Originally posted by dfm65This is a great question.
on a slightly different (but related) topic, a question for the Apostles: let's us accept that the 10 commandments (for example) define morally right behaviour. are they right because God says they are, or does God say they are right because they are?
Originally posted by Cheshire CatYou can split hairs over defining hard atheism, soft atheism, agnosticism, etc., and any other subset thereof.
Is this not also what the agnostic says?
The definition of "agnostic" in my dictionary says:
"One who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
Or to put it another way; an agnostic would be one who thinks it is just as likely for god to exist as it is for him to not exist, there is no way to know. There would be little more that could be said about it.
An atheist (properly defined) would claim that god probably does not exist. Of course, different people will put forth varying degrees of probability on his non-existence.
Originally posted by dfm65I am not a theological or philosophical expert, but you asked the Apostles (why I 'll never know🙂) so I'll give it a stab. The way you have set out the argument is that either way they are right, so I would ask what difference does it make? They represent the core problems and character defects we bring to life and relationships. If there never were the 10 Commandments, you would still feel violated if you were stolen from. A question for reflection for all. What would you say is the most often violated of the commandments? Kirk
i don't know that 'probability' is the right term to use here...does probability have anything to do with it, at least in the sense that we say 'the probability of throwing a six on a fair six-sided die is 1 in 6? what is the probability there is a God? one in a thousand, one in a million? i think Bennett is more correct in saying the theist offers little ...[text shortened]... our. are they right because God says they are, or does God say they are right because they are?
Originally posted by dfm65Probable: Supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.
[b]i don't know that 'probability' is the right term to use here...does probability have anything to do with it, at least in the sense that we say 'the probability of throwing a six on a fair six-sided die is 1 in 6? what is the probability there is a God? one in a thousand, one in a million? i think Bennett is more correct in saying the theist offers little ...[text shortened]... t-picking, but i'm curious to know if you really are talking about 'probability' in some sense...
Probability: The quality or state of being probable.
Both definitions from the "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary".
Originally posted by kirksey957I don't know what they all are. I never bothered to memorize them all.
I am not a theological or philosophical expert, but you asked the Apostles (why I 'll never know🙂) so I'll give it a stab. The way you have set out the argument is that either way they are right, so I would ask what difference does it make? They represent the core problems and character defects we bring to life and relationships. If there never wer ...[text shortened]... for reflection for all. What would you say is the most often violated of the commandments? Kirk
Originally posted by kirksey957Coveting your neighbors wife. Way too easy to do. :-)
I am not a theological or philosophical expert, but you asked the Apostles (why I 'll never know🙂) so I'll give it a stab. The way you have set out the argument is that either way they are right, so I would ask what difference does it make? They represent the core problems and character defects we bring to life and relationships. If there never wer ...[text shortened]... for reflection for all. What would you say is the most often violated of the commandments? Kirk
Originally posted by rwingettThanks.
You can split hairs over defining hard atheism, soft atheism, agnosticism, etc., and any other subset thereof.
The definition of "agnostic" in my dictionary says:
"One who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
Or to put it another way; an agnostic would be one who thinks it is just as likely for ...[text shortened]... Of course, different people will put forth varying degrees of probability on his non-existence.
Originally posted by rwingettOK, so we have your Webster's definitions, and your original statement:
Probable: Supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.
Probability: The quality or state of being probable.
Both definitions from the "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary".
'To state unequivocably that there is no god would be to overstep the bounds of what atheism can offer. It would be more correct for the atheist to say that there is very little probability that god exists'.
Exactly what evidence comes into play? If we can agree that there are no empirical or rational grounds establishing either the existence or non-existence of God, how is 'probability', as defined by Webster's, relevant?
Originally posted by kirksey957No, the positions are not identical. if we accept the first lemma: 'the 10 commandments are right because God says they are', then it is implied that God could have defined 'right' otherwise. His actual choice of commandments then seems to be somewhat arbitrary: God's reason for choosing the actual set of commandments could not be 'because they are right', because the commandments themselves define right. On the other hand, if we accept that 'God says the commandments are right because they are right', then we accept that God is not the source of morality, and that God follows moral laws just as we do, rather than originating them.
I am not a theological or philosophical expert, but you asked the Apostles (why I 'll never know🙂) so I'll give it a stab. The way you have set out the argument is that either way they are right, so I would ask what difference does it make?
i don't think the Apostles would be happy with either choice, or am i wrong?
Originally posted by bbarrI still say that wasn't a definition. It was a reply to your semantical claptrap that perfection means moral perfection.
This is from your post ealier:
"Perfection is perfection...the opposite of imperfection. Now where are morals mentioned in that definition and I would like you to explain how that is the wrong definition of perfection."
So you did intend that as a definition, but probably not as a circular one.
Again, Feivel, calling an argument a name just doesn ...[text shortened]... ustifiable to say "God is perfect" but not justifiable to say "God is a perfect being"?
And yes it is justifiable to say God is perfect (PERIOD). Saying God is a perfect being is making a huge leap. Then again, it depends how you describe being.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrCorrect, we are justified in claiming God is perfect.
Look, you are claiming that we are justified in attributing the property of perfection to God. You are also claiming that arguments to the effect that God cannot have this property are themselves based upon our limited understanding. Can't y ...[text shortened]... educe to the claim that "God is perfect, whatever that means".
This is a majorly false staement and and attempt at an argument based on sophistry. I never claimed that any arguments were based on anything. What I said (please read this sentence carefully) is that our limited understanding can't define perfection that is applicable to God, therefore we can't claim god is other than the ultimate in perfection.
This excersise in semantics is based on your above argument being true. Sadly it was not and neither is this.
You seem to be approaching this from a MAJORLY SKEWED PERSPECTIVE (I wonder if thats what they teach in philosophy class). We have a fine understanding of perfection AS IT APPLIES TO US. It is our limited understanding of perfection (maybe you will understand the word imperfection) AS IT APPLIES TO GOD that causes our inability to apply less than perfection.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker