Quote:
Originally Posted by Apathizer
Is that what happened? Interesting. While I often disagree with him/her MysticPhD usually seems intelligent and thoughtful. But perspectives formed in the context of highly emotional experiences are often intractable.
To be sure, we all have biases and no one is completely rational, but I like to think (  ) my perspectives on the 'big' issues are mostly rational. The ones that aren't are probably based on dated or inaccurate info. I don't keep up to date on all the latest developments - who has the time? |
Being retired...(that explains a lot..) I do. That is my take on what makes Mystic tick, based on what he has posted. Mystic is of course, intelligent, educated, qualified and an expert in philosophy. So is Alvin Plantinga (I sometime wonder whether they are the same person, but then these Christian Philosophy professors all tend to sound the same), but I have seen him (Alvin) make schoolboy howlers in making a philosophical argument for God -belief and against atheism, and it is only because the belief in the reality of God, Revelation and a 'religio -spiritual' dimension to everything (1) skews all arguments towards trying to make a case for 'God' where there logically isn't one.
This is logically the case. Logic states that what we don't know to be so, we don't believe until we do know (to a given value of knowing). This is reservation of belief, not denial of a god being possible. This is so logically basically correct that it is astonishing that the Christian philosophers refuse to accept that and argue all manner of ontological arguments for a god needing to exist, none of which adds up to a row of beans - but believers cannot agree to differ on a Faith -logic -divide (which I would accept) but insist that God -belief is not only logically valid, but not believing is logically invalid. In fact Mystic has said so, Alvin has said so and the long thread on 'Defend atheism' showed that atheism was considered by believers to be illogical.
This is so wrong that it is astounding that Plantinga and the like should say so, and the only reason they do it is because belief cannot be just a faith -position (which is of course not logical) which is a matter of preference, but must be held up as undeniable, life -changing fact. Considering God's existence as more probable than not will not do, but it requires firm belief as a fact.
There is no sound case for it. I know, because Ii have seen every argument made and the best ones (First cause and Goldilocks) and the secondary ones (Abiogenesis and Order) are not only neither here nor there, since 'We don't have an explanation' does NOT mean 'Goddunnit' is the only explanation. but establishing the probability of a god behind it all is actually academic, since it only raises the question of 'Which god?'
Believers have rejected that on the basis of 'There is only one God'. But that just begs the same question again - 'Which one?' The way I put it is: 'Ok, suppose I accept that a Creator is likely, and what people worship is actually just the same God. When you can all agree which one, get back to me.'
This is what is known as kicking the ball into touch.
But it is valid, because (as religionists have said, with some merit) Atheists are anti -religion. We wouldn't mind a Creative deity - if the evidence for it was compelling. It is man -made religions, their gods, myths, rites, authority and interference in our lives that we are militant about. ...thank you for listening..contributions can be put in the tin now passing around..
(1) a good example of this is a theist and atheist looking at the night sky.
'Amazing...the wonderful works of nature'.
'You mean: "Amazing, the wonderful work of God"'
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
