When you argue with fools, people from a distance can't tell the difference. There's a lot of big words being thrown around here, and the guy in the video seems very concerned with showing everyone how clever he is. That seems foolish.
You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Kant was saying that ideologies such skepticism and atheism are dangerous positions because of inadequacy w/in their entailments. They are not false BECAUSE they are dangerous, they are dangerous because of their claims which defy the nature of truth itself.
When you apply the 3 tests for truth, which all human beings assume (logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance), to such ideologies, they fail in all three tests.
You've wrongly categorized the method and disposition of skepticism as an ideology. The 3 tests for truth you've mentioned are themselves great candidates for part of the foundation of this skepticism.
If you'd like to see how I assess christianity with these tests, check out philstilwellDOTcom.
Unless there is a consistent hermeneutic standard by which we can distinguish human laws from divine laws in the bible, the bible can not be relied on as a standard for divine laws.
Your point is well taken but keep in mind what I said in Part 2 in reference to my conversation w/ that atheist. The 10 Commandments were the law originally given by God. Jesus claimed to BE God in the Flesh. What logically therefore follows is that we examine the laws to which Jesus referenced and see if they are consistent with those of the Commandments. Then we apply this same criteria to the laws that were stated outside of the Commandments, in the OT. Make sense?
That's not how logic works. Whether or not the claim is true, the statement still has to follow logical validity regardless. It is not substantiated that:
A) All birds have purple tails.
B) All cats are birds.
C) Therefore all cats have purple tails.
Whether or not the argument is true is irrelevant. The argument still follows logical validity, even though it may NOT be true. Don't confuse truth with validity, Phil. (cont.)
Review your words. Specifically when you say "What logically therefore follows...". If I accept your colloquial use of "logically" for the sake of expediency, don't come back at me with the more rigorous definition (and ironically the one I prefer).
This is a perfect example why I'd like you to present your arguments in syllogistic rigor.
"Specifically when you say "What logically therefore follows...". If I accept your colloquial use of "logically" for the sake of expediency, don't come back at me with the more rigorous definition (and ironically the one I prefer)." - I'm not understanding what you're saying in this objection. Would you care to elaborate?
"Jesus claimed to BE God in the Flesh. What logically therefore follows is that we examine the laws to which Jesus referenced and see if they are consistent with those of the Commandments."
There is not a single phrase in the 1st sentence that is found in the 2nd.
I therefore assumed that you must be using "logically" in a colloquial sense.
I'm a bit weary of asking for a modicum of rigor with not success.
The reason why I stated that mehod as such was because you said that we need asufficient standard to "distinguish human laws from divine laws in the bible". This led me under the impression that you were granting that if the OT and NT laws did not contradict, then we must distinguish which laws in the Bible were made up by men.
When you argue with fools, people from a distance can't tell the difference. There's a lot of big words being thrown around here, and the guy in the video seems very concerned with showing everyone how clever he is. That seems foolish.
Povvels 8 months ago
well put.
noilleberrebellion 2 years ago
Kant said some ideologies were dangerous. It seems you dismiss these ideologies as untrue because they are dangerous.
Does truth correlate with safety?
philstilwell 2 years ago
You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Kant was saying that ideologies such skepticism and atheism are dangerous positions because of inadequacy w/in their entailments. They are not false BECAUSE they are dangerous, they are dangerous because of their claims which defy the nature of truth itself.
When you apply the 3 tests for truth, which all human beings assume (logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance), to such ideologies, they fail in all three tests.
BassP86 2 years ago
You've wrongly categorized the method and disposition of skepticism as an ideology. The 3 tests for truth you've mentioned are themselves great candidates for part of the foundation of this skepticism.
If you'd like to see how I assess christianity with these tests, check out philstilwellDOTcom.
philstilwell 2 years ago
Unless there is a consistent hermeneutic standard by which we can distinguish human laws from divine laws in the bible, the bible can not be relied on as a standard for divine laws.
philstilwell 2 years ago
Your point is well taken but keep in mind what I said in Part 2 in reference to my conversation w/ that atheist. The 10 Commandments were the law originally given by God. Jesus claimed to BE God in the Flesh. What logically therefore follows is that we examine the laws to which Jesus referenced and see if they are consistent with those of the Commandments. Then we apply this same criteria to the laws that were stated outside of the Commandments, in the OT. Make sense?
BassP86 2 years ago
You cannot logically follow a claim anywhere until that claim has been substantiated.
philstilwell 2 years ago
And what claim is that?
BassP86 2 years ago
That Jesus was God in the Flesh.
philstilwell 2 years ago
That's not how logic works. Whether or not the claim is true, the statement still has to follow logical validity regardless. It is not substantiated that:
A) All birds have purple tails.
B) All cats are birds.
C) Therefore all cats have purple tails.
Whether or not the argument is true is irrelevant. The argument still follows logical validity, even though it may NOT be true. Don't confuse truth with validity, Phil. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
Review your words. Specifically when you say "What logically therefore follows...". If I accept your colloquial use of "logically" for the sake of expediency, don't come back at me with the more rigorous definition (and ironically the one I prefer).
This is a perfect example why I'd like you to present your arguments in syllogistic rigor.
philstilwell 2 years ago
"Specifically when you say "What logically therefore follows...". If I accept your colloquial use of "logically" for the sake of expediency, don't come back at me with the more rigorous definition (and ironically the one I prefer)." - I'm not understanding what you're saying in this objection. Would you care to elaborate?
BassP86 2 years ago
Sure. You said,
"Jesus claimed to BE God in the Flesh. What logically therefore follows is that we examine the laws to which Jesus referenced and see if they are consistent with those of the Commandments."
There is not a single phrase in the 1st sentence that is found in the 2nd.
I therefore assumed that you must be using "logically" in a colloquial sense.
I'm a bit weary of asking for a modicum of rigor with not success.
I'm moving on. Cheers.
philstilwell 2 years ago
The reason why I stated that mehod as such was because you said that we need asufficient standard to "distinguish human laws from divine laws in the bible". This led me under the impression that you were granting that if the OT and NT laws did not contradict, then we must distinguish which laws in the Bible were made up by men.
BassP86 2 years ago