Originally posted by EinsteinMind
Aha. So you do know Geisler? 🙄 I think it's pretty big for me being a senior in high school. 😏 I like unloading the biggest arguments that I can. =|
Plus, Geisler's is not strictly ontological. 🙄🙄🙄
[b]End of thread.
Telerion, if you know what I'm talking about, and if you can refute it, please do (through private messaging), be ...[text shortened]... y arguers and my supporters, whomever you are (even though it wasn't much of an argument).[/b]
I may think it over and try to help you. Let me commend you on your apparent interest in learning. Never abandon it, no matter where it takes you. Like DavidC wrote you earlier, the best person to speak to about philosophy (if you ready to think and really want to learn something) is Bbar, a resident PhD (hopefully by now anyway) in Philosophy, who is especially interested in epistemiology. The good Dr. Scribbles is quite sharp and can lay it down, as can LemonJello. I believe that there are several members on here with formal backgrounds in philosophy as well as an even larger set that can think and write more clearly than me.
Personally, I'm always a little hesistant to enter into conversations with people who draw on guys like Geisler (or McDowell or Strobel, etc.) as their sources. Reading through some of their work (what little I could tolerate), left me with the impression that these men have no interest in intellectual truth but rather in making money and preaching to the choir. Their central arguments always rely on disturbingly conspicuous fallacies, obvious to most all but their fan club. In this respect, they are to philosophy what Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute is to science.
Reading back over the structure of your argument is unclear to me. It seems that you want to lead us along some prescribed line of reasoning (most likely sketched out in one of Norm's texts). It would be nice if you would state your entire argument in a single post, beginning with any major assumption, and then working logically to your intended conclusion. That way you can get your point across without being led off your intended path by many pages of questions, minor counterpoints, and confused objections (since likely none of us really knows where you're heading with this). Likewise we can read your idea for ourselves and evaluate it as a whole rather than playing a game of cat and mouse.
This would be particularly nice because just in my first reading of your posts I think I've found some strong confusion. For instance you make a claim that you will be arriving at a proof of "the God of Theism," but it should be apparent that "the God of Theism" does not exist. As a simple counterexample, note that theism contains polytheism as a proper subset. Polytheism is characterized by the belief in more than one god. Therefore there cannot be a single "God of Theism." Later in the thread you amend your claim a bit (though it appears you do not yet realize it) by describing this god you have in mind as "omni-potent (sic), omniscient, and omnipresent" as well as "beyond space and time and yet still works through time." Now the second phrase is incomprehensible. It is easy to claim but has no logical value in the same way as if you had said that your god is more north than the North Pole. It makes for a handy semantic parachute in case you get into trouble at somewhere, but from an intellectual standpoint it is nonsense. So, again, I think that you would do well to be up front and present your entire argument for the existence of an "omni-potent (sic), omniscient, and omnipresent" being that you will call "God" in a single post that we might better understand (helping us) and perhaps better critique you (helping you).
Also as an aside, if you are truly interested in philosophy, I'd drop apologists from your reading list. They go about learning backwards. They assume without genuine question that they have the answers and then attempt to find some logical path to prove it, ignoring any evidence or reasoning which casts doubt upon or rejects their primal assumptions. One should let her reasoning guide her conclusions, not the other way around.
02 Sep '07 04:03
The Number 1
Back to Top