Todangst, Why Won't You Respond To My 48th reposting of the same already refuted assertions?
Posted on: February 12, 2007 - 2:08pm
Offline
Todangst, Why Won't You Respond To My 48th reposting of the same already refuted assertions?
I've been posting and reposting these points for weeks, but Todangst refuses to respond.
Now, some might ask why I don't just let it pass.
Because Todangst is currently bothering me on a daily basis, demanding that I debate him on these issues.
Yet, the reality is that the debate has been here for weeks, and Todangst refuses to even acknowledge it, let alone respond.
I maintain the obvious here: that the reason Todangst doesn't respond is because he can't respond - he's already refuted himself here. There's nothing he can do but fall to more bizarre rationalizations (and have the board point this out to him yet again), or concede that he's conceded that faith is ungrounded assumption.
StMichael wrote:
On the topic of what I am arguing, I have responded to todangsts questions, these here and others, throughout other forums. He just keeps posting the exact same posts irregardless of my answers, here and elsewhere.
Quote:
Responding to a question isn't answering a question. There's a significant difference. One you seem to have missed somehow.
I have engaged every one of his arguments.
Quote:
I agree. So why do you keep hiding?
How/where have I been hiding?
Quote:
You do in fact redefine words. You've redefined both truth and knowledge in one of our earlier conversations.
I do not redefine words. I clarify what they mean. There are multiple senses to words, and sometimes we need to clarify this if we want to debate something. For example, the word “dog” can refer to a good friend or a four-legged animal that barks. Clearly different senses of the same word. To have a debate, we do need to clarify our terms.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
Quote:
He's either too deluded to see what he's doing or too dishonest to admit his mistake.
Answer my rebuttals, or don't call me dishonest.
Post a rebuttal for him to answer first, or don't claim you aren't dishonest.
Right on it cap’n.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
If you just ignore what I say and claim I am deluded, that is an ad hominem attack and cannot be claimed rational.
Unless it also happens to be true. And it is.
Even if I was deluded, it doesn’t affect the truth of my arguments. Even a deluded man is right when he claims the grass is green.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
I have consistently responded to your and other people's questions and posts. What I have gotten in response is dismissal because I am "deluded" and "irrational."
Because you've never posted any evidence. And you have posted more fallacies than most other people I've encountered on this site.
And you still have yet to point these fallacies out in a cogent fashion.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
Who is the irrational one, when my posts are merely written off? If you can't answer them, you are the one who needs to evaluate your positions, not me.
When your posts don't refute anything, your posts are valueless. And just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't a valid one.
I am not just saying I don’t like it. I am claiming it is wrong for a number of reasons. And I post my reasons. If you have a problem with them, criticize them. Otherwise, they stand.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
You still have not shown why faith is an ungrounded assumption.
Yes, he has. Multiple times. So have I. So has Sapient. So have dozens of people. You haven't proved any of us wrong in any way.
Your assertion. The jury is still out on that one.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
If you just define it according to your preconcieved notions, it is not valid.
I define words according to the dictionary. Which is the only rational way to define a word unless you just made it up. I haven't noticed you using words you made up, so that loophole doesn't apply to you.
The dictionary is not a religious authority. It cannot define faith for the Christian. If you assume that faith means accepting unjustified assumptions, that is not an argument. You are working a priori from some definition you made up. My argument is that faith is the accepting of what God has revealed, because God has revealed it. The acceptance of some truth on the authority of God. This is theistic faith, and it is not irrational.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
I am the one who possesses faith, and I am the one who gets to define my position.
No. You let the church define your position. How many times have you said the church is the ultimate authority on scripture? By letting the church define your position, you allow us to attack your words as if you were the church. Which is remarkably easy.
How are you going to argue Scripture when you don’t accept what Scripture says? You don’t interpret it the same way I do. I accept Catholic doctrine as normative in faith. If you argue as if I were a Protestant, it doesn’t suffice. I take Scripture is an authority, but with the proper interpretation. I am not using Scripture to argue that Scripture is true. I am just saying that you can’t really redefine some article of my belief from your own interpretation of Scripture.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
If you want to claim MY faith is irrational, you must use MY defintion of what faith is, otherwise you are arguing with no one.
More redefining of terms. Faith is faith. Whether you like it or not. If the real definition doesn't apply, use a different word, or make up one and define it for us to apply to you. You can't hijack any word for your own purposes. This is the height of arrogance and irrationality.
What does faith mean to you? If you just define it as “irrational belief,” you load the dice. Or, as todangst likes to put it, “beg the question.”
I will even provide you a dictionary definition: “confidence or trust in a person or thing.”
Quote:
StMichael wrote:
This is utterly dishonest. You are just talking about me behind my back.
Behind your back? I emailed you earlier today, in response to your email asking for a debate.
One of the emails:
Your refusal to respond to this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
has led to an entire new thread dedicated to dealing with the fact that you are doding this refutation of your claims about faith.
You've run from these points for weeks, we've had enough.
An earlier email:
"still waiting for you mike:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
These arguments have been there for weeks.
So the truth is: you're the one who is running.
Let's go..."
You also posted on the site several times while this thread was up.
So where have you been, Mike? Trying to figure out a way to re-assert the same internal contradictions in a new way?
I didn’t get around to reading your e-mails for a while. Why is that a crime? Calm the heck down and stop calling me dishonest because I didn’t respond within three minutes to your claim. I am trying to keep up with the large amount of posts I have to do on this site.
Quote:
Quote:
Only just recently has todangst told me this thread even existed.
That's simply not true. Here's why:
This thread is dedicated to an argument you said you'd reply to in another thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/4383
So it's days old. And the argument itself, is weeks old.
So these points have been around, with your awareness of them....
The “points” might have existed on the site, but you unfairly assume that I was informed of their presence.
Quote:
todangst wrote:
"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.
st. michael wrote:
It is not unjustified and it is not an assumption of faith.
So you asssert, yet again. More childish naysaying. Deal with the argument. My argument demonstrates that you being by begging the quesiton. Deal with what I have written above.
I do. I said that faith DOES NOT ASSUME that in an unjustified manner. Faith builds on what reason knows without revelation. Reason knows that these truths about God that faith reveals can only be known if God were to reveal them. It knows this because it deduces this from the fact of God’s existence (likewise provable) that “what” God is cannot be known naturally and that God, being an intelligent and perfect being (likewise following from natural knowledge of God), can likewise reveal to man what He is in Himself. It is not unjustified, even though faith assumes it. I have been saying this all over. Why don’t you respond to my arguments without childish naysaying? How is this argument wrong?
Quote:
Quote:
Further, faith assumes this, because we already can know it through natural reason
First, the idea that you've proven god deductively is nonsense.
So you assert. Yet again. More childish naysaying. Deal with the argument. Deal with what I have written above.
Quote:
Even if you have arguments for a first cause that you hold to be true, you have to beg the question that this 'cause' is the christian god of catholicism. So you're begging the question here, leaving aside the fact that your wrong about having an argument for god in the first place. (Have you ignored the last 3 centuries of philosophy?)
No, faith provides the move between the naturally known God and the God of Catholicism. So reason wouldn’t by itself know this God of faith and has no need to prove it in the proof for God’s existence. Faith reveals this correspondence, not reason.
Also, I am not leaving aside the history of philosophy. I am arguing that they are wrong.
Quote:
Second, your own argument for faith concedes that natural reason cannot know god's nature:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
Natural reason cannot know what God is in Himself, but it can know clearly the fact that He exists and certain truths which follow from that, like that fact that God is one, omnipotent, omniscient, and the like.
Quote:
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. You then rely on this BEGGED Divine Aid as justication for your faith!
No. This is an assumption of faith, but it is proven in natural reason. Faith assumes the proof in reason.
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!
I am not ignoring your arguments and have addressed them. Just to specifically mark it out for you as you seem to miss these things:
1. “Necessary ignorance proves the supernatural”
a. No, I never claim that necessary existence proves the existence of the supernatural. We have a natural knowledge that the supernatural exists through the proof that God exists (which is the only real supernatural entity). We know from this proof that it follows that God cannot be naturally known as He is in Himself, and this likewise can be known, but only if God Himself reveals it. Faith picks up here and is God revealing Himself to us.
2. “The existence of God”
a. Proved from natural reason in five ways. I have given them elsewhere on my blog: http://www.rationalresponders.com/just_for_reference
3. “If faith does not enter the outline until step 3, that merely begs the question that steps 1 and 2 are not begging the question in the first place.”
a. Then faith does not beg the question. My outline, you are claiming, contains two unjustified premises: step 1 and 2. So faith itself is not unjustified, but the premises given on the outline are. That is different.
b. The first thing to notice is the difference here: faith is not unjustified knowledge, as it assumes the natural knowledge that we can have to support step 1.
c. Step 2, however, is part of faith and not provable; it is an action of God that we only know about through faith. But it is necessary for anything to be revealed. Hence, faith does not assume it unjustifiedly, as faith is the revelation of God.
d. The second thing to notice is that step 1 is provable by reason. I have been proving it from the first answer on this thread. It follows from the fact that we know that God exists naturally and we likewise know that He cannot be naturally known as He is in Himself, but only as He reveals Himself. Hence, that truth exists and can be revealed, but only requires God’s initiative to do so. Faith is the response to this initiative on God’s part.
Quote:
Quote:
1 and 2 are not begging the question because they do not enter into faith.
Again, first of all, these statements are circular, no matter where you place them in your mind. So that's that.
Stop the childish naysaying and address my arguments. Deal with them. Deal with what I have written.
Quote:
Next, everyone take note: I have already dealt with this. If you argue that they 'do not enter into faith' then you are begging the question that they are simply 'true', prior to 'using faith.'
No, it does not beg the question. They are logically prior to faith, but they are likewise justified by natural reason. So the truth of the proposition is proven naturally and assumed in faith. So stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
So the statements beg the question, and then you beg the question again that they are simply true, prior to faith. So wherever you 'place it' in your 'view of faith, it leads to a circular logic fallacy.
Again, they do not beg the question, because while their truth is prior to faith, the truth of the propositions is known naturally.
Quote:
And this entire argument is ridiculous anyway... whether you call these stages a basic ontology, or part of faith, they are circular, and your 'faith' relies on them.
My faith does not rely on these in an unjustified manner. The bare fact it relies on them does not mean that it begs the question. It assumes justified knowledge of these propositions. And we do know it naturally, as I said above.
Quote:
St Michael wrote:
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.
todangst wrote:
So, it doesn't beg the question, but it assumes?
Quote:
It does not beg the question. Begging the question is when you assume what you prove.
Michael, circular logic occurs whenever you rely on a conclusion as a premise. Leave aside whether you seek to 'prove' 'god' exists, the fact is, you rely on the begged existence of a divine aid, in order to make claims that what follows from 'your faith' is true... this makes your argument circular. It's so classically circular that your denials bring your intelligence into question.
You start out assuming that there is a DIVINE AID which guarentees truth, despite the fact that reason cannot tell you this, and then you rely on this Begged Divine Truth to justify further 'faith' based claims.
That is your circular logic fallacy.
But that is precisely wrong. Faith does not prove that there is some truth that cannot be known without divine aid, it proves the truth itself. That is the basic problem with your argument. Just to highlight this point, again, Faith does not prove that there is some truth that cannot be known without divine aid, it proves the truth itself which is revealed.
Second, as it seems that your claim has now switched to whether the divine aid itself is assumed, I refer you to my post two below this one which talks about this specifically.
Quote:
The fact that you think you've proven god deductively is both nonsense, and irrelevant - you yourself concede that your arguments can only take you so far, that they can't give you knowldege concerning 'god' 'himself',
First, my proofs for God’s existence stand. Stop your childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Second, it is directly relevant because this natural knowledge is logically prior to faith.
Third, the arguments for God’s existence do tell us about God, but they do not give us a complete picture. The “complete picture” of what God is in Himself is given by faith, and completely in the Beatific Vision.
Quote:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
Ergo even in your delusional world where you think you've demonstrated a necessary being, you're still begging the existence of a Divine Aid.
No I am not. The divine aid is precisely the revelation itself. It is the cause of faith. So, God reveals something and we believe it as revealed. The revelation itself is the act in which we believe, and not “assumed” in the argument. So, for example, Christ says, “I forgive sins,” and to prove it raises the paralytic. This is the exterior divine aid that leads to belief. The interior aid, on the other hand, is that which, by grace, enables and moves the will to believe. This is the motive of belief in the first place. Faith does not assume this, but this forms the basic reason why faith exists. Because we acknowledge some miracle in the world, we accept the authority of the one revealing. Then, faith begins in that person’s authority as speaking for/as God.
Quote:
Now consider the fact that your supposed proofs for a god are ridiculously false.
Stop your childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
Quote:
You, for example, in your argument that I am "begging the question" assume that the term "begging the question" is a logical fallacy.
I don't simply assume begging the question is a logical fallacy. If I simply assumed it, I wouldn't have reasons for holding that it is a logical fallacy.
Instead, I have a rational grounds for holding this to be so. It's the basis for logic itself. Logical arguments exist to demonstrate a proposition. Nothing is demonstrated by merely asserting a conclusion as a premise. This is why begging the question, or circular logic, is an informal logical fallacy.
Which is exactly the case with faith. The knowledge that there exists a truth that can be known only by divine aid is likewise supported on rational grounds. They exist logically prior to faith itself, as your understanding of “begging the argument is a logical fallacy” is prior to “if this argument is begging the question, it is false.” But the conclusion assumes the prior, but does not do so unjustifiedly.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Faith assumes, without any grounds, that there is a Divine Aid beyond reason itself,
Not in an unjustified manner. Read my posts above.
Quote:
and then, in turn, relies on this begged assumption as the grounds for faith being "true". This is circular logic. Whether or not 'faith' intends to 'prove "god' exists in your delusional mind is moot, the argument remains circular, because it assumes a Divine Aid, and then relies on this assumed Divine Aid for faith being true.
Again, faith does not unjustifiedly assume that truth exists which cannot be known without divine aid. The argument fails. Further, it seems you are arguing a different point than just the truth being not known without divine aid. The motive of faith is the divine aid, by miracles or grace, as I said above.
Quote:
So even if we take your argument at its word, your explication of faith remains circular. And of course, the idea that you've proven god is preposterous.
Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
Quote:
It builds on what is known naturally.
No, it does not. In fact, you yourself say that it does not:
Again:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID. You then rely on this Begged Divine Aid to guarentee the truth of this claim.
You are begging the question by doing this.
This is circular.
No, as above, the premise is justified and is assumed as justified according to natural reason. The argument is not circular.
Quote:
Whether or not you think you've already 'proven' a necessary being is moot here. And of course, you haven't.
Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
Quote:
St. Michael: because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.
Todangst: 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?
Quote:
I do not beg the question. Faith itself is not proving that this truth exists, but assumes it.
Ah, this is your error again.
The assumption is where it begs the question! Regardless of the motivation for the assumption.
Of course faith proves nothing, it merely asumes. And then it goes on to use this assumption as the grounds for faith being 'true'... It assumes a Divine Aid, without any grounds, and the relies on this begged question as the justification that faith is true.
The divine aid by miracles and grace serves as the motive for accepting some article of faith as true. It is not the object of faith, but the cause. Thus, no begging of questions has occurred.
Quote:
Quote:
. Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
If 'faith' is 'about god' - i.e. god's 'character', then it must make assumptions without justification. Whether or not 'reason' got you to that there is a god, would be moot, as it would be an unjustified leap from 'a god' to 'god's nature'.
No, it assumes in the sense that the natural truth is logically prior, but justified. Refer to the above post where I show that. I further see no reason why the faith would make an “unjustified” leap from God to God’s nature. That is the entire act of faith – a justification for that leap to acknowledging that some truth about God is true.
Quote:
You've even agreed to this, in principle:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
...but you prove unable to follow the ramifications of your own assertions.
And again, the idea that you have proofs is absurd.
Stop this childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop this silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
No, that is not my argument. Strawman much?
Actually, it is your argument. Can't follow the ramifications of your arguments much?
You hold that reason cannot know certain things, and then go on to assume that there is a superior power - a Divine Aid.
No, that is not what I claim. I do not assume the existence of divine aid. Divine aid is the cause of faith, not what it proves. Further, the strawman is precisely that you depict me as moving from the mere fact that reason cannot know certain things that a divinely revealed truth must exist. This is not my claim. I am saying that one can naturally know that God exists, that some truth can be known about His nature, and that this truth can only be known if it is revealed by God Himself. All of these things reason knows on its own natural power.
Quote:
Here, let me help:
This is the same as your first precept.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Begs. The. Question.
No it is not. I again point out that while this is logically prior to faith, it does not assume it in an unjustified manner.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Hence this begs the question, because 1) even if reason could demonstrate a first cause, this does not demonstrate that it is a Divine Aid, even according to YOU
I never claimed that demonstrating a first cause immediately resulted in belief in revealed things. We know that a first cause exists, that some truth exists of what God in Himself, and that the only way we could know it is if God revealed it to us. The action on God’s part in the world as revealing is what leads to faith – the accepting that this revelation is from God.
Quote:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
and 2) so you're still begging the question of a Divine Aid, that you can't know, is somehow magically providing you with knowledge, and then relying on this begged question to justify the whole process as true.
Whether or not reason could hold that there was a first cause would not demonstrate that there was a Divine Aid. So you're equating your 'necessary being' with a Divine Aid, and that's unjustified even according to your own argument...
OK, this is a more clearly stated position compared to your earlier ones. I am not saying, again, that God magically provides me with revealed knowledge.
To make the steps perfectly clear:
We know naturally that God exists.
We know naturally that we cannot naturally know what God is like in Himself.
We know naturally that the only way we can know these things is if God revealed them.
Some revelation happens in the world (Christ claims to be God) and is supported by credible evidence – miracles, prophecies, and the like.
We assess the credibility of the revelation according to these miracles.
We assess the internal coherence of this revelation.
We can then place faith in this revealer if these are credible.
We assent to the revealed truth that Christ reveals (here, grace works in the soul).
Thus, we assent to this truth and have supernatural knowledge that Christ can forgive sins as God, and the like.
Quote:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
And again, the idea that you have an argument for a necessary being is ridiculous. What you really have is an inability to see the errors in your arguments. What you have is bad cosmology and bad philosophy.
Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop the silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
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
Quote:
Good thing to quote out of context. Who here is being dishonest?
You, of course. I quote a part of a post at a time, if you think you have some magic context that will save you, post it. Don't whine like a bitch, and then basically do NOTHING to support your whining... Pay heed how nothing changes, and how this demonstrates your own dishonesty.
Quoting just the first half of the point skews what I say and makes you look dishonest.
Quote:
Quote:
It assumes something already known, just like you assume that your argument could be true.
If it is already known, then there is no need for an assumption.
It is logically prior to faith and hence must be accepted before faith can prove anything. This is not a proper assumption, as your assumption that begging the question is a logical fallacy is not a proper assumption, because it is justified assumption.
Quote:
Quote:
It is not an unjustified assumption.
It IS an unjustified assumption. You say so:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
You keep ignoring my points. I never claim it is an unjustified assumption, nor have I refused to explicate what I meant. Stop the childish naysaying.
Quote:
You are conceding that the very point of faith is that it is contra -reason, it exists as an assumption, an assumption of something that cannot be demonstrated by reason.
I have not conceded or claimed at all that faith is contra-reason. The premise you quote can be demonstrated by reason. That is the whole point of why I am claiming it is justified.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
It is not just from ignorance.
It is from ignorance according to you:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
This is begging the question.
There is no ignorance involved. The knowledge that this truth exists in a manner that can only be known if God reveals it is provable according to natural reason. It is not begging the question because it is not unjustified.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Which of course, you can't know. You have to beg the question of a Divine Aid, and then rely on this begged assumption as the grounds for "knowing it'
This is precisely where you do in fact commit the error I have just described.
Faith is the knowledge that God reveals something – it is the assent to that revelation as revealed. Its motives for belief – its cause – gives the reason for why we assent to it.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
It is not tautological.
Except that it is. The supernatural is defined 'above' nature, ergo no natural process can grasp it, as no natural process can go 'above' nature.
Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop the silly dodge. It fails.
Also, the leap you make from the fact that supernatural being above nature to the conclusion that no natural process is unjustified. I am claiming that such a leap is possible because the supernatural is tied to nature by a cause-effect relationship. You also seem to misapply what supernatural is. Supernatural is not the denial of all natural attributes, or their exact opposite, which would be “non-being.” Supernatural is “super-natural” as its cause.
Quote:
Quote:
. You merely assume that supernatural means "beyond reason," which is unjustified. Supernatural is above nature
No, I don't merely assume it, it's definitional. Supernatural is not natural.
Again, I've asked you to show how 'above' differs from 'not natural'.
Read the above. Supernatural is not purely “anti-natural” or “non-existent” but “above-natural” or “super-natural.” It exists in relationship to the natural as a cause to and effect.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
That's cute. Did you just cut and paste Aquinas' five ways?
Yes, I did.
Quote:
It's moot, however, as those arguments don't get you to a Divine Aid, those arguments cannot get you to 'god's' nature even according to your warped sense of reality ...
They cannot tell me about what God is in Himself, but they can tell me about God – that He is, is one, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and the like. Further, as I said, God’s aid by miracles and grace is the cause of faith and is not assumed in any way.
Quote:
Quote:
Reason is "that" God; Faith is "about" God.
And of course, your claim that reason gets you to 'god' is false, even according to your own argument, you can only get to a first cause (and again, you're arguments are wrong), and you have to beg the question that the cause is a god, let alone the christian god.
You must beg the question there, even if you believe you have a reason to believe in a necessary first cause.
It depends on your definition of a god. I think most people would call the omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, perfect, and eternal being which creates all things God, or the most proper thing to which the term “God” could be applied.
The move from this to the Christian God is the move of faith. Faith is what proves those things about God which make Him properly “Christian,” like the Trinity, telling us those things which human reason cannot know about God.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
I never claim the bare fact that we cannot know certain things means that they exist.
How many times must I repost this?
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which [b]cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
Your 'epistemological account' begins with an unjustifiable assumption. You begin by holding that there is some 'truth' that cannot be known by natural reason WITHOUT DIVINE AID.
How many times must I point to the fact that you don’t understand my argument? It is not an unjustified assumption. It is logically prior to faith, but is known by natural reason before faith begins.
Quote:
Quote:
God's existence can be positively proven; it is not an argument negatively from ignorance at all.
If you have reasons, you don't need faith, Mike.
God’s existence is not a matter of faith. It is logically prior to faith and proven naturally. Faith is the acceptance of supernatural truths like the Trinity which cannot be known naturally, but this acceptance is not done contrary to reason because it has proof from miracles, prophecies, and the like which give credibility to revelation.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
The argument for a necessary cause commits several errors Mike. It's based on false assumptions right from the start. In the end, it's just bad cosmology. You need to read something modern in cosmology.
I would argue that it does not conflict with any modern cosmology.
Quote:
But for our purposes, I'll just say: it's a non sequitur, a leap of faith, to go from 'first cause' to 'god' or "Divine Aid'
No it isn’t. Further, as I said, divine aid is the cause of faith, not something faith proves. Faith believes that God has revealed something and so accepts it as true. But it does not do so for no reason at all. It believes that God has revealed something because of the miracles and the like which accompany said truth, which are motives to assent to that truth. And, the movement to the Christian God is the movement of faith, not of natural reason (because natural reason does not, by definition, have any knowledge of revelation).
Quote:
Quote:
This is what reason knows.
Your reasoning doesn't demonstrate a god, mike, it demonstrates your lack of knowledge of cosmology.
Stop the childish naysaying. Deal with my arguments. Deal with what I have written. Stop the silly dodge. It fails.
Quote:
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
Quote:
It does not beg the question if God's existence is justified by reason.
Actually, your claim begs the question of a Divine Aid, and then goes on to use this begged assumption as the reason why its true:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason [b]without divine aid."
The fact that God causes a miracle is precisely the point of faith. It does not assume that God does so; it is the assent acknowledging that God is the revealer.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
But faith does not assume them unjustifiedly. We KNOW step 1 naturally.
No, you don't.
Again, read it again, for the first time:
"An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First[b], some truth exists which [b]cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid."
You concede here that you can't know a Divine Aid by natural reason.
No I do not concede that. That is not what my phrase means at all. My phrase indicates that we cannot know what God in Himself by natural reason, not that natural reason cannot know this fact without revelation (which would just be a vicious circle). Natural reason knows that certain truth exists which it cannot know. It only can know these if God reveals them. The assent to a revelation of God is faith.
Quote:
Quote:
Step 2 is God's action
Which begs the question that there is a Divine Aid, acting.
That is only an objective account of faith, assuming a real revelation. In reality, faith is the assent which acknowledges that God has so acted.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Let's review that one again.
It knows some truth exists beyond the limits of reason.
Because natural reason can know it. With certainty?
Yes. Faith has prior to it the natural knowledge that some truth can only be known if God reveals it (what God is in Himself). It “assumes” this knowledge.
Quote:
I emailed him twice, in response to his own emails to me today.
Furthermore, the argument is a reposting from another thread, where he saw it, and stated he would reply to it later.
So his claim is itself dishonest.
The idea that posting on a public board, addressing him by name, and sending him several emails asking him to come here, all of which are in response to his own emails demanding a debate, is somehow 'behind his back', is sorta silly.
He was not giving me multiple e-mails to come here. He sent me three in one day, the last of which asked why I never responded to a post he had going somewhere else.
I reproduce the entire series to clarify our correspondence:
StMichael wrote 2007-02-07 19:23:
Dear Sir,
Why don't we discuss our problems in a debate on a forum thread somewhere? That way we can openly resolve our issues. Sound good?
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Then, todangst responds 2007-02-07 19:23:
Sorry Michael, but this does not interest me. We already have several debates going, and I see little reason to continue with them, let alone start a new one.
However, if you would like to actually have a discussion, I might enjoy it. They do use the 'stickam' room for such things, perhaps you might be available one night.
- Chris
StMichael wrote 2007-02-07 23:10:
Dear Sir,
I don't see why you are so skeptical. I have been arguing with you, and you merely abandon my debates. If my position is so easily refuted, why don't you answer all my posts? You just leave them, and then claim elsewhere that you have refuted them. Either accept a direct debate or stop making these claims. If you want to have a private discussion in the stickam room, I am afraid that would be impossible due to the filtering that I must tolerate.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 01:56:
Mike, you just don't know how to argue that well. You've been refuted over and over, which is why you're writing in the first place..... you're looking to find a way to get over the hurt.
If you're suffering from doubt, I can't help you. You'll have to work that out on your own.
Good luck.
StMichael wrote 2007-02-08 13:59:
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. Stop shifting the subject and argue. Be a gentleman.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 14:16:
> Dear Sir,
> Your continual refusal to address my points is getting irritating.
Your continual lies are irritating. I respond to you, and you run away. You never argue, you just assert, and then re-assert. You ignore my arguments.
You are a waste of my time, and I'd like to ask you to stop posting in my "god the iron worker' thread, as you aren't even responding to my argument.
> I have continually answered and rebutted your arguments.
You are a liar. You naysay some of them, and run from the rest.
You have everything backwards.
I'll debate you on the main boards only to expose you and your constant lying.
Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 14:27:
Your refusal to respond to this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
has led to an entire new thread dedicated to dealing with the fact that you are doding this refutation of your claims about faith.
You've run from these points for weeks, we've had enough.
Then, todangst responds 2007-02-08 14:41:
still waiting for you mike:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
These arguments have been there for weeks.
So the truth is: you're the one who is running.
Let's go...
Notice the timestamps on these last three e-mails, all within about ten to twenty minutes of each other. He doesn’t bring up the fact that there is this thread going on until the last two letters, each occurring within 14 minutes of each other.
Notice when he starts the thread he claims I haven’t responded to:
2007-02-08 14:25.
When does he post this? Within 2 minutes before he claims that I have been “dodging” this post for “weeks.” The facts contradict his egregious lies.
I quote, from 16 minutes after he starts this thread:
“still waiting for you mike:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
These arguments have been there for weeks.”
Who is lying now? I have been completely honest in response to your arguments. I ask for a fair debate, and you go ahead and lie right to my face and in front of everyone on this website. I’m sick of it and you need to apologize.
He claims he has been posting and reposting these same points in different forums, but that is precisely my point: he posts them in one forum, I answer them, and he reposts the same thing in a different forum without addressing my answers. Which was the entire reason I called him to debate me in civil fashion. I went through and debunked his nonsense before in:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=2 – He jumped in and left without responding to the SAME arguments he makes here.
And here,
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3674?page=1 – again, he jumps in and jumps out when the water gets too hot
And here,
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3590
I think it just illustrates his working principle of irrationality better summed up in this statement of his: “Mike, you just ignored everything just said to you” which for him seems to mean, “It doesn’t matter what you say. Everything I say is right, so stop talking right now.” Which is just the same usually in every other post of his, where he makes statements like, “Mike has been so thoroughly refuted here that there's nothing else to say...“ ‘I don’t have to listen to anybody else because I am right.” It is a total refusal to engage in real discourse.
Quote:
His argument here is ridiculous.... to argue that 'faith begins at step 3' solves nothing.
First, whether or not 1 and 2 "enter into faith' has no bearing at all on whether they beg the question or not! The question remains: do they beg the question? All we have to do is examine then, and determine if they beg the question. And they do. As I have demonstrated.
Then you cannot claim that faith itself is unjustified. Only my account was unjustified in its assumptions of premise 1 and 2. These are not the same. I never said that faith itself assumes these premises (expect in the sense above, where faith has these logically prior to itself).
Quote:
Next, we have to ask: if they 'don't enter into faith' then why bring them up? He brings them up because they are the 'reason' for faith, the 'ontology' for faith.... so his delineation is a false one.
They are not the reason we have faith. They are just prior to having faith. For one to have faith in something God has revealed, there must be: [a] something God has revealed, and [b] these things would have needed to be revealed (beyond natural power to know).
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
St. M,
I'm not Todangst but I think you're combining or missing some steps here.
You wrote"
"They are not the reason we have faith. They are just prior to having faith. For one to have faith in something God has revealed, there must be: [a] something God has revealed, and [b] these things would have needed to be revealed (beyond natural power to know)."
Shouldn't the steps read more like:
[a] Something was revealed.
[b] You don't know how it was revealed.
[c] Someone who you respect as having more knowledge than you says "God did it".
[d] As you don't know or don't care to look for other options, you agree with that person.
[e] That person leads you to a book that claims that God does reveal such things.
[f] You read that book and convince yourself that God does and is the only one who can reveal such things (again because you don't know for sure or don't care to look).
"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
More bumps!
Let me try to answer jcgadfly, by referring to your "steps".
Your steps read:
[a] Something was revealed.
[b] You don't know how it was revealed.
No, we know how it was revealed. For example, Christ says, "I am God." This is an act of revelation. We clearly know how it was revealed. The question is whether or not Christ in this case is trustworthy. We ask for evidence on which we can assent to this claim. Jesus Christ then produces some miracle. We then have grounds on which to believe this claim.
[c] Someone who you respect as having more knowledge than you says "God did it".
I never claim that the bare fact of having more knowledge or respect than I do amounts to substantiate the claim. If God were to reveal something, He would accompany it with signs that are exclusive to Himself as cause - a miracle. So, when Christ or His Church makes some claim, like that Christ forgave sins, they produce miracles to substantiate the belief.
[d] As you don't know or don't care to look for other options, you agree with that person.
I look for other opinions. It is partly because nothing conflicts with natural reason in the account of His doctrine that we can accept it as reasonable. We accept it because He provides evidence supernaturally to substantiate these claims. He shows His dominion over nature as its Divine Author.
[e] That person leads you to a book that claims that God does reveal such things.
Really, though, the book is primarily afterward. Christ Himself and His Church is logically prior to the book. We have revelation occuring in Christ and His Church and it is recorded in the Gospels/Scripture.
[f] You read that book and convince yourself that God does and is the only one who can reveal such things (again because you don't know for sure or don't care to look).
It has nothing to do with not caring to look or not knowing for sure. We have clear evidence from miracles that Christ and His Church are from God, and hence can believe in them. Scripture is something afterward that is a record of this revelation of God. It is not itself some sufficent cause for belief.
However, after accepting the truth of the revelation of which the Gospels or the Scriptures in general contain, it becomes clear that such writings take on an infinite value as containing the whole message that God intended to reveal. They are, then, the substance of the Revelation, but not the proofs by which we can believe the Revelation as true.
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.
Bump!
[b].[c],[f]
Miracles only hold significance to those who believe in the miracles. The believers lend credibility to God and evidentiary value to the miracles.
People believe in miracles because:
[a] They desperately want to.
[b] They are bribed with a positive afterlife or threatened with a negative one.
---
[d] I didn't say you didn't look for other opinions. I have no doubt that you looked for other people who had views that supported what you were told. I said that you didn't look for other possibilities or explanations.
---
I don't mind bumping this thread. It's a good exercise for me to keep what's left of my brain sharp.
I don't know whether Todangst will look this up because each of you is under the impression that the other is repeating himself.
"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
What a classic projection you've got going here, Michael!
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
I've responded. You just seem to think that there's a need to respond to each and every pointless re-assertion of your naked assertions, when in fact, the first refutation stands unchallenged.
Really? Who on this board would buy into your lie in the first place? Take a look at those who have debated issues with you, like Chaospump - they all come away with the same conclusions:
1) You don't know what you're talking about.
2) You assert, without demonstrating
3) You run from arguments, and then have the audacity to claim that no argument has been given.
So leaving the rest of your lies aside, let's get to what I'm supposedly not dealing with.
Engaged - but not responded to any questions.
Responding to a question isn't answering the question.
Notice how I just repeat what I already said you, Michael.
Actualy, that's about all I do with you - point out your fallacies in a 'cogent' fashion...
Except that I have. Lying won't make my arguments go away, Michael. I have demonstrated that your own description of faith relies on a circular logic fallacy. I'll do it yet again, here.
I have done precisely this. Here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
You then write:
Again, you lie. My comments here were in response to your complaint that I didn't notify you about the above challenge. My point was that you were already aware of the challenge because you had already read it in that post.
Yet, after complaining that I didn't make you aware (which is a lie) you start a thread here without telling me.
So we can now call you a liar and a hypocrite.
Read:
Again, that's simply not true. Here's why: This thread is dedicated to an argument you said you'd reply to in another thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/4383 So it's days old. And the argument itself, is weeks old. So these points have been around, with your awareness of them....
Again, you lie. In that very thread, you responded to parts of my post, and then said you'd get back to the rest later.
As for your post, where you claim that I merely naysay, you again lie. I'll show that you're just expressing some anger over the fact that you've been called on your childish naysaying so often that you needed to use this thread to throw a tantrum.
Let's contiue...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Michael repeats the same assertions, I repeat the same unanswered arguments.
In fact, I am often asked to repeat an argument right after Michael has read it. Take a look:
Yes, but then I demonstrated where you do argue in a circle.
I already refuted this point in my post to you.You must make an unjustified leap from any argument from a first cause, to the catholic god.
I already dealt with this. You ignore it, and return to re-asserting what has been refuted.
I have done so. You ignore it, and return to re-asserting what has already been refuted.
I have demonstrated this already. You ignored it. Take a look, yet again:
But you yourself hold that you can't know about the nature of a god through reason. And yet, you yourself also hold that faith is NOT defined in contradistinction to reason.
So you have to concede a fatal error here.
So, either faith is unjustified belief.
Or faith is a form of reason, and therefore, according to your own argument, cannot take you to god knowledge.
Checkmate.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I wrote: 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!
You 'respond'
Please stop lying.
Again, you fail to deal with the argument before you. The argument is that even if you can argue for a first cause, it is a leap in faith to go form a first cause to the catholic god.
This is where you beg the question. If reason can't take you there, then unjustified assumption is required. Even if you could give a rational argument for a first cause, you can't go from a first cause to a catholic god on reason.
So you are refuted, yet again
And you refuse to even deal with the argument.
And, of course, I must again repeat that your first cause argument fails anyway!
This is moot, as already explained to you ad nauseum
YES. IT. DOES. IT IS CIRCULAR. YOU JUST. ASSUME. 1 AND 2 ARE TRUE. PUTTING THEM 'OUTSIDE OF FAITH' IS ITSELF BEGGING THE QUESTION THAT THEY ARE SIMPLY A PRIORI TRUE.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST THIS POINT BE REPEATED?
So you assert, as usual, without ever demonstrating, as always.
Your faith relies on points 1 and 2 being true. It relies on a Divine Aid without justification (as your own description of faith concedes cannot be known by reason) and then relies on this begged Divine Aid as the guarenteeer of the truth of faith.
I have made this point to you ad nauseum, yet here I am again using it to refute the same assertions.
Addendum:
Incorrect.
Step one does not rely on a first cause, instead, it begs the question of a Divine Aid.
Please see my above post, where you claim that you can use 'faith' to get from a first cause to a divine aid, and see the problems there.
Do you see how circular this is? Do you see how you contradict yourself? You talk of faith as if it is equitable with reason, but here you say "it is not provable, we only know it through faith"
What can you mean if not to say that faith is unjustified belief?
Skipping ahead in his ponderous, long winded, highly repetive post to the end, we get this:
Of course I can. It follows from what I just said. Either faith begs these questions, or faith relies on an ontology that begs these questions. There's no functional difference - a begged question enter the process. As usual, you make a distinction without any difference.
Then faith relies on this ontology that begs the question!
You are conceding the argument, you are just unwilling to admit to it
A necessary ramification of what you just said is that faith relies on an ontology which itself begs the question.
Which means that you're checkmated.
Again.
When I say 'reason', I mean that they are the necessary grounds... So you've made yet another distinction without a difference. WHy are they prior to having faith? Because they are necessary.
So faith begs the question.
QED
You left out the begged part: that there is a Divine Aid in the first place.
So much for your repeated claim that I merely naysay. It is revealed here to be a lie. It is you that merely asserts and naysays, and the fact that I have demonstrated this causes you such anger that you must project out your problems onto me. It's a childish tit for tat. Why not grow up, stop asserting and naysaying and deal with arguments?
A sober reading of my arguments reveals that I have demonstrated fatal internal contradictions in your description of faith and demonstrated my point: faith begs the question.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
bump, bump, bump, bump.
Oh, wait, I had to just add this:
Quote:You've been continually, continually asked to delineate 'above' nature from 'not nature'. Yet all you do is simply reassert that they are different without ever even attempting a demonstration!
All you have done is, comically, assert that supernatural is SUPER-NATURAL. In addition, your claim that has a causal relationship is, for the 10th time, a stolen concept fallacy. To be causal is to be lawful, to have properties, to be be a part of nature.
This is perfect evidence for my claim that you
1) assert nonsense
2) reassert the same nonsense when challenged
3) dodge the actual arguments before you.
'bump' indeed.
Anyone who wants to waste their time further can go here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
The post that clearly annoys Michael to no end. Read my response to him there, a response that he studiously avoids.
New layer..."Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Bump.
Mike, even leaving aside the failure of first cause or necessary beign arguments (which beg the question!) the fatal flaw in your argument is that you must beg the question that a first cause is a Divine Aid, your own argument holds that there is a distinction: that reason cannot know 'a necessary being's nature'.
So your argument dies here. And your attempts to delineate between faith and the grounds upon which faith exists fails for the simple reason that wherever the unjustified assumption occurs, an unjustified assumption must occur.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
First, on my part in this argument, I am merely illustrating the absurdity of your own actions. Your own actions clearly belie your bias against all rational argument. If my arguments were so transparently false, you ought to respond to them instead of summarily dismissing them. Instead, you just call me a liar and a hypocrite because I have attempted to refute your arguments.
The second point ought to be that you DID lie earlier. You never refuted this in my post. I clearly point to examples where all you do is leave an argument. You just come, assert some random point (such as "faith is unjustified belief"), I respond, and you just go somewhere else and make the same comment. If my arguments are false, refute them. Don't just call them "naysaying" or childish. I can easily do the same to you.
Third, it is clear that you are misusing your administrative capabilities when all you do is rename my threads and delete my posts. Who is being the irrational one? Can't have anyone challenging your arguments, I see.
Fourth, you need to finally address my criticisms, which you still have NOT done. Even if they are merely "naysaying" you still have a reason to show why they are wrong. My "naysaying" is pointing out your own fallacies.
Fifth, let's respond to the main assertions:
No you do not. The Catholic God is from revelation and the naturally known God is naturally known without revelation. No unjustified leap occurs, as the leap is based on the truth of revelation, which is itself founded on the authority of the revealer, substantiated by miracles.
Respond to the argument. Why is this unjustified?
You just keep likewise repeating the assertion that faith is unjustified, yet give no reason why this ought to be the case. What definition are we working from? I have clear evidence for my defintion from my own religion and from Scripture. Likewise, this is the ordinary defintion of faith as trust in another. Where do you get this a priori definition you keep using?
You are utterly misunderstanding what I mean when I say we cannot know God's nature. We can understand naturally that God exists and we can understand that His nature is to exist. We cannot understand things that are intrinsically true of God's nature, such as the Trinity. These can only be revealed. However, we can know that God is omnipotent because this follows from the manner of His existence, not His essence. These are truths we can know about God naturally. You really need to start reading what I am writing.
I am not arguing from a position of necessary ignorance. The existence of the truth beyond human reason that I am talking about can be known likewise by reason to be discoverable only if God reveals it. We can KNOW this without revelation. It is a justified proposition. I can demonstrate it philosophically. To simplify, we know of course that God exists because the dependent existing beings we see require a necessary being. This necessary being is pure act and His essence is to exist, which is the definition of a necessarily existing being. As such, what He is can not be known naturally; only He can know what He is. We likewise know from natural reason that human beings are made to be happy in the Beatific Vision of the essence of God. As nature does nothing in vain, this end was made to be fulfilled. This requires that God reveal Himself to us as He is in Himself. If this is the case, we know that faith is a necessary requirement in order to attain the Beatific Vision. We look for God revealing Himself and we look for proofs that God is revealing Himself to us by looking for miracles, which substantiate that it is the Author of Nature revealing Himself. This movement is rational and justified. The movement to accept revelation is not logically necessary, but it is not contrary to reason or unjustified. We may not know initially that God is revealing, but our faith and assent to the revelation brings an absolute and infinite certainty because we know, then, that God Himself is the revealer.
Yes, because your entire argument is merely founded on an a priori assertion that "supernatural" means "anti-nature." What demonstration have you offered to me, other than you assert that it is not natural and we would steal the concept? What demonstration have you offered for any argument at all, other than assert an a priori definition of faith or supernatural?
The only properly supernatural being is God. And we can know that He exists as I point out above, through nature. Just saying He is supernatural doesn't cut it. Ignore the word. Let's just start from nature. We can know that God exists because the possible/dependent beings that come into existence require a necessary being. We must eventually posit an absolutely necessary being and this we call "God." Ignore revelation, ignore faith, ignore your own definition of "supernatural" for a bare second. This absolute necessary being is the cause of the existence of all other beings, yes? As such, it can be said to be "super-natural" because it is the cause of natural things, yes? Nevertheless, it MUST exist in relation to them as a cause. Is this following at all?
It would only be a stolen concept fallacy if we attempted to start from an a priori "supernatural" being who is totally divorced from nature. However, the knowledge we have of God comes through natural things and is related to natural things. It is supernatural only in its relation to nature, and it is not its absolute antithesis. Got it?
We talk about this earlier, but let's just for the sake of debate give a quick overview. We cannot move to the Catholic concept of a Trinity from reason, because natural reason alone has no Revelation, by our very definition of it. We can, however, move to the knowledge that the Catholic God is identical with this cause three ways: first, because its attributes match, second, because the Catholic Church claims that their God is identical with this first cause, and third because we know from natural reason that the First Cause can reveal itself to us and the Catholic God substantiates its claims to be the First Cause by acting in a manner that confirms it is the First Cause - miracles and prophecy.
No, you are again utterly misinterpreting what I am saying. 1 and 2 are not assumed to be true. They are justified, not a priori, but because reason can show it to be such. I know by my natural reason that some faith exists which God must reveal. I know it. I need no revelation. This knowledge is prior to revelation.
Why must I repeat myself? Why don't you read a blasted thing I write?
I quote: "The divine aid is precisely the revelation itself. It is the cause of faith. So, God reveals something and we believe it as revealed. The revelation itself is the act in which we believe, and not “assumed” in the argument. So, for example, Christ says, “I forgive sins,” and to prove it raises the paralytic. This is the exterior divine aid that leads to belief. The interior aid, on the other hand, is that which, by grace, enables and moves the will to believe. This is the motive of belief in the first place. Faith does not assume this, but this forms the basic reason why faith exists. Because we acknowledge some miracle in the world, we accept the authority of the one revealing. Then, faith begins in that person’s authority as speaking for/as God."
This "divine aid" is not assumed by belief, but is its cause. When I said that we cannot naturally know step two, it is not unjustified. It is an action of God that occurs independent of requiring proof. It is God revealing. We do not assume that in our account of faith. When we make an act of faith, the first two points do not come into it. To illustrate, if I agree to go with Charlie to the movies, I am not irrationally assuming that Charlie decided to go to the movie prior to my acceptance of his invitation. It is his act, apart from my consideration of his invitatation. I see no reason why step 2 ought to be considered at all a cause for the lack of justification of faith. Faith is caused by God as an invitation. I have no need to show logically that God actually made a decision to reveal to man. I just encounter the actual act of revealing and then work from there. This is where faith begins. Faith begins on earth and not in heaven.
And what is this ontology, pray tell? I have spent this entire post justifying why faith can say that some truth exists which only God can reveal. Where is the question begged?
They are necessary for faith, but not unjustified. These premises are clearly justifiable, as I have been proving. Show me in a step-by-step format why you believe I cannot justify steps 1 and 2. I have shown my arguments as to how they are. It's your ball.
This does not NEED to be proved. It is the faith itself that God causes something to be revealed. The actual action of God in revealing is prior to faith, but it is not necessary to justify faith. Another example, my friend calls. I hear the phone ring. I pick it up and say, "Who's there?" My friend explains that it is her.
Does the fact that I cannot prove that my friend actually had to decide to call me make the act of believing that it was my friend an unjustified act on my part? The act of my friend in calling me is NECESSARY to whether I hear the phone ring, but it provides nothing to my faith that it is my friend on the other line.
Now, explain why you think this is wrong.
I am not asking for the impossible. Regardless of how you feel about my arguments, all I am asking for is for you to clearly delineate what your response is to each point. I don't care if you say that you have demonstrated it elsewhere. I posted a short version of justification for each point, and I would appreciate if you do the same, regardless of whether you think it exists elsewhere. I am just asking that we actually engage in a debate. If you clearly point out in this way why you think my points are wrong, then we might be able to have a real discussion.
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.
And I do, because the errors in them are so transparent. I demonstrate this by argument, time and time again.
So please stop lying to yourself about this, because no one else is buying it. I have given you an argument. It refutes you, by showing how your own claims contradict.
Again:
Mike, even leaving aside the failure of first cause or necessary being arguments (which have been rejected for centuries) the fatal flaw in your argument is that you must beg the question that a first cause is a Divine Aid, your own argument holds that there is a distinction: that reason cannot know 'a necessary being's nature'.
So your argument dies here. It becomes outright comedy when you refer to faith as non rational (i.e. reason cannot do this, so we rely on faith) and refute yourself by direct self refutation.
Again, this begs the question of a Divine Aid in the first place, as explained to you, ad nauseum.
And one more time: your attempts to delineate between faith and the grounds upon which faith exists fails for the simple reason that wherever the unjustified assumption occurs, an unjustified assumption must occur.
I've already made this case above, and you refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone deal with it. You've already been refuted Mikey. Now go lick your wounds and leave me out of the process...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I still don't know what you mean here. I never claim this. I claim that God reveals something and provides miracles to substantiate this. Define right now what you mean by a "divine aid." I obviously have a different meaning than you do.
Reason cannot know naturally what God is in Himself. It can know certain things which follow from the way in which He causes us to exist; like His omnipotence, or His perfections, or the like. But these do not give us a direct knowledge of His essence. Nevertheless, they do establish in a certain sense, "what God is."
You just aren't reading what I write and are taking it out of context.
Faith is not non-rational. The article of faith itself is justified. You are also mistaking what I say when I say, "reason." I mean "reason acting without revelation," not rationality itself or reason itself. Reason is what acts in faith to assent to the doctrine in the first place. Of course reason cannot naturally acting assent to something beyond its capacity, it needs a revelation from a higher source. But the act of assent is not then irrational, but in accord with reason.
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.
Please stop lying to yourself Michael. I've demonstrated where you do this above. You yourself hold that you can only argue for a necessary being, but that reason cannot tell you of the nature of the being. Leaving aside the actual failure of the necessary being argument, this means that the leap from necessary being to Divine Aid is unjustified.
Thanks for refuting youself agian.
Please stop your constant lying.
I've already refuted this above, and you've not even dealt with the arguments. You make an unjustified leap from necessary being to Divine Aid.
I don't expect you to work this out, I expect you to just keep re-aserting yourself until until your cognitive dissonance dies away enough to sleep at night.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You keep just ignoring my arguments. We may not be able to know the intrinsic nature of how the being exists in itself but we CAN KNOW how it exists in RELATION TO US. This is the source of our knowledge of the necessary being. It is necessarily existing because our dependent/possible being requires it.
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.
No, I've dealt with them already. Please stop lying to yourself about this.
Same assertion, that I've already refuted, ad nauseum.
Mike, even leaving aside the failure of first cause or necessary being arguments (which beg the question!) the fatal flaw in your argument is that you must beg the question that a first cause is a Divine Aid, your own argument holds that there is a distinction: that reason cannot know 'a necessary being's nature'.
So you refute yourself here. It's over.
So your argument dies here. And your attempts to delineate between faith and the grounds upon which faith exists fails for the simple reason that wherever the unjustified assumption occurs, an unjustified assumption must occur.
That's that.
Just let it go.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You still have no shown why any argument for God from nature automatically begs the question. The argument from necessary and possible existence does no such thing, and you have not shown how it does so.
Likewise, you keep claiming that I cannot show why the first cause is a "Divine Aid" though you still haven't explained what you mean by that term. I clearly showed above how revelation and faith is justified, but you keep ignoring it. Show me again, instead of just repeating your claims, why I cannot show that the Prime Mover can reveal something. What contradiction exists, in your view?
And, lastly, you just repost again your same statement that I cannot delineate between faith and the grounds of faith. Why not? Referring to my example I gave elsewhere, my friend gives me a phone call. I recieve the call, pick up the phone, and ask "Who is this?" While the act that my friend makes in calling me is necessary for me to get the call in the first place, it does not make my asking, "Who is this?" and unjustified assertion.
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.
If I'm reading it correctly, he's still trying to get you to prove the existence of your God
You make the claim that God is revealed through faith. You also claim that one can't have faith without the assistance of a "divine aid" which you also call God.
So the means by which God reveals himself can only be received from God. For this God to give this faith to you, he must already exist - which is what you are being asked to prove.
"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
Todangst, you need to stop being so childish and commandeering my posts. It's just your desire to squelch all discussion that you cannot respond to. Let it go.
OK, I can show the existence of God from necessary and possible being, as I have. I'll just quote the argument so we can move on with this nonsense:
"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
On the second point, however, I never claimed faith was justified because God gives it to man's soul. He might do this, but it has no bearing on the justification or unjustification of the proof, because it is itself an article of faith. Any confirmation of the revelation or article of faith comes from miracles, which we independently judge as miracles and use to accept as grounds for faith.
God might give faith, but the faith itself is not affected in its justification by this fact. The faith itself is based on the miracles that God performs to substantiate its claims, not on God's grace in giving it.
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.
Again, you are asserting without proof (one of the meanings of postulate) the God (unmoved mover, first cause, whatever) for which you are being asked to provide proof.
Now you claim that the miracles are the instruments of faith. The problem with that is that the only people who buy into the miracles only do so because they already possessed a belief in a God that does miracles. So God does miracles in order to back up his claim that he is God. Before you can accept the miracle as evidence, however, one already has to believe in a miracle working God.
That (the existence of this miracle working God) is what needs to be proven.
"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
How am I "asserting" God? I am not asserting anything. I gave a clear proof, which runs like this:
P1) We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.
P2) But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not.
C1) Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.
P3) Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence,
P3a) because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.
C2) Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist;
C2a) and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd.
C3) Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.
P4) But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not.
P5) Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes.
C4) Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.
This all men speak of as God.
What is unclear here?
While you are right in saying that people who do not accept that a God exists who can perform a miracle would be less disposed to assent to one actually happening, I refer you to the above argument which proves that such a being exists. This proof for the existence of God does show a God who works miracles (maybe not immediately evident, but we can show this after we work through the proof).
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.
Yes, I have. The argument is above, and it works from your own claims.
I have also demonstrated it here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4640
In both cases, I show where you yourself concede that reason cannot give you information about god's nature, and that you must beg the question that a first cause is a Divine Aid.
Furthermore, you haven't even dealt with the other contradictions in your own account that I have pointed out above. I have even shown you that your attempt to delineate 'faith' from the ontology upon which it necessarily rests fails.
I've been more than patient with you and all your lying, and I have even stood against the other members of the site who have called for your banning for your lying. So please, for your own sake, e stop lying to yourself about this. Continued lying will get you banned from the site. One more lie, and that will be your last post here.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
And the case is even worse than that: for michael himself admits that even if there are reasons for holding to the belief in a god, none of these arguments can reveal god's nature.
So even if he could give an argument for the existence of god (which he can't of course) according to his own statements he would need to take a leap of faith from a necessary being to a Divine Aid.
He accepts the existence of Divine Aid on faith - unjustified belief, and then relies on the Divine Aid as the guarenteer of the truth of faith!
Things get even worse from here... he concedes that one must rely on 'faith', not reason in all of this.... but previously he denied that faith was contra reason! When asked to explain this, he ran from even responding.
Finally, he claims that 'faith doesn't beg the question' but that the 'first 2 steps in the 'ontology' that faith must rely on, do assume things.
He fails to see that this dodge does not salvage faith from being unjustified assumption, seeing as he concedes that faith must rest upon these 'ontological' assumptions.
He's been checkmated on this numerous times, at this point he's just throwing tantrums.
And lying about what has occurred.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Todangst edits:
************ Mike, you were warned about your constant lying. I tried to give you a last chance.
Again, I already demonstrated this, by showing how your own words indict you:
and
Yet while this argument has been presented to you over and over, you continue to lie that there has been no argument.
Your constant lies are not rational discourse.
You're banned. - Todangst
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.