Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

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

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Thank you. However, I suggest you apply Occam's razor.

    In all probability you experienced something like a dust-devil - a mini vortex. The piece of plant material was quite small - 15-18 cm - and light. The other option is you hallucinated the entire incident. Hallucinations can appear very real and people often claim they were "wide awake" when they experienced them.
    I actually thought it was a vortex but discounted that because by running may arm around the fern I would have interfered with it. And I'm not given hallucinations -ever. Of course as a materialist there are only a couple options open to you. And I think you will find that William of Ockham believed in miracles.
    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


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      The Epicurean dilemma being valid would mean the two options it presents are the only acceptable alternatives. As has been demonstrated time and time again, that's clearly not the case.
      It emphasises the paradox that those who believe in a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being cannot adequately explain the existence of suffering and evil.

      Hence, as you remarked, alternatives have to be constructed.

      As one philosopher, Kai Nielsen, observed, "God or no God, torturing the innocents is vile. More generally, even if we can make nothing of the concept of God, we can readily come to appreciate . . . that, if anything is evil, inflicting or tolerating unnecessary and pointless suffering is evil, especially when something can be done about it."

      And an omniscient, morally good, and omnipotent God can do something about it.

      However, as has been demonstrated by various commentators to this thread, any concept of an omnipotent deity is bound by logic.

      Hence we have the inconsistency that provides an objection to this God's omnipotence. That objection runs that if this God is omnipotent then It can bring about any state of affairs. However, if this God can bring about any state of affairs, then this God can create a stone so heavy that even this God cannot lift it. However, if the stone is so heavy that even this God cannot lift it the very concept of an omnipotent being involves a logical contradiction. Namely, that this God’s omnipotence logically entails Its non-omnipotence.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      I think you're trying to make Epicurus' dilemma out to be something far more complex than what it really is. At the end of the day, what it really boils down to is being presented with an artificially limited set of option deliberately constructed in such a way that the theist loses no matter which option he chooses. It's a disingenious argument that is only persuasive to those who value rhetoric over reason.
      Epicurus’ questions are no more artificially limited than are various theodicies to explain the existence of a good god and the fact that suffering and evil exist.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Why would anyone want to address the dilemma "as it stands" when it's clearly constructed in such a way that the theist loses no matter which option he picks?
      The theist can recognise that their deity is not omnipotent, as Rabbi Kushner suggests. This deity may be simply unable to stop natural evil such as hurricanes and earthquakes. However, some Christians would balk at that suggestion.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      The only thing that is required for the alternatives to be "effective" is that they are even hypothetically possible.
      That is not possible if the deity is conceived as unlimited with omnipotence, omniscience and moral goodness. The alternatives may indeed be presented as hypothetical possibilities but they are not overly convincing.

      One might ask what moral goodness is to be found in the natural evil of giving a five year old cancer? Or allowing hundreds of individuals to be buried alive in earthquakes?

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      There may be potentially serious arguments against a good God in world where evil and suffering exists.
      I wonder if you are what is termed a “sceptical theist”. Many such individuals start out with the assumption that God is a moral agent and then seek to show how it is logically possible for God’s permission of all the evil in the world to be morally justified.

      It may well be a theological position but it is premised on highly dubious thinking.

      For example, the Free-Will Defence maintains that it is logically possible that any world that God would create and maintain with free creatures in it is compatible with some moral evil. However, does that contention strictly hold given the sheer amount of moral evil in this world? That is a debatable point. Furthermore, the concept of significant freedoms also needs to be clearly defined.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      I've never seen a single good argument or reason to conclusively rule out the existence of God "God as conceived within the Judaeo-Christian, and later Muslim, theistic traditions."
      And of course millions of us have never seen a “single good argument or reason to conclusively conclude” that any such God exists.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by whag View Post
        I appreciate your defense of seer, since you have had combative exchanges with him in the past and he probably doubts the authenticity of your Christianity.

        Meanwhile, some Christians like seer suggest it's unreasonable to ask for signs and proof rather than inner voices. Inner voices can be confused with anything ranging from regular Socratic daemon to schizophrenia. My sister currently believes her dead dog visits her from beyond the grave. It's meaningful to her and brings her comfort.
        I understand the dilemma. If we approach the world only from the objective, and historically, scientifically there are very good reasons to do that, there is no way to approach this sort of thing in a way that gives any sort of clear conclusion. And I don't have much I can give to help eliminate that dilemma, except to note that I've experienced similar events and they have had profound and positive influences on my life and my life's direction. It's a matter of faith, which for a scientist or scientifically minded person is not particularly satisfying, and perhaps even a bit scary.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          I actually thought it was a vortex but discounted that because by running may arm around the fern I would have interfered with it.
          Not necessarily.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And I'm not given hallucinations -ever.
          If you did have an hallucination how would you know it was an hallucination?

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And I think you will find that William of Ockham believed in miracles.
          In the fourteenth century people believed a lot of things that today we know are nonsense.

          If you consider your experience was some sort of theophany - it was not much of one, was it? Hardly a burning bush.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            If you did have an hallucination how would you know it was an hallucination?
            You've never had an hallucinogenic substance?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Not necessarily.
              Of course it would.

              If you did have an hallucination how would you know it was an hallucination?
              Perhaps you are having a hallucination right now.


              If you consider your experience was some sort of theophany - it was not much of one, was it? Hardly a burning bush.
              It was enough for me...
              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


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Of course it would.
                Not necessarily. Mountains don't necessarily interfere with tornadoes, for example.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                  You've never had an hallucinogenic substance?
                  What is that supposed to infer? The fact is that when people have hallucinations or they are often fully convinced they are conscious and the experience is real - hence the "experiences" of various alien abductees.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                    Not necessarily. Mountains don't necessarily interfere with tornadoes, for example.
                    Nonsense, moving my arm around the fern while it was suspended should have effected it. And if it was a vortex why wasn't anything else caught up in it? There were plenty of dead leaves and such lying around.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Of course it would.
                      Why?


                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Perhaps you are having a hallucination right now.
                      Perhaps I am. Perhaps all our past exchanges and our respective lives are mere illusions and we have suddenly been brought into existence at this exact moment.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      It was enough for me...
                      Yet you select the least rational conclusion as being the most likely.

                      My thread title certainly has relevance in many areas.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Yet you select the least rational conclusion as being the most likely.
                        Why would that be the least rational for a Theist? And this is rich coming from one who doesn't even believe that the laws of logic are absolute. You don't have a rational leg to stand on.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Why would that be the least rational for a Theist? And this is rich coming from one who doesn't even believe that the laws of logic are absolute. You don't have a rational leg to stand on.
                          There are logical absolutes but various forms of logic are not of themselves absolute as has been commented on by other contributors.

                          I suppose you might as well believe the fairies were doing it.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Why would that be the least rational for a Theist? And this is rich coming from one who doesn't even believe that the laws of logic are absolute. You don't have a rational leg to stand on.
                            Is it rational to insist that everyone accept the laws of logic as absolute when you can't prove it without begging the question?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Nonsense, moving my arm around the fern while it was suspended should have effected it.
                              Mountains don't necessarily interfere with tornadoes or hurricanes. They can, but they don't always.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Was it nature's purpose for the dinosaurs to survive? Nature does not deal in good and evil. So again yes, our survival is a good only because we say so?
                                Well not in the sense of intention, by yeah, the natural purpose of birth, of life, is to live. And you're right, nature is not intentional so it doesn't deal in morality, but you're confusing natural causes with intentional causes and only the latter is defined as morality. So, why is it objective then? Because when it comes to intentional beings morals are those rules that we find to be in the best interests of life, of survival, of society.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                284 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X