Obviously I wouldn't expect many here to believe in their philosophy or worldview. But who do you believe to present the most well-structured case for theism?
My vote would be for Richard Swineburne! ;D
Quote from: Cforcerunner on August 13, 2011, 07:28:27 PM
Obviously I wouldn't expect many here to believe in their philosophy or worldview. But who do you believe to present the most well-structured case for theism?
My vote would be for Richard Swineburne! ;D
Hate Swinburne; his argument from religious experience is just shockingly poor. I mean a 'principle of credulity'...
He doesn't really present a well structured case from theism, but my vote is for Kierkegaard.
Quote from: penfold on August 15, 2011, 12:15:40 AM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on August 13, 2011, 07:28:27 PM
Obviously I wouldn't expect many here to believe in their philosophy or worldview. But who do you believe to present the most well-structured case for theism?
My vote would be for Richard Swineburne! ;D
Hate Swinburne; his argument from religious experience is just shockingly poor. I mean a 'principle of credulity'...
He doesn't really present a well structured case from theism, but my vote is for Kierkegaard.
I love Kierkegaard as well, and am still finishing up fear and trembling! I was thinking of present day philosophers. But yes, I think Kierkegaard, Descartes, and Reid would be some of my favorite from the past.
Ravi Zacharias, RC Sproul
I don't think philosophy can prove anything, although they can sometimes present new ideas that warrant further investigation. With regards to Theology I am yet to see or hear anything compelling, they seem to invoke the god of the gaps a lot.
Really? How exhaustively have you looked?
William Lane Craig has to be regarded as a formidable debater / philosopher.
He is not afraid to delve deeper into arguments to try and prove his point and he sounds quite convincing
But I have discovered his trick. He makes extensive use of logical progressions in his arguments, all of which seem valid. One needs to concentrate on the first statement he makes, though, which is invariably where the fallcy lies. He reels them off so quickly that often it is easy to miss that the argument relies on a non-truth in the first place.
very very simple example ....
1 There is a moral law
2 So there must be a law-giver
3 That law giver can only be god.
2 and 3 follow from 1, but 1 has been said so many times, we are expected to accept it as true. But its not - there is NO moral law. Its a meaningless statement, but he glosses over it and hides the initial fallacy.
The problem with arguing morality and "natural law" is that everyone's views vary.
Some say pre-marital sex is immoral. I laugh in their face.
Some even say abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. Those people are sick, but they are most likely religious.
The problem with morality is that the world isn't a black/white follow the steps book. It's full of twists and turns, and making decisions based on life or death sometimes.
Like I believe it's perfectly fine to kill in self defense. I also believe in pre-marital sex, so what do I know? XP
Quite honestly, I live in a mostly gray view though. <3
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 25, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
The problem with arguing morality and "natural law" is that everyone's views vary.
Some say pre-marital sex is immoral. I laugh in their face.
Some even say abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. Those people are sick, but they are most likely religious.
The problem with morality is that the world isn't a black/white follow the steps book. It's full of twists and turns, and making decisions based on life or death sometimes.
Like I believe it's perfectly fine to kill in self defense. I also believe in pre-marital sex, so what do I know? XP
Quite honestly, I live in a mostly gray view though. <3
The Bible does not teach absolute morality, it teaches objective morality.
The bible is a fairy tale, like how Aphrodite is the goddess of love, and cupid shoots you with love arrows.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:52:03 AM
The bible is a fairy tale, like how Aphrodite is the goddess of love, and cupid shoots you with love arrows.
Wait, they don't?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 25, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
The problem with arguing morality and "natural law" is that everyone's views vary.
Some say pre-marital sex is immoral. I laugh in their face.
Some even say abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. Those people are sick, but they are most likely religious.
The problem with morality is that the world isn't a black/white follow the steps book. It's full of twists and turns, and making decisions based on life or death sometimes.
Like I believe it's perfectly fine to kill in self defense. I also believe in pre-marital sex, so what do I know? XP
Quite honestly, I live in a mostly gray view though. <3
And to get back to my point about William Lane Craig's debating style, your comments support what I'm saying.
Theologians love to talk about a moral law as though it is fact, when in fact there is only the moral standard set by the populous at any given time - the zeitgeist as it is known
Quote from: penfold on August 15, 2011, 12:15:40 AM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on August 13, 2011, 07:28:27 PMSwineburne!
Kierkegaard.
Seriously..? :D
Not that I have the faintest clue as to who they are, but with those last names...
I mean, imagine going through your whole life as Mr. Cemetery :D
"...I'm a burn me some shwine at the cemetery, my brotha! Amen!"
Kierkegaard was a manic depressive. Which is probably why I like him ;)
I've been thinking about it and don't think I have a favorite theist philosopher...yet I also don't really have a favorite atheist philosopher other than my husband.
Quote from: Whitney on September 01, 2011, 04:03:37 AM
I've been thinking about it and don't think I have a favorite theist philosopher...yet I also don't really have a favorite atheist philosopher other than my husband.
Awww! <3
I like the philosophy of cats to be quite honest.
Epicurus. He taught that one should try and lead a happy and tranquil life, and that nothing should be believed except that which can be tested through direct observation and logical deduction.
His philosophy taught that one should try and reach a state of ataraxia (tranquility). It involved rejecting faith in an afterlife and religious superstition, avoiding politics and vexatious people, surrounding oneself with trustworthy and affectionate friends and, most importantly, being an affectionate, virtuous person, worthy of trust. Plus he also came up with one of my all-time favourite quotes, it's no wonder the Christians went out of their way to persecute his followers;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
All that 2300 years ago, the man was a genius.
Yes, I love the quote. The first time I heard it back in high school, it got my gears turning towards becoming an atheist. Love *__*
I like Aleister Crowley, if he counts. I find him all the more interesting for his flaws and I enjoy reading his books.
Henry Rollins kicks ass as a writer. Or just go to youtube and check out his shows where he just opines on end. Very interesting. I like his straight from the gut approach to things. I don't quite know why.... :P