Because you assume it is divine. Ergo, you are using circular reasoning.
Ciao
- viole
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another version of ontological argument.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Ciao
- viole
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, I will use Rene Descartes.
Imagine you are sitting in a chair by a fireplace and wondering if you are awake or dreaming. Since you are a skeptic, it occurs to you that the world could be lying to you and it is all a dream.
Here it is:
The world causes you to really be in the chair
The world causes you to dream you are in the chair.
The problem is that there is no way to decide which is the case.
So that is how we in the end, end up with this for science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches
Proper science doesn't claim that the world is natural. It believes it is natural.
The technical difference is the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism. The former is no different that the claim that it is true, that God exists in the end. The latter says I don't know what the world really is, but I treat it as natural.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
As long as we agree, that nobody so far has solved epistemological solipsism and what the world is independent of your mind, is in the end a matter of what you assume and there are several assumptions possible and not just the one you hold, then we agree.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, I am a strong skeptic. I only have faith in the world and no knowledge of the world. You have faith in a God, I have faith in the world.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Absolutely spot on.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Is it? Where is your reasoning? Where, for that matter, is a definition?
How did life suddenly appear in this bizarre stream of consciousness?
You really do need to learn something about forming a logical argument. There are books you can get, Critical Thinking by Moore and Parker is a reasonable intro and you can often find a pdf of early editions to download if you do a search.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The fun part is that I as a skeptic, because I don't accept strong versions of in effect knowledge, gets treated as standard religious, because I accept that all humans are believers in some sense.
So here is a limited example of in effect some of the posters and what is going on:
Person 1: I know the world is X and not something else.
Person 2: I know the world is Z and not something else.
Me: Since one of you apparently don't know, I have learned that I don't need to know what the world is. I just have beliefs about what apparently works for me.
So it is always in part this game:
Someone regardless of religion or not: I know for all humans with knowledge what ultimately matters for all humans and if you don't agree, you are one of them.
Me: Then I just take the position of them and notice I am apparently still here. I have been one of them for over 25 years now and I am still here.
Regards
firedragon
Veteran Member
In all honesty, I dont think you have understood your own epistemology. You are going towards rationalism, not skepticism. You are calling yourself a skeptic, but you seem like a rationalist.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What is your understanding of a necessary being?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay. I think I get what you are saying, but I am a weird rationalist, in that I believe it is rational in some cases to be irrational. But yeah, in the sense that I only accept what makes sense subjectively as the bedrock for beliefs, I am a rationalist. But I am not in the sense of with in effect objective reason and logic.
Regards
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Because if you know how to answer, you know the status of a necessary being or if in effect you don't know, but only believe/have an opinion. you should just say so.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
My views are irrelevant because it's not me trying to make an argument. If I gave them, it would just muddy the waters because Link may have a different view and it's his 'argument'.
firedragon
Veteran Member
If you dont know that's fine
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You not understanding is fine.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Remember that for all cases. I try to do the same and if I don't, please point it out.
firedragon
Veteran Member
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not understanding what?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You are still explaining youre a rationalist mikkel.
Yes, I am a rational irrationalist, so yes. I am rational in that I can tell you the limits of rational and thus are irrational some times, but can explain that. I know.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Mikkel. A rationalist is a position. Thats part of your epistemology. Its not just you are being rational or irrational. Its the opposite of empiricism. ITs your theory of knowledge.