Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

slogans argument

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Allen
    This reminds me of a Greek sophist type argument wherein you introduce your method of renouncing the argument by altering the way the argument is presented. In
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 8, 2004
      This reminds me of a Greek sophist type argument wherein you introduce
      your method of renouncing the argument by altering the way the
      argument is presented.

      In this case you have made the claim that in order to disprove, one
      must make positive conclusions about the subject. The problem with
      this lies in that there is nothing that can be considered positive
      about the entire subject. In the case of gods, the entire argument is
      one of mental constructs which are known as abstracts. The concept of
      gods is one of faith rather than one of absolutes. There can be no
      "positive" assertions. The entire subject is an abstract.

      I am not well versed is the language of logics but understand the
      principles and I am very familiar with the problems of language. It
      is only where one uses a definition in an "out of context" way, that
      the arguments seem reasonable. I see this as the entire argument that
      you proposed, in that you have used the "positive" as an argument in a
      subject where there is no possibility of positives in the sense they
      are needed in order to make the argument valid.

      It is very easy to create confusion when definitions are confused and
      these arguments seem logical because many of our words have so many
      possible definitions.


      I will try to diagram this as I see it:


      -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5


      Here we have a graph with positives and negatives. But It is also
      imperative that there is a 0 or null. It represents the "nothing" that
      must be considered. In my case, at least, I see that atheism is that
      area of the zero. There can be no negatives as there are no positives.
      It is all abstract, no concrete evidence either way. If there were
      evidence either way, there would of course be positive and negative
      arguments and that would indeed be a "positive". But, you can see that
      until there is some "concrete" or "positive" evidence for the
      existence of a god or gods, there can be no "negative" evidence.

      There can only be arguments about the proposed concrete evidence and
      whether or not such evidence represents the proposed theory.
    • smatthewlogan
      Bruce, sorry it took so long for me to get back to you... i think i can understand some of where you re coming from with the idea of God/a god being abstract
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 25, 2004
        Bruce,

        sorry it took so long for me to get back to you...

        i think i can understand some of where you're coming from with the
        idea of God/a god being abstract and therefore, an issue of faith as
        opposed to evidence.
        and that is precisely why i haven't made an enormous appeal to
        evidenciary arguments (regarding the historicity of the Bible or
        Christ, etc...)

        perhaps you clarified what i was trying to say intially, which was
        that the theist and the atheist both exist in/operate out of a faith-
        based worldview.

        but if you are discussing such a topic with one who
        believes/exercises faith in God, are you not (antithetically) arguing
        as someone who simply does not exercise faith in God?

        or are you saying that because you regard the topic of "God(s)" as
        abstract - and therefore, requiring faith - that you reject the topic
        altogether.

        would be it be incorrect to say that you have faith in something
        other than God?

        sml

        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Allen" <ab72756@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > This reminds me of a Greek sophist type argument wherein you
        introduce
        > your method of renouncing the argument by altering the way the
        > argument is presented.
        >
        > In this case you have made the claim that in order to disprove, one
        > must make positive conclusions about the subject. The problem with
        > this lies in that there is nothing that can be considered positive
        > about the entire subject. In the case of gods, the entire argument
        is
        > one of mental constructs which are known as abstracts. The concept
        of
        > gods is one of faith rather than one of absolutes. There can be no
        > "positive" assertions. The entire subject is an abstract.
        >
        > I am not well versed is the language of logics but understand the
        > principles and I am very familiar with the problems of language. It
        > is only where one uses a definition in an "out of context" way, that
        > the arguments seem reasonable. I see this as the entire argument
        that
        > you proposed, in that you have used the "positive" as an argument
        in a
        > subject where there is no possibility of positives in the sense they
        > are needed in order to make the argument valid.
        >
        > It is very easy to create confusion when definitions are confused
        and
        > these arguments seem logical because many of our words have so many
        > possible definitions.
        >
        >
        > I will try to diagram this as I see it:
        >
        >
        > -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
        >
        >
        > Here we have a graph with positives and negatives. But It is also
        > imperative that there is a 0 or null. It represents the "nothing"
        that
        > must be considered. In my case, at least, I see that atheism is that
        > area of the zero. There can be no negatives as there are no
        positives.
        > It is all abstract, no concrete evidence either way. If there were
        > evidence either way, there would of course be positive and negative
        > arguments and that would indeed be a "positive". But, you can see
        that
        > until there is some "concrete" or "positive" evidence for the
        > existence of a god or gods, there can be no "negative" evidence.
        >
        > There can only be arguments about the proposed concrete evidence and
        > whether or not such evidence represents the proposed theory.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.