Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…166167169171172…327

Comments

  • Options
    #5042
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    There are occasional counter-intuitive phenomena that have been discovered by science ... but common sense is always a good guide when it comes to weighing the evidence for all hypotheses (including the counter-intuitive ones).

    Quantum physics is counter-intuitive and goes against common-sense on almost every level, as is a lot of modern physics (i.e. general relativity). When it comes to the physics of the very big (i.e. relativity) and the very small (i.e. quantum physics) common-sense is particularly useless.


  • Options
    #5043
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    J C wrote: »
    ... you haven't actually eliminated the personal bias of a Materialist from trying to understand the process ... you have accentuated the bias by refusing to consider any hypothesis that a non-material transcendent intelligence did it.
    We strive to eliminate all bias in trying to understand a process. It's not that a supernatural cause is not considered, it is that supernatural causes are considered and rejected when they do not fit the available evidence. Huge difference.
    The supernatural proponents also apply conventional science to all of the issues surrounding origins.
    I've seen very selective application to suit a preconceived agenda.

    ... there is no difference between the two ... unless the prophecy is in the Word of God.
    Right so prophecy is as valid as mystic meg unless it is a god given prophecy even though they have the same amount of evidence for and against them...right:rolleyes:
    What I'm saying is that the actions of intelligence can be definitively identified ... that this has been scientifically established ... but Materialists look the other way and refuse to accept that it can be done in relation to living organisms ... because it doesn't fit in with their Materialistic worldview. So please stop talking about the specks in the eyes of Theists ... while ignoring the great big plank in your own eyes, on the issue of selective reasoning.:D
    If you are trying to bring your "scientifically established" creationism agenda into the debate as a stick to defeat materialism then please just stop now. That has been dealt with elsewhere.


  • Options
    #5044
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think Tim sees the fallacy. I could easily find 50 Christian academics. You're right Jimi who cares. I'd rather see his arguments against Christianity.

    I don't think you could find a list of that caliber. As I have said to you 90% of most intellectual and most educated people do not believe in any religion. You are struggling to deal with the truth on this one.

    Why do you give a cr*p about my arguments against Christianity, do you think I am going to come out with something that has not already been in the public domain and put forward by leading intellectuals?


  • Options
    #5045
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't think you could find a list of that caliber. As I have said to you 90% of most intellectual and most educated people do not believe in any religion. You are struggling to deal with the truth on this one.

    Why do you give a cr*p about my arguments against Christianity, do you think I am going to come out with something that has not already been in the public domain and put forward by leading intellectuals?

    I care about your arguments against Christianity because I'd like to actually discuss with you about the topic on this thread rather than pfaffing around with a superiority complex.


  • Options
    #5046
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    philologos wrote: »
    I care about your arguments against Christianity because I'd like to actually discuss with you about the topic on this thread rather than pfaffing around with a superiority complex.

    What makes you think I'd have a better argument than Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris...?

    If you are curious about some of the strong arguments against Christianity and religion in general - just read them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5047
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    The big one being that the sun doesn't go round the earth.
    That isn't counter intuitive at all ... because the speeds required for the Sun (and the stars) to orbit around the Earth (once every 24 hours) would be impossibly fast!!!:)
    ... so the only logical (and common sense) conclusion is that the Earth revolves every 24 hours ... and the relative movement of the Sun and the stars, when viewed from the Earth, is caused by the movement of the Earth.


  • Options
    #5048
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gvn wrote: »
    Quantum physics is counter-intuitive and goes against common-sense on almost every level, as is a lot of modern physics (i.e. general relativity). When it comes to the physics of the very big (i.e. relativity) and the very small (i.e. quantum physics) common-sense is particularly useless.
    Common sense would indicate that in extremis situations (such approaching the speed of light and operating at sub-atomic scales) could result in very different phenomena to common everyday experiences.


  • Options
    #5049
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    muppeteer wrote: »
    We strive to eliminate all bias in trying to understand a process. It's not that a supernatural cause is not considered, it is that supernatural causes are considered and rejected when they do not fit the available evidence. Huge difference.
    ... one of the problems with bias ... is that the people who hold it often think they are not biased at all.
    Supernatural causes are not considered by Materialist science ... and that is fair enough ... but please don't then say that supernatural causes are considered and rejected when they do not fit the available evidence ... because this simply isn't the case!!!
    muppeteer wrote: »
    I've seen very selective application to suit a preconceived agenda.
    Tell me about it!!!:)

    muppeteer wrote: »
    Right so prophecy is as valid as mystic meg unless it is a god given prophecy even though they have the same amount of evidence for and against them...right:rolleyes:
    Got it in one.:)

    muppeteer wrote: »
    If you are trying to bring your "scientifically established" creationism agenda into the debate as a stick to defeat materialism then please just stop now. That has been dealt with elsewhere.
    I'm not trying ... the thread is over here ... if you want to take more stick ... to use your own phraseology!!!:D:eek:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682&page=56


  • Options
    #5050
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    philologos wrote: »
    I care about your arguments against Christianity because I'd like to actually discuss with you about the topic on this thread rather than pfaffing around with a superiority complex.
    ... or should that be an inverted inferiority complex, I wonder?:);)


  • Options
    #5051
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Common sense would indicate the in extremis situations (such approaching the speed of light and operating at sub-atomic scales) could result in very different phenomena to common everyday experiences.

    With hindsight, perhaps. Declare the above to a scientist of 150 years ago and I'm not sure he would agree. Perhaps now, to you, it's "common-sense" to believe what you say, but that's only because it has shown to be the case, and you know that it has been shown to be the case. Since we live in a world without extremes of size or speed, it is -- almost by very definition -- not common-sense to believe physics changes at great speeds or small sizes; in that regard it's not common, it's learned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5052
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    What makes you think I'd have a better argument than Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris...?
    I was kinda hoping you would ... !!!:)


  • Options
    #5053
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gvn wrote: »
    With hindsight, perhaps. Declare the above to a scientist of 150 years ago and I'm not sure he would agree. Perhaps now, to you, it's "common-sense" to believe what you say, but that's only because it has shown to be the case, and you know that it has been shown to be the case. Since we live in a world without extremes of size or speed, it is -- almost by very definition -- not common-sense to believe physics changes at great speeds or small sizes; in that regard it's not common, it's learned.
    You do possibly have a point about a Victorian scientist ... but nonetheless it is indeed common-sense to not rule out extraordinary physics at great speeds and exceedingly small scales.

    ... and speaking of Victorian 'scientists' with a lack of 21st century knowledge ... the same criticism that you raise above, applies to poor old Darwin ... and by extension to Darwinism ... with bells on.:)


  • Options
    #5054
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    You do possibly have a point about a Victorian scientist ... but nonetheless it is indeed common-sense to not rule out extraordinary physics at great speeds and exceedingly small scales.

    Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't; we'll have to agree to disagree.
    ... and speaking of Victorian 'scientists' with a lack of 21st century knowledge ... the same criticism that you raise above, applies to poor old Darwin ... and by extension to Darwinism ... with bells on.:)

    It very well might, though relativistic speeds and quantum sizes have no relevance to Darwin's own theory, so him knowing about such things at the time wouldn't have made much difference. :)


  • Options
    #5055
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gvn wrote: »
    Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't; we'll have to agree to disagree.
    I agree.
    gvn wrote: »
    It very well might, though relativistic speeds and quantum sizes have no relevance to Darwin's own theory, so him knowing about such things at the time wouldn't have made much difference. :)
    In Darwins case the discovery of DNA and the quality and quantity of CFSI in Genetic Information ... are issues that Darwin didn't know about ... and had he known ... they could have pushed his lingering doubts about the validity of his theory of 'big picture' evolution into the abandonment of it.
    ... and with it one of the biggest arguments against the existence of God.


  • Options
    #5056
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    muppeteer wrote: »
    You may have missed the point of the video. The experiments show that we are pre disposed as children to believe in supernatural agents that aren't there. It takes the very slightest of "training/indoctrination" to flesh out this bias into a watchful god with a mind of its own.
    It also shows how pre disposed we are as children to attach intelligent agent like properties to inanimate objects and random events.
    It is quite literally child's play to invent gods and have humans believe in them wholeheartedly even when we know they are made up.

    I'd agree with you that children will at times favour agentival causes as explanations for natural phenomena. They also may readily determine that there is purpose in seemingly purposeless objects. Both of these seem to be largely uncontroversial claims, especially if one removes the oft used phrase "hardwired" and replace it with something like "propensity".

    However, unless you first presuppose materialistic reductionism, it is not obvious why a natural explanation for a particular phenomena would mean that we ought to stop believing in this phenomena, especially if it is claimed that these phenomena have supernatural origins.

    One might propose reductionist explanations for things like love, beauty, truth, the inherent value of life, morality etc. and still not see love, beauty, etc. as merely tricks of evolution or whatever materialistic "just so" story you care to come up with. To take someone else's analogy, offering physical explanations of why a Model T worked doesn't explain away it's creator, Henry Ford.

    Somebody like Justin Barrett (who just so happens to be a Christian as well a cognitive scientist of some sort) looks at the same cases and comes to different conclusions. This is because you are both drawing conclusions that are metaphysical/ ontological in nature. You departed from the science after your first sentence. Perhaps you didn't realise this.

    Click here for a talk entitled The Naturalness of Childhood Theism and here for a critique of Barrett from some atheist chap.


  • Options
    #5057
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    J C wrote: »
    ... one of the problems with bias ... is that the people who hold it often think they are not biased at all.
    Supernatural causes are not considered by Materialist science ... and that is fair enough ... but please don't then say that supernatural causes are considered and rejected when they do not fit the available evidence ... because this simply isn't the case!!!
    Supernatural causes have most definitely been considered but they have been found to be incorrect. Prayer studies are one example. The reason a supernatural cause is not tested for in every single experiment is that a supernatural cause has never in all of human history been shown to be true, never, not once. Given that track record you can forgive Materialist Scientists as you call them for not being terribly worried about disproving another supernatural claim again and again when there are kids with cancer who will better benefit from their attention.


    Got it in one.:)
    Well at least you have no shame in your hypocrisy.
    i'm not trying ... the thread is over here ... if you want to take more stick ... to use your own phraseology!!!:D:eek:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682&page=56
    Your limp stick can stay in that thread all by itself thank you very much.

    Intuition and common sense will lead you into incorrect assumptions if you try to apply it to anything but human speeds and scales. The only thing which can inform you beyond anything else even moderately complicated, and indeed at human speed and scales too, with any reliability is independently verified evidence. If you reject this evidence then you are destined to live in the ignorance that the children in the video found themselves being tricked into. Only now it only yourself doing the tricking.


  • Options
    #5058
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    muppeteer wrote: »
    Supernatural causes have most definitely been considered but they have been found to be incorrect. Prayer studies are one example.
    As I recall, people who were ill and were prayed for, even when they didn't know it was happening, had significantly better out-turns.
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
    muppeteer wrote: »
    The reason a supernatural cause is not tested for in every single experiment is that a supernatural cause has never in all of human history been shown to be true, never, not once. Given that track record you can forgive Materialist Scientists as you call them for not being terribly worried about disproving another supernatural claim again and again when there are kids with cancer who will better benefit from their attention.
    Supernatural causes aren't claimed in many situations!!!!
    However, where supernatural cause is a definite possibility (the origins issue) conventional science doesn't allow a Divine foot inside the door ... and that is fair enough ... provided this isn't denied!!!:)


    muppeteer wrote: »
    Well at least you have no shame in your hypocrisy.
    I'd term it being consistent.

    muppeteer wrote: »
    Your limp stick can stay in that thread all by itself thank you very much.
    ... chicken !!!:):eek:
    muppeteer wrote: »
    Intuition and common sense will lead you into incorrect assumptions if you try to apply it to anything but human speeds and scales. The only thing which can inform you beyond anything else even moderately complicated, and indeed at human speed and scales too, with any reliability is independently verified evidence. If you reject this evidence then you are destined to live in the ignorance that the children in the video found themselves being tricked into. Only now it only yourself doing the tricking.
    I agree that independently verified evidence is critical ...
    ... so if the physical evidence unambiguously points towards the existence of a God of effectively infinite creative capacity ... this should be accorded the scientific respect that it is due.
    ... and as God also helps those who help themselves ... it should never be a choice between prayer and medical care ... both should obviously be used.


  • Options
    #5059
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't think you could find a list of that caliber. As I have said to you 90% of most intellectual and most educated people do not believe in any religion. You are struggling to deal with the truth on this one.

    Again, I don't know and don't particularly care about that assertion being true or not. It wouldn't matter at all. I think the issue you don't seem to be able to deal with, is that your mental wanderings are simply irrelevant.
    Why do you give a cr*p about my arguments against Christianity, do you think I am going to come out with something that has not already been in the public domain and put forward by leading intellectuals?

    Its not a nice sight to see a person so consumed by their bitterness, that they even neglect the thing they claim to love like logic, reason, science etc in order to vent about the thing they hate. I'd rather just call you out on your dis-ingenuity and cack-mindedness, but Phil would probably rather try dispel all of your misconceptions. IMO, Phil is offering you a dialogue you in no way deserve.


  • Options
    #5060
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, I don't know and don't particularly care about that assertion being true or not. It wouldn't matter at all. I think the issue you don't seem to be able to deal with, is that your mental wanderings are simply irrelevant.
    Well if the truth is important and the smart guys are saying you are wrong, the normal thing would be to take note.
    Its not a nice sight to see a person so consumed by their bitterness, that they even neglect the thing they claim to love like logic, reason, science etc in order to vent about the thing they hate. I'd rather just call you out on your dis-ingenuity and cack-mindedness, but Phil would probably rather try dispel all of your misconceptions. IMO, Phil is offering you a dialogue you in no way deserve.
    It is perfectly logical. The chances of me making an argument better than Bertrand Russell or Sam Harris are pretty slim. So again if the truth is important, and you are interested in these arguments - read them.

    Or, if I am more important than the truth of course you might be more interested in me. How flattering :-)


  • Options
    #5061
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    This is a discussion forum so unless you're willing to bring something of value to the discussion your posts are best ignored. I want to get into the meat of the argument, not prancing around with ad-hominems and your superiority complex.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5062
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    philologos wrote: »
    This is a discussion forum so unless you're willing to bring something of value to the discussion your posts are best ignored. I want to get into the meat of the argument, not prancing around with ad-hominems and your superiority complex.

    Why would my arguments be any meatier than Bertrand Russell's or Sam Harris's?

    If value is really important to you surely you get more "value" going to a more intelligent thinker than me?


  • Options
    #5063
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well if the truth is important and the smart guys are saying you are wrong, the normal thing would be to take note.

    Why? The very fact that you are saying that these people are making claims that I am wrong to believe in God would lead me to believe that they are far from smart in this matter. Maybe they are just bitter, and disingenuously using their position as academics to add weight to their anti-religion like Dawkins does. You could always present their arguments to Phil as he said that he would deal with your/their objections if you do.
    It is perfectly logical.

    Yeah, but your hatred of religion leading you to all the 'smart people believe X' as if its of consequence isn't. Its just disingenuous, ad-hominem, childishness.
    The chances of me making an argument better than Bertrand Russell or Sam Harris are pretty slim.

    The chances of you making any kind of argument is slim it seems.
    So again if you are interested in these arguments - read them.

    I'm not. I'm interested in pointing out your dis-ingenuity, and expressing how your assertions, even if they happened to be true, don't matter at all. Not even slightly.
    Phil on the other hand, in spite of you, has graciously offered you a dialogue.

    There was a time when your posts had a bit more to them than this type of carry on Tim. What happened??


  • Options
    #5064
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Why? The very fact that you are saying that these people are making claims that I am wrong to believe in God would lead me to believe that they are far from smart in this matter. Maybe they are just bitter, and disingenuously using their position as academics to add weight to their anti-religion like Dawkins does. You could always present their arguments to Phil as he said that he would deal with your/their objections if you do.
    Or maybe you and Phil are very wrong and will just bend over backwards to avoid that.
    Yeah, but your hatred of religion leading you to all the 'smart people believe X' as if its of consequence isn't. Its just disingenuous, ad-hominem, childishness. I'm not. I'm interested in pointing out your dis-ingenuity, and expressing how your assertions, even if they happened to be true, don't matter at all. Not even slightly.
    I don't 100% hate it. Where this started was I pointed out a trend in humanity where the more intelligent and educated you were the less chance you'd be religious. This is supported by ample evidence and none of you have refuted this. All you say is "yeah it might be true, but I don't care". Well then you probably don't really care about what's true and should really admit that? Stop being so "disingenious" yourself first.
    Phil on the other hand, in spite of you, has graciously offered you a dialogue.
    There is no point to this dialogue.

    If he really is interested in the intellectual arguments against his believes and religion in general, go to an expert. If he is not interested in that, then perhaps you should level your charges of "dis-ingenuity" against him.

    Why should I waste my time rehashing arguments that there is already ample literature on?


  • Options
    #5065
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Why? The very fact that you are saying that these people are making claims that I am wrong to believe in God would lead me to believe that they are far from smart in this matter. Maybe they are just bitter, and disingenuously using their position as academics to add weight to their anti-religion like Dawkins does. d you a dialogue.

    Does it follow from this that you think it requires intelligence to believe in god? If they are atheist because they see no evidence of god, or consider god to be an impossibility, would you see this as a sign of lower intelligence? I'm trying to understand your grounds for this point.


  • Options
    #5066
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Or maybe you and Phil are very wrong and will just bend over backwards to avoid that.

    Well I guess we'll never know, as you have presented nothing of worth.
    Where this started was I pointed out a trend in humanity where the more intelligent and educated you were the less chance you'd be religious. This is supported by ample evidence and none of you have refuted this. All you say is "yeah it might be true, but I don't care".

    Thats because it is of absolutely no consequence.
    Well then you probably don't really care about what's true and should really admit that? Stop being so "disingenious" yourself first.

    It is only you that is being disingenous Tim, no matter how you try turn the tables. Knowing that your silly infatuation with this is of no consequence is absolutely NOTHING to do with truth.
    There is no point to this dialogue.

    I agree, but in spite of your disingenuity, Phil has offered it to you.
    If he really is interested in the intellectual arguments against his believes and religion in general, go to an expert.

    Well you don't know his background,or what he has read. Nor is it relevant. Nor in fact are there 'Experts'. The fact is that YOU are here in a discussion forum making assertions, and have been asked to present your case. Just saying, 'Don't ask me to back it up, just read these books etc' is ridiculous.
    If he is not interested in that, then perhaps you should level your charges of "dis-ingenuity" against him.

    No, its still only you Tim thats disingenuous. Pretending to care about truth, logic, reason etc, but indulging in pseudo-intellectualism to conduct ad-hominem attacks on believers. Phil has simply asked you to present your case. Nothing disingenuous in that. Its actually quite up-front.
    Why should I waste my time rehashing arguments that there is already ample literature on?

    I agree, it would be a time wasting exercise for both you and Phil. Such is the consequence of disingenuity. Of course, if you wanted to put down the spear and have an honest interaction, you may get something out of such a dialogue.


  • Options
    #5067
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    pauldla wrote: »
    Does it follow from this that you think it requires intelligence to believe in God?

    It OF COURSE requires some kind of intelligence to believe in God. It certainly doesn't REQUIRE much though.
    If they are atheist because they see no evidence of God, or consider God to be an impossibility, would you see this as a sign of lower intelligence?

    No, not particularly. I make no assertions as to the intelligence of a person in terms of belief or unbelief.


  • Options
    #5068
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Well I guess we'll never know, as you have presented nothing of worth.



    Thats because it is of absolutely no consequence.



    It is only you that is being disingenous Tim, no matter how you try turn the tables. Knowing that your silly infatuation with this is of no consequence is absolutely NOTHING to do with truth.



    I agree, but in spite of your disingenuity, Phil has offered it to you.



    Well you don't know his background,or what he has read. Nor is it relevant. Nor in fact are there 'Experts'. The fact is that YOU are here in a discussion forum making assertions, and have been asked to present your case. Just saying, 'Don't ask me to back it up, just read these books etc' is ridiculous.



    No, its still only you Tim thats disingenuous. Pretending to care about truth, logic, reason etc, but indulging in pseudo-intellectualism to conduct ad-hominem attacks on believers. Phil has simply asked you to present your case. Nothing disingenuous in that. Its actually quite up-front.



    I agree, it would be a time wasting exercise for both you and Phil. Such is the consequence of disingenuity. Of course, if you wanted to put down the spear and have an honest interaction, you may get something out of such a dialogue.
    So if a person is an exceptional at logic they have no better chance of discovering truth than a person who is not exceptional at it???

    That makes no sense Jimi. What exactly is the relevance at being exceptional at logic and critical thinking then Jimi if you keep telling us this is irrelevant?

    The thing is, I think these people do have a better chance of getting truth than I have so I am interested in what they have to say. They are not neccessarily correct just because they are far more intelligent than me but they have a far better chance of being so. They have more time to read than I do and are better at processing it. Therefore I respect what they have to say and I take it seriously.

    You and Philogos don't because it is not congenial to what you find comforting and are probably too afraid to challenge.

    There is nothing disingenious about what I am doing. I'll I am doing is respecting intellectuals and a sensible way of discovering truth.


  • Options
    #5069
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    So if a person is an exceptional at logic they have no better chance of discovering truth than a person who is not exceptional at it???
    That depends on the area in which they are seeking to discover truth. If, for example, you are seeking to discover the best way to run a society, then logic may lead you to ruthlessly eliminate the weak.
    That makes no sense Jimi. What exactly is the relevance at being exceptional at logic and critical thinking then Jimi if you keep telling us this is irrelevant?
    Again, that depends on the area in which the logic and critical thinking is applied. Very relevant if you're a mathematician, but not so relevant if you're a sculptor.


  • Options
    #5070
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    pauldla wrote: »
    Does it follow from this that you think it requires intelligence to believe in god? If they are atheist because they see no evidence of god, or consider god to be an impossibility, would you see this as a sign of lower intelligence? I'm trying to understand your grounds for this point.

    Perhaps it was a throwaway remark, but what knowledge could one appeal to that would resign God to the realm of squared circles and married bachelors?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5071
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,971 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    That depends on the area in which they are seeking to discover truth. If, for example, you are seeking to discover the best way to run a society, then logic may lead you to ruthlessly eliminate the weak.
    That's nonsense. The whole purpose of logic is to discover truth objectively. The best way to run a society is a subjective question - not an objective one.

    If you said something like, the most efficient way to collect tax from self employed people well then that's not so objective and logic comes into play.

    Again, that depends on the area in which the logic and critical thinking is applied. Very relevant if you're a mathematician, but not so relevant if you're a sculptor.
    Well, again there is no real objective truth in sculptor. It's entirely subjective.

    On an existentialist matter i.e. whether something exists or not - that is a matter for logic.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement