"A Priori" argument vs. Faith

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
106 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Oct 8, 2008

The A Priori argument--taking something as true and self-evident as done by philosophers, as opposed to faith as done by theologists.

  • likes, 0 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (4)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • It's easy to say that a being that you have had no encounter with does not exist, and everyone who claims to believe in it does so purely by faith. I think people miss who and what God truly is because they have a set way of how they perceive truth and trying to have an encounter with a being that expounds those human limits is written off as illogical or false. I believe there is a one

  • CONT.

    true God and there is a consistence with people who have had the encounter that I have, even without meeting. I also believe the Bible gives a consistent portrayal of God that lines up with other encounter I have had as well. I know they likely could not have created in my mind because in some instances I would have the encounter and then collaborate with others and the Bible and it would prove consistent. I don't mean to preach, I'm just sharing my experience. I'm open for any discussion

  • THANK YOU!

    In Genesis, yes. God created light, but then SAW that it was good. Land and water. Genesis 9 God SAW that it was good.

    Gen 12: Vegetation. God SAW that it was good. Sun and moon, Gen 18:God SAW that it was good.

    Only after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil did anyone see anything as Evil.

  • CONT.

    Your conception of God is interesting, that God is INFORMED by a priori truths rather than truth is informed by God. I don't know how many times I've come across Christians who say, "We'll God doesn't have to adhere to earthly logic because God's logic is higher." Did I get this right?

    As an Atheist I kind of think God as symbolic of some a priori truth, but not God as a literal reality. Are you saying God is a physcial substance informed by logic? A physical god is less plausible.

  • I have often pondered a priori truth in respect to logical truth like the number 1, but especially in respect to formal logic applied to the "We hold these truths to be self-evident" arguments. What worries me is that everybody except the insane agrees that 1 + 1 = 2. But no one seems to agree in formal logical truths that Kant might claim as Reason with a capital R. If it is the case that there are no a priori ethical truths, then then ethics collapse into nihilism, which I don't want to happen

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more