1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEven if I presented a flat out proof that God didn't exist, the theist wouldn't be required to accept it. The theist could claim that deduction is not truth-preserving, or whatever. If the standard for epistemic justification is the mere logical possibility that something be the case, then theism certainly satisfies that standard, as does the belief that objects fall because matter consists of telekinetic elves trying to trick us into inferring various things about "gravity". So, the mere logical possibility of theism should be cold comfort at best. The so-called "logical problem of evil", which attempts to show that the existence of God and the existence of evil are incompatible (that a contradiction results from supposing both to be the case), does not work. This is why the evidential formulation of the problem of evil is so much more powerful. The objections raised above do not aim to show that theist is committed to a contradiction, but rather that he is committed to a doctrine the content of which he knows not what.
Thanks for the nice presentation. I will have to mull it over some, but upon first glance I think your reduction of the rejection of premise (2) to the described promissory note accurately depicts a rationalized sort of faith.
...[text shortened]... require a full rejection of skepticism in order to do it?
Dr. S
Originally posted by bbarrVery well. I think you have fulfilled that. But I'm not sure you needed to demonstrate it to any person who has honestly contemplated his faith; such a person has probably already accepted it. I suppose the real value of your argument is not in having the naive theist rejecting the existence of God, but in having the naive theist better understand the real nature of his position.
The objections raised above do not aim to show that theist is committed to a contradiction, but rather that he is committed to a doctrine the content of which he knows not what.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am here to serve.
Very well. I think you have fulfilled that. But I'm not sure you needed to demonstrate it to any person who has honestly contemplated his faith; such a person has probably already accepted it. I suppose the real value of your argument is not in having the naive theist rejecting the existence of God, but in having the naive theist better understand the real nature of his position.
Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe,
This is what you wrote originally:
"Words are inherently more or less vague. Therefore definitions using words are inherently more or less vague. Reasoning based on definitions using words is therefore vague. Conclusions reached using vague reasoning must be necessarily vague. [b]Therefore reasoning based on definitions using words suffers mor ...[text shortened]... that you don't understand or that strikes you as problematically vague, please let me know.
I'll open a thread where you can explain what the Fallacy of Vagueness or Ambiguity entails.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, you better open up two threads, 'cause vagueness and ambiguity are not same thing when talking about fallacies. 'Ambiguity', in this context, mean 'equivocation'. But I'll be happy to explain them to you and everybody else if you want to get us started.
I'll open a thread where you can explain what the Fallacy of Vagueness or Ambiguity entails.
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "Your objection here seems to be that the words used in my definitions are vague to a problematic extent. I disagree."
Ivanhoe,
This is what you wrote originally:
"Words are inherently more or less vague. Therefore definitions using words are inherently more or less vague. Reasoning based on definitions using words is therefore vague. Conclusions reached using vague reasoning must be necessarily vague. [b]Therefore reasoning based on definitions using words suffers mor ...[text shortened]... that you don't understand or that strikes you as problematically vague, please let me know.
That is indeed my objection. Your conclusion will be problematic to the same extent.
I am glad we at least know exactly where we disagree.
Originally posted by ivanhoeO.K, good. Now we are getting somewhere. Which terms in particular do you think are problematically vague?
BBarr: "Your objection here seems to be that the words used in my definitions are vague to a problematic extent. I disagree."
That is indeed my objection. Your conclusion will be problematic to the same extent.
I am glad we at least know exactly where we disagree.
Originally posted by bbarrTo start with:
O.K, good. Now we are getting somewhere. Which terms in particular do you think are problematically vague?
Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.
Is it logically possible for God to decide to create and indeed create the creation ?
Is it logically possible for God to give free will to human beings ?
Is it logically possible for God to reveal Himself to us ?
Is it logically possible for God to be "I am who is" ?
Is it logically possible for God to incarnate into His Son Jesus Christ ?
Is it logically possible for God to accept and endure suffering ?
Is it logically possible for God to die on a Cross ?
Is it logically possible for God to rise from the dead ?
Is it logically possible for God to ascend to heaven ?
Is it logically possible for God to send His Spirit to earth ?
Is it logically possible for God to take lives without being a murderer ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs it logically possible for God to incarnate into His Son Jesus Christ ?
To start with:
Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.
Is it logically possible for God to decide to create and indeed create the creation ?
Is it logically possible for God to give free will to human beings ?
Is it logically possible for God to reveal Himself to us ?
Is it lo ...[text shortened]... Spirit to earth ?
Is it logically possible for God to take lives without being a murderer ?
I don't see how; you can't be your own father except in one of those old sci-fi magazines where a guy was abused by his father, so he built a one way time machine to go back to the past, killed his father but then wound up getting married and having a son and realizing that he WAS his father in that timeline! Did you ever read that story, Ivanhoe?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, yes but not libertarian free will, yes, yes, perhaps depending on how 'incarnate' is interpreted, yes, yes if that only requires the death of a physical body, yes if that means the previously inhabited body is resurrected, yes, yes, yes.
To start with:
Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.
Is it logically possible for God to decide to create and indeed create the creation ?
Is it logically possib ...[text shortened]... ically possible for God to take lives without being a murderer ?
Do you have any further questions?
Originally posted by bbarr
Yes, yes but not libertarian free will, yes, yes, perhaps depending on how 'incarnate' is interpreted, yes, yes if that only requires the death of a physical body, yes if that means the previously inhabited body is resurrected, yes, yes, yes.
Do you have any further questions?
Does this mean you answer ALL my questions about what is logically possible for God with "yes" ?
For the sake of argument...What say you Bennett if I were to dissagree with 3 or 4. Couldn't God, being omnipotent, choose to limit her/his omnipotence and/or omnipresence, thus choosing not to know or do something about suffering? Perhaps this is a silly question but you may find it more interesting that bickering with good 'ol Ivan. 😉
TheSkipper