Page 9 of 9
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:14 pm
by Mountain Man
dihigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:16 am
dihigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:17 pm
Am I the only one who wishes this thread would migrate over to "Other Topics?"
While I
still find this thread improperly categorized and in particular "boring" as neither side will ultimately persuade the other, I wonder if "St. Augustine's Pears" is Petra's only attempt at tackling the subject matter of apologetics.
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?
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pm
by Mountain Man
curt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:57 am
This is presented as a theory. There really is no proof.
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".
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 am
by curt
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pm
curt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:57 am
This is presented as a theory. There really is no proof.
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".
The point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:
"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...
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:23 am
by Mountain Man
curt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 am
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pm
curt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:57 am
This is presented as a theory. There really is no proof.
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".
The point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:
"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...
You apparently don't know what the term "theory" means as it relates to philosophy.
'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.
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:14 pm
by George Harrison
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:14 pm
dihigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:16 am
dihigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:17 pm
Am I the only one who wishes this thread would migrate over to "Other Topics?"
While I
still find this thread improperly categorized and in particular "boring" as neither side will ultimately persuade the other, I wonder if "St. Augustine's Pears" is Petra's only attempt at tackling the subject matter of apologetics.
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?
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.
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:42 pm
by Mountain Man
George Harrison wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:14 pm
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:14 pm
dihigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:16 am
dihigo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:17 pm
Am I the only one who wishes this thread would migrate over to "Other Topics?"
While I
still find this thread improperly categorized and in particular "boring" as neither side will ultimately persuade the other, I wonder if "St. Augustine's Pears" is Petra's only attempt at tackling the subject matter of apologetics.
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?
Merlin is hardly a Pharisee...
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 pm
I doubt a debate like this would convince anyone of anything...
I do not share your doubts.
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:00 am
by curt
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:23 am
curt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 am
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pm
curt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:57 am
This is presented as a theory. There really is no proof.
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".
The point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:
"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...
You apparently don't know what the term "theory" means as it relates to philosophy.
'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.
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.
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:02 am
by Mountain Man
curt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:00 am
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:23 am
curt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:58 am
Mountain Man wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:21 pm
curt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:57 am
This is presented as a theory. There really is no proof.
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".
The point, of course, is that there is no logical argument. Here is what he said:
"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...
You apparently don't know what the term "theory" means as it relates to philosophy.
'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.
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.
The "proof", as it were, is contained in Craig's debate from which the quotes were pulled:
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".
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:52 pm
by curt
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?
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:26 pm
by Mountain Man
curt wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:52 pm
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?
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.
Re: Atheist Petra Fans
Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:07 am
by curt
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.