Interfaith discussions

Devils' Advocate said:
It is not that evidence cannot be talked about. The issue I believe for most of us, but I don't really know that, so I will say that for me the issue with your evidence is not that I disagree with your evidence - rather that I don't believe your perception of what makes up evidence is accurate. It is my view that your facts are facts only because you have decided they are. Someone else could look at your facts and say they are not facts at all, but assumptions.

It is the same with your version of logic. What you state is logic is not logic as I understand the term. Same bottom line. It's not your specific evidence and logic I have a problem with. It is your definition of evidence and logic that I have a problem with.

Am I saying this in a way where you understand the difference between the two?
Click to expand...
I believe so, as stated in the comment before, I never claim facts in everything I post, some, or much, of what I post are assumptions. These assumptions aren't in any way unquestionable, and please feel free to ask why. But as an IF discussion, I don't find that "why" is generally received and is normally just argued. I have no problem with that personally either, but can get frustrated If I explain it and people completely dismiss my explanation without explaining why they reject it.
 
juantoo3 said:
OK, since you are not understanding this one, let Wil answer for me:
Click to expand...
Can't speak for NJ, but I don't think it's a question of not understanding. It's just a matter of not agreeing. I don't agree with you either. Frankly and no offense intended, your analogies do nothing to support your position for me. No matter though. I doubt we would agree one way or the other. Different mindsets entirely.
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
Can't speak for NJ, but I don't think it's a question of not understanding. It's just a matter of not agreeing. I don't agree with you either. Frankly and no offense intended, your analogies do nothing to support your position for me. No matter though. I doubt we would agree one way or the other. Different mindsets entirely.
Click to expand...
The world would be a bizarre place if everyone agreed with me.
 
fschmidt said:
I just skimmed this long thread, so I hope I didn't miss anything relevant to what I want to say.


This is an incredibly weak statement. To have meaning, you would have to define God, define proof, and define existence. And with any reasonable definition of proof and existence, I can't prove that the chair that I am sitting in exists. So why even ask this question about God?
Click to expand...
Agreed, but we hadn't gotten that far yet. Of course it remains, the consensus between the guys that seem to argue over these things for the last two thousand years is that the Divine cannot be proven to exist...so yes, it was something of a given from my vantage. All of the so-called arguments "for" existance have equally compelling arguments against....from a logical perspective. Would you agree?
 
juantoo3 said:
OK, so how would you define G!d?
Click to expand...
can anyone fully define God? IMHO most religions who believe in an omnipotent God would say it is impossible to define something infinite into a finite definition....

But TBH I'm just saying this to extend your question outside of its intent due to the fact he kind of already defined it loosely in another post.
 
Rather interesting take, one I can find a good deal of agreement with, personally.

So how would you define "proof," and how would you define "existence?"
 
fschmidt said:
Given this view, I am less interested in proof than in inductive evidence that I can accept. And questions about existence become more practical as in what can actually affect me.
Click to expand...
I'm not fully sure what just happened. On the one hand I'm intrigued, on the other I think I've been dismissed.

Perhaps a somewhat longer explanation is in order? Without the book of the month club?

Or I could recommend "the Tao of Pooh"
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
Why surly you've heard of the Mighty Viaduct who gave his only begotten filter-tip so that we might enjoy known carcinogens without the harsh taste! :D
Click to expand...
Now that, I'm going to frame!
Aussie Thoughts said:
Can't speak for NJ, but I don't think it's a question of not understanding. It's just a matter of not agreeing.
Click to expand...
That's about what I would have said, albeit more civil, so feel free. It's getting about time for me to take a break anyway.
 
Interfaith discussions are possible only where controversy is allowed. That's when common ground is possible to be achieved; at the end of controversy. That's when we stop learning. Common ground is the point when we come to an agreement to adopt each other's ways to see the Truth. From then on, there is no room for discussions and, as we all know, I hope, there is no learning in the chit-tattering of common beliefs. The only way to resume the process of learning is to return to the beginning of controversy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top