For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[LOki]

Don't you think that that is a bit arrogant, . . .

No.

. . . or at least assumptive?

No.

You don't think it's assumptive to call an entire group of people arrogant, irrespective of the fact that there are many millions of them, with many different faiths, and vastly differing levels of, how can one put it, 'religious zeal'?

No. Their numbers are irrelevent; their particular flavor of faith is irrelevent; their zeal is irrelevent. Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

If one has faith, one must therefore be arrogant, correct?

Yes. The faithful present their opinions as certain fact--they demand that thier opinions are certain fact--without the support of evidence or valid logic; in fact it is often the case that they judge the strength of thier convictions by their stoic determintion in denying the validity of evidence and valid logic--it could be considered definitive of faith. It is arrogance.

 

[del]

No.

No.

You don't think it's assumptive to call an entire group of people arrogant, irrespective of the fact that there are many millions of them, with many different faiths, and vastly differing levels of, how can one put it, 'religious zeal'?

No. Their numbers are irrelevent; their particular flavor of faith is irrelevent; their zeal is irrelevent. Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

If one has faith, one must therefore be arrogant, correct?

Yes. The faithful present their opinions as certain fact--they demand that thier opinions are certain fact--without the support of evidence or valid logic; in fact it is often the case that they judge the strength of thier convictions by their stoic determintion in denying the validity of evidence and valid logic--it could be considered definitive of faith. It is arrogance.

consult your local dictionary.

 

[Kalam]

Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

Because it makes assumptions about things human beings don't yet understand. Like what happened at the instant of creation or the beginning of the Universe? Or, since we don't know what caused it based upon our modern understanding of physics, it was God. At least, that's what I took from the article you linked.

 

[Kalam]

Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

Because it makes assumptions about things human beings don't yet understand. Like what happened at the instant of creation or the beginning of the Universe? Or, since we don't know what caused it based upon our modern understanding of physics, it was God. At least, that's what I took from the article you linked.

You may disagree with the reasoning used, but it isn't invalid as a syllogism because the truth of its premises entail the truth of its conclusion. I'm going to respond to that thread, by the way.

 

[LOki]

You don't think it's assumptive to call an entire group of people arrogant, irrespective of the fact that there are many millions of them, with many different faiths, and vastly differing levels of, how can one put it, 'religious zeal'?

No. Their numbers are irrelevent; their particular flavor of faith is irrelevent; their zeal is irrelevent. Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

If one has faith, one must therefore be arrogant, correct?

Yes. The faithful present their opinions as certain fact--they demand that thier opinions are certain fact--without the support of evidence or valid logic; in fact it is often the case that they judge the strength of thier convictions by their stoic determintion in denying the validity of evidence and valid logic--it could be considered definitive of faith. It is arrogance.

consult your local dictionary.

Validated by my local dictionary (EDIT: and This Guy). Thanks!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

Because it makes assumptions about things human beings don't yet understand. Like what happened at the instant of creation or the beginning of the Universe? Or, since we don't know what caused it based upon our modern understanding of physics, it was God. At least, that's what I took from the article you linked.

You may disagree with the reasoning used, but it isn't invalid as a syllogism because the truth of its premises entail the truth of its conclusion. I'm going to respond to that thread, by the way.

Heh heh! Please, I was enjoying that discussion.

 

[LOki]

Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

Petitio principii.

 

[FactFinder]

Faith is a personal relationship with the One True God. For the faithfuls' life experience it is an irrefutable fact. For those lacking that experience it is foolishness.

People of faith speak in a manner consistent with that faith. They know what they know. Without that faith it is impossible to know it. So it is a mute argument. The faithful know what they know and the unfatihful think the faithful are nuts. It is a circular argument. There is no arguing faith. You either have it and the resulting life experience or you don't.

You are either drawn to God or you are not. In my experience God makes sense and is the source of all that is good in this life and the one to come. I have never regretted my faith.

 

[LOki]

Faith is a personal relationship with the One True God. For the faithfuls' life experience it is an irrefutable fact. For those lacking that experience it is foolishness.

People of faith speak in a manner consistent with that faith. They know what they know. Without that faith it is impossible to know it. So it is a mute argument. The faithful know what they know and the unfatihful think the faithful are nuts. It is a circular argument. There is no arguing faith. You either have it and the resulting life experience or you don't.

You are either drawn to God or you are not. In my experience God makes sense and is the source of all that is good in this life and the one to come. I have never regretted my faith.

Thanks!

 

[tigerbob]

If one has faith, one must therefore be arrogant, correct?

Yes. The faithful present their opinions as certain fact--they demand that thier opinions are certain fact--without the support of evidence or valid logic; in fact it is often the case that they judge the strength of thier convictions by their stoic determintion in denying the validity of evidence and valid logic--it could be considered definitive of faith. It is arrogance.

Well, not all of us, and that was my point.

I take the existence of God on faith and on faith alone. It is my personal belief. So long as I'm not trying to force my beliefs on someone else I'm not sure how this can be viewed as arrogant. I do not and have never tried to present my opinions as "certain fact" - indeed I'm fairly sure I couldn't. And I certainly don't make demands - that would be arrogant, I agree.

 

[Kalam]

Claiming certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic has been established is arrogant. Pointing it out is not assumptive.

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

Petitio principii.

How's that?

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

 

[LOki]

In what way is the logic used in the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

Petitio principii.

How's that?

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

Well, why don't you keep going to the conclusion and find out?

 

[LOki]

Well, not all of us, and that was my point.

Allright . . .

I take the existence of God on faith and on faith alone.

Of course.

It is my personal belief.

No doubt.

So long as I'm not trying to force my beliefs on someone else I'm not sure how this can be viewed as arrogant.

Your certainty, in your belief, that your God is irrefutably real, is entiely in your own head--it's all about you. Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real. There is really no better example of arrogance than the ". . . because I say it is so" that is ultimately the only validation faith requires.

I do not and have never tried to present my opinions as "certain fact" - indeed I'm fairly sure I couldn't.

Either you believe your God exists, or you don't; and you already said that you did--you presented your opinion that your God exists is certain fact based on ". . . faith and on faith alone."

And I certainly don't make demands . . .

Except, of course, for the existence of your God.

- that would be arrogant, I agree.

I am gladdened to find you agreeable.

 

[Kalam]

Petitio principii.

How's that?

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

Well, why don't you keep going to the conclusion and find out?

I'd rather hear your explanation of why you believe that making that argument is begging the question.

 

[LOki]

How's that?

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

Well, why don't you keep going to the conclusion and find out?

I'd rather hear your explanation of why you believe that making that argument is begging the question.

Without a conclusion, you've made no argument, therfore no question begging? Disingenuous. Get lost.

 

[Kalam]

Well, why don't you keep going to the conclusion and find out?

I'd rather hear your explanation of why you believe that making that argument is begging the question.

Without a conclusion, you've made no argument, therfore no question begging?

The argument supports the "a" side of both premises and the conclusion. So, the conclusion is that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. Now, I don't believe that you're intellectually honest enough to actually read the full argument, so why don't you just let me know which part of it is so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

Disingenuous. Get lost.

Don't be a prick.

 

[LOki]

I'd rather hear your explanation of why you believe that making that argument is begging the question.

Without a conclusion, you've made no argument, therfore no question begging?

The argument supports the "a" side of both premises and the conclusion. So, the conclusion is that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. Now, I don't believe that you're intellectually honest enough to actually read the full argument, so why don't you just let me know which part of it is so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

Which argument, EXACTLY, supports the "a" side of both premises, leading to the EXACT conclusion are you referring to? State it.

You have to resolve the first premise in order to examine the second. There is a logical formulation that connects your first premise to the conclusion that that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. While every other formulation I'm aware of is question begging (or at least requires contentious premises) yours might not be--but you're not about to share, are you?

Disingenuous. Get lost.

Don't be a prick.

Who's being the prick?

 

[tigerbob]

So long as I'm not trying to force my beliefs on someone else I'm not sure how this can be viewed as arrogant.

Your certainty, in your belief, that your God is irrefutably real, is entiely in your own head--it's all about you. Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real. There is really no better example of arrogance than the ". . . because I say it is so" that is ultimately the only validation faith requires.

And I certainly don't make demands . . .

Except, of course, for the existence of your God.

You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court.

To be clear, I'm not asking for or calling for anything. You seem to be saying that if one person believes something it also means that they are asking or calling for others to believe it as well, as in your comment 'Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real", something I have never said, or even thought.

I simply set out what I believe, and others can either agree or disagree as they see fit. If you view this as a demand, then clearly your determination to validate your own argument is getting in the way of a reasonable discussion.

 

[LOki]

So long as I'm not trying to force my beliefs on someone else I'm not sure how this can be viewed as arrogant.

Your certainty, in your belief, that your God is irrefutably real, is entiely in your own head--it's all about you. Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real. There is really no better example of arrogance than the ". . . because I say it is so" that is ultimately the only validation faith requires.

And I certainly don't make demands . . .

Except, of course, for the existence of your God.

You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court.

To be clear, I'm not asking for or calling for anything. You seem to be saying that if one person believes something it also means that they are asking or calling for others to believe it as well, as in your comment 'Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real", something I have never said, or even thought.

I simply set out what I believe, and others can either agree or disagree as they see fit. If you view this as a demand, then clearly your determination to validate your own argument is getting in the way of a reasonable discussion.

Allright pumpkin, consider the 3rd definition you provided while you replace "demand" with "assert."