humankind to find proofs that support the existence of God through relational evidence
What is "relational" evidence? Did you mean to say "rational?"
Jason Proudmoore wrote:not through empirical knowledge, because any things that are based on empirical knowledge are nothing but a collection of inconsequential opinions, and cannot be taken for granted.
Do you realize that acceptance of the theory of evolution as highly probable is based on empirical "knowledge"?
Jason - I'm curious, have you done any studies in epistemology?
I
Interesting art form: burying your response in the quote.
But confusing.
Jason, would you care to describe the god you don't believe in?
If you think it is too far off for this topic, you could go here:
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1707217#1707217
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Interesting that you would post this in a thread titled "The arguments of God's nonexistence." Is there something you find in Plato's analogy of the cave that you think provides proof of the non-existence of God, or is your point that we can't use empirical observation to prove that he does exist?
You shouldn't be surprised about me including Plato's argument here. Plato clearly stated why people believe in things just based on empirical knowledge, just like people believed in ancient gods and mythological stories without studying the specifics. Do I find it relevant? yes. Why? because Plato contributed to the arguments of the non-existence of God.
But providing a theory as to why people believe in gods does not constitute proof for the non-existence of God. You claimed at the top of this thread that this very analogy was proof for the non-existence of God, and so I would like to know what it is that proves God does not exist?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Evolution isn't proven through empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge is based on opinions alone, not presented with logical evidence.
Sure it is. Empiricism does not say we need not use logic, it says we cannot know anything at all without considering our observation and experience. If you claim that all experience is just a "shadow" of reality (via Plato's analogy), then you can't make use of experience and observation (such as observing the fossils found in sedimentary rock layers). If you do so, then you are taking an empirical approach.
I
What exactly would you like to know, Neologist?
