tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post1676567974655102423..comments2023-11-02T05:30:09.787-07:00Comments on Testblogg/kladd - z: Believers in God are Not logically obliged to accept any Flying Tea Pots, Spaghetti monsters, Elves, Banshees, or FairiesZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-85447561271565292962008-02-13T05:52:00.000-08:002008-02-13T05:52:00.000-08:00As an atheist, I reject "foundationalism"...As an atheist, I reject "foundationalism". Thus making most of your argument collapse into the ground. Every belief is in the end grounded on certain axioms (eg. the usefulness of logic). <br><br>Also, you have no reason to reject (by way of reason) TFSM and not Your God, before you have presented any evidence that shows why Your God in any significant way is different from TFSM. Trying to show that you might (in theory!) reject TFSM and not Your God, isn't worth much.arsethicahttp://arsethica.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-14106062105167559292008-02-13T06:07:00.000-08:002008-02-13T06:07:00.000-08:00ArsethicaBut isn't that what us believers are ...Arsethica<br><br>But isn't that what us believers are trying to do every day? We give examples of why it's reasonable for us to believe in God while meaningless to believe in a TFSM (the flying spaghetti monster)<br>But we (you and I) don't agree on these examples, do we?<br>You would never admit my examples as relevant anyway.<br><br>(this is just what Plantinga tries to point out).Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-77279780139666404602008-02-13T07:22:00.000-08:002008-02-13T07:22:00.000-08:00I really don't see any solution to that proble...I really don't see any solution to that problem. Do you agree that it isn't reasonable to believe in TFSM even if the Believers of TFSM (BoTFSM) claim so? As far as I can tell, Plantingas argument would be just as valid to the adherents of TFSM or Russels Tea Pot.Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-38244606244859647232008-02-13T07:45:00.000-08:002008-02-13T07:45:00.000-08:00NicolasExactly. It's up to the fans of the fam...Nicolas<br><br>Exactly. It's up to the fans of the famous spaghetti guy to believe in him if they like! <br>And to present examples and arguments to you and me, for consideration.<br><br>Afterwards, it's up to the individual (e.g. me) to decide to accept or reject the idea of the spaghetti hero,<br>based upon whether I find their arguments/examples justified or not<br><br>But again, this is up to me to decide. An atheist can't decide what phenomena I should believe in as a basic belief: <br>only I can do that.Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-27017077762373444612008-02-13T08:00:00.000-08:002008-02-13T08:00:00.000-08:00Oh, it's certainly up to you to decide what to...Oh, it's certainly up to you to <i>decide what to believe</i>. But my claim is that it's not up to (just) you to decide what's rational to believe. According to you, rationality is a subjective and not objective value. Am I right?<br><br>I honestly can't bring myself to imagine that anyone would actually believe such a proposition, but that might just be me.Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-50697381292458340162008-02-13T08:12:00.000-08:002008-02-13T08:12:00.000-08:00It's not up to myself to decide what to believ...It's not up to myself to decide what to believe as rational, in general.<br><br>Different statements are proved and discussed every day (though the experts very rarely agree with each other; ask any archaeologist for example: constant ongoing arguments)<br><br>But it's up to the individual to choose his own BASIC beliefs (grundantaganden)Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-52729257457010349482008-02-13T08:24:00.000-08:002008-02-13T08:24:00.000-08:00So, these "basic beliefs" are actually &...So, these "basic beliefs" are actually "axioms"?Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-15887346852831524022008-02-13T08:30:00.000-08:002008-02-13T08:30:00.000-08:00Yes they are,and one is entitled to accept one axi...Yes they are,<br>and one is entitled to accept one axiom while rejecting another.<br><br>This is another axiom:<br><br>"One should only accept statements in which there are good reasons to believe"<br><br>I accept this axiom, but I doubt that every person will accept what I refer to as "good reasons".<br>Many hard fact scientists don't even share criteria for "good reasons". Hence the debates.Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-79839586321187228682008-02-13T09:13:00.000-08:002008-02-13T09:13:00.000-08:00And another axiom is "Accept as few axioms as...And another axiom is "Accept as few axioms as possible." (ie. Occam's Razor)<br><br><i>"I accept this axiom, but I doubt that every person will accept what I refer to as "good reasons"."</i><br><br>Ok. But what does this tell me that I didn't already know? The whole debate on the existence of God is about what constitutes "good reasons", and wether we should (axiomatically) exempt God from Occams Razor.Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-50175612332948352162008-02-13T23:19:00.000-08:002008-02-13T23:19:00.000-08:00NicolasIt didn't tell you anything you didn...Nicolas<br><br>It didn't tell you anything you didn't know. It accentuated the fact that atheism is also based on an axiom.<br><br>The post only explained its title. It's a logical protest against flying tea pots which i have no logical obligation to believe in.Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-17909910688877501502008-02-14T00:59:00.000-08:002008-02-14T00:59:00.000-08:00Well, your title doesn't logically follow from...Well, your title doesn't logically follow from that conclusion (although I can agree that your conclusion might be useful against 13 year old atheists ;). <br><br>However, I did some research and found another article on Plantingas view of this. While I still didn't become convinced that believers can reject TFSM and accept Jesus, at least I could understand the reasoning enough to find (what I concider to be) his logical fallacies.<br><br>As far as I can see, you have only shown that everything is based on axioms. Now, that is fine if you only wanted to defend freedom of religion (the right to believe any stupid idea, like Santa or TFSM).<br><br><i>(the following is based on different apologetic blogs I found, and not Plantinga's own writings - keep that in mind :)</i><br>If you want to show that belief in a supernatural god is actually rational even in abscence of evidence, you have to show that the view atheists take (evidentialism) is wrong. Plantinga tries, (AFAICT) fails, and then (AFAICT) fails to present any rebuttal to the counter-arguments. You use the same arguments as Plantinga, but if you had just explained what evidentialism actually is, I might have understood what you meant the first time around.<br><br><i>PS: Do not take this as criticism of the quality of your writings, but rather think of it as the challenge we all face when we want to explain something complicated to any random idiot on the web (e.g. me)… :)</i>Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-10254626982730197602008-02-14T01:09:00.000-08:002008-02-14T01:09:00.000-08:00;)Looking forward to more discussions + reading so...;)<br>Looking forward to more discussions + reading some certain future postings on your blogZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-55159180786044510532008-02-14T01:17:00.000-08:002008-02-14T01:17:00.000-08:00Nice to hear. I'll try and remember to ping th...Nice to hear. I'll try and remember to ping this post when i post.<br><br>The posts I had almost completed were on Plantinga's so-called ontological evidence of God's existence, on his argument against naturalism & evolution. In addition, I watched halways through a lecture of his on why materialism is impossible, and it remains a mystery to me why this man is so highly respected. His logic is perhaps sound, but if you don't let reality (scientific findings) influence your premises, then the conclusions are useless if reality is what you want to describe... <br><br>Anyways, this topic of yours about reason and belief is an argument of Plantinga that I haven't prepared anything on. And to write anything on the basis of blogs and without proper sources, would probably be a waste of time. So it might take some time before I get it published on my blog :)Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-1813747539189557342008-02-14T02:53:00.000-08:002008-02-14T02:53:00.000-08:00I've read this thread and one thing really str...I've read this thread and one thing really strikes me....<br><br>That reason and scientific proofs seems to be the only way of knowing something for some of you.<br><br>Those wo search for evidence for belief in a scientific way will probably never find any that are good enough (even if one could make experiments on God that turned out the same way each time - but God is not an object that responds in that way - like a robot). <br><br>Once those who don't wish to believe eventually, randomly, actually happen to encounter some evidence - they will do their best to deny it or explain it in other ways - just because they don't want to believe... <br><br>They might also search for proof in the wrong way.<br><br>If you want to find flowers, you normally don't go out on a chilly winter day and look around in vain, and return complaining about the lack of flowers, saying they don't exist - because they didn't show up where and when you wanted - on your demand. <br><br>Everything that exist needs to be found in the way it can possibly be found. Not in ways it can't be found. That's just waste of time.<br><br>God is alive - not a thing - and not someone one can demand to do things in one's own way, for one's own pleasure - to satisfy one's wish for proofs that one has defined in a narrow sense. That would be absurd.<br><br>Those who wish to find God should search for God - and not for evidence. <br><br>Those who get to know God need no further evidence than that knowledge - which is like knowing another person - not just knowing things about him/her - but truly knowing him/her. <br><br>Couldn't hold back these two cents... <br><br>CharlotteCharlotte Theresehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04932236440961471908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-56205110665069262032008-02-14T03:03:00.000-08:002008-02-14T03:03:00.000-08:00I agree completely. Except I think that those who ...I agree completely. <br><br>Except I think that those who wish to find TFSM should search for TFSM - and not for evidence. TFSM is alive - not a thing - and not someone one can demand to do things in one's own way, for one's own pleasure - to satisfy one's wish for proofs that one has defined in a narrow sense. <br><br>That would be absurd.Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-49910679198701708612008-02-14T04:01:00.000-08:002008-02-14T04:01:00.000-08:00I believe it's important to remember that scie...I believe it's important to remember that science doesn't prove stuff the same way as mathematics or philosophy does.<br><br>I think the main argument here is what to call a rational axiom/basic belief. Is it rational to assume that there is some kind of god without prof or is it rational to assume that the simplest answer is the correct one?averaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597140840555550409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-51156530107956217642008-02-14T04:22:00.000-08:002008-02-14T04:22:00.000-08:00That's a good point, averater. Although I woul...That's a good point, averater. Although I would claim that philosophy is even less sturdy than science, since philosophy is built on top of scientific findings (that is, proven facts). I.e., f you have "life exist" as a premise, that is a premise you have to prove scientifically before you proceed (if all life is dead and you use "life exists" as a premise, the conclusion will be wrong). That philosophy is a lot less sturdy than mathemathics is seen by comparing the evolution of philosphy versus mathemathics. While mathemathics have evolved by gaing more and more layers (very few previous layers with consensus were actually wrong, just less precise than the following layer), philosophy has changed a lot the last 4000 years. And still there are a lot of philosphical fields with mutually exclusive hypotheses...Nicolashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11911735340421298805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-45140600268413164532008-02-14T05:06:00.000-08:002008-02-14T05:06:00.000-08:00Nicolas, AveraterMaybe Averater was referring to o...Nicolas, Averater<br><br>Maybe Averater was referring to one special field when he said 'philosophy, namely: logic <br>(implications). Am I right?Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13820950752011856546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6281582179721890595.post-23713981631170211062008-02-14T06:12:00.000-08:002008-02-14T06:12:00.000-08:00z: yes something like that. logic or argumentation...z: yes something like that. logic or argumentation or something...<br><br>nicolas: I mean such philosophy that deals with basic questions such as "can we prove that we exist?". Then there is no need to involve science since that must first be accepted by the question... This is not really my area so I don't know how to explain any better...<br><br>Remember that science only does theories, not truth.<br>Example: If I measure the temperature to 20C here, does that mean that it is 20C here or that i have a faulty thermometer? I can check the temperature with 1000 different thermometers all showing that the temperature is 20C, but have I then proven the temperature to be 20C or that I have found 1000 faulty thermometers?<br><br>Of course do I believe that the temperature would be around 20C if i checked it with a thermometer, but if that would have been inconsistent with any of my axioms ("the temperature can't be more than 0C") then of course, the thermometers is faulty! I believe that the temperature can be higher than that, but maybe there is someone who doesn't. That person can't be convinced by science alone.<br><br>I don't know if I wrote something clever here or if I explained anything. Maybe I just misunderstood you're last post...averaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597140840555550409noreply@blogger.com