God, Atheism and Problems of Philosophy

Examining difficult problems in philosophy

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Lord
• Jesus
• Christ
• atheist
• atheism
• agnostic
• skeptic
• God
• Christianity
• Islam
• sceptic
• reason
• logic
• rational
• kant
• david
• hume

[OntoLogos]

Man cannot be the ground for epistemology:

Observed q1, q2, ...,

Cannot without omniscience yield knowledge of:

q(infinite)

God is the infinite base and fountainhead for knowledge and truth.

[OntoLogos]

Empiricism fails:

1. All observed r's have been t's.

2. r, NOT yet observed, may or may not be a t.

Therefore,

3. Therefore it is illogical to posit sense observation as the ground for one's world view.

[OntoLogos]

• T (Laws of Thought) have the property U (Universality)

• For All rational thought requires T, if T has the property U. And L (Logos of God) has the property U

Conclusion:

• If L has the property U, it can account for T.

• T is necessary for I (Intelligibility).

• I, hence L.

[OntoLogos]

What supreme ruling proto-supposition can the non-theist posit to account for all theoretical thought? God is the chief ruling element of my rational paradigm and He can account for all the necessities and universals required for the Laws of Thought and thus intelligibility.

[OntoLogos]

Altruistic notions or actions require a personal ground. Symbol wielding discourse requires the Law of Identity, which requires God. Physical Reductionism must reject the Logos which is what is required for all Rational thinking and communication. Thus physical reductionism is self-defeating. The Logos of God lays out the infinite

groundwork for thought and dialog.

[OntoLogos]

My claims and arguments ask for the preconditions of empirical experience and the laws of Thought. To ask for empirical evidence for such an argument is to show the very ignorance of Laws of Thought you hope others will ascribe to us if you just say enough times.

[youmeandsomeknives]

'What is the difference of indication of soul between humans and for example an intelligent creature sensing ultrasound the way bats do? None that I can see.'

Really?

Bats have souls do they? They can enter heaven? Okay, I think you may have some issues to discuss with your christian friends about that. After all, we're the only creatures capable of entering into the kingdom of heaven.

[Censeo]

"You were trying to claim that a bat was self-aware" No, I never did try that, and I don't believe Bats are self aware.

"That's against god isn't it as it indicates the presence of a soul doesn't it?" What is the difference of indication of soul between humans and for example an intelligent creature sensing ultrasound the way bats do? None that I can see.

[youmeandsomeknives]

No, you replied to my reply after I gave both responses.

You were trying to claim that a bat was self-aware. That's against god isn't it as it indicates the presence of a soul doesn't it?

You realise that the timing of your response is logged after your name don't you?

[Censeo]

see reply I did above, by misstake replying to my own post.

[Censeo]

I'm only speculating that their sense is not incompatible with intelligence. Dogs have eyes and vision, without being intelligent. This does not mean you must be unintelligent to have vision.

[Censeo]

"Divine - of and relating to a deity/divine power" Self referential explenation. It is not a deity if it doesn't contain divinity.

"This heavily relies on the presence of belief" That I think you got right. The word contain emotive assertions... Like honorable. Would someone be honorable in and by itself, without anyone recognizing it? Or divine?

[youmeandsomeknives]

Divine - of and relating to a deity/divine power such as a god, or some other revered supernatural force. This heavily relies on the presence of belief, thus is moot here. It is not required to disprove the existence of something which displays no valid evidence to suggest it exists. It is required that evidence be brought to suggest that it does before that item may be considered worthy of disproving.

[youmeandsomeknives]

And your source for this bat-man?

You yourself are approaching this arguement from a human perspective. It's absurd to assume an understanding of the nature of an unknowable entity from such a standpoint whatever the context of your choice of words.