Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Trying to define all that fancy nonsense only proves that you haven't understood anything.

Imo the prophecy of the popes proves that there's a higher power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

So basically abductive reasoning. Two out of two so far. And it's not I who hasn't understood anything, it's you. If you understood anything you would read the stories of the elephant headed God, Ganesh. That is real proof of a higher power.

LOL? ..that's selfdelusion!

So are prophecies. It's a matter of perspective.

Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Postby thedoc » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:33 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.


Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I was re-reading it since it was referenced in this thread, and this post is very instructive. It tells me that HH is not here for an intellectual discussion but an emotional win over any Christians that might be engaged. So much for objectivity, since he describes it as a war.

thedoc wrote:Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Postby thedoc » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:33 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.


Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I was re-reading it since it was referenced in this thread, and this post is very instructive. It tells me that HH is not here for an intellectual discussion but an emotional win over any Christians that might be engaged. So much for objectivity, since he describes it as a war.

Oh. I am confused because he sounded like he is a Christian. I guess I don't know him so I missed the sarcasm.

sthitapragya wrote: It doesn't matter. The point is God does not show himself. The only way one can reason he exists is by one of the three methods. So far it all seems like abductive reasoning.

Have you ever considered the possibility that God does not show himself because you're looking in all the wrong places? Consider the implications of "God does not exist, but its existence itself."

Oh, right. Nevermind. You don't do philosophy.

sthitapragya wrote:

thedoc wrote:Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Postby thedoc » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:33 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.


Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I was re-reading it since it was referenced in this thread, and this post is very instructive. It tells me that HH is not here for an intellectual discussion but an emotional win over any Christians that might be engaged. So much for objectivity, since he describes it as a war.

Oh. I am confused because he sounded like he is a Christian. I guess I don't know him so I missed the sarcasm.

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I am definitely a Christian, I'm not sure about HH, but I don't think he is.

sthitapragya wrote: There is nothing deductive about it because not every premise is rigorously verified. If to were, we wouldn't have so many versions of God. Inductive, maybe, but I am not convinced.

Ontological arguments deduce the existence of God from the concept of God. They are examples of apriori arguments( prior to experience). Ontological arguments don't have to be verified by facts because they are true by definition.

Ginkgo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: There is nothing deductive about it because not every premise is rigorously verified. If to were, we wouldn't have so many versions of God. Inductive, maybe, but I am not convinced.

Ontological arguments deduce the existence of God from the concept of God. They are examples of apriori arguments( prior to experience). Ontological arguments don't have to be verified by facts because they are true by definition.

Unfortunately, that is something only believers believe. They have to be verified someway, either by fact or by reason. You cannot create a fact and use it as a reason. However, even then it seems like abductive reasoning.

sthitapragya wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: There is nothing deductive about it because not every premise is rigorously verified. If to were, we wouldn't have so many versions of God. Inductive, maybe, but I am not convinced.

Ontological arguments deduce the existence of God from the concept of God. They are examples of apriori arguments( prior to experience). Ontological arguments don't have to be verified by facts because they are true by definition.

Unfortunately, that is something only believers believe. They have to be verified someway, either by fact or by reason. You cannot create a fact and use it as a reason. However, even then it seems like abductive reasoning.

As far as "believers" are concerned God's existence is verified by reason not abduction or fact. For example, Descartes developed an ontological argument using the premise that the existence of God is contained with him. It is debatable how it got there, but no doubt Descartes would argue it is part of his mental make-up to know that God exists.

Ginkgo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
Ontological arguments deduce the existence of God from the concept of God. They are examples of apriori arguments( prior to experience). Ontological arguments don't have to be verified by facts because they are true by definition.

Unfortunately, that is something only believers believe. They have to be verified someway, either by fact or by reason. You cannot create a fact and use it as a reason. However, even then it seems like abductive reasoning.

As far as "believers" are concerned God's existence is verified by reason not abduction or fact. For example, Descartes developed an ontological argument using the premise that the existence of God is contained with him. It is debatable how it got there, but no doubt Descartes would argue it is part of his mental make-up to know that God exists.

Well, then that would not be reason or fact. It would just be a declaration which is to be taken as fact. Someone could just as easily say that it is part of my mental make up to know that God does not exist and that the non-existence of God is contained within me.

sthitapragya wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Unfortunately, that is something only believers believe. They have to be verified someway, either by fact or by reason. You cannot create a fact and use it as a reason. However, even then it seems like abductive reasoning.

As far as "believers" are concerned God's existence is verified by reason not abduction or fact. For example, Descartes developed an ontological argument using the premise that the existence of God is contained with him. It is debatable how it got there, but no doubt Descartes would argue it is part of his mental make-up to know that God exists.

Well, then that would not be reason or fact. It would just be a declaration which is to be taken as fact. Someone could just as easily say that it is part of my mental make up to know that God does not exist and that the non-existence of God is contained within me.

it is a declaration of apriori reasoning. Reasoning is not exactly the same as fact, it has a broader definition. Here is a brief summary of Descartes argument:

I have a idea of God as a supremely perfect being

God is a supremely perfect being

Existence is perfection

Therefore, God must exist

I guess it is possible that part of our mental make-up is to know that God is a meat pie, but if you look at Descartes argument you will see it is deductive.

Ginkgo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
As far as "believers" are concerned God's existence is verified by reason not abduction or fact. For example, Descartes developed an ontological argument using the premise that the existence of God is contained with him. It is debatable how it got there, but no doubt Descartes would argue it is part of his mental make-up to know that God exists.

Well, then that would not be reason or fact. It would just be a declaration which is to be taken as fact. Someone could just as easily say that it is part of my mental make up to know that God does not exist and that the non-existence of God is contained within me.

it is a declaration of apriori reasoning. Reasoning is not exactly the same as fact, it has a broader definition. Here is a brief summary of Descartes argument:

I have a idea of God as a supremely perfect being

God is a supremely perfect being

Existence is perfection

Therefore, God must exist

I guess it is possible that part of our mental make-up is to know that God is a meat pie, but if you look at Descartes argument you will see it is deductive.

I don't see how it is deductive reasoning. In fact when Descartes says, "I have an idea of God as a supremely perfect being", he is expressing an opinion. It is an idea. It is not verified to be a truth. It would be verifiable as truth only if Descartes never in his entire life had a single wrong idea. If that were the case, then he could say that since he has an idea of God as a supremely perfect being, and he has never had a wrong idea in his entire life, the idea that God is a supremely perfect being must be true.

He has no idea of the properties of a supremely perfect being, no way to verify that those properties exist. His premise that Existence is perfection is also just an opinion. He cannot verify it and if existence is constantly changing state then it suggests it is not perfect otherwise it would be unchanging.

Also if existence is perfection then existence is God. In which case we could just call it existence and stop calling it two things.

sthitapragya wrote: I don't see how it is deductive reasoning. In fact when Descartes says, "I have an idea of God as a supremely perfect being", he is expressing an opinion. It is an idea. It is not verified to be a truth. It would be verifiable as truth only if Descartes never in his entire life had a single wrong idea. If that were the case, then he could say that since he has an idea of God as a supremely perfect being, and he has never had a wrong idea in his entire life, the idea that God is a supremely perfect being must be true.

He has no idea of the properties of a supremely perfect being, no way to verify that those properties exist. His premise that Existence is perfection is also just an opinion. He cannot verify it and if existence is constantly changing state then it suggests it is not perfect otherwise it would be unchanging.

Also if existence is perfection then existence is God. In which case we could just call it existence and stop calling it two things.

I see the problem.

Philosophers tend to divide logic into two branches. these are called 'deductive logic' and 'inductive' logic. both are concerned with with the rules for correct reasoning. Deductive logic deals with with reasoning which attempts to establish conclusive inferences. Consider the following deductive reasoning;

Socrates is a man

All men are mortal

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Provided the premises are correct, the conclusion that ' Socrates is mortal' must be valid. We say the conclusion is deduced from the premises.

Deductive logic is concerned with the rules for determining if an argument is valid.

Ginkgo wrote: I see the problem.

Philosophers tend to divide logic into two branches. these are called 'deductive logic' and 'inductive' logic. both are concerned with with the rules for correct reasoning. Deductive logic deals with with reasoning which attempts to establish conclusive inferences. Consider the following deductive reasoning;

Socrates is a man

All men are mortal

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Provided the premises are correct, the conclusion that ' Socrates is mortal' must be valid. We say the conclusion is deduced from the premises.

Deductive logic is concerned with the rules for determining if an argument is valid.

There is also a third kind of reasoning called abductive reasoning. This is the form of reasoning by which the existence of God is concluded. At least it appears so from the explanations given so far.

sthitapragya wrote:So are prophecies. It's a matter of perspective.

So could you elevate on this perspective? ..or are you just dispensing elaborate bs to dodge giving an intelligent answer.

sthitapragya wrote:What kind of reasoning concludes God exists?

Deductive - from 19yrs of experience of 'it'.