Belief in God is properly basic. Thus rational?

[michel]

Precisely because of the doubts of others.

Does that matter ? (To you )

 

[Pah]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pah
The invention of a contradictory belief casts doubt on the truth of the reality of "God"

Originally Posted by atofel
Either that or the contradictory construct is a poor representation of God.
No it simply says that if another is contradictory than there is not a universal truth. Without universal truth there is doubt as to the truth of "God"

Quote:
Originally Posted by pah
It order to be declared true, a concept of the existence of God must take that into account.

Originally Posted by atofel
Right. But if someone disbelieves in God, is it not convenient that their concept of God is faulty? Can the atheist really declare that it is not possible to conceive of a God that is compatible with their experience?
It has nothing to do with "convenience". I, for one, can declare an atheistic view precisely because "God" is within my experience.
___________________________

 

[Pah]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pah
Precisely because of the doubts of others.

Does that matter ? (To you )

It would have to be countered to maintain atheism - so yes it would matter

 

[robtex]

Thus Plantiga's Argument is that

-belief in God is a properly basic belief
--b/c you can have a spontaneous belief that God exists/present such as the example of perception
--so that is the same as sensory perception, so having the belief in God is properly basic thus now makes it "rational"
Ok carry on.

Rex, I would say we achieve our indivdual realities in two ways:

1) observation via our 5 senes
2) deductions

to say it is spontaneous is to say it is not calculated. Thus any reality that is spontaneously is not deducted. Or if it is deducted it is not well thought out.

That leaves # 1. Observations. Observation via the 5 senses

If you accept that than his sponaneous data and his sensory perceptions are one and the same. That falls under the guise of visions. Visions dreams and the like while entertaining are a poor substitute for reality. I had a dream two days ago that my neigborhood was growing into a forest. I certainly don't see it as a vision that developement will be reversed and the houses here will be torn down. I see it as an imaginary dream that I had. His qoute of spontaneous perceptions seems like a justifcications of visions and dreams as deductions are not within the qualifiable realm time-wise of spontaneous. Without use of the 5 senses is it reasonable to have a spontaneous realization of that which has not been detected by any man in this writer's lifetime? Better yet, is spontaneous percetions the substitute he is proposing to replace deductions?

This part makes it sound like deductions are mere causal observations that are spontaneous or that visions and dreams are on par with both deductions and physical observations. Maybe he can cite a few historical examples to strengthen this claim.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Quite the contrary - once you entertain God(s) no set of experience can be deemed incompatible because all experience is potentially subject to Divine manipulation, as God 'hardens your heart' to experience, feel, and think what It wills.

I'm not sure I accept the "hardens your heart" part, but I understand what you are saying. From my perspective, we are trying to reconcile that which we experience with our faith, which is not in itself a labor, but rather a joy and a source of solice.

While we can scoff at self-contradictory Gods, at square-circle Gods struggling with that massive rock, all we can say about God(s) in general is that we find Them to be unevidenced, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

Ok. However, if an atheist takes the action of constructing an argument against the existance of God (which is really where my original point was at), that idea of God will not be reconcilable with the atheist's experience. Thusly, Robtex arrives at the conclusion that if God were to exist, He should be subject to our physical senses, an idea of God that is not shared by theists.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

>> The invention of a contradictory belief casts doubt on the truth of the reality of "God"

> Either that or the contradictory construct is a poor representation of God.

No it simply says that if another is contradictory than there is not a universal truth. Without universal truth there is doubt as to the truth of "God"

You are confusing the constructs of language with the idea they are meant to represent. The word "God" is just a word. It does not carry the truth of God inside of those three letters. It is the idea in our heads that we associate with that word. Your idea of God is not identical to my idea of God, eventhough we share the same word for that idea.

It is also important to recognize that truth cannot be completely captured or recorded with language. There can be no schematic for God.

Instead, we should appreciate language as a mechanism to reveal truths to us, and a way to share perspectives on those truths.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Rex, I would say we achieve our indivdual realities in two ways:

1) observation via our 5 senes
2) deductions

to say it is spontaneous is to say it is not calculated. Thus any reality that is spontaneously is not deducted. Or if it is deducted it is not well thought out.

That leaves # 1. Observations. Observation via the 5 senses

If you accept that than his sponaneous data and his sensory perceptions are one and the same. That falls under the guise of visions. Visions dreams and the like while entertaining are a poor substitute for reality. I had a dream two days ago that my neigborhood was growing into a forest. I certainly don't see it as a vision that developement will be reversed and the houses here will be torn down. I see it as an imaginary dream that I had. His qoute of spontaneous perceptions seems like a justifcications of visions and dreams as deductions are not within the qualifiable realm time-wise of spontaneous. Without use of the 5 senses is it reasonable to have a spontaneous realization of that which has not been detected by any man in this writer's lifetime? Better yet, is spontaneous percetions the substitute he is proposing to replace deductions?

This part makes it sound like deductions are mere causal observations that are spontaneous or that visions and dreams are on par with both deductions and physical observations. Maybe he can cite a few historical examples to strengthen this claim.

Robtex,

Are you implying that it is not possible for something to exist if it cannot be witnessed with our physical senses?

Also, as far as your criteria for knowledge, where do we get our knowledge of our identity, our freewill, or the sensation of affection? Is this knowledge received or deduced from our 5 senses?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure I accept the "hardens your heart" part, but ...

It's scriptural.

From my perspective, we are trying to reconcile that which we experience with our faith, which is not in itself a labor, but rather a joy and a source of solice.

And from my perspective, it's wishful thinking and selection bias, which proves to be "a joy and a source of solice" for some, and something far darker for others (e.g., Martin Luther).

Ok. However, if an atheist takes the action of constructing an argument against the existance of God (which is really where my original point was at), that idea of God will not be reconcilable with the atheist's experience.

Reconcilable or congruent? Furthermore, I'm not a big fan of "constructing an argument against the existance of God", though I'm more than willing to suggest reasons why I find belief in God(s) unwarranted.

Thusly, ...

Thusly ?

..., Robtex arrives at the conclusion that if God were to exist, He should be subject to our physical senses, an idea of God that is not shared by theists.

I have argued in the past that, if God exists, our physical senses are worthless analytical tools and we are methodologically bankrupt.

At the same time, I would be cautious about speaking for all theists if I were you ...

 

[Nick Soapdish]

And from my perspective, it's wishful thinking and selection bias, which proves to be "a joy and a source of solice" for some, and something far darker for others (e.g., Martin Luther).

Your perspective is not congruent with my perspective.

Reconcilable or congruent?

Yes. To make compatible or consistent.

Furthermore, I'm not a big fan of "constructing an argument against the existance of God", though I'm more than willing to suggest reasons why I find belief in God(s) unwarranted.

I'm not sure what distinction you are making here. Don't both of these tasks require you to have a concept of "God"? Aren't the 'suggested reasons' just a weak 'argument'?

I have argued in the past that, if God exists, our physical senses are worthless analytical tools and we are methodologically bankrupt.

By your statement I assume you mean that no formation of knowledge is possible if that knowledge was not acquired by the physical senses? If that were so, how do you know that you are conscious? Which of the 5 senses is this knowledge from?

Certainly our physical senses offer a tremendous advantage in that they provide methods of measurement and independent verification. However, we would be foolish to ignore our inner awareness and sense of being in the way we live our life, even if these things are not measurable or independently verifiable. If our creeds and motivations are only driven from our physical senses, what sort of spirituality are to have?

At the same time, I would be cautious about speaking for all theists if I were you ...

That is good advice.

 

[robtex]

Robtex,
Are you implying that it is not possible for something to exist if it cannot be witnessed with our physical senses?

1/2. I am saying that what we can witness collectivly as a society with our physical senses plus what cannot be deduced does not exist.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

1/2. I am saying that what we can witness collectivly as a society with our physical senses plus what cannot be deduced does not exist.

What evidence do you have to support this conclusion?

 

[robtex]

what else is there to ones reality besides observations and deductions? I am not sure what you are asking me? You want me to evidence that I can evidence things outside deductions or observation (collective and personal). that statement is a tautology. If you have another way to precieve reality enlighten us.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

what else is there to ones reality besides observations and deductions? I am not sure what you are asking me? You want me to evidence that I can evidence things outside deductions or observation (collective and personal). that statement is a tautology. If you have another way to precieve reality enlighten us.

Your claim as I understand it is that something must be physically observable in order to exist (or be real). My question is, how can we possibly know that? Why is it not possible for something to exist, but not be observable in any physical way?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why is it not possible for something to exist, but not be observable in any physical way?

Good observation. But, then again, possibility is a pretty worthless threshhold; the class of possible entities is near unbounded, containing all matter of absurdities. Would you characterize belief in all possible entities rational? If so, welcome to Wonderland. If not, what method underlies your selection criteria, and why should anyone, you included, have faith in its efficacy?

 

[blood-lord14]

Argument of Alvin Plantinga.

(Ok I'm going to try and layout the argument, I hope it works)


A. knowledge and basic belief
-knowledge is true belief based on good reasons
-non basic reasons = other beliefs (P1 A dog is a mammal,P2 fido is a dog, C fido is a mammal)
-basic reasons = reasons that are not beliefs (Perception - The sky is blue)
-properly basic beliefs = beliefs based on good basic reasons

So suppose you believe in x b/c of belief of z and y . Then you would have to go on and on and on saying why you believe in z and y, etc etc. But to stop regressions you use your basic reasons as described above.

Thus Plantiga's Argument is that

-belief in God is a properly basic belief
--b/c you can have a spontaneous beleif that God exists/present such as the example of perception
--so that is the same as sensory perception, so having the belief in God is properly basic thus now makes it "rational"


Ok carry on.

...yes

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

From my perspective, many atheists spend a lot of time demonstrating they can invent a concept of "god" that is incompatible with reality. Take robtex for example. He keeps on inventing a concept of god that must be seen with the physical senses.

Interesting that your idea of reality involves something that cannot be detected in any way.

B.

 

[blood-lord14]

Interesting that your idea of reality involves something that cannot be detected in any way.

B.

yes it can because robtex is alive...use your other 3 corner remote viewing systems.