~ Proof That God Exists ~

[thedoc]

This message is hidden because ------------- is on your lame self-censorship list.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I don't understand your above post...


What do you mean?



.

[thedoc]

.
I don't understand your above post...
What do you mean?
.

It's from another forum, Lev's post made me think of it, so I just posted it here for his benefit.

[Arising_uk]

...
I worship the god of the Batman comics, - much better than Spiderman (an obviously inferior god).

HULK SMASH!

[ReliStuPhD]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OPZF89yd2XM/T ... ligion.gif[/img]

The problem with this image is the assumption that this is what Christians argue about the Bible. I think it's fairly clear that, as far as tradition goes, this is not at all the argument being made. The Bible is not proof that God exists. While the existence of a non-contingent ground of being (what Xians refer to as "God") can be "proved" on logical grounds, if Plantinga is correct, and belief in God is properly basic, "proof" in the empirical sense is not required. That is to say, the Xian accepts that God exists and, as a result, considers the Bible to authoritative.

Put another way, God is proof that the Bible exists [as divine revelation rather than simply literature].

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Plantinga is a philosophaster.


If there were no writings about the god that he exalts there would be no god of his at all.


People cannot want what they cannot see.


Now I, I am real. You can see me. For all you know, I could be your god.




.............................................


.

[ReliStuPhD]

Plantinga is a philosophaster.

If there were no writings about the god that he exalts there would be no god of his at all.

People cannot want what they cannot see.

Now I, I am real. You can see me. For all you know, I could be your god.

OK. You're either going to make arguments that show evidence of a basic understanding of the various philosophical/theological arguments at work here, or you're going to write whatever gobbledy-gook this is. If the latter, I'm entirely uninterested in continuing the conversation. I prefer not to waste my time trying to cut through logical fallacies stacked on sweeping assumptions. If you're interested in actually investigating why your initial image is a strawman--and your follow-up comments similarly fallacious--I'm happy to proceed. It's up to you.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I'm a little let-down. Thought WE may be able to have a productive philosophical discussion.

Apparently, at least two of your opposing egos, have already taken BOTH sides of this argument.

Lemmie get some popcorn and I will get ready to enjoy your point-counterpoint with yourself.


Wikipedia:

Alvin Plantinga has argued that some people can know that God exists as a basic belief, requiring no argument. He developed this argument in two different fashions: firstly, in God and Other Minds (1967), by drawing an equivalence between the teleological argument and the common sense view that people have of other minds existing by analogy with their own minds. Plantinga has also developed a more comprehensive epistemological account of the nature of warrant which allows for the existence of God as a basic belief.

Plantinga has also argued that there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good God.




Those that believe don't know what they believe in.
Those that don't believe don't know what they don't believe in.
~ Bill Wiltrack ~


.

[ReliStuPhD]

I'm a little let-down. Thought WE may be able to have a productive philosophical discussion.

Apparently, at least two of your opposing egos, have already taken BOTH sides of this argument.

Lemmie get some popcorn and I will get ready to enjoy your point-counterpoint with yourself.


Wikipedia:

Alvin Plantinga <snip>


Those that believe don't know what they believe in.
Those that don't believe don't know what they don't believe in.

You began your response by referring to Plantinga as "a person who has only a superficial knowledge of philosophy or who feigns a knowledge he or she does not possess." Pardon me if I don't consider such openers to be indicative of a productive anything. It's rare that I take someone seriously who can't acknowledge the contributions of another, even if they disagree. You may well find Plantinga wrong in his arguments, but to suggest he's effectively an impostor puts you at odds with more or less the entire philosophical community. Plenty may disagree with him. Very few (if any) would hold that he's a lightweight or a fraud. (See, for example, https://philosophynow.org/issues/21/Wha ... f_Religion "Daniel Hill describes how the work of Alvin Plantinga has revolutionised Philosophy of Religion.")

I fail to see what your Wikipedia copy & paste shows, other than to confirm what I have already said: Plantinga has argued that belief in God is properly basic. Thanks for verifying what I already typed, I guess. As to the second point about theodicy, I fail to see how that has bearing on the contrived connection between the Bible, God, comics, and Spider-Man other than its usefulness as a red herring.

Your comment about my opposing egos is nonsensical. This combined with rest of your responses leads me to the conclusion that you're uninterested in debating the point (or are terribly confused about what the actual point is). Very well. Be it trolling or something else, I have far more important uses of my time than to continue to engage whatever it is that you're trying to do here, so I'm turning off notifications for this thread. Just understand that your initial image is a strawman, and that it would behoove you to understand your opponent's argument in its strongest form rather than its weakest.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



No, I stand with my statement about Alvin Plantinga.

His writings are bullshit.

The fact that he was in academia as a learned philosopher explains the books & papers he has written.

He wrote for extra cash & to keep his ego propped-up.


Trust me, he's NOT impressive.

If he were alive he wouldn't have the tamarity to go toe-to-toe with me here in the open at The Forum.


I've bought hundreds of Superman and Batman comics in my life and I've never bought a book by Plantinga. I think I've done Okay. Last time I looked, I believe Rick Lewis, The Mods, & the active membership voted me, The best philosopher that has ever graced this site...or something like that.


Take what you can from Alvin Plantinga, Perhaps he will fill your boat. For me, his potatoes smell a bit ripe.





Oh, and welcome to The Forum!







.........................................................................






.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




...oh, and the I'm turning off the thread bit is a GREAT way to get-out when you find yourself way over your head.


Good luck to you as you continue cherry-pick your philosophical realities upon these boards.


Don't let the door hit-ya where the good lord split-ya.





.

[Arising_uk]

...

Okay. Last time I looked, I believe Rick Lewis, The Mods, & the active membership voted me, The best philosopher that has ever graced this site...or something like that. ...

More like, the biggest gnu who has ever disgraced the term philosopher and this site.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





I appreciate the term Gnu. And I will continue to accept that term in the most positive aspects, as described in Wikipedia.


Yes, it is true, I have, almost single-handedly changed the long-range arc of this particular site.


Hope I continue to be viewed by the majority of the active membership as a tremendously positive component.




Thank you for the complement and thank you for allowing me to more properly frame this thread.





.

[Blaggard]

Proof that God does not exist at last!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8-8WJxA-cI

Ahhhh it's wonderful when that happens, even if you are middle class and not fond of toast or crisps.

I think we have proof if not that JC or his father God does, at least what does exist is JCBs. Philology in action.

.




...oh, and the I'm turning off the thread bit is a GREAT way to get-out when you find yourself way over your head.


Good luck to you as you continue cherry-pick your philosophical realities upon these boards.


Don't let the door hit-ya where the good lord split-ya.





.

Bill no offence I really would hate if you left this forum, but if you would, cherry pick your own, you would not throw stones.

[Arising_uk]

.
I appreciate the term Gnu.

And I will continue to accept that term in the most positive aspects, as described in Wikipedia.

And yet you'd never heard of GNU until I had that chat with the French chap whereupon you posted that I was talking bullshit. What a Gnu you are but I'm pleased you have accepted the title.

Gnu(noun) - a budding guru, now-a-days most usually found upon the Interweeb seeking acolytes. Can be identified by their utterance of meaningless or contradictory aphorisms and vague and meaningless nonsense about a hidden 'Truth' or 'Reality' always just out of reach. Common traits, an inability to answer sentences with question marks, acute selective reading ability, massive belief confirmation bias, ad-hominen psycho-babble and a complete inability to walk their talk or even talk their walk. Be wary of such beasts. Preventative vaccination advised, i.e. a study of Philosophy, in particular a dose of critical philosophy and Logic as practiced in Philosophy now-a-days

Yes, it is true, I have, almost single-handedly changed the long-range arc of this particular site.

And a Gnu with delusions and NPD to boot.

Hope I continue to be viewed by the majority of the active membership as a tremendously positive component.

I don't doubt many enjoy your piccy's but if they follow your 'philosophy' then like you they will become as depressed and confused as you.

Thank you for the complement and thank you for allowing me to more properly frame this thread.

"Compliment" - FTFY