Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:00 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MySavingGrace wrote:
what does raising Lazarus form teh dead mean?


I just wanted to know why the act of God saving Mary from the effects of original sin was more fantastic than a Jesus raising lazarus from the dead... It seems the latter would be more of a stumbling block for the skeptic...

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:28 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Actually, both mysticalrose and forumjunkie, I was honestly curious what arguments Geisler uses against Kant...because I would like to have some good arguments against him! I wasn't defending Kant's position, except insofar as I was making clear what his position truly was.

Goodsamaritan, yes he did deny that we could know the essence of a tree. IOW he denied induction, that process by which a universal comes to rest in the soul. But you guys really don't understand just how complicated this is...which might be a good thing

Ultimately I place faith in common sense. As a friend of mine wrote "I can know things...certainty be hanged."

Okay, maybe I can illustrate what I mean

1. Hume raises an objection against Aristolean epistemology (epistemology meaning the science of science, or the science of knowledge, or more clearly how we know things). Aristotle, and neither Hume nor Kant quarrels with this, presents a defnse of demonstrative knowledge in his posterior analytics. He goes at length about how "necessity" can produce new knowledge. The problem arises with the fact that we need undemonstrated knowledge from which to derive scientific or demonstrable knowledge. Ultimately, he answers that we have sense perception. We remember individual things. Our various memories of various men form an experience of man, that which belongs per totum (to man necessarily, in all cases and AS man) is thus induced. For this to work, however, one must know cause and effect.

Hume argued that for all we knew cause and effect (casuality) was inborn in us, with no guarantee of it matching reality.

2. Kant, in trying to uphold an objective ethics and such, runs into Hume's difficulty. He winds up saying Hume is right, we cannot know anything because we cannot be certain. But he is quick to emphasise a Faith that a benevolent God granted us this concept of casuality, therefore it does match reality. To him such faith was ultimately reasonable, and to deny it (to plunge into relativism and nihilism) was unreasonable...poor Kant, you guys make him look like Nietzche

3. I reject Hume's dilemma. I place faith in common sense, I can know things. Descartes "evil genius", Hume's and Kant's hang up on certainty be damned.

However, if Geisler gives some valid argument solving Kant's dilemma I would want to know it....rather than merely place faith in common sense.

Mystical Rose, do you see what I am getting at?


The common sense is that there is objective reality which all three of them deny.

This is the fault in all their logic based thinking ....

The Lord told us that we would know that our Faith was not blind Faith and that it was a reasoned Faith why? Because we would be able to reason it out, and it would be logical.

The fault lies in thinking that common sense itself is nopt objective reality. That we as individuals cannot reason and cannot percieve reality, only the perception.

Now what I see a great many of these men doing is trying to over complicate the simple. They in reality have created their own chaos. They in reality have created their own dillemma. How you may ask? Because instead of looking to the simple for the answer, they in turn negated that simple answer saying "well that is too simple, there has to be more", therefore they have tried to find more to it and in doing so have created more dillemma then solution. Because in reality, to almost everything, there are usually two answers. One that is simple and one that is complicated. Mankind will invariably pick the complicated before he picks the simple.

Where did this start ...... Why with Adam and Eve, of course.

Now if Kant was just wise enough to look at that then the dillemma that you now see would not be a dillemma at all, but it is our constant need to in turn do the same as Adam and Eve and try to atttain what is not ours to attain in the first place. It is our constant need and drive to go beyond the sufficient to the want, to the advancement of self.

This is why men deny the existence of God to begin with, because if they admitted to the existence of a deity then that would mean that mankind is not the most intelligent and highest ranking lifeform out there. It would mean that we are in subjection to another, and for those that are more interested in the advancement of self this is the dillemma. Subjection to the higher, more powerful is the problematic situation. This would then mean that mankind, as a whole, is weak. So therefore it is a constant search for them to prove that this is a falsehood to elevate themselves above such ideas and thoughts as being untrue when it is engrained in us to believe the exact opposite.

Kant and others have come the proposition that we are incapable of certain things thus through this idea and theorization we are then by this freer in actuallity because we are the ones that cause our own reality to be made.

Kant's line of thinking is this ....
That God is a perception of the person and therefore not a fixed reality but merely only a reality of the preceptions of the individual of whom believes them.... IOWs for God to exist to begin with, the person has to have the Faith to begin with and the perception that God does exist.

That is a heresy....

This is the reality,

God exist whether you have the Faith or the perception that He actually exists or not .... He is still there .... perception has nothing to do with it ...

IOWs according to Kant and those that believe like him

Perception is what creates reality

Whereas the Truth is

REALITY can create many perceptions

I hope that you understand what I am trying to get at here and why it is important, yes that you look into things and research but it is also important to see them with the eye of critique and viewed against the Teachings of Sacred Scriptura which is Inerrant and the Church which is the Advocate for the Lord .... and the things we hold as Truthful to begin with ....

The Church is wise in advocating that we as Laity always try to educate ourselves properly and to learn, but it is also wise in telling us that it cannot contradict what w know to be truth.

The Lord our God is not a perception .... He is and Always will be a REALITY....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:41 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
kirkjunkie wrote:
MySavingGrace wrote:
what does raising Lazarus form teh dead mean?


I just wanted to know why the act of God saving Mary from the effects of original sin was more fantastic than a Jesus raising lazarus from the dead... It seems the latter would be more of a stumbling block for the skeptic...

FJ


Actually no in these days and times no it is not a stumbling block like you would think ...

The reason is that because of the advancement of Science this has been done, granted not when someone is dead for days but, people have been dead for hours at a time and preserved due to the fact that their body temp has gone so low and then as soon as they brought the temp back up they got a spontaneous heartbeat... So these things have been heard of ....

Whereas, in talking about the Holy Mother, and talking about keeping her in Perpetual Virginity, also that of her being untainted by the effects of Original Sin, this is a hard concept for Christians in general to accept. Some can accept it in as much as up to the point of Christ's birth but then after that they have a hard time accepting that she was still preserved that way, because according to what they have been taught, the only one that is this way is the Lord himself. Therefore this cause much controversy that Mother and the Son could both be preserved in such a state, untainted ....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:46 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Quote:
Who can name a living American athiest?


ELLEN JOHNSON is the President of American Atheists, a nationwide movement founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair which defends the civil rights of nonbelievers, works for the separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

Try more than Living She is one of the people that was recently the most outspoken and involved with removing the 10 Commandments from public buildings and her predecessor was involved in such debates as taking prayer out of public schools ....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:52 am 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
Who can name a living American athiest?


Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Peter William Atkins, David Attenborough, Iain M. Banks, Clive Barker, Dave Barry, Bill Bass, Ingmar Bergman, Björk, Lewis Black, Bill Blass, Jim Bohanan, Marlon Brando, Richard Branson, Berkeley Breathed, Bill Bryson, Peter Buck, Warren Buffett, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Chumbawamba, Alexander Cockburn, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Phil Donahue, Roger Ebert, Dean Edell, Greg Egan, Paul Ehrlich, Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Brian Eno, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Kinky Friedman, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Seth Green, Harry Harrison, Robert Heinlein, Nat Hentoff, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Hofstadter, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Wendy Kaminer, Jonathan Katz, Diane Keaton, Margot Kidder, Neil Kinnock, Michael Kinsley, Ron Kuby, Milan Kundera, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, Stanislaw Lem, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Karl Marx, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Mike Mills, Marvin Minsky, Julianne Moore, Desmond Morris, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Andy Partridge, Mark Pauline, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, John Sayles, Captain Sensible, Robert Silverberg, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Bruce Sterling, Howard Stern, J. Michael Straczynski, Julia Sweeney, Matthew Sweet, Annika Sörenstam, Teller, Studs Terkel, Tom Tomorrow, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Paul Verhoeven, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Sarah Vowell, Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Harland Williams, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak

[url]
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index ... =Main_Page[/url]

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:15 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist.

Proof?

Ask them to prove that God doesn't exist. Logic dictates that one cannot prove a negative. Therefore, trying to do so is illogical, so they are required to operate without proof. Hence a LOT of faith is required.

As theists, we at least have SOME proof of our beliefs. Atheists have none.

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:19 am 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
Technically speaking, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in God.....which is different from the positive claim "God does not exist". As such, proof isn't requisite for their position. They simply don't find the evidence of God's existance compelling enough to believe in Him.

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:22 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
How does "God does not exist" be positive?

Is it different from "There is no God" (which is a negative?)

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:26 am 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
BobCatholic wrote:
How does "God does not exist" be positive?

Is it different from "There is no God" (which is a negative?)



"God does not exist" and "There is no God" are both equivalent, positive statements about the existance of God. Both sentences make a claim.

The lack of belief in something doesn't make a claim about the existance of the thing, for example:

"I lack a belief in the existance of white ravens" is not equivalent to "white ravens do not exist".

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:42 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
So how does the "you cannot prove a negative" work in terms of the claimed NON-existence of God by atheists?

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:46 am 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
BobCatholic wrote:
So how does the "you cannot prove a negative" work in terms of the claimed NON-existence of God by atheists?



Most serious atheists will limit their beliefs in the way that I provided. Some, however, do cross the line into making a positive claim about God's non-existance. If they do make that claim, then they would fall victim to your theory.

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:52 am 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 102901
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
MySavingGrace wrote:
I thought immaculate conception meant not having sex but through God who gave Jesus to Mary and us. This is what people mean though. How can a virgin give birth? They view it as impossible.


don't feel bad, msg... this is a common misconception that one hears quite often...which is why we need to correct it whenever it occurs ..

truth be told, i thought the same thing before i became Catholic... when i heard the feast of the Immaculate Conception was on december 8th, i thought that not only was it a miracle for a Virgin to give birth... but to only have a 17 day gestation period was also pretty remarkable... :shock: :oops: :wink:

when our Lady appeared to St Bernadette in 1858, Her words to her were "I am the Immaculate Conception", which had just been formalized as a dogma in the Church four years before...

_________________
All Marian devotion begins with Christ,is centered on Christ,and ends with Christ.
As Mary brought Jesus to us,so shall She bring us to Jesus!


De Maria numquam satis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:55 am 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 102901
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
Max Majestic wrote:
Quote:
Who can name a living American athiest?


Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Peter William Atkins, David Attenborough, Iain M. Banks, Clive Barker, Dave Barry, Bill Bass, Ingmar Bergman, Björk, Lewis Black, Bill Blass, Jim Bohanan, Marlon Brando, Richard Branson, Berkeley Breathed, Bill Bryson, Peter Buck, Warren Buffett, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Chumbawamba, Alexander Cockburn, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Phil Donahue, Roger Ebert, Dean Edell, Greg Egan, Paul Ehrlich, Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Brian Eno, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Kinky Friedman, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Seth Green, Harry Harrison, Robert Heinlein, Nat Hentoff, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Hofstadter, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Wendy Kaminer, Jonathan Katz, Diane Keaton, Margot Kidder, Neil Kinnock, Michael Kinsley, Ron Kuby, Milan Kundera, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, Stanislaw Lem, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Karl Marx, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Mike Mills, Marvin Minsky, Julianne Moore, Desmond Morris, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Andy Partridge, Mark Pauline, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, John Sayles, Captain Sensible, Robert Silverberg, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Bruce Sterling, Howard Stern, J. Michael Straczynski, Julia Sweeney, Matthew Sweet, Annika Sörenstam, Teller, Studs Terkel, Tom Tomorrow, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Paul Verhoeven, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Sarah Vowell, Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Harland Williams, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak

[url]
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index ... =Main_Page[/url]


ahh, but many of those are not living...and many are not american :P :wink:

_________________
All Marian devotion begins with Christ,is centered on Christ,and ends with Christ.
As Mary brought Jesus to us,so shall She bring us to Jesus!


De Maria numquam satis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:00 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
Max Majestic wrote:
BobCatholic wrote:
So how does the "you cannot prove a negative" work in terms of the claimed NON-existence of God by atheists?



Most serious atheists will limit their beliefs in the way that I provided. Some, however, do cross the line into making a positive claim about God's non-existance. If they do make that claim, then they would fall victim to your theory.


So what's the difference? I'm not grasping this.

What's the difference between a positive statement of God's non-existence and a negative statement of God's existence?

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:08 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. An argument commonly associated with weak atheism is that of rationalism: one should believe only what one has reason to believe. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.

Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism

So, BobCatholic Which are you talking about? Because in Strong Atheism it is Belief that no Gods exist, not the lask of Belief .... IOWs in order to be a Strong Atheist you must believe that no Deity exists not merely in the lack of proof of them

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:12 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
BobCatholic wrote:
Max Majestic wrote:
BobCatholic wrote:
So how does the "you cannot prove a negative" work in terms of the claimed NON-existence of God by atheists?



Most serious atheists will limit their beliefs in the way that I provided. Some, however, do cross the line into making a positive claim about God's non-existance. If they do make that claim, then they would fall victim to your theory.


So what's the difference? I'm not grasping this.

What's the difference between a positive statement of God's non-existence and a negative statement of God's existence?


Strong or True Atheist believes and has Faith in the fact that it is provable to begin with .... This is the true essence of Atheism ....

It is not Weak and therefore does not take on the negative position in order to prove it's it's point by making a strawman argumentation ... which Weak Atheists do....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:37 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
MysticalRose wrote:
Kant and others have come the proposition that we are incapable of certain things thus through this idea and theorization we are then by this freer in actuallity because we are the ones that cause our own reality to be made.

Kant's line of thinking is this ....
That God is a perception of the person and therefore not a fixed reality but merely only a reality of the preceptions of the individual of whom believes them.... IOWs for God to exist to begin with, the person has to have the Faith to begin with and the perception that God does exist.

THIS IS NOT KANT

As wrong as he may be, you are misrepresnting him. Perspectivism was Nietzche's way around relativism, not Kant's

Kant did not think reality was subjective. Please re-read my post. You, like I, place "faith" in common sense that we can know things. Kant's problems arise because he gets hung up with certainty. Well guess what there is no way of absolutely and demonstrably knowing that our perception of reality is correct...off pure natural evidence it is impossible to be certain that Descartes evil genius theory isn't true or that casuality is not an inborn concept that may not correspond with reality. Kant placed his faith in our conception of casuality corresponding with reality, that was his answer to Hume and his attempt to mantain an objective view of the universe. He messes up, but please stop lumping him with relativists and perspectivism. He only denies knowledge (and knowledge strictly speaking, the very word can be equivocable) because he sees no certainty that certain notions correspond with reality. What I was hoping for was Geisler maybe having a good argument showing that casuality was an induced beginning of knowledge, thus de facto corresponding with reality. This would avoid Hume and Kant's dilemma. But until this can be demonstrated, I rest merely on the faith that I can know things, certainty be damned.

So please stop attacking Kant especially since he isn't an atheistic monster...he was a man trying to mantain objective view of reality and a faith in God against the empiricism of his age. That he fell to some of the errors of those he stood against is unfortunate, but he was no Nietzche

I just notice you fall for the same error Kant does...certainty be damned. Certainty is not knowledge...if it were then I could not have knowledge strictly speaking.

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Last edited by Pro Ecclesia Dei on Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:38 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
An atheist is one who denies a God

An agnostic is one who does not believe he can know whether God exists.

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:54 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
OK, so how do I use the "you cannot prove a negative" argument against atheists?

After all, it takes more faith to believe there is no God than there is required to believe there is a God.

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:18 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Can't one prove a negative? Yes, they can...not through the cause, but rather by reduction...

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: