What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Peter_Plato]

There is no metaphysical warrant for the assumption of PSR.

Well, no, actually. If you want to play the “no metaphysical warrant” card, then by the same token there is no metaphysical warrant for any request of yours when you demand that others provide proper and sufficient reasons for their conclusions or beliefs. You have to allow them the same intellectual “right,” that you advance above, to pull the same card and claim you have no metaphysical warrant for making demands on them to sufficiently account for their reasoned conclusions.

You may as well abandon all need in every instance for anyone to provide good reasons. What would be the point of explaining anything, if, in the end, nothing is really and truly explained except in the arbitrary manner and extent determined by Hee_Zen?

The point is one of consistency. If you want to trot out “no metaphysical warrant” for the principle of sufficient reason but you want others to provide reasons for claims you don’t agree with, then you have to allow that they can decline your request as one that you have no “metaphysical warrant” to make.

This is a question of consistency, Hee_Zen. If we are going to take reasoning seriously, then we can’t arbitrarily “pull the plug” on demanding full and consistent reasoning when those reasons are not to your liking or take some effort and time to grasp completely or lead to conclusions you don’t like.

And since you assume that God is a brute fact - without an explanation and without a need for explanation, you have no ground to complain that others consider other facts to be “brute facts”. You cannot escape the existence of “brute facts” since no chain of explanations can descend into infinity. So the PSR is NOT a universal concept.

Clearly, you don’t understand the difference between “brute facts” and sufficiency, especially when the sufficiency lies within the explanation itself.

The point, by the way, is that escaping “the infinite chain of explanations” is precisely what a reason sufficient within itself allows.

The difference is that your acceptance of “brute fact” means you hang your hat on a “brute fact” and abandon the need for any explanation at that point, arbitrarily.

What the PSR entails is that there must be a reason that adequately explains all else and which, by the same merit, explains itself, otherwise, nothing is ultimately explained in terms of why anything is the way it is. Nothing is taken as “brute” because a sufficient explanation for everything must exist in order for anything to be explained.

Your “brute fact” can explain nothing, not even itself.

You deny a priori that ultimate explanations can exist because you don’t accept that some explanations can - and, indeed, MUST - ultimately be self-explanatory. This is why you claim explanations can only continue ad infinitum. I simply deny that such a notion is at all true. You certainly haven’t shown it is except by presumption.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You don’t understand the idea of faith. We believe without evidence (the concept of faith).

This isn’t exactly what the “idea of faith” means. It certainly isn’t the Catholic view - it is very close to a fideist view.

Some reading for you:

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/tim-mcgrew-debates-peter-bogo-the-clown-boghossian-on-the-definition-of-faith-2/

Or just skip to the germane points and listen to Tim McGrew’s explanation beginning at about 12:20 or 14:20 of the actual debate:
cdnbakmi.kaltura.com/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_geqtgoo0/v/2/flavorId/0_bl2lsnk3/name/a.mp3

 

[Al_Moritz]

You don’t understand the idea of faith. We believe without evidence (the concept of faith).

If I had made the rational judgement that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of God, I would be an atheist right now. Your idea of faith is completely off the mark.

 

[KidCatholic1]

If I had made the rational judgement that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of God, I would be an atheist right now. Your idea of faith is completely off the mark.

Definition of faith: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing 2. belief that is not based on proof
The definition of faith from dictionary.com.

 

[KidCatholic1]

Of course I do. I was a believer myself.

So in your opinion God is a shameless cheater, who will twist the results of an honest test, just so that he can stay hidden… I wonder, what does he have to hide? Or what is he ashamed of? After all, it would be in OUR best interest to know that God exists, and by giving us the explicit rules of “game”, we could make a good stab of getting into heaven, if we wanted to.

Though come to think of it, if I would be God, and would have botched up this creation to such a horrible extent, I would opt to stay hidden, too. I would not dare to face my creation after having been so indifferent to their fate and suffering.

Why would God do something for someone if they don’t truly love Him? This assumes, of course, someone does something like prayer without good intention.

 

[cisco_1]

^ Proof =/= evidence.

 

[KidCatholic1]

I actually think Faith is a belief due to evidence. I mean, i believe in a god because i just don’t have any examples as to how language, order, and systems can occur with a mind. The universe has these 3 things… everything is governed by the laws, we are able to read the universe through numbers, the solar systems behavior some how connect to a beneficial way for the earth to continue having life… etc. If someone tells me that god is false because of no evidence, then i would need a reason to jump to their side… how can i come to the conclusion that a maker does not exist when i have not seen language, order, or systems happen out unintentionally.

My mistake. Faith, of course, needs SOME evidence to validate a belief, right? If we had no reason to believe in Jesus’s divinity, would we be talking about it today? No. Not likely. My definition of faith there was from CCD, which happened ages ago (could have forgotten what I learned ) Someone told me that faith is not fact based. Sorry.

 

[SpeakKindly]

My mistake. Faith, of course, needs SOME evidence to validate a belief, right? If we had no reason to believe in Jesus’s divinity, would we be talking about it today? No. Not likely. My definition of faith there was from CCD, which happened ages ago (could have forgotten what I learned ) Someone told me that faith is not fact based. Sorry.

I would say that faith is based on reason, not necessarily evidence that can be observed and tested.

I believe in God because reason points to Him, and I believe in Jesus being Resurrected because of history and that Jesus is God, He is the Christ. Reason tells me that the Gospel accounts are either false or true, and I see no reason to believe they’re false.

 

[KidCatholic1]

This isn’t exactly what the “idea of faith” means. It certainly isn’t the Catholic view - it is very close to a fideist view.

Some reading for you:

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/tim-mcgrew-debates-peter-bogo-the-clown-boghossian-on-the-definition-of-faith-2/

Or just skip to the germane points and listen to Tim McGrew’s explanation beginning at about 12:20 or 14:20 of the actual debate:
cdnbakmi.kaltura.com/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_geqtgoo0/v/2/flavorId/0_bl2lsnk3/name/a.mp3

Now I feel dumb… previously, I had never heard of fideism. I should look into it as a learning opportunity. My mistake, I had always been taught that faith was with the absence of evidence, but now I realize that there is evidence for “faith.” If there was no evidence for Jesus- would we even know of him? I actually do not blindly per se believe in God. There are reasons, factual, why I believe in God. One is the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument, among others… also, Al Moritz mentioned something about the Church disapproving of it, so is it a sin?

 

[tdgesq]

Or just skip to the germane points and listen to Tim McGrew’s explanation beginning at about 12:20 or 14:20 of the actual debate:
cdnbakmi.kaltura.com/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_geqtgoo0/v/2/flavorId/0_bl2lsnk3/name/a.mp3

I haven’t heard Tim McGrew’s name in a long time! He was my wife’s philosophy professor. Heck of a chess player too.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course I do. I was a believer myself.

So in your opinion God is a shameless cheater, who will twist the results of an honest test, just so that he can stay hidden… I wonder, what does he have to hide? Or what is he ashamed of? After all, it would be in OUR best interest to know that God exists, …

I am not clear that you quite get it. God did come to earth and showed himself completely to “us” on our terms; in fact, under YOUR terms.

We crucified him. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that it is in God’s or, indeed, our best interest for God to show himself, since we don’t seem to be capable of tolerating God fully revealed.

Even Plato recognized that the unjust don’t tolerate truth and justice, nor a truly just man…

…nor God, himself.

"I ask you to suppose, Socrates, that the words which follow are not mine.—Let me put them into the mouths of the eulogists of injustice: They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound—will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be crucified: Then he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just; the words of Aeschylus may be more truly spoken of the unjust than of the just. For the unjust is pursuing a reality; he does not live with a view to appearances—he wants to be really unjust and not to seem only…”
Republic 2.362

and by giving us the explicit rules of “game”, we could make a good stab of getting into heaven, if we wanted to.

Though come to think of it, if I would be God, and would have botched up this creation to such a horrible extent, I would opt to stay hidden, too. I would not dare to face my creation after having been so indifferent to their fate and suffering.

He gave us the “rules of the game,” Hee_Zen. They are clearly spelled out in Matthew 5 and he wasn’t “indifferent.”

Indeed, he grew up under harsh conditions, walked and talked among us, ate and drank food, labored hard and shared a fate and suffering as bad as any we could imagine. He met all your demands and more, Hee_Zen, two thousand years ago - you just don’t recognize him, that’s all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now I feel dumb… previously, I had never heard of fideism. I should look into it as a learning opportunity. My mistake, I had always been taught that faith was with the absence of evidence, but now I realize that there is evidence for “faith.” If there was no evidence for Jesus- would we even know of him? I actually do not blindly per se believe in God. There are reasons, factual, why I believe in God. One is the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument, among others… also, Al Moritz mentioned something about the Church disapproving of it, so is it a sin?

I wouldn’t give it another thought.

Your tenacity is admirable.

 

[tdgesq]

Now I feel dumb… previously, I had never heard of fideism. I should look into it as a learning opportunity. My mistake, I had always been taught that faith was with the absence of evidence, but now I realize that there is evidence for “faith.” If there was no evidence for Jesus- would we even know of him? I actually do not blindly per se believe in God. There are reasons, factual, why I believe in God. One is the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument, among others… also, Al Moritz mentioned something about the Church disapproving of it, so is it a sin?

With respect to the existence of God fideism is a sin, but only if you had the requisite mens rea, which I highly doubt you did:

1. On revelation
2. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. First Vatican Council.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would say that faith is based on reason, not necessarily evidence that can be observed and tested.

I believe in God because reason points to Him, and I believe in Jesus being Resurrected because of history and that Jesus is God, He is the Christ. Reason tells me that the Gospel accounts are either false or true, and I see no reason to believe they’re false.

I agree with this.

 

[Hee_Zen]

God did come to earth and showed himself completely to “us” on our terms; in fact, under YOUR terms.

Please leave mythology ancient stories alone. I am not interested in them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please leave mythology ancient stories alone. I am not interested in them.

Interesting that you set up all the requirements, Jesus met them and now you beat a hasty retreat away from them by calling your own criteria “mythology.”

 

[Hee_Zen]

The difference is that your acceptance of “brute fact” means you hang your hat on a “brute fact” and abandon the need for any explanation at that point, arbitrarily.

Just like you do with God.

What the PSR entails is that there must be a reason that adequately explains all else and which, by the same merit, explains itself, otherwise, nothing is ultimately explained in terms of why anything is the way it is.

Nothing “explains itself”. This is bad grammar. The proper phrase would be: “requires no explanation”, because it is the ontological foundation of all the explanations.

Your “brute fact” can explain nothing, not even itself.

One of these days I would like to find out why do you consider the proposition: “an unknowable being, employing unimaginable means made it somehow, magically happen” qualifies as an “explanation”. Actually, make this a cornerstone of your next post.

You deny a priori that ultimate explanations can exist because you don’t accept that some explanations can - and, indeed, MUST - ultimately be self-explanatory. This is why you claim explanations can only continue ad infinitum. I simply deny that such a notion is at all true. You certainly haven’t shown it is except by presumption.

Obviously you still don’t get it. Explanations can only happen in a framework - which is the universe. Time, space, causation are all only defined within the universe. There is nothing “outside” the universe.

 

[Ignatius]

With respect to the existence of God fideism is a sin, but only if you had the requisite mens rea, which I highly doubt you did:
2. On revelation

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.First Vatican Council.

Absolutely!

 

[Ignatius]

Please leave mythology ancient stories alone. .

The historicity of Jesus Christ is a well documented historical fact. Denial of the fact of the existence of Jesus Christ is counter to the facts. The vast preponderance accredited, knowledgeable historians will attest to the fact that the existence of Jesus Christ is far more well documented than that of most ancients known to history.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Interesting that you set up all the requirements, Jesus met them and now you beat a hasty retreat away from them by calling your own criteria “mythology.”

Mythology is simply a story for which there is no evidence. The bible fits this definition. Give me evidence of the so-called “miracles”.