You're proposing a circular argument. I say God is outside the universe, for the purpose of discussing faith, and you say prove it. First, I would have to prove that God exists, which is beyond the scope of the current discussion.
The fallacy of the game, and what I'm discussing, is that to say "God doesn't exist" is a matter of faith or an irrational statement. To go down the tangent of the proofs for God and his place in the universe is really outside the scope of the question. The question is, as proposed by the game, that if you say God doesn't exist, you must be rational. I'm saying that either the rational statement is "I don't believe God exists" or the irrational statement is "God doesn't exist." One is a statement of faith, the other is a statement of (supposed) fact. Since you can't prove God doesn't exist (can you?) than the statement "God doesn't exist" (as a statement of fact, not of faith) is irrational. Now, if you want to stipulate that God exists, I'll be happy to debate with you his place in and/or out of the universe. H. -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 4:03 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Battleground God > Yes, God and monsters have some important differences. Monsters, in theory, > are part of the physical world, so monsters can, to a great degree, be > empirically argued against. God is --------------> [in theory] outside the universe, so our laws of > rationality and empiricism are ultimately absurd when trying to prove or > disprove God. A rational argument to your proposition begins first with your assumption that god is outside our universe. Wouldn't this knowledge first require some kind of empirical evidence to establish this fact or is this this knowledge a matter of faith as well. If so, wouldn't accepting your argument also require faith? You say that our 'laws' of rationality and empiricism are 'ultimately absurb' by you start your argument with a proposition grounded in the physical world. Benjamin ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:10 AM Subject: RE: Battleground God > Faith is believing something without empirical evidence to support the > belief. > > If you believe in monsters, you are exercising faith. > > If you believe in God, you are exercising faith. > > Yes, God and monsters have some important differences. Monsters, in theory, > are part of the physical world, so monsters can, to a great degree, be > empirically argued against. God is outside the universe, so our laws of > rationality and empiricism are ultimately absurd when trying to prove or > disprove God. > > It is not the faith's that are different, but the objects of faith that are > different. Faith still has a denotative meaning that does not rely on the > object of faith. > > But I will concede that in a deeper examination, the comparison does break > down. If in playing this game, you applied the connotative meanings, which > are more subjective, you would get into trouble. > > One of the problems with the game (among its many) is that you must be > predisposed to accept the writer's definitions of "rational," "faith," and > what constitutes a valid comparison. > > For example, you must be willing to accept as valid an argument from the > extreme (the guy who said faith drove him to murder), in order to answer the > question in a manner that does not raise a hit. But in this extreme, as in > others, there are unknown factors that would not mean his expression of > faith was really a valid expression of faith. > > So the rules are really stacked against you in this game in arriving at the > "proper" conclusions. > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:47 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > *mumbles blissfully from his stupor* > > Faith in god and religion different context from faith in monsters' > existence/non existence. > Different kind of faith. > > *turns on his side* > Mmm..Muffins... > > -Gel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:30 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > At what point are you confused. I'll try to break it down further, if > you like. But it's just a set of logical propositions reaching a > conclusion: > > To deny one has faith in the existence or non-existence of God is > irrational. > > H. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:21 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > *falls over in confused stupor* > > -Gel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I think it's a valid comparison. > > The Loch Ness monster seems to be a creature of myth. Perfectly rational > people believe they have seen Nessy, but there is little if any > empirical evidence to support the existence of the Nessy. It is equally > hard to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove that Nessy does > not exist. > > As I suggested earlier, the flaw of the game is that it presupposes that > faith is not rational. Pure faith can be a rational response to ones > environment. You need not be crazy or stupid to have faith. And since > all things that cannot be proven one way another (such as the existence > or lack of existence of God or Nessy) are matters of faith, to say that > faith is irrational is to say that all people are irrational, because > all people, at the end of the day, base their ultimate beliefs about God > on faith. If all people are irrational, than the statements of none can > be trusted. But since we can observe that some people are rational, and > since all people have faith, and since in rational people, their faith > is founded on some sort of reasonable response to experience, then we > must conclude that faith is rational. > > It is the proclamation of a lack of faith that is irrational because the > person who proclaims a lack of faith is denying all evidence to the > contrary that he cannot disprove the existence of God. > > H. > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
