Nice to find someone who “understands” or nice to find someone that agrees with you? 
oi!
it is nice to find someone who understands what i meant in my thread.
because i don’t think people got what i was asking (probably because i explained it badly), and it kinda turned into a fight about whether or not god exists.
i don’t care if people don’t agree with me. as long as they know what they don’t agree with me about! if people are talking as cross-purposes, that’s just annoying cos neither of you will get anywhere with it.
This is why I took the time to indicate that we have yet to discuss a single characteristic of the divine. We have only agreed on some of the protocol for such a discussion.
exactly. i don’t have any idea what you think about the whole God thing.
This appears to be your second argument.
-
This is puzzling to me that you would question my “presumption” as to why people start these forums. I think they make it quite clear that their goal is to prove through philosophic dialectic that God exists or God does not exist.
The “chest pounding” is in reference to a what I perceive to be any person’s flawed “presumption” to be able to do precisely that. -
As for my claim that such forums never satisfy anyone to change their position, I give the way to prove me wrong by asking you a question:
Is it the case that you were an atheist and on arriving into the ilovephilosophy.com religious forum and reading the exchanges of these religious debates, you suddenly had a change of heart and mind converting you to a belief in God?
Or, conversely, were you a believer in God and after reading the same matter, did you then deny your former belief and affirm atheism?
Is either of these scenarios descriptive of your religious or irreligious conversion?
Otherwise, my argument stands. You would have to provide a real life example of one of the above to prove me wrong, which I am not opposed to finding. Personally, I do not believe you are such a real life example.
- You claim that you find the thoughts and ideas of others valuable. That is admirable. Would you care to share what thoughts and ideas in these specific arguments you have found to be valuable and why? Otherwise, I cannot respond in a vacuum.
My feeling is that most of the sentiments are worthless, because they have no practical application to life. Indeed, most things dressed as “philosophy” are worthless. Very rarely will one encounter true wisdom and skill in living. However, poor thoughts when acknowledged for what they are can lead to better thoughts.
hello mr. cyber…i probably won’t answer all your points…as you have not answered mine, but i do think reality is what underlies appearances…you appeared to me to be someone who felt the need to prove his high level of intelligence; like somehow you knew more than everybody else…that’s just the feeling i got as i read your original discourse…that, of course, is probably not the reality of who you are…so yes, i have changed my position…i’ve had a change of heart as well, because of ilovephilosophy.com…previously, i felt that atheists were so much different from myself, a believer…but i’ve found that we’re all basically the same - seekers of truth, people of integrity who want to be happy & possibly make the world a better place in the meantime…believers & non-believers are out working toward similar goals - but often working against each other…we’re all in the same boat - so for my previous ignorance, i apologize…sharon1963…
I never said I would answer all of your arguments immediately. I just took the first two that I think you were setting forward. Your original post was difficult grammatically to read, because of the puncuation.
I would and will respond to all of your arguments, but rationally it is not logical to try to get to the bottom of everything at once.
So, I responded to two of your arguments and decided to wait for you to respond on those two.
I don’t want you to apologize. I just want you to do philosophy and that means following out an inquiry to the finish. We have only just started and you had four or five arguments.
While you have yet to follow up on your first argument about Paul/Saul, this is a response on your second argument. You questioned whether I had the grounds to say that these kind of theist debates never persuade anyone to change their position.
The change you are describing above, while it is admirable, is not the kind of change of heart that I am referring to. I am not referring to someone re-evaluating their judgment of the other side’s argument so as to have become more understanding and tolerant. I am referring to someone’s actual change in his/her own position from one side of the debate to the other, from atheist to theist or vice versa.
You refer to yourself as “a believer” in God’s existence. So, I ask you, did you come to ilovephilosophy.com as an atheist and, purely, as the result of the arguments here in the religion forum become converted to the reality of God’s existence?
Based on what you wrote above, the answer appears to be, “no.” Is that not true?
-
You are not following my argument with due respect, therefore, you are pushing ideas together with your misuse of quotations as though my argument reads the way you present it.
-
The term “God” is often used very loosely in popular culture. So, when someone says “God is this or that,” my argument is that we must dig deeper in to what is meant by the person’s use of the term “God” before we can agree or argue with his/her claims regarding God. This is why I wrote (and you would do well to honestly consider my complete sentence, rather than a word here and there that you have cut out), “To simply say that this or that God does or does not exist fails utterly to explore the notions of God that are being so haphazardly tossed around in the forums of this kind.”
So, my first argument is simply that one arguing for or against “God” must define the term.
That is philosophy. You must define your terms. -
Having critized the argument above you then inferred that I was implying that our inquiries of God fundamentally do not matter, “because god’s survival does not depend on us.” This is not exactly what I wrote, but your own restatement of my argument.
This point is a matter of perspective and your inferrence is false.
My inquires of God matter immensely to me.
However, I hasten to add that my understanding, wisdom, and knowledge are limited as is the case with all humans, including yourself. Therefore, the efficacy with which I or anyone else may inquire after God will have limitations and will probably be flawed. It would require complete arrogance and foolishness to think that my questions and statements are perfect, so perfect that my description of God is perfect.
Finally, and this is my direct response to your criticism, if you find a flaw in my arguments, that does not mean that God is thereby in any way hindered in his power or existenced due to that flaw in my philosophy or anyone else’s for that matter.
So, from my perspective my inquiries may be far more important to me than they may be to God. However, I don’t have his perspective and he may find them vital to our relationship while these inquiries certainly do not threaten his life.
-
The argument you make seems to be that I am presuming to know the steps for approaching God according to every religion, because I am disallowing the possibility that one of them may require its disciples to “fling words around the internet as though you wield cosmic power over the Almighty.”
That may be reasonable, however, it is you who are making this claim and you who must provide evidence for your own claims. What is this religion you speak of? What is its name? Who is its founder? What are its doctrines? Where does it require that disciples “fling words around the internet as though you wield cosmic power over the Almighty”?
FYI, there is an OCC, the Online Church of Christ, but I doubt they make such a requirement. -
If you want to understand the use of the word “It” in my sentence, then you have to read the whole sentence as I wrote it, not as you paraphrased and altered it. You misquote me again above on this issue.
The original sentence reads:
“It says nothing about you that you can fling words around the internet as though you wield cosmic power over the Almighty.”
This sentence is found in my fourth argument in my original post.
The “It” clearly refers to a person’s act of flinging words in the manner described. In other words, this flinging of words accomplishes nothing and does not make you great or powerful or philosophically persuasive. It certainly does not appear to bring people in to communion with God.
One could argue that it does accomplish something and not “nothing” as I say. I would possibly have to concede that it does accomplish the result of making many people sound arrogant and foolish. I have no problem making this concession.
- This is accurate enough, but is not a refutation of my point. Here you are actually conceding to my argument, namely, that spiritual conviction of the existence of God is not transferable.
This is my fifth argument in my original post.
-
Yes, the process of sharing ideas and experiences can certainly provide hope, but “hope” is not the purpose of the debates regarding the existence of God in these forums which I am criticizing. The purpose these debators is to prove that God does or does not exist. The purpose is, therefore, not to provide hope, but conviction and certain knowledge. This purpose is the object of my criticism. That is quite different from providing a hope in the existence of God. I have never once criticized that.
-
I am not criticizing you in your effort to provide others hope in the existence of God. But if you think you can provide proof to others regarding God’s existence through ilovephilosophy.com, then I am certainly questioning your lack of judgment.
-
Ask yourself whether you have persuaded one atheist in the forum to believe with certain knowledge, nothing lacking, in the existence of God.
Have you done this? I say, No.
All of the above and all of the previous posts are my point, in answer to your accusation of my argument’s pointlessness.
I have now responded to each one of your arguments and you cannot say that I have not as your excuse not to support your own arguments.
It simply will not do for someone who claims to be able to do philosophy to make such excuses as you did previously when you said that I had not responded to all of your points, so you would not respond to mine.
o.k. here we go again…hope you’re having an excellent day, by the way…the word ‘philosophy’ is a noun, not a verb…no one can ‘do’ philosophy…defined as ‘any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation’…or even, ‘the rational investigation of questions about existence & knowledge & ethics’…number 1…you were puzzled that i questioned your ‘presumption’ as to why people start ‘these’ forums…in most arguments i’ve read, people appear to be sharing ideas, ‘not trying to prove that god exists or that god does not exist’…your arguments certainly were not attempting to persuade anyone to believe or not believe; nor are mine… number 2…to discover that no believer has ever become an atheist, or no atheist has ever become a believer due to participation in an ilovephilosophy.com forum, one would have to ask all participants, past, present, & future…number 3…i find the variety of ideas of participants at ilovephilosophy.com valuable…as well as the many philosophical & religious quotes many wrote that i had never read before…but instead of writing to those people, i chose to respond to a ‘philosopher’ whose original argument sounded ‘arrogant & foolish’ to me…and that is very telling about myself…so in that, i find your argument quite valuable as well…rationalists are 'suspicious of would-be authorities on any given subject - so maybe i am a rationalist…i was suspicious of your motive - your entire argument, in fact, because your writing had an air of authority about it…you write alot of seemingly highly intellligent ‘stuff,’ but are you afraid to s-h-a-r-e?..[maybe i’ll go to the psychology forum next]… like, how did you ‘work to gain your own witness’…was that a ‘slip of the tongue’ you wish you didn’t throw out there, or what?..give it up, man…1963…thanks for your time & consideration…
Thank you, I am having a fine day.
I think you bring up an important point. What is “philosophy”? Can one do it?
You consulted a dictionary and it told you that philosophy is, among other things, some way of believing that will direct you in how to live.
That is one definition of philosophy and there are others.
I use three different definitions of philosophy when I use the term.
-
Philosophy is a systematic, logical method for analyzing arguments.
-
Philosophy is the pursuit of the ever elusive wisdom, personifide in a feminine form who never reveals more than her ankle to you.
-
My chosen and preferred definition of philosophy is that it is skill in living.
You have been conditioned to think of philosophy (as has most of the world) as a way of thinking or “believing” as your dictionary said.
I understand my philosophy as a way of moving in the world, a way of being in the world. In other words, posting words on the internet is not foundation of philosophy. Living a skillful life is the essence of wisdom and the love that is philosophy. It is not just the ideas of Socrates that changed humanity. It was the way he lived, because of and inspite of those ideas.
Consequently, it is the misunderstanding of philosophy’s active and practical essence that has made it largely obsolete in our modern world. Students can’t understand the value of philosophy because it is taught as something without application to the world in daily life. It is taught as something merely “intellectual.”
I don’t think we are reading the same arguments.
However, if the current trend in the forum is to avoid the goal of proving or disproving God’s existence and in stead turn towards genuine exchange of ideas, bravo.
Not so. In order to prove me wrong you just have to find a single convert in either direction to theism or atheism.
You don’t need to ask everyone. You just need to ask until you find someone who will say that ilovephilosophy.com did it for them.
When you find that person, I want to speak to them. I want to know what was said that was so powerful and convincing. How did it work? Why did it work?
Certainly, there is some good stuff being said in the forums.
Ah, so your original motive was to take advantage of my perceived “arrogance and foolishness.” So, what does that reveal about you? I’m not sure I understand.
What is a “rationalist”? I think of myself as rational. Does that make me a rationalist. I’m not very big on labels in the philosophy or life in general, because they always come up short.
Am I afraid to share or am I simply capable of staying on task unlike most of those that post?
The purpose of this thread is not for me to bear my witness. My task here is to support my original argument, because I feel it is an important argument for the philosophy of religion.
I served as a full-time Christian missionary several years ago and teach on Sundays at church. I have done a fair bit of sharing.
I will tell you this, I didn’t get my witness in this forum.
I know God exists. I was exposed to religion at an early age and I had an immature conviction which was nurtured through observing the commandments. I have sought out God and I have felt the divine reach towards me. It has been a two-way reaching.
Please, be aware that this kind of sharing is not philosophy. It is testimony. I don’t feel it appropriate to do it in this forum, especially given the lack of reverence with which such sentiments will be met.
I know philosophers. They will ask, “Well, how can you know?” “Oh, so it was all social conditioning from childhood and you never learned to think independently?” “Couldn’t that feeling be something else other than God?” “‘Divine reach’? That sounds like warm-fuzzy nonsense.”
I am a philosopher and I have been through all of this with myself. I know when philosophical analysis works and doesn’t work. That is my point. This witness will not convince philosophers in this forum. It takes something deeper, more powerful, namely, the Holy Spirit of God. God is the converter. It is his work and glory. People who try to assume this work and glory put themselves in the position of God as though they can. If you understand my argument, then you understand why this strikes me as erroneous.
People act as though they want to know God and then they do nothing more than philosophize. They seek God through doubting him and questioning him in everything, every detail. That attitude excludes the essence of religion: faith. Faith is stepping forward without all of the answers.
So, knowing God is not merely cognitive, not philosophy. It is a way of living. Your knowing resides in the context and fabric of your life. I know God in the love I have for my children, in the way my wife orders our home, in the fellowship of the church, in the beauty of nature . . .
Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. Again, knowledge resides in context. Why are there countless books about love? Because there are no words that can transmit knowledge of it to you. You know love, because you felt it in some experience, some context, not because of what your dictionary told you.
Have you ever tried to tell someone else what love is who has never felt it?
More simply, have you ever tried to tell someone what salt tastes like who has never tasted it? What would you tell them? How would you perfectly convey in words the experience of tasting salt for the first time such that the other person would know perfectly what it is to taste salt without ever having actually done it?
Of course, the “philosophers” will call my witness drivel, but they will have no response to the argument just above, because it is grounded in the real world. They know that I, too, am a philosopher and they will all fail to provide even the most simple account in words of the experience of tasting salt. The knowledge is in the experience. They will tell you that you have to go taste salt for yourself. I say not only that, but I tell you that you have to approach God for yourself in your life. It is the same. My argument stands because it is true.
By the way, how did I make you realize that your life is pointless? I have taken the time to respond to your every word.
Thank you.
From nothing, nothing comes.
Boba
I don’t believe in “creatio ex nihilo.”
appreciate your time… i would have called your original post ‘drivel’ and your latest post a powerful sharing of your life philosophy that was real & whole…it seems that in previous posts, you amputated your own philosophy: your ‘way of moving…or being in the world’ [including how you allow yourself to be perceived by the world] by excluding a huge part of your self…the comparision of your posts taught me that by being retentive in any aspect of life is powerless & can leave a less than desirable taste in one’s mouth, so to speak…and the opposite is the most excellent way to be…my definition of a rationalist came from a link from my philosophy definition…isn’t that another way in which we learn: by reading & pondering the [experts’] definitions’ of language & ideas?..i was originally motivated to let someone who seemed to have all the answers, know that he didn’t…among other things, it made me realize i like a good challenge, and later, that i can learn from those i perceive as adversaries…i took the liberty of looking up the word ‘wisdom’ as well, which is defined as ‘the application of knowledge’…can we pursue the ‘application of knowledge’ ? - one of your many definitions of philosophy?..applied knowledge is true wisdom, & apparently philosophy, as well…i was just kidding about the ‘realizing my life is pointless’ thing…are we allowed to ‘do’ that kind of philosophy in here?.. 
sincerely,
sharon1963
Hello again,
It is important to realize what one finds important and persuasive. Different kinds of arguments will persuade different people. There are typically three aspects to every complete argument. Logos. Ethos. Pathos. Logos is the logical integrity of the argument. Ethos is the moral sense of the argument. Pathos is the emotion and passion of the argument.
What appealed to you in that last post will tell you about yourself. You seem to look for the Pathos of the argument.
Many professors will teach philosophy as a method of critical thinking. This leaves students, such as yourself, empty, because the feelings and emotions of being human are not considered and explored.
I prefer to refer to my philosophy as “critical feeling.” You see, it was only by thinking and feeling that I was able to arrive at certain knowledge.
Without being honest about the Pathos of life my philosophy would not be complete.
However, Logos is vitally important to an argument as is Ethos. These are quite different from Pathos.
If you analyze my argument, you will find all three. Philosophers in general tend to far over emphasize Logos, because it is easier and more reliable. Logical fallacies are easier to discern than sorting out the messy moral questions or the emotional questions. Logic has formal rules which are universally true and mathematic in their predictability.
Now, I was responding to other philosophers who were primarily using Logos to prove the existence of God. My first three points in my original post are directed towards the Logos of theist debates.
Before I gave my answer I felt it essential to my integrity to demonstrate why the other answers are incorrect.
So, my arguments which you found unappealling were responses to a genre of arguments which are themselves unpersuasive.
You were looking for something constructive and positive, while the thread is deconstructive in essence. You were saying, “Okay, so what is your point? What are you saying is the way to understand the divine?” This is fine to ask, but I didn’t need to respond as it was never the purpose of the thread to provide my own constructive philosophy of approaching the divine.
You are perfectly incorrect to say that I “amputated” my own philosophy. Tch, tch. Quite the contrary, I set out a perfect path for it’s appearance by clearing the way. I wonder how carefully you have read and considered the arguments in their entirety. Your words have a condescending tone as though you think you have challenged me and even taught me. You have not.
I never perceived you as an adversary, nor have I perceived your arguments to be challenging to me. Furthermore, I do not perceive you to have a firm grasp on what I have said. You don’t appear to know what I have given you, because you don’t appear to be familiar with the history, intensity, and depth of the theist debates. They are thousands of years old for a reason.
I responded to you because you contacted me and appeared to have sincere feelings on these topics, not because I was threatened that your profound reasoning would topple my arguments. I don’t have the time to respond to every post, because real philosophy is real work and I have a full life outside of this forum. Philosophy demands and deserves time and effort. As I said, she is the woman who will reveal very little. Great philosophical thoughts are conceived, gestated and given birth. That is a challenge and very hard work. I don’t start an argument without committing to follow it out to its complete conclusion. That is my honor, integrity, loyalty, and love of the art of philosophy. The thoughts I shared with you were already my children. I was just sharing them with you. I gave birth to them long ago. I own them and they are mine.
I don’t believe that philosophy is throwing out one-liner arguments with an air of superiority. I stay with people until the philosophy is done and I think, for now, our exchanges on this topic are complete until you are committed.
Finally, I understand now that you find the Logos of an argument to be “drivel” while you over emphasize the place of the Pathos as “powerful sharing” in an argument. Now your unwillingness to follow out the Logos of your own arguments makes sense.
Always,
Cybersage