Originally posted by KellyJayI do not make the claim that god isn't real. I have no way of knowing if god is real. But I see absolutely no reason to think he is. Unless the theist can somehow demonstrate that his proposed god is real, I have no choice but to assume that he is not.
Doesn't making the claim that something isn't real a claim of
knowledge?
Kelly
The theist is the one making the knowledge claim (that there is a god). The entire burden of proof is on him to substantiate that claim.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe christian tries to use the bible as evidence for the existence of god (despite it being circular reasoning). Pointing out all the myriad number of flaws and contradictions within the bible undercuts it as a credible source of evidence. The skeptic is not using the bible as an authoritative source. He is demonstrating that it cannot be used as an authoritative source. Hence, he does not run the risk of introducing evidence for god, as you have so speciously asserted.
If you make that the claim that you can use the Bible to disprove
than you have introduced evidence that there is a God too, you
cannot have it both ways.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettI do not disagree, when I use the Bible to prove God we can talk
The christian tries to use the bible as evidence for the existence of god (despite it being circular reasoning). Pointing out all the myriad number of flaws and contradictions within the bible undercuts it as a credible source of evidence. The skeptic is not using the bible as an authoritative source. He is demonstrating that it cannot be used as an authori ...[text shortened]... e, he does not run the risk of introducing evidence for god, as you have so speciously asserted.
about that, but he was using the Bible to claim there isn't a God
while also saying there isn't any evidence. If he were to introduce
the Bible that then becomes evidence, we would then be talking
about how valid it is at the points we choose to discuss. Evidence
is simply something that we use to promote a point, which he
makes by using the Bible as a piece of proof one way or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettFine you do not know, but was that what I claimed? I said that a claim
I do not make the claim that god isn't real. I have no way of knowing if god is real. But I see absolutely no reason to think he is. Unless the theist can somehow demonstrate that his proposed god is real, I have no choice but to assume that he is not.
The theist is the one making the knowledge claim (that there is a god). The entire burden of proof is on him to substantiate that claim.
that something isn't real is a claim of knowledge. You promoting
some value towards God be it 1, more than 1, or none would be
making a claim of knowledge. Making no claim is not entering into
the discussion outside of saying you don't know period. Making the
claim of the value of the variable, means you have knowledge about
that variable. If your only claim is someone has not made their belief
acceptable to convince you isn't making any claim at all towards any
end. Saying you don’t find it possible or necessary to know is also
a claim of knowledge too, don’t you think?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe only issue I was addressing with that story was how we may see the world differently if our assumed frames of reference (spectacles) are different. Like all metaphors, it is limited. Nevertheless, it illustrates the question: if we are not willing to take off our spectacles ( at least to clean them! 😉 ), how can we know where the spot is? This applies to theists of different beliefs, non-theists of different beliefs, etc.
Funny, but didn't address the issue, it only would if he were the center
of the universe. His little dot wasn't on the wall if it was only on his
glasses, his little dot wouldn't be seen by anyone not looking through
or at his glasses, unless someone put them on with eyes that allowed
them to see. That did not stop a dot being on the wall from being
th , so there are things that lump us all together even if
we don't like to admit it.
Kelly
One of the focal points of debates on here seems to be pointing out to one another what kind of spectacles we think the other is wearing. I think that’s important, for me as well as anyone else. I may insist that I’m not wearing any frames, and I may not be—but if someone else says, “I see them right there on your face,” it might behoove me to check. I think it behooves me to check periodically anyway. (Sometimes I know exactly what spectacles I have put on in order to argue/test a point-of-view; and sometimes I simply declare that at the outset.)
The Zen point is to see if you can set them down or not. It does not say that sometimes the frames might not be useful, nor that you can’t put them on again if you want to. In a sense, the Zen message is “Look before you think”—and in order to do that, you need to see if you can drop the spectacles altogether, and what you see when you do.
All conceptual thinking seems to involve spectacles, (or frames, as ammanion put it); we “frame” the questions. Simply experiencing the suchness-as-it-is (tathata) without the veil (spectacles) of conceptual thinking is what the Zennists call “empty mind”—it is simply being present and aware before making thoughts; it is not “blank mind.” Before making-thinking, what is the world like? Before making-thinking, what is “I”? Our making-thinking, for some of us, is so habitual, continuous and even compulsive, that it is difficult to let go—at least more than momentarily. That is what meditation and all such stuff is about; some people may not need such “practice.” It’s experiential. But it also seems to be the starting-point: take off the spectacles—is there a spot on the wall or not?
That was the roshi’s point to his students about all their metaphysical talk. (I wonder how the story might be retold with someone going over and drawing a spot on the wall with a crayon...? 🙂 )
Two addenda to my reply to KJ:
(1) I neglected your point about “being the center of the universe”—none of us has a view from elsewhere than we are, or a “view from nowhere.” The roshi was not making any such declaration. He was making himself the butt of a joke, to illustrate that such metaphysical speculation as the students were engaging in presumes wearing certain spectacles—and sometimes presumes that there is a view from nowhere, from which we can see the “whole truth.”
Zen starts right here, and starts before making-thinking, so that at least when we put on spectacles (or even insist on wearing them continuously), we know that is what we are doing. Any other starting-point presumes the spectacles from the get-go.
So: Before any making-thinking, how is the world? Before any making-thinking, what is “I”? (Don’t think about it; don’t infer; don’t speculate through a given set of spectacles—find out, by letting go for awhile of the making-thinking, and all the paradigms in which that takes place; or not, as you choose.)
(2) I forgot to say Hi, Kelly. Hope all is well with you and yours...
Originally posted by vistesdDoing good, very busy, cutting back on my chess and soon I'll be
Two addenda to my reply to KJ:
(1) I neglected your point about “being the center of the universe”—none of us has a view from elsewhere than we are, or a “view from nowhere.” The roshi was not making any such declaration. He was making himself the butt of a joke, to illustrate that such metaphysical speculation as the students were engaging in presumes ...[text shortened]... not, as you choose.)
(2) I forgot to say Hi, Kelly. Hope all is well with you and yours...
cutting back here too I'm sorry to say. When my active chess games
are over I'll be taking a break from here.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingett
An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god. (a=without, theism=belief in god). This includes infants and people who have never heard of god (implicit atheists) as well as people who have, but find the claim unconvincing (explicit atheists).
To call infants atheists because they 'lack belief in God' must be said facetiously, since infants lack belief in every concept.
An agnostic correctly observes that the truth about god cannot be known. But it is the atheist who draws the correct conclusion that the claim must therefore be doubted.
They 'observe' this? As if it is the objective state of affairs? Nothing but a begged question. Theists would assert otherwise, and I as a Christian theist could show otherwise. Your claim about atheists was obviously a begged question as well.
Vistesd has already made the distinction between soft/weak atheists and strong/hard atheists. I find it curious that theists and self proclaimed agnostics are typically adamant in maintaining that strong atheism is THE definition of atheism while soft atheists are somehow an atypical example, when, in fact, the exact opposite is the truth. An overwhelming percentage of knowledgable atheists would define themselves as soft atheists.
In other words, they wish to make a claim without the burden of proving it.
Originally posted by DarfiusPeople who lack any conception of god are implicit atheists. All infants are implicit atheists, most of whom are later taught to become theists. Theism is not a natural state of affairs. It is a learned one.
Originally posted by rwingett
[b]An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god. (a=without, theism=belief in god). This includes infants and people who have never heard of god (implicit atheists) as well as people who have, but find the claim unconvincing (explicit atheists).
To call infants atheists because they 'lack belief in God' mu ...[text shortened]... atheists.[/b]
In other words, they wish to make a claim without the burden of proving it.[/b]
If you could prove the 'truth' of god, then this conversation would be impossible. But you cannot. It is unprovable, and so the truth about god cannot be known.
As I have patiently explained, I am making no claim. The theist is the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies solely and exclusively with him.
i]Originally posted by rwingett[/i]
People who lack any conception of god are implicit atheists. All infants are implicit atheists, most of whom are later taught to become theists. Theism is not a natural state of affairs. It is a learned one.
I have seen prominent philosophers and I myself hold the view that we are all born with the knowledge that the divine exists. That is, that we are to be held accountable for what we do to someone far greater than any human. As we mature, we become (should we choose) more adept at suppressing this knowledge. I realize this is difficult to prove, but so is the assertion "theism is a learn state of affairs".
If you could prove the 'truth' of god, then this conversation would be impossible. But you cannot. It is unprovable, and so the truth about god cannot be known.
That is non-sequitir. My ability to prove it does not necessitate your reaction of accepting this proof. As Pawn and I discussed in another thread, it is entirely possible for you to suppress or avoid that knowledge which makes you uncomfortable.
As I have patiently explained, I am making no claim. The theist is the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies solely and exclusively with him.
As I have patiently observed, you are making a claim. Everytime you argue as if God does not exist, you are making an implicit claim. That you are too cowardly or inept to defend it is a personal problem, but not grounds to say that you lack any claim.
Originally posted by DarfiusStop hanging out with Colletti. He just wants to get in your pants.
They 'observe' this? As if it is the objective state of affairs? Nothing but a begged question.
Theists would assert otherwise, and I as a Christian theist could show otherwise.
Righty-o. Go ahead, I can't wait.