Originally posted by lucifershammerYour analogy has no power because it does not reflect common experience. Do you know of anyone that has claimed not to know what a jail is?
It doesn't affect the analogy. You can end up in jail whether you believe in it or not. "I don't believe in jail" is not a valid legal defence.
Same with hell.
Originally posted by eagles541. Don't mix up belief with knowledge of the concept. I may know what a jail is, but that doesn't mean I believe it exists. Ditto with God. Or with hell.
Your analogy has no power because it does not reflect common experience. Do you know of anyone that has claimed not to know what a jail is?
2. ngg's assertion is that she should not be sent to Hell because she doesn't believe it exists. The logical flaw in her assertion can be demonstrated by substituting "Hell" with "jail" (or "school" or "hospital" or "Nigeria" or any other place you want).
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, well...I can show you Nigeria exists. I can take you to a school. Or send you to a hospital. You may be hard pressed to show anyone "Hell".
2. ngg's assertion is that she should not be sent to Hell because she doesn't believe it exists. The logical flaw in her assertion can be demonstrated by substituting "Hell" with "jail" (or "school" or "hospital" or "Nigeria" or any other place you want).
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are playing with words, LH. You are comparing that which is known with that which is only an idea. You also did not answer my question. Do you know of anyone that says that jails do not exist?
1. Don't mix up belief with knowledge of the concept. I may know what a jail is, but that doesn't mean I believe it exists. Ditto with God. Or with hell.
2. ngg's assertion is that she should not be sent to Hell because she doesn't believe it exists. The logical flaw in her assertion can be demonstrated by substituting "Hell" with "jail" (or "school" or "hospital" or "Nigeria" or any other place you want).
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd you infer that hell exists as do jails. Establish that hell exists outside of an idea and I will then agree with you.
Why don't you boys go back to the previous page and read what ngg asked. She didn't ask "How can you be sent to Hell if it doesn't exist"; she asked "How can you be sent to Hell if you dont believe it exists".
See a difference?
Know of anyone that says jails do not exist?
Originally posted by eagles54You may infer that hell exists from what I wrote but it is not a logically necessary inference. My reply to ngg's question assumes the same proposition about the existence of hell as her question does.
And you infer that hell exists as do jails. Establish that hell exists outside of an idea and I will then agree with you.
Know of anyone that says jails do not exist?
And stop repeating rhetorical questions. Of course I don't know anyone who says jails don't exist.
Now, do you deny that "I don't believe in the existence of jail" (even if actually believed by the person) is not a legal defence against incarceration?
Originally posted by bbarrI am not so sure that I am being impossible by requiring certainty in my definition of knowledge. You would like some reasons for requiring it. If you are an ethical atheist, do you base that system upon nothing more than justified belief? Are you willing to live by a system that is statistically verified, but never certain? I am not. Also, how do you know that other theories of knowledge are inferior to yours if yours is not certain truth? Is it just philosophical preference?
Well, if you believe that knowledge requires certainty, then by your own criterion nobody knows anything at all. This is certainly a bizarre entailment, and indicates that you merely use the term 'knowledge' in an idiosyncratic manner nobody need take seriously. Further, and interestingly, since it is at least possible that knowledge does not require certai ...[text shortened]... knowledge did require certainty, knowledge would be irrelevant to our epistemological concerns.
You mentioned that these theories of knowledge cannot be resolved in any nondisjunctive manner. To me, this represents the shortcomings of philosophy and reason as a whole. At the foundations of any atheist contstruction is nothing but philosophical preference and statistical verification. There is no ultimate truth out there to be found.
As a result, I am not willing to call myself an atheist. I need religion and doctrine to put my faith in as certain truth.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not playing your games, sorry.
You may infer that hell exists from what I wrote but it is not a logically necessary inference. My reply to ngg's question assumes the same proposition about the existence of hell as her question does.
And stop repeating rhetorical questions. Of course I don't know anyone who says jails don't exist.
Now, do you deny that "I don't believe in ...[text shortened]... f jail" (even if actually believed by the person) is not a legal defence against incarceration?
You are a Christian and you believe in hell, correct? In offering your weak analogy you made a correlation between that which exists (jails) and that which cannot be proven to exist (hell). You cannot use such an analogy to make a vaild point.
Why not try another?
Originally posted by eagles54The analogy deals with the defence against Hell, not the existence of Hell. Now, if you want to get into the question of why I believe Hell exists, that is a completely different (though related) question.
I'm not playing your games, sorry.
You are a Christian and you believe in hell, correct? In offering your weak analogy you made a correlation between that which exists (jails) and that which cannot be proven to exist (hell). You cannot use such an analogy to make a vaild point.
Why not try another?
Anyhow, to answer your question, I believe Hell exists because the Church teaches it exists.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have no idea what you're driving at here.
The analogy deals with the defence against Hell, not the existence of Hell.
You are coming from the viewpoint that hell exists and if nationalguardgirl chooses not to believe in it, she will not be free of it simply due to non-belief. You compared it to going to jail whether or not her belief supported such.
I have nothing more to say about it except that you could do her and yourself a favor by not comparing that which exists in our relative experience and that which is exists only as a concept to some.
Originally posted by eagles54Read ngg's question again. Either it presupposes that Hell exists, or it presupposes that Hell does not exist.
I have no idea what you're driving at here.
You are coming from the viewpoint that hell exists and if nationalguardgirl chooses not to believe in it, she will not be free of it simply due to non-belief. You compared it to going to jail whether or not her belief supported such.
I have nothing more to say about it except that you could do her and you ...[text shortened]... that which exists in our relative experience and that which is exists only as a concept to some.
If the latter, then the question is meaningless because one cannot go to Hell if it doesn't exist regardless of one's belief in its existence/non-existence.
If the former, then ngg (not I) has supposed that Hell exists and is positing a defence of ignorance. I'm merely demonstrating how such a defence is not valid.
In short, I am not asserting anything about the existence/non-existence of Hell in my position - merely taking what ngg's question presupposes.