Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

God Argument from epistemic jugement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • God Argument from epistemic jugement

    Argument:


    (1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

    (2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

    (3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.

    (4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.

    (5) Inersubjective

    RE of this type has a commonality shared by bleievers all over the world, in different times and diffrent places, just as the exeternal world seems to be percieved the same by everyone.

    (6) Real and Lasting effects.

    (7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

    *We assume reality by means of a Jugement

    *we make such jugements based upon criteria

    *Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

    The criteria: If our experiences are:

    *Regular
    *consistant
    *inter=subjective
    *navigational

    Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality.

    VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument.

    A. How do we Know the external world exists?

    Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elaborate system of rationalism to demonstrate the existence of the external world, beginning with his famous cogito, "I think, therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't really doubt his own existence. The point was to show the method of rationalism at work. Nevertheless, this basic point, that of epistemology (how we know what we know) has always plagued philosophy. It seems no one has ever really given an adequate account. But the important point here is not so much what philosophers have said but what most people do. The way we approach life on a daily basis the assumptions we make about the external world. Skeptics are fond of saying that it is irrational to believe things without proof. I would argue that they, an all of us, believe the most crucial and most basic things without any proof whosoever, and we live based upon those assumptions which are gleaned with no proof of their veracity at all!
    Metacrock's Blog


    The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

  • #2
    Originally posted by metacrock View Post
    Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elaborate system of rationalism to demonstrate the existence of the external world, beginning with his famous cogito, "I think, therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't really doubt his own existence. The point was to show the method of rationalism at work. Nevertheless, this basic point, that of epistemology (how we know what we know) has always plagued philosophy. It seems no one has ever really given an adequate account. But the important point here is not so much what philosophers have said but what most people do. The way we approach life on a daily basis the assumptions we make about the external world. Skeptics are fond of saying that it is irrational to believe things without proof. I would argue that they, an all of us, believe the most crucial and most basic things without any proof whosoever, and we live based upon those assumptions which are gleaned with no proof of their veracity at all!
    That is exactly right meta, we can not logically or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. Yet without that justification the atheist is willing to take the leap while criticizing the theist for pointing to personal experience as a rationale for the reality of God. As if the atheist lives on higher intellectual ground.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you really trying to say that the evidence for the existence of God is comparable to the evidence for the existence of the chair I am sat on?

      The reality is that I have very good reason to be confident that this chair exists. I accept I cannot be absolutely sure, but it is not far off. In contrast, the evidence for God is slim, and can be readily explained in other ways.

      I guess what it comes down to is degrees of confidence. How confident can we be that unicorns exist? How about bigfoot? How about UFOs? To say we cannot be sure of anything, therefore we should assume everything is true seems to me the height of stupidity, and I hope no one around here is suggesting that!


      ETA: Hi Metacrock, hope you are well.
      Last edited by The Pixie; 04-01-2016, 07:06 AM.
      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        That is exactly right meta, we can not logically or empirically demonstrate that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. Yet without that justification the atheist is willing to take the leap while criticizing the theist for pointing to personal experience as a rationale for the reality of God. As if the atheist lives on higher intellectual ground.
        LOL right higher ground where they refuse to look at evidence.
        Metacrock's Blog


        The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

        The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
          Are you really trying to say that the evidence for the existence of God is comparable to the evidence for the existence of the chair I am sat on?

          The reality is that I have very good reason to be confident that this chair exists. I accept I cannot be absolutely sure, but it is not far off. In contrast, the evidence for God is slim, and can be readily explained in other ways.
          Hey man good to see you again. give my regards to the old gang.

          I understand that it's not the same degree of certainty but it's just as deep seated for one who has had those experiences.


          I guess what it comes down to is degrees of confidence. How confident can we be that unicorns exist? How about bigfoot? How about UFOs? To say we cannot be sure of anything, therefore we should assume everything is true seems to me the height of stupidity, and I hope no one around here is suggesting that!
          I guess if you had the experience you believe it as strongly as any other. I think it['s they way it works out to improve your life that really decides it.


          I had an interesting experience last year I was in a coma for two months I was in at coma. I was living in a self contained reality that I took to be real life. But looking back on it I see it was just a series of dreams and worked by dream logic. my experiences of God do not work by dream logic and they fit into my real life.
          Metacrock's Blog


          The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

          The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

          Comment


          • #6
            come on atheists put your money where your mouth is
            Metacrock's Blog


            The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

            The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

            Comment


            • #7
              they are really afraid of this one. you would Christians would get the idea eventually.
              Metacrock's Blog


              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

              Comment


              • #8
                Can I get definitions of "the external world", "the reality of history", and "intersubjective religious experience"? I mostly understand your argument, but it doesn't ultimately make any truth claims, since we don't base what we think is true solely on personal experience. Your final statement involves the justification of an assumption, after all, and assumptions aren't proofs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                  Can I get definitions of "the external world", "the reality of history", and "intersubjective religious experience"? I mostly understand your argument, but it doesn't ultimately make any truth claims, since we don't base what we think is true solely on personal experience. Your final statement involves the justification of an assumption, after all, and assumptions aren't proofs.
                  the external world = world external to our own minds. "reality of history" is the truth of what happened before our existence. Intersubjective is what we have instead of objectivity. It's the mutual experience of the same nature. In other words people who have mystical experiences are not having each others experiences but their experiences are so much a like they can be taken experience of the same object.

                  I think we do base things on personal experience at a very fundamental level. even when we accept verified truth from other sources there's a chain of assumptions going back to personal experience verifying the veracity of certain kinds of sources. Such as argument from authority is undergirded by personal lessons in the veracity of authority.

                  It claims to warrant believe not prove truth. that means the bar should be lower not higher. The final assumption flows out of the veracityof the previous premises.
                  Metacrock's Blog


                  The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                  The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                    the external world = world external to our own minds. "reality of history" is the truth of what happened before our existence. Intersubjective is what we have instead of objectivity. It's the mutual experience of the same nature. In other words people who have mystical experiences are not having each others experiences but their experiences are so much a like they can be taken experience of the same object.

                    I think we do base things on personal experience at a very fundamental level. even when we accept verified truth from other sources there's a chain of assumptions going back to personal experience verifying the veracity of certain kinds of sources. Such as argument from authority is undergirded by personal lessons in the veracity of authority.

                    It claims to warrant believe not prove truth. that means the bar should be lower not higher. The final assumption flows out of the veracityof the previous premises.
                    I didn't realize you were taking the skeptic's approach. If that's the case, then why does it matter why someone believes something? What it takes for someone to believe something differs greatly between people and ideas, so I don't see the point to your argument. In other words, if we cannot prove the existence of reality, then what does it matter if I believe in God because I saw a red hat today or I believe in God because I was able to prove many Biblical truth claims regarding the divine with the scientific method or I believe in God because of the widespread inter-subjectivity of religious experience? Why should there be a bar at all?
                    Last edited by Psychic Missile; 04-04-2016, 07:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                      I didn't realize you were taking the skeptic's approach. If that's the case, then why does it matter why someone believes something? What it takes for someone to believe something differs greatly between people and ideas, so I don't see the point to your argument. In other words, if we cannot prove the existence of reality, then what does it matter if I believe in God because I saw a red hat today or I believe in God because I was able to prove many Biblical truth claims regarding the divine with the scientific method or I believe in God because of the widespread inter-subjectivity of religious experience? Why should there be a bar at all?
                      It's notvskeptic's approach. I'm telling you why we don't live by skepticism even we can't supply absolute proof.
                      Metacrock's Blog


                      The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                      The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                        It's notvskeptic's approach. I'm telling you why we don't live by skepticism even we can't supply absolute proof.
                        Then I think your requirements for proof are much more strict than the average person. The scientific method, for example, works with mere evidence, and the idea of absolute scientific proof is hubristic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                          Then I think your requirements for proof are much more strict than the average person. The scientific method, for example, works with mere evidence, and the idea of absolute scientific proof is hubristic.
                          you don't even unjderstand what I said. I said nothng about absooute proof except that we can't get it. try to get it through your head

                          (1) we can't absolute proof

                          (2) we don't let that stop us from living we find other ways to navigate in life

                          (3) the chief way we find is to subject reality to our criteria that sketched out

                          (4) we take what works to enable our working in the world

                          (5) religious experience fits that criteria

                          (6) we should then be able to trust it because it fis the criteria
                          Metacrock's Blog


                          The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                          The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                            Argument:


                            (1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

                            (2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

                            (3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.

                            (4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.

                            (5) Inersubjective

                            RE of this type has a commonality shared by bleievers all over the world, in different times and diffrent places, just as the exeternal world seems to be percieved the same by everyone.

                            (6) Real and Lasting effects.

                            (7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

                            *We assume reality by means of a Jugement

                            *we make such jugements based upon criteria

                            *Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

                            The criteria: If our experiences are:

                            *Regular
                            *consistant
                            *inter=subjective
                            *navigational

                            Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality.

                            VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument.

                            A. How do we Know the external world exists?

                            Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elaborate system of rationalism to demonstrate the existence of the external world, beginning with his famous cogito, "I think, therefore, I am." Of course, he didn't really doubt his own existence. The point was to show the method of rationalism at work. Nevertheless, this basic point, that of epistemology (how we know what we know) has always plagued philosophy. It seems no one has ever really given an adequate account. But the important point here is not so much what philosophers have said but what most people do. The way we approach life on a daily basis the assumptions we make about the external world. Skeptics are fond of saying that it is irrational to believe things without proof. I would argue that they, an all of us, believe the most crucial and most basic things without any proof whosoever, and we live based upon those assumptions which are gleaned with no proof of their veracity at all!
                            Your argument ends up saying so much, it's really say nothing of particular interest. It's boring to discuss basic theistic belief justification apart from discussing the actual experiences. I'm a storyteller for a living. I like that pastors usually open with stories.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by whag View Post
                              Your argument ends up saying so much, it's really say nothing of particular interest. It's boring to discuss basic theistic belief justification apart from discussing the actual experiences. I'm a storyteller for a living. I like that pastors usually open with stories.
                              what are you talking about? The argument proves that religious experience meets the criteria we use to judge reality as real. you have no answer to that. sorry but telling stories in a library is not analysis of my argumentation. you have no answer to my argument.
                              Metacrock's Blog


                              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              176 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              427 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,510 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X