No, it's on the assumption that they know that rational consistency is a virtue, and that they want to form their syllogisms logically, and use reason not mere prejudice or preference.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:55 pmLondoner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:24 pmWhich is that they should agree with you!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:41 pm
But I wasn't saying "me." I was saying what rational Theists are bound to believe if they wish to remain rational.
Then ask them what moral precept they think they, as Atheists, have a moral obligation to follow. They'll tell you they have no such obligation, because Atheism has no moral view.But I do not think you are right about atheists.
And they're being honest.
But don't take my word for it. Ask them.
You're not getting it. YOU provided the proof. I'm speaking of your own self-contradiction. If you ask for "proof," then the rational assumption that goes along with that is that people have a shared world (from which "proof" for both can be drawn). So you've already conceded the point, just by the way you asked..Me: And can you prove that is the case?
It doesn't even need further proof than you already have. If you use the word "proof," you must believe there is a common reality held by you and by me, in which proof is either available or lacking. Availability of it would be inductively compelling to you, and lack would be probabilistically compelling. That's what you're already implying, whether you realized it or not
So far, the proof is lacking. It is therefore not available, not compelling. Not even prababilistically.
Want to rephrase?
Yes. I've listed some good inductive arguments for you, and I've suggested the experiential option. But if you won't look at the proof, then no, there's no proof for someone who won't look.Before we get onto what God is like, can we have the proof he exists?
Read Michael Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge." He does a wonderful job of this.Can you give the evidence? What are the instances from which you make the inductive judgement?it's my inductive judgment, based on the evidence I have in hand, rational, empirical and experiential. But am I certain to the exclusion of any error margin? Of course not. Nobody ever is. That's why faith is essential to all human knowing.
No, regardless. Aristotle's Law does not presuppose any God, even if Aristotle himself was a Polytheist. And since I've included Atheism, under item 1, you've got no cause to complain. I included your objection.Only if God(s) exists.Of course. There is a "trilemma" in the possibilities. But you were only asking about the conflicts among Theists. However, I'm quite happy to include Atheism, and you'll find that the Law of Non-Contradiction still applies. See here...
If there are no Gods, Theism and Polytheism are untrue.
If there are many gods, then Monotheism and Atheism are untrue.
If there is one God, then Polytheism and Atheism are untrue.
However you slice it, 2/3 are always untrue. You don't even have to know which is THE truth to see that it's impossible for more than one to be true at a time.
If God(s) do not exist then all statements about God(s) are equally untrue, or to be accurate they are neither true or false but are meaningless.
False. The statement, "Santa Claus is real" does not lack meaning. It's simply not true. So even if you believe God to be no more than a "Santa Claus" case, you don't have a meaningless claim.
But you're right about one thing: if there were no God, then "meaning" itself would have no meaning. But I doubt you were thinking of that.
Actually, they are. "Right" and "wrong," if they mean anything at all, are mutually exclusive options in all cases in which the relevant particulars are the same.Similarly:
Unless moral terms are meaningless, or unless morality is determined by each individual, or a matter of goodwill, or a sociological description. Again, you cannot evoke the Law of Non-Contradiction unless the possibilities are 'jointly exhaustive', which they aren't.Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is categorically wrong to be a paedophile, then it cannot be categorically right to be one. If it's wrong to tell a lie in circumstance Z, then it cannot be right to tell a lie in circumstance Z. If it is always wrong to kill babies, then killing these babies cannot be right...
Wow. You really don't know anything about logic. You're only talking about symbolic logic, and even there, you haven't understood the relationship between validity and truthfulness.I understand that logic is only about the relationship between abstract symbols; e.g. 'P and not-P'. It tells you what is 'valid'. It does not tell us facts about the world. I think you are flogging a dead horse.It's simply a matter of understanding logic.
I see why I can't persuade you. You think all claims are just prejudice statements...presumably, except your own.
And there it is...completely missing the point, by your own admission, and mistaking logic for "opinion."So what is your point? You are simply telling me your opinion.Then change the term. Just say, "paedophelia." Paedophiles think they're right, and you and I think they are hideously wrong. But both sides use the term without the "begging" element of "abuse."
I can't help you with that. You're going to have to learn how logic works first.
I have spent a very great deal of time on 'Proofs of God'. I have not found any.[/quote]Me: But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit...You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.
This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.
That doesn't even make any sense. It's like saying, "I've spent a great deal of time in France, but never found France."
I try to take the charitable reading of what you say, if I can. But I can't fix that level of self-contradiction, I'm afraid. You're going to have to help me understand how you "spent a great deal of time" on something which you also claim you have "never found."
Meanwhile, go to http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer, and have a look around. You're going to see a lot about these issues...though you've "never found" anything, despite "a great deal" of effort to locate them, allegedly.