Results 1 to 30 of 106

Thread: The Definition and Existence of God

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #13
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

    Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.
    I guess our paradigms are simply irreconcilable here. I for one cannot accept just a pragmatic explanation ("let's go with it cause it works") for things like science which I am just not endeared to. Religion, on the other hand, I find fascinating and am very endeared to (especially the Abrahamic tradition). Getting me to assume things about the former is hard. I'll point out the problems with inductive reasoning and definitely argue against any kind of scientific realism (I'm a good old fashioned instrumentalist )

    Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.
    I think we are talking past each other here (probably my fault for not making it very clear). What I am trying to say is that the belief that "beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence" is itself a metaphysical belief that cannot be supported by empirical evidence. This is why I took issue with your definition of rationality.

    I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

    If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.
    I brought up demon possession and dissasociative identity disorder as a side remark to the little analogy about religious belief being some sort of mental illness; I'm not actually really too concerned with either. Of course, due to the nearly universal existence of religious experience it seems that religious beliefs will continue to be respected (labeled as neurosis perhaps, but not generally as delusion).

    After all, what exactly distinguishes a delusion from what we call reality? Logically, both are very similar. The only difference being the majority of people experience what they think is reality, and a small group of people experience something else.

    Simply put however, ignoring demon possesion for a moment, DID itself is a very controversial diagnosis in the psychology community (I learned this the hard way by doing a report and not mentioning the doubts about it's validity ).
    Last edited by Reenk Roink; 09-09-2009 at 16:21.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO