L
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Sorry I don’t quite understand.
God’s existence is surely better “proven” by the little we do grasp (eg motion) rather than that which we find inexplicable (there’s a gap! …it must be god). Which seems to be Aquinas’s starting point.
C
CanadianNewbie
Guest
This ^ person is absolutely right. The only way to fight logic is with logic. Your best bet is to study up and know your fallacies, because in most cases people who call you out on a logical fallacy will have only a passing understanding of it themselves and it is in many cases not applicable to your argument. And there’s no better feeling than calling out someone who tried to “gotcha” you with a “gotcha” of your own.
Great resource: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
This is the Philosophy forum not the back fence.
R
RGCheek
Guest
I think as Christians we often times suffer from ‘Creeping Standards’. When I was in the Army, the regs stated we were to have polished boots, brush polish was fine. The point was to protect the leather from excessive wear and keep it water repellant and of more use in the field.
But the competition among the more ambitious soldiers raised the standard to ‘spit shined’ boots, a much more difficult shine than what the regs required. In some units the NCO’s were essentially using a heat treatment that put a mirrored shine on the boots that surpassed spit shine.
Then some wanted the mirrored look but didn’t want to go through all the effort and so they bought these cheezey things that used patent leather that had a plastic coating and you couldn’t even wear them to the field or the boots would get all scuffed up and become irreparably nasty.
In the end, the creeping standards caused a practice that was completely contrary to the original purpose of having the boots shined in the first place.
The moral standards of Christianity are already pretty tight as it is, as we are essentially committed to controlling our Id most of the time and not acting out of anger, spite, jealousy, etc. That is a pretty difficult standard already for most of us. But some who really want treasures in heaven do all kinds of things that go way beyond what God commands us. Some do these things as a way of helping themselves develop habits of thought and emotional gymnastics to maintain a constant spiritual mind set. They have made their burden heavy by their own choice.
Good for them, I wholly endorse and admire their commitment, but it is not a requirement for me or anyone else. What they do is voluntary and above the call.
But if one allows the constant pursuit of Holiness to become the new standard for everyone, then the burden is no longer light, not at all.
R
RGCheek
Guest
So personal experience is verboten when discussing philosophy?
Why?
If one were discussing how they came to the conclusion that anger should be controlled and managed, wouldn’t a persons direct experience be relevant for insight and descriptive purposes?
One philosophical position is that God cannot be experienced. How is the testimony of some who claim that they have experienced God not relevant philosophically?
Just because philosophy tends to a certain kind of argument and irresolution does not mean that anecdotal accounts are of no use to anyone’s personal view of philosophy at all.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
In my experience, counter-apologists (of the Internet infidel variety) all too frequently raise the accusation of a logical fallacy despite the fact that no actual attempted conclusion to a logical argument is even being presented.
If one is mistakenly claiming that premise “A” and “B” necessarily/unavoidably lead to conclusion “C” then they might be open to a logical fallacy allegation. But if a person is merely stating their opinion that they believe something is probably (as opposed to necessarily) true they cannot formally be accused of faulty or fallacious logic.
Example;
I believe, I think, I’m persuaded, that man-made climate change is probably true because most
peer-reviewed science also says it’s tentatively true. (Best explanation of the evidence)
Now, that is NOT an argumentum ad populam fallacy. I’m not saying it IS true. I’m not saying it necessarily is true. I know very well that there’s a chance it may NOT be true despite the number of scientists who think it is.
And since I myself cannot travel to the North Pole or measure the ocean temperatures, I HAVE to rely on the testimony and credibility of people I have never met. I have to ‘believe’ them or if not, then justify my skepticism.
If one is mistakenly claiming that premise “A” and “B” necessarily/unavoidably lead to conclusion “C” then they might be open to a logical fallacy allegation. But if a person is merely stating their opinion that they believe something is probably (as opposed to necessarily) true they cannot formally be accused of faulty or fallacious logic.
Example;
I believe, I think, I’m persuaded, that man-made climate change is probably true because most
peer-reviewed science also says it’s tentatively true. (Best explanation of the evidence)
Now, that is NOT an argumentum ad populam fallacy. I’m not saying it IS true. I’m not saying it necessarily is true. I know very well that there’s a chance it may NOT be true despite the number of scientists who think it is.
And since I myself cannot travel to the North Pole or measure the ocean temperatures, I HAVE to rely on the testimony and credibility of people I have never met. I have to ‘believe’ them or if not, then justify my skepticism.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You’re not alone in this. Sometimes I also do not understand.
- Status