Human reason

Originally posted by dj2becker
What I mean is this: Do you expect to receive tangible evidence for something which is intangible or will intangible evidence do?

Your nonsense has grown tiresome. Provide your evidence.

Originally posted by telerion
July 13th! So you are around. Do you plan to leave us struggling with DCT and Euthyphro's Dilemma indefinitely?

What's the point? People who understand the dilemma get the point of the post. People who don't, don't. You seem to have everything well handled in that thread.

Originally posted by frogstomp
" rational because it is non-contradictory"

where did you get that definition from?

"One might equate growing up with a mistrust of words. A mature person trusts his eyes more than his ears. Irrationality often manifests itself in upholding the word against the evidence of the eyes. Children, savages and true believers remember far less what they have seen than what they have heard."
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

I'm not trying to define rational. But you would agree that a belief in any set of propositions that are contradictory would be irrational, no?

Was E.H. an Empiricist?

Originally posted by bbarr
What's the point? People who understand the dilemma get the point of the post. People who don't, don't. You seem to have everything well handled in that thread.

But you do realize that when you speak on these matters your pronouncements are received by many with some greater measure of authority. That is, you may be able clear some things up more expedientlly than I.

Edit: Besides . . . what about the DOG and the HPD?

Originally posted by Coletti
Not as offer a proof, but some supporting evidence for the God of the Bible and Christianity:
* the apparent order of the universe - the laws of physics
* the complexity of the creation
* the mind of man (capacity for abstract reasoning)
* mans sense of morality - what some call natural law
* the Bible
* language

Although there are numerous explanations of these things, the Christian worldview does explain them better than others IMHO.

I have no idea why you think that the Bible is evidence for your worldview, seeing how it is, essentially, an expression of your worldview. Anyway, the points below do not distinguish between the Christian worldview and other religious worldviews in with respect to explanatory power, depth, coherence, elegance, etc.

Originally posted by telerion
But you do realize that when you speak on these matters your pronouncements are received by many with some greater measure of authority. That is, you may be able clear some things up with more expedientlly than I.

O.K., I'll go through it tomorrow. I have to get ready to go to a NARAL fundraiser. 😀

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., I'll go through it tomorrow. I have to get ready to go to a NARAL fundraiser. 😀

Important cause. Crucial time.

Originally posted by telerion
Important cause. Crucial time.

Yep, now that O'Conner is gone, we have to mobilize quickly.

Also, I guess we're playing a pair for the new MEZZOCHALLENGE between the illustirious CC, the champions of light and goodness, and your own ragtag bunch of syphylitic ne'er-do-wells. See you over the board.

Originally posted by bbarr
I have no idea why you think that the Bible is evidence for your worldview, seeing how it is, essentially, an expression of your worldview. Anyway, the points below do not distinguish between the Christian worldview and other religious worldviews in with respect to explanatory power, depth, coherence, elegance, etc.

The Bible is evidence due to its internal coherence and consistency, it's existence, it's timelessness, etc. On the other hand, the "Westminster Confession of Faith" is essentially, an expression of my worldview - but I do not give it as evidence in support of my worldview.

Anyway, the points below do not distinguish between the Christian worldview and other religious worldviews in with respect to explanatory power, depth, coherence, elegance, etc.

I disagree. As far as I've know, all other "religious" world views fall short at some point, either into mysticism or skepticism. Many, including Islam, believing in a god that is unknowable.

I see so many guys out here are infatuated with human reason. You guys seem to worship human reason.

Hell, I know I am. You seen the knockers on that reason? Wow. Also are you implying a connection between gender and reason?

I am refering to 'reason' as the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

Oh! That reason! Ok, what's wrong with intelligence exactly?

Have you guys ever thought of the possibility that human reason might not be able to explain everything? In fact have any of you guys ever thought about the possible limitations of human reason?

And now you will proceed with what you believe to be good reason I assume . . .

PS: If your reason evolved from a chemical soup then how can you trust it?

Man I get tired of your digging up cliche lines from cheap apologists.

A better question would be "If reason has been selected for time and time again in humans, how can you not trust it?"

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., I'll go through it tomorrow. I have to get ready to go to a NARAL fundraiser. 😀

No country stays free forever, time for a general strike lol.

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]then since christian beliefs are 'completely logic' (from above), it follows from transitivity that christian beliefs cannot answer any questions.

I meant to say "logical", not "logic". When I say something is fully rationa ...[text shortened]... ry. I know of no alternative world view that can make this claim.[/b]

Yes. The Christian world view (CWV) means the axioms of Christianity and their logical conclusions (inferences). Using the axioms of Christianity, and correctly applying logic, one can explain all the fundamental questions about "the meaning of life."

I asked you this in another thread, but you may have missed it (easy to get lost in the labyrinth here!)—or maybe you thought I was baiting you, but I am not: Could you list what you see as the axioms, or axiomatic statements, of the CWV? And, since as axioms they are not derivable from the CWV “system” itself, do you consider them to be 1) empirically derived, 2) self-evident, 3) neither, but reasonably assumable for purposes of the system itself (and, of course, not leading to contradictions within the system), or 4) something I’m not thinking of.

The reason why articulation of the axioms is important is that, as I think someone else pointed out, internal consistency is, while necessary, not sufficient of itself to adopt a worldview.

Frankly, if you’re willing to do this, I’ll probably just say “thanks,” and ponder them for awhile. Others may want to respond to them.

NOTE: Re your natural law reference above, are you generally following C.S. Lewis here, from Mere Christianity or The Problem of Pain?

Originally posted by Coletti
The Bible is evidence due to its internal coherence and consistency, it's existence, it's timelessness, etc. On the other hand, the "Westminster Confession of Faith" is essentially, an expression of my worldview - but I do not give it ...[text shortened]... sm. Many, including Islam, believing in a god that is unknowable.

Why do you think that mysticism 'falls short', when it comes to explanation? Do you think that the answers to questions of fundamental importance must be effable?

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]then since christian beliefs are 'completely logic' (from above), it follows from transitivity that christian beliefs cannot answer any questions.

I meant to say "logical", not "logic". When I say something is fully rationa ...[text shortened]... ry. I know of no alternative world view that can make this claim.[/b]

i think i see where you are coming from. you claim to have a world view. you claim the world view is complete. you further claim that the world view is 'rational' because the conclusions follow from the premises with no logical contradictions.

i have a problem with your use of 'rational' here. for it to be rational for me to adopt your world view, i need to have sufficient evidence. if there exists a lack of sufficient evidence for me to conclude that your world view is likely to be correct, then my belief in your world view is better described as 'arbitrary'. even if your conclusions follow without logical contradiction from your premises, the question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence still lies with the premises. thus your world view will be 'rational' if through my capacity for reason i can find sufficient credibility in your premises (given that conclusions follow logically).

and herein lies your problem because your premises are steeped in the supernatural. by definition, the supernatural is that which lies beyond the natural, knowable world. thus the supernatural necessarily constrains reason; in light of this, i cannot find sufficient credibility (or any credibility at all) in your supernatural premises.

i conclude, from above arguments, that your world view is irrational and at best arbitrary.

Originally posted by Coletti
The Bible is evidence due to its internal coherence and consistency, it's existence, it's timelessness, etc. On the other hand, the "Westminster Confession of Faith" is essentially, an expression of my worldview - but I do not give it ...[text shortened]... sm. Many, including Islam, believing in a god that is unknowable.

"religious" world views fall short at some point...believing in a god that is unknowable.

all supernatural beings are unknowable due to the fact that they are supernatural. the christian god is no different in this respect. if you profess that your world view is correct, how are you not professing to know that which is unknowable?