Calling out St Michael, CUT TO THE CHASE DEBATE!
Offline St Michael I challenge you to focus. I challenge you to cut the crap and defend the two most imortant claims in your holy book.
I dont think you have the ability to focus. Like most theists it is a dodge to distract from hocus pocus.
NOW WITHOUT DODGING CAN YOU DO THE FOLLOWING?
1. Define and demonstrate the reproductive material of a "spirit" and explain how a "spirit" can knock up a girl? Mind you "God did it" is not going to wash here at all.
2. Demonstrate how human flesh can reconstitute itself after brain death, celular death and rigor mortis?
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TO ISSUES TO BE ADRESSED IN THIS CHALLENGE! So stick to the subject!
[MOD MOVE: Moved to Atheist Vs Theist. PLEASE PEOPLE MAKE SURE TO NEVER POST AN ATHEIST VS THEIST DEBATE IN THE FREETHINKERS FORUM!]
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
No, the believer sees this thing that he describes as a miracle and gives God the credit for it, thus lending God credibility.
Your logic would have people worshiping stage magicians because they (the people) didn't know how the trick worked.
Again, God did not lend credibility to himself.
Please remember the first rule of hole digging - When you're in to deep - STOP!
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Agreed.
Check out my post that examines how Mike refutes himself in at least 6 cases. Please feel free to comment.
In fact, the entire board should focus on this one point, going to other issues just lets him off the hook. Notice how he's had the time to respond to everything except that.
Keep pounding away at how his own defintion of 'faith' is arguing from ignorance and begging the question, and how he fails to grasp this.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Allah's miricles prove his existance.
Yahwey's miricles prove his existance.
God's miricles prove his existance.
ALL CIRCULAR REASONING.
Not to mention he's already admited he cannot replicate or falsify these claims. SELF SERVING AND CIRCULAR WITH NO WAY TO VERIFY!
Tod, if he is not willing to focus on the birth or death of the alleged Jesus and he is willing to keep regurgitating this as well do we really want to hold out hope that we can break this mental cycle he is stuck in? It's a repeating loop. His CD ROM DISK IS WRITE ONLY I dont think it is rewritable.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Brian, he clearly can't defend the claims you challenged him on. He's dead in the water there.
Now, I just want him to respond to where I've demonstrated, over and over, where he refutes himself, and accidently concedes that faith is begging the question.
He's already refuted himself here, so the board should just keep referring him back to this. I'm not interested in anything else (other than perhaps showing him that there's no ontological difference between 'above nature' and 'not nature' for us humans)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I have not begged the question of God's existence, nor the existence of miracles. Nor have I argued from ignorance. Not any more than you have begged the question that "question begging" is a logical fallacy.
God creates the miracle and thence is the primary cause of the belief that He causes by said miracle.
Their miracles do not prove their existence. Their miracles prove that they are really revealing something. Further, I would argue that no other religion can properly claim miracles.
Also, I have not contradicted or refuted myself. You need to substantiate your claim if you want to say that I did so.
I have not made any claim that faith assumes anything. You keep saying so but you don't read anything that I write. You just leap off your own presuppositions that [a] faith is unjustified belief (albeit your position that this is the case remains unjustified) and [b] that we cannot refer to the supernatural. You have given no consistent justification for these beliefs in my entire history of discussion with you. I have repeatedly refuted your arguments and all you do is run to a different forum, ignore my previous arguments, and post the same thing again. If you want to engage in a debate, you need to answer my arguments and stop running away or ignoring them.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
St. M wrote:
"God creates the miracle and thence is the primary cause of the belief that He causes by said miracle."
1) The belief in the miracle lends credence to the miracle - not the other way around.
2) The statement could replace "God" with "Houdini" and "miracle" with "illusion" and you could start a cult of Houdini in your world.
Later St. M wrote:
"You just leap off your own presuppositions that [a] faith is unjustified belief (albeit your position that this is the case remains unjustified) and [b] that we cannot refer to the supernatural."
a] It's not just his own presupposition - Paul holds it also. Or did you just skip Hebrews 11:1?
b] Any reference to the supernatural invokes the "special pleading" and the argument from ignorance fallacies (todangst can correct me if I'm misnaming/misusing the fallacies). You're saying "I don't have a clue how this happened so God must exist" and "God exists outside nature so he doesn't have (or can't) be understood through natural rules."
Don't you think God gets tired of being used as an excuse for your not doing your homework?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
god exists because god is the primary cause of the belief that he exists.
Beg Rover, beg!
You would argue, or you do argue? Enough subjunctives, already!
Does a religion have to apply for a proper miracle claim license first? Or are you just being selfish and refusing to share your circular arguments with others?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Yes you have, read my post where I demonstrate this.
Everyone, please, keep pointing him to that post, where I demonstrate that his 'ontology begins by begging the question of a Divine Aid. This argument argues from ignorance and begs the question of a 'god' behind the wall of ignorance.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Excellent. Everyone please keep pounding away at this point.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Why? When I believe that the world is round, it is the evidence that the world is round that makes my belief credible, not just my belief in it. Otherwise, if I believe that the moon is made of green cheese, the moon's green cheesiness just became more credible.
Except a miracle is not an illusion. Only a miracle satisfies the conditions.
This is not the sense of Saint Paul. His statement is not that faith is unjustified, but that faith's object is unseen. What faith speaks of cannot be proven by human reason. For example, the case of the Trinity. There is no natural way I can come to know that God is a Trinity. I can know that He exists, moving from effect to cause, but I cannot know the cause as it exists in itself. Thus, my knowledge is inherently limited. Faith tells me God is triune. It produces motives that make the belief credible, external authority like miracles. The faith itself is of things unseen, things I cannot know by my own power, but the faith itself is justified. Saint Paul says this in the letter to the Romans, saying, "1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."
Further, the interpretation of the text in my religion is entrusted to the Church.
No, I am not. I know God exists by looking at the natural world, and I can know this with certainitywithoutrevelation. I also never state that God cannot be understood through nature. God is only knowable through nature, in the present life. As God caused all things and is the prime cause of the universe, we can say something meaningful about Him by applying natural terms to Him from effect (this world) to cause (Him). He is not totally seperated from nature, but has the relationship to it of Creator to creation.
Faith does not prove God exists, except only sometimes indirectly. Reason, what I can know without revelation, proves that God exists. Faith supplements this knowledge by revealing what cannot be known by natural reason.
The basic fact that most religions I know of do not claim miracles to substantiate their beliefs, as Catholicism/Christianity does, lends great evidence to the belief that only Catholicism/Christianity can claim miracles. They sometimes include "miraculous" occurences as part of their faith, but they never, as far as I know, use miracles happening now to prove the truth of their faith.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
"...except only sometimes indirectly"?????
You can't hide forever behind all those adverbs, Michael! Come out, come out wherever your are!
You know full well what you just did. You dodged head on by saying faith doesn't prove, then tacked on an "except" phrase, just in case you need to play the faith trump card later. Lame.
And since "faith cannot be known by natural reason", you'll just keep crying "faith" whenever you get cornered by "natural reason". Lamer.
"...most religions I know..."
"...the never, as far as I know..."
Yet again. What purport to be definitive statements, with "as far I know" escape clauses tacked on the end.
It appears you are saying the only reason your religion is right and the multitude of others is wrong is because only yours (as far as you know) uses miracles to prove its faith. Sure. That must be the universal litmus test for determining a true religion. As far as I know. Except sometimes only indirectly.
There are no theists on operating tables.
It has nothing to do with playing a "faith trump card." Miracles and faith obviously can indirectly prove that God exists. If a miracle substantiates the claim that God is a Trinity, would that not also substantiate the claim that God exists? Faith assumes natural knowledge of these things, but you can use miracles and the like to also show that these natural things must likewise be true. But it only does so, obviously, indirectly.
Faith cannot be cornered by natural reason. And I don't intend to rely on faith later to explain why God exists. It is entirely provable without revelation.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
It has nothing to do with playing a "faith trump card." Miracles and faith obviously can indirectly prove that God exists. If a miracle substantiates the claim that God is a Trinity, would that not also substantiate the claim that God exists? Faith assumes natural knowledge of these things, but you can use miracles and the like to also show that these natural things must likewise be true. But it only does so, obviously, indirectly.
Faith cannot be cornered by natural reason. And I don't intend to rely on faith later to explain why God exists. It is entirely provable without revelation.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
I want everyone to note how Mike keeps dodging this:
Yes, you have. Let's review:
A few examples:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!
Pretty funny!
More:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?
More here:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth, as per your first claim above.
Here's another example:
It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.
Again, you argue from ignorance and beg the question. I.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.
Here a fifth example:
It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes.
QED
Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.
Here's a sixth:
And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.
Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason.
This is tautological.
So you assert, yet again. However, the problem here is that this is a ramificaiton of your own claims, that follow, now:
Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.
You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity. Yet you beg the question of a particular truth: the existence of Truth, and of a Divine Aid that allows you access to Truth.
This is where you argue from ignorance, and beg the question of a god.
Your explication of theological 'faith' rests upon this 'ontology', ergo you have conceded that your faith begs the question.
QED
But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason.
This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce.
Q E D
You've just highlighed yet again how you do in fact beg the question. You argue from ignorance for particular facts beyond reason, including a divine aid, which is god. You move from arguing from ignorance and begging the question of a divine aid, to actually speaking of this divine aid, 'god'.
QED Again.
To say that is to again beg the question!
Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3!
Your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!
So your attempt to run away from the problem in this way is just bizarre.
Mike has also dodged all the points where I demonstrate that the term 'supernatural' is a broken concept.
Please, let's all keep reminding him of this.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
He skips, jumps and runs from it.
Over and over.
No, you're correct. And Mike doesn't have a clue as to what we're talking about here, he doesn't grasp basic metaphysics, which is why he can only naysay.
On this note, let me again ask all of you to keep pounding away at mike to respond to the above post, he keeps dodigng it over and over.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
"...miracles and the like..."
"But it only does so, obviously, indirectly"
Michael we have been through this manifold times. What do I have to do, rap you across knuckles like an angry nun? You keep obfuscating your statements with all these qualifers ("...I would say...", "...except only sometimes...", "...obviously, indirectly..."
, so nobody really knows what you're saying, including yourself. My first impression is that "obviously,indirectly" is a semantic contradiction, rendering worthless any statement that contains it. Michael, it would be much more dignified to simply say you don't have a response, than to keep sneaking off the edge of the screen, with your bag of magic ambiguities.
"If a miracle substantiates the claim that God is a Trinity, would that not also substantiate the claim that God exists? "
Why do you do this, Michael? Did jesus say "Blessed are the question-beggars"? If you are saying that the virgin birth of the resurrection "substantiates" the claim that god is a trinity, you are assuming a priori that there is a god. So you are using your "miracles" trivially. You have already made the unsubstantiated claim that god exists, and proceeded with the "miracle" to substantiate a second claim, that it is a trinity. The first assumption remains, unsupported by any premise.
Faith assumes natural knowledge of the virgin birth? Faith assumes natural knowledge of the resurrection? What constitutes natural knowledge of either event? And as long as faith assumes, it cannot at all be utilized to prove anything.
Is any of this indirectly obvious to you?
There are no theists on operating tables.
LOL
Yes. And he concedes this over and over across many posts on this board. I've covered the highlights in the post I've reprinted above.
Right.
Point that out to him 1000 times, and he'll simply not get it.
FUCKING LOL
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
St. Michael, STOP DODGING THIS POST
Yes, you have. Let's review:
A few examples:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!
Pretty funny!
More:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
You keep using that word. Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means?
More here:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth, as per your first claim above.
Here's another example:
It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.
Again, you argue from ignorance and beg the question. I.e. knowledge has limits, ergo I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.
Here a fifth example:
It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes.
QED
Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.
Here's a sixth:
And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.
Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason.
This is tautological.
So you assert, yet again. However, the problem here is that this is a ramificaiton of your own claims, that follow, now:
Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.
You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity. Yet you beg the question of a particular truth: the existence of Truth, and of a Divine Aid that allows you access to Truth.
This is where you argue from ignorance, and beg the question of a god.
Your explication of theological 'faith' rests upon this 'ontology', ergo you have conceded that your faith begs the question.
QED
But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason.
This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce.
Q E D
You've just highlighed yet again how you do in fact beg the question. You argue from ignorance for particular facts beyond reason, including a divine aid, which is god. You move from arguing from ignorance and begging the question of a divine aid, to actually speaking of this divine aid, 'god'.
QED Again.
To say that is to again beg the question!
Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3!
Your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!
So your attempt to run away from the problem in this way is just bizarre.
Mike has also dodged all the points where I demonstrate that the term 'supernatural' is a broken concept.
Please, let's all keep reminding him of this.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
NO NO NO,
STOP, PLEASE....MY BRAIN CANT HANDLE ALL THIS LOGIC!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I want everyone to know that St. Michael wrote me to tell me this:
"Dear Sir,
Your continual refusal to address my points is getting irritating. I have continually answered and rebutted your arguments. You then proceed to do this: say that mine are refuted and you have no need to listen to argument. It is incredibly dishonest and unfair. If you want to claim that you have done so, you need to engage my points."
MY continual refusal to address HIS points?
Seems Michael is the patron Saint of Projection
Mike, you emailed me 3 times demanding a debate. Let's go:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640?page=0#comment-34526
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Quote:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. This is begging the question. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
It is not unjustified and it is not an assumption of faith. It does not prove that faith is unjustified at all. Further, faith assumes this, because we already can know it through natural reason, We don't need faith to know that God exists. Grace presupposes nature. We know by nature that God exists, and faith presupposes this when it reveals some truth.
Quote:
So you begin by assuming, from a conceded position of necessary ignorance the supernatural, and the existence of the divine! You give a bizarre argument below that 'faith does not enter the process until step 3", but this merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place!
1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith. Then what you are arguing is that my outline is unjustified in parts 1 and 2 and not that faith itself is unjustified.
Quote:
Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists.
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
It does not beg the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you prove. You, for example, in your argument that I am "begging the question" assume that the term "begging the question" is a logical fallacy. You would say, "But it is and can be shown so." And, likewise, your argument does not intend to show that begging the question is a logical fallacy. This is the same with faith. Faith assumes something it does not prove. It builds on what is known naturally. This is what I mean when I say it assumes the existence of God but does not beg the question.
Quote:
- because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
A classic, textbook example of circular logic! You assume the existence of Truth itself - i.e a divine truth by begging the question of it's existence, and then use this begged 'truth' as a guarentee of its truthfulness! Unbelievable! And yet you still deny that this is begging the question?
I do not beg the question. Faith itself is not proving that this truth exists, but assumes it. And it assumes it from what we know naturally. We can know naturally that truth exists and that God exists. We don't need faith, and faith assumes this when it reveals something further about God.
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
Quote:
Here's another example:
It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true.
Again, you argue from ignorance that there is something specific beyond the limits of reason (again, all ignorance can really tell you is that you don't know) and then you beg the question of a particular 'truth' - a divine truth. In other words, your argument holds that since knowledge has limits, I will take from my ignorance that there is something beyond it that allows me to shore up the weakness of reason, through some divine power.
No, that is not my argument. Strawman much? My argument is that human reason knows that God exists and that something could be said about His essence, but knows that it cannot know that. It likewise knows that the only way it can attain this knowledge of what God is is if God reveals it. Hence, it awaits faith to reveal that further "what" about God.
Quote:
Here a fifth example:
St. Michael wrote:
First, because it doesn't intend to prove anything, but is merely an outline of how faith proceeds.
Second, it assumes,
It doesn't set out to prove, it assumes.
QED
Good thing to quote out of context. Who here is being dishonest?
My claim is that faith proves something different from what it assumes. It assumes something already known, just like you assume that your argument could be true. It is not an unjustified assumption. That is the key issue.
Quote:
and I quote, "some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
This is necessary for faith to exist at all. Otherwise, there is no reason for faith to exist.
Here you not only concede that faith is begging the question, you concede that otherwise there is no reason for faith to exist.
You are just being dishonest. Read my posts. This assumption of faith is not unjustified. It assumes something already known by reason. That is not an unjustified assumption, any more than assuming that your arguments can be true invalidates your arguments.
Quote:
Here's a sixth:
St. Michael wrote:
because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
And here, yet again, you start out by assuming that there is some truth from a conceded limit of ignorance. All ignorance can actually tell you is that you don't know, but instead of accepting this rational reality, you go on to assume that there is some truth behind the ignorance, and that this truth guarentees the validity of any claim you make about it... this is all question begging.
It is not just from ignorance. I never just said, "We don't know some things" hence, "We must know them through faith." No, I said clearly, as above, that we cannot know what God is in Himself, but we likewise know that we can know this, and that the only way we can is if God reveals it. This is all natural knowledge, not revealed knowledge.
Quote:
Colloquial usages of faith that equate faith with trust or probability have to do with experiences. These are natural processes. They therefore can have no relation to faith in the supernatural.
st. Mike wrote:
I see no reason why they cannot.
Because you yourself concede that reason has limits. Reason cannot be used in regards to the supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as beyond nature, ergo beyond natural processes like reason.
This is tautological.
It is not tautological. I concede that reason has limits, but knowledge that God exists is not one of them. You merely assume that supernatural means "beyond reason," which is unjustified. Supernatural is above nature as its cause. It thus DOES have a relationship to nature. Using this relationship, things can be said about God. It is not the absolute antithesis of nature.
Quote:
Right, we're talking metaphysics. And your 'ontology' starts out of the gate with an argument from ignorance an begging the question of god's existence.
No, it does not. It is not an argument from ignorance. We can know from natural reason that God exists. I have the five proofs posted on my blog. This is the ground of the ontology of faith, which is from natural reason. We already know what faith assumes we know.
Quote:
You see, the limits of reason only tell us that reason is limited. It doesn't grant us an epistemological right to believe that there are things beyond reason, let alone a specific entity.
I never claim the bare fact that we cannot know certain things means that they exist. And God's existence is not in that realm. God's existence can be positively proven; it is not an argument negatively from ignorance at all. We know things exist and we know that dependent beings must have a cause. Hence, there is some first cause that is necessary of itself: God. This is what reason knows.
Quote:
Quote:
What I said was that: A TRUTH EXISTS WHICH REASON CANNOT GRASP ALONE, not that faith assumes that such truth is true a priori.
But this is the assumption in question! A particular truth that a divine aid grants you! You begin by begging the question that a particular truth exists which is known through DIVINE AID, despite the fact that it can't be known by reason.
This is begging the question of 'god's exisetnce.
Q E D
It does not beg the question if God's existence is justified by reason.
Quote:
Here's your problem: you are talking about the grounds for your faith in 1 and 2. So it is begging the question itself to assume that faith begins at step 3, because this would lead to assuming that steps 1 and 2 are 'simply true'!
The reality is that your account of faith begins with step 1 with your ontology! Faith simply assumes that steps 1 and 2 occur, by arguing from ignorance and begging the question!
But faith does not assume them unjustifiedly. We KNOW step 1 naturally. Step 2 is God's action and does not apply in this context at all. Faith assumes that some truth exists beyond natural reason, because natural reason can know that with certainty.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Debate goes here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/4640/34578/?quote=1