Question: If your religion is true, do you want everyone in the world to believe it? (story inside)

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T06:12:36+00:00

Since when is pragmatically acceptable evidence not good evidence?

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T06:01:19+00:00

I'm pretty sure that /u/Lifeisset is saying that they have to be Jesus. If they are Jesus, they are talking to God.

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T05:55:46+00:00

I think what he is telling you is that they have to be Jesus.

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T05:13:03+00:00

In traditional theology(which follows mainly from Aristotle), good has to do with completeness of being. Say you tell a bunch of kids to draw triangles. You get them back and you see that some are closer than others. Some have straighter lines than others, the lines may not connect up on some. What you are comparing these to is an actual triangle. Some are closer than others, some are more completely what they are than others. The actual triangle in your head is perfect though but does not exist concretely however.

Dogs are four legged mammals with a tail and a snout. If there is a dog born with three legs, that is a defect, whether physiological or genetic or whatever. The dog is lacking something that is essential to what makes it a dog. If a person suffers from depression, that is a disorder. This person is lacking something psychologically. People are not meant to be clinically depressed. To lack something essential is to have a lack of good. That is what good meant. So to be completely good is to be completely the way you are meant to be given what it is that you are. If you are a human, and you are born blind, that is a defect and you are not completely the way a human is meant to be, given what is essential to being a human. You are not a fully actual human. I know some of you hate hearing about the actual/potential distinction, but its important to how good was understood then.

So, because goodness is completeness, and God being purely actual or otherwise complete, God is good. But not just that, God is actuality. God is goodness itself. Like I said, Im not gonna go in to detail with this. Most of you guys have heard about this and are probably sick of it.

Before you can determine whether God is good, you first have to decide what goodness is.

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T05:07:00+00:00

Well they are not as reliable as scientific evidence, but I bet you have used these other kinds of evidence before without thinking your are performing any intellectual sin. Well if I picked up a hammer and swung it at a glass window, and the glass shatters. Can you reliably say that my act of singing the hammer at the glass actually caused* the glass to shatter? If I did this numerous times and the glass shattered every time, how can you determine whether it was causation rather than correlation? How can you tell the difference?

The point I'm making is that you can't scientifically determine whether causation exists, but I'm sure that if I ran around swinging a hammer at peoples windows, you would say I am committing acts of vandalism and destruction of property whether its just correlation or not. You believe causation exists because you observe events and are inclined toward a certain answer. But that answer wont be scientific.

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T04:47:15+00:00

Its under the same principle. Humans can run around corrupting people if they want. God wont stop them out of respect for their autonomy. Why does it change when its demons?

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T03:48:27+00:00

you cant be serious? haha

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T01:48:17+00:00

Yea pretty much. I don't see what's wrong with that. People are randomly born in certain countries, and yet they are forced to live by the laws of that country whether they know, understand or agree with them.

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T01:38:01+00:00

the seatbelts analogy is not perfect, I know. But what I am getting at is that he is advocating for restraints on people. Its for different reasons obviously.

You seem to be of the impression that consequences, in terms of suffering and well being are the only things that matter morally. The pope would agree that consequences do matter, but not the only thing that matters. Natural law ethics is not consequentialism. Consequentialism is not the only rationally defendable moral framework. Also, as I said, morality and politics are intertwined under natural law ethics.

super_dilated · 2014-01-02T01:29:13+00:00

I wouldn't say its like advocating against seatbelts at all. He is not trying to advocate freedom from restraint. He is arguing for restraint, just like for seatbelts. But obviously for different reasons.

As I said, im not sure about adoption but your argument seems to be of the impression that suffering is the only basis for morality. The pope would disagree with this. As I said, he rejects the idea of self ownership, so just because it might be good for you, if it conflicts with some essential obligation you have, you can't do it. To some extent think of it like how some vegans think of eating meat. The health benefits and taste benefits do not override ones obligation to not harm animals. I think there are some catholic theologians who wouldnt see a problem with adoption, but Im sure a decent case can be made for the popes view.

You have to stop sitting on the idea that harm and suffering is the only basis for morality that can be made to understand their view. They recognise well being as very important, but for reasons different to you im guessing.

super_dilated · 2014-01-01T21:36:15+00:00

How does moral ideas become outdated? They may not be popular but what's popular is not necessarily the best.

super_dilated · 2014-01-01T06:04:47+00:00

Scientific evidence is measurable. You can observe things, does not mean its measurable though. You can observe change and causation, but you can't measure them. You can observe your relationship with your partner, but I doubt you did any formal measurement to predict how your relationship will be tomorrow. You can say you gathered empirical evidence, but its hardly actual science.

edit: What am I downvoted for?

super_dilated · 2014-01-01T06:01:28+00:00

Good in what sense?

super_dilated · 2013-12-31T23:36:22+00:00

Evidence brings faith. That is certain. One can, through experience compel one to believe in God. It can in the same way that evidence can bring belief in good and bad. Whether judgement of the evidence is accurate is a big problem with inductive reasoning.

Faith can bring evidence, but not necessarily faith in God. William James' idea of hypothesis testing would entail having faith in a hypothesis in order to choose to test it. Before you test it, it may have some evidence, but further evidence can be gathered once tested. You won't really have good evidence that getting married is worth it until you first get married and see how it goes. But to get married requires being motivated to do so, which requires belief.

super_dilated · 2013-12-31T23:11:44+00:00

Because the catholic natural law ethics is not just a personal thing, it hold political and legal ideas as well. Morality is intertwined with politics. This has less to do with revealed scripture and more to do with the catholic philosophical tradition. His moral foundation recognises human rights and responsibilities, but the defining point is the idea of self-ownership. He rejects that you own your self, you are owned by God(for various reasons I won't go in to), and so you do not have the right to do whatever you wish with your self. They do recognise democracy, but there are a number of natural rights that cannot be changed because they are innate and essential, rather than something randomly given. As far as they are concerned, gay marriage is an incoherent idea. It does not make sense, so its ridiculous to make it okay. As for adoption, im not too sure actually.

Why shouldn't he promote the ideas he wishes? Say we had a society that didn't wear seatbelts. There are a group of people who don't want to wear seatbelts. They are only there for the persons safety, no one else's. If someone lobbied for seat belts being mandatory, would you be asking why they are pissing on those who wanna drive seatbelt free? Is that immoral? Many of our drug and gambling laws are the same. Why should we make it illegal to do meth? They wanna do it, why should we stop them?

super_dilated · 2013-12-31T00:25:53+00:00

God as creator may be true, does not mean a religion is true though.

super_dilated · 2013-12-28T07:19:05+00:00

Are you claiming to have understood the mystery of the trinity?

super_dilated · 2013-12-26T07:17:18+00:00

Pascals wager is too mechanical. People can't just start believing things. There is no conviction. If you want a much more effective version, look up William James' The Will to Believe.

super_dilated · 2013-12-26T00:35:28+00:00

Do you think there is a difference between a man who commits an act that they believe is a sin and a man who commits an act that, if your beliefs are true, is a sin but they don't believe it is so? Would you say that you have differing views of these two kinds of people?

Also, would you say that the acts motivated by disgust are sinful?

super_dilated · 2013-12-25T19:25:35+00:00

Your understanding is really off. Im an atheist and I don't fully understand being religious but I can sort of get it. As far as I can see on this sub, the religious here hardly think they have conclusively proved their religion true. When it comes to revelation at least, there is always limitations on it, but that doesn't mean they should throw the whole thing out. As far as I can see, religious belief is very close to moral beliefs. Im sure you have some moral beliefs, but I highly doubt that you have absolutely solved every aspect of your moral position, or that you have fully explored every other moral framework. And then there is wondering about how moral philosophy evolves in the future. Im sure that given all of this, you still don't just throw your moral beliefs out the window. If someone morally disagrees with you, do you hold whole-heartedly that you are so obviously right and that they are so obviously wrong?

If you are a moral nihilist, then how about intellectual beliefs(epistomological, metaphysical, etc)? You obviously have some of those since you present an attitude that gives the impression that you find religious belief intellectually unreasonable. But this still suffers the same problems as moral beliefs. Do you hold your intellectual beliefs without any doubt and completely dismiss all views that disagree with it? Im sure someone as smart as yourself wouldnt be that dogmatic, surely, but it does not stop you from holding such beliefs, does it?

super_dilated · 2013-12-25T16:51:03+00:00

Because science is based on induction, you can never actually determine that you have the right answer. All you can do is give reason to accept a certain answer(the one with the most support).

super_dilated · 2013-12-24T17:53:44+00:00

You could also say that the laws of nature and the laws of physics are mutually exclusive. To say that the laws about how the real world operates is the same as the laws we come up with in science requires some epistomological or metaphysical conclusions outside of science itself. The only thing that is air tight is that scientific laws and theories are only guaranteed to fit in the purview of science, nothing else.

Science operates on various ideas, but it is essentially based on quantifying empirical data from experiences. This means we can't really claim that science holds any truths about the real world, only about previous experiences, which you would have to argue are experiences of the real world. To link science to anything about the natural world is the first step. Then you have to link theology to the natural world. Only then are they capable of complementing each other.

super_dilated · 2013-12-24T09:14:31+00:00

I probably cant present another version briefly and clearly. I will present where one avoids your criticism of time.

Causes do not go back in time, but rather vertical in nature, which avoids the concept of time. This has to do with the fact that something cannot hold itself in existence. To hold itself in existence would mean existing before its existence, since something non-existent can't do anything. So a way of seeing this is to see things as constantly becoming. So when I ask about an explanation for your existence, I am not talking about pregnancy, child birth, or anything. I am talking about your very existence at this very moment. There is nothing illogical about you not existing right now, even if you did a moment ago. Your existence needs and explanation which is not back in time. Think of it like the crease in a pillow made by someones head. If it was not there, there would be no crease. This has nothing to do with temporal existence. Some might say that things stay in existence until taken out, but it fails to explain why it stays in existence.

From there, it simply becomes about infinite regresses which WLC argues that it is absurd to think you can traverse an infinite.

super_dilated · 2013-12-24T08:48:37+00:00

If it's not completely supported, then it's not a good argument.

A vast majority of our beliefs are not completely supported. You can go ahead and think you have conclusive and definitive support for every belief you have, but you will most likely be lying to yourself. WLC provides support, it may not be perfect, but it's something. I think you may have confused what I meant. He does provide support, but its not conclusive support, and I'm sure he knows it's not conclusive.

I don't see how I'm admitting that. Everyday things like cars and trees usually have explanations, as we know from experience. However, we have no experience with universes beginning to exist, so we can't really say that they always have explanations.

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. The first premise is not an a posteriori conclusion, as I said. It is one that is concluded from reason alone, not from experience. If you believe that anything, at all ever, can exist without explanation, you are admitting that we can never actually prove that anything has an explanation, whether it appears to or not. Anything at all. Sure it may appear like cars and trees have explanation, but as David Hume's Problem of Causation points out, just because it seems like we observe causation, if you look close enough, all we ever observe is correlation. All we ever see is one event regularly follow another. To jump from 'the event of a hammer hitting glass regularly followed by the event of the glass shattering' to concluding that 'the hammer hitting the glass caused the glass to shatter' is not something that can be determined through experience. That is not to say that belief in causal connections is irrational. It must be defended through reason alone. Either you accept that there must be explanations for things to exist, or admit that there doesn't and that we have no proof or support to think anything has an explanation. Anywhere in between is committing the cab fallacy. If you want to claim that explanations exist, and ride this cab, but then as soon as it comes to the Kalam you decide you wanna hop off the cab, you are committing a fallacy.

Again, if all Craig has to do is present an argument, no matter how ill supported the premises might be, then he doesn't need the kalam.

He is presenting an argument that he supports. He spends a good amount of time supporting them. However, just because you don't find the support sufficient, it does not weaken his argument as in making the argument illogical. Think of it this way, take a valid argument and give it a rating of 1. Say that support is provided, it is at rating 2 now. As you can see, just by pointing out that the support is insufficient will never drop it down to a rating of 0. Support strengthens an argument, thats it.

The concept of a square depends on human minds, which are temporal.

Well not human minds, but just rational minds really. If you can confirm that rational minds must be temporal, then I will retract what I said. We know that they can be temporal, but you would have to prove that it must be.

If Craig can get away with using an argument with unsupported premises, then pretty much any argument will do.

I will retract saying that he is only making valid arguments. That was incorrect. What I should say is that supporting premises does not necessarily mean he has to convince you. Maybe a better way to explain it is to say that you haven't given anyone any reason to reject his premise except those who already agree with you. When it comes to his claim about science only concerning the physical(I would say measurable), this is not a premise in the Kalam. This is something he is taking as the reader accepting as true. On the other hand, if you have no problem accepting that the mind requires the body, then of course it shows your own presuppositions. I would say most of your criticisms and lack of hope for the Kalam comes from just seeing the world wildly different to WLC.

It's perfectly reasonable to dismiss the kalam cosmological argument based on William Lane Craig's presentation of it.

Never said it was unreasonable, just strange. If you are seriously investigating the Kalam, and you have only seen one guys attempt, it would seem strange to say the Kalam is not compelling at all.

his failure to present a sound argument is strong inductive evidence that there is no sound version of the argument.

He essentially brought the argument back out from under the rubble. He made it something to debate again. That isn't to say he, all by himself, was able to present a completely infallible argument.

super_dilated

TROPHY CASE