5 ms·

This is just Positivism or Empiricism and there are huge problems with it as a method of epistemology. The link is discussing the First Cause argument and you,

by keane 4y ago

This is just Positivism or Empiricism and there are huge problems with it as a method of epistemology. The link is discussing the First Cause argument and you, like others in this thread, are reducing metaphysical arguments to “others believe differently from me only because they want their belief to be true”. As for the sufficient evidence, regardless of the personal perspective in the parent comment, you should know that a fundamental (Abrahamic) theological claim is that all humans have sufficient evidence of their creator’s existence. That’s mainly where the dispute is: the religious say what we all have universal access to /is/ sufficient; the non-religious claim what we have is insufficient.

dickersnoodle 4y ago
If it were only that clear-cut. "What we all have universal access to" is (so far) ineffable, which makes it open to lots of individual interpretations. The result is a great deal of what H. L. Mencken called "a great deal of theological blather and turmoil" because there's no way of telling truth from falsehood.
- keane 4y ago
  Here’s the thing: the religious believe that everyone on Earth, in that they experience reality alone, have sufficient evidence that reality has a creator. That elements of reality may be indescribable or that individuals experience reality in a subjective way doesn’t affect that claim. Resigning truth and falsehood into a single category is a nonstarter. The conclusion here from HL Mencken’s quote is a fallacy called inflation of conflict.
  - dickersnoodle 4y ago
    That first sentence sounds too ontological to be useful. St Anselm made the same mistake - because he could imagine a perfect God, that perfection required God to exist. He (and countless other apologists) believed that the universe and its nature were subject to the requirements of their ideas of God, without accounting for the inevitable limitations and imperfections of those ideas.
    - keane 4y ago
      The claim was “the world existing rather than not existing is proof of the existence of God”. Ideas about characteristics of God, limited and imperfect as they may be, were not cited.

by keane 4y ago

dickersnoodle 4y ago

If it were only that clear-cut. "What we all have universal access to" is (so far) ineffable, which makes it open to lots of individual interpretations. The result is a great deal of what H. L. Mencken called "a great deal of theological blather and turmoil" because there's no way of telling truth from falsehood.

keane 4y ago
Here’s the thing: the religious believe that everyone on Earth, in that they experience reality alone, have sufficient evidence that reality has a creator. That elements of reality may be indescribable or that individuals experience reality in a subjective way doesn’t affect that claim. Resigning truth and falsehood into a single category is a nonstarter. The conclusion here from HL Mencken’s quote is a fallacy called inflation of conflict.
- dickersnoodle 4y ago
  That first sentence sounds too ontological to be useful. St Anselm made the same mistake - because he could imagine a perfect God, that perfection required God to exist. He (and countless other apologists) believed that the universe and its nature were subject to the requirements of their ideas of God, without accounting for the inevitable limitations and imperfections of those ideas.
  - keane 4y ago
    The claim was “the world existing rather than not existing is proof of the existence of God”. Ideas about characteristics of God, limited and imperfect as they may be, were not cited.