Public debates are rarely undertaken with the goal of convincing the "other side" but with convincing any interested third party who might be listening in. When Jesus debated the pharisees, do you think he did it for their benefit, or for the benefit of the onlookers?
Atheist Petra Fans
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
0 x
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
And what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument? You would do better to show that the argument is in some way unsound or invalid rather than whine about "proof".
0 x
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
The point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pmAnd what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument? You would do better to show that the argument is in some way unsound or invalid rather than whine about "proof".
"But divine command theory is not a semantical theory about the meaning of the English word “good.” It is an ontological or metaphysical theory about the grounding of moral values, and it identifies the good with God himself. God is the ultimate source and paradigm of moral values."
It is a theory, there is no proof, no logical argument and nothing to support the claim. Interesting...
0 x
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
You apparently don't know what the term "theory" means as it relates to philosophy.curt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 amThe point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pmAnd what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument? You would do better to show that the argument is in some way unsound or invalid rather than whine about "proof".
"But divine command theory is not a semantical theory about the meaning of the English word “good.” It is an ontological or metaphysical theory about the grounding of moral values, and it identifies the good with God himself. God is the ultimate source and paradigm of moral values."
It is a theory, there is no proof, no logical argument and nothing to support the claim. Interesting...
'A philosophical theory or philosophical position is a set of beliefs that explains or accounts for a general philosophy or specific branch of philosophy. The use of the term theory here is a statement of colloquial English and not reflective of the term theory. While any sort of thesis or opinion may be termed a position, in analytic philosophy it is thought best to reserve the word "theory" for systematic, comprehensive attempts to solve problems.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theory
So when a philosopher describes something as a theory, what he means is that it is a rigorous explanation that is well supported by scientific, philosophical, and/or theological truths. It is not, as you suggest, idle speculation or guesswork made in a vacuum. Sneeringly dismissing a philosophical argument because it is described as a "theory" is as ignorant as a creationist mocking evolution for the same reason. People who know better laugh at such naivety.
0 x
-
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:52 pm
- #1 Album: Jekyll & Hyde
- Pethead since: 2017
- x 154
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Merlin is hardly a Pharisee, he is an atheist. Besides, I doubt a debate like this would convince anyone of anything, except perhaps that Petheads like arguing with each other in a rather unpleasant manner.Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:14 pmPublic debates are rarely undertaken with the goal of convincing the "other side" but with convincing any interested third party who might be listening in. When Jesus debated the pharisees, do you think he did it for their benefit, or for the benefit of the onlookers?
0 x
'You've got no place to run!'
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Nor did I imply he was one. I simply used Jesus as an example, and his most prolific opponents in the public arena happened to be the pharisees.George Harrison wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:14 pmMerlin is hardly a Pharisee...Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:14 pmPublic debates are rarely undertaken with the goal of convincing the "other side" but with convincing any interested third party who might be listening in. When Jesus debated the pharisees, do you think he did it for their benefit, or for the benefit of the onlookers?
I do not share your doubts.George Harrison wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:14 pmI doubt a debate like this would convince anyone of anything...
0 x
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
This is actually quite funny. What I reacted to was the fact that you yourself implied it was an argument. You wrote: "And what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument?" You claimed there was a philosophical proof and a logical argument. Where is it? I know what a theory is and I know what a proof and a logical argument is. Please show me the proof and the logical argument if you can.Mountain Man wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:23 amYou apparently don't know what the term "theory" means as it relates to philosophy.curt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 amThe point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pmAnd what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument? You would do better to show that the argument is in some way unsound or invalid rather than whine about "proof".
"But divine command theory is not a semantical theory about the meaning of the English word “good.” It is an ontological or metaphysical theory about the grounding of moral values, and it identifies the good with God himself. God is the ultimate source and paradigm of moral values."
It is a theory, there is no proof, no logical argument and nothing to support the claim. Interesting...
'A philosophical theory or philosophical position is a set of beliefs that explains or accounts for a general philosophy or specific branch of philosophy. The use of the term theory here is a statement of colloquial English and not reflective of the term theory. While any sort of thesis or opinion may be termed a position, in analytic philosophy it is thought best to reserve the word "theory" for systematic, comprehensive attempts to solve problems.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theory
So when a philosopher describes something as a theory, what he means is that it is a rigorous explanation that is well supported by scientific, philosophical, and/or theological truths. It is not, as you suggest, idle speculation or guesswork made in a vacuum. Sneeringly dismissing a philosophical argument because it is described as a "theory" is as ignorant as a creationist mocking evolution for the same reason. People who know better laugh at such naivety.
0 x
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
The "proof", as it were, is contained in Craig's debate from which the quotes were pulled:curt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:00 amThis is actually quite funny. What I reacted to was the fact that you yourself implied it was an argument. You wrote: "And what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument?" You claimed there was a philosophical proof and a logical argument. Where is it? I know what a theory is and I know what a proof and a logical argument is. Please show me the proof and the logical argument if you can.Mountain Man wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:23 amYou apparently don't know what the term "theory" means as it relates to philosophy.curt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 amThe point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pmAnd what do you expect a philosophical proof to look like other than a logical argument? You would do better to show that the argument is in some way unsound or invalid rather than whine about "proof".
"But divine command theory is not a semantical theory about the meaning of the English word “good.” It is an ontological or metaphysical theory about the grounding of moral values, and it identifies the good with God himself. God is the ultimate source and paradigm of moral values."
It is a theory, there is no proof, no logical argument and nothing to support the claim. Interesting...
'A philosophical theory or philosophical position is a set of beliefs that explains or accounts for a general philosophy or specific branch of philosophy. The use of the term theory here is a statement of colloquial English and not reflective of the term theory. While any sort of thesis or opinion may be termed a position, in analytic philosophy it is thought best to reserve the word "theory" for systematic, comprehensive attempts to solve problems.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theory
So when a philosopher describes something as a theory, what he means is that it is a rigorous explanation that is well supported by scientific, philosophical, and/or theological truths. It is not, as you suggest, idle speculation or guesswork made in a vacuum. Sneeringly dismissing a philosophical argument because it is described as a "theory" is as ignorant as a creationist mocking evolution for the same reason. People who know better laugh at such naivety.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... once-again
In other words, Craig looks at the truths of philosophy and theology and the universe in which we live and presents the best explanation that accounts for the facts as we know them.
Like I said, you would do better to show that the argument is in some way unsound or invalid rather than whine about "proof" and "theories".
0 x
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
So, you do realize there was no proof in what you provided and now you argue by weblink. Are you able to actually argue in favour of the theory?
0 x
- Mountain Man
- Pethead Fanatic
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:11 pm
- #1 Album: Wake-Up Call
- Pethead since: 1983
- x 266
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
The fact that you're continuing along this track suggests to me that you really don't understand the argument being presented. I have nothing to add that I haven't said in the previous pages of this thread.
0 x
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
So you could not present the argument and have to rely on a weblink. If that is your proof or logical argument I am certainly not impressed.
As I have pointed out in what you presented in this last part of the discussion there is no argument being presented. There is nothing to understand or misunderstand since you provided a short presentation of a theory and then refuse to support it with anything but a weblink.
As I have pointed out in what you presented in this last part of the discussion there is no argument being presented. There is nothing to understand or misunderstand since you provided a short presentation of a theory and then refuse to support it with anything but a weblink.
0 x
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests