Mak1
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
Everything posted by Mak1
-
I'm sure there is nothing to be gained by continuing to argue with you, but you implying that Stefan is not an "honest philosopher", because you could find a flaw in one of his arguments, is just frankly bullshit. We are talking about a definition of a word here. It was not clear to me, and I'm sure to many people, how to best define it.
- 14 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- omniscience
- determinism
- (and 3 more)
-
Is it clear to anyone else than you that your definition of the word is the correct one? Using your definition Stefan would have to leave the argument out of the book. But, if religious people in general use the common definition, it is better to present the argument.
-
Stefan's argument that God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time is valid if you define that omniscience includes all future knowledge. This is a common way of defining the term and that is why Stefan presented the argument.
-
I don't have a problem with defining the word omniscience to not include knowing the future (as it does not exist). In relating to God, there might be scripture that contradicts this definition though (not my expertise, so I don't really know). As far as I can see this means that God can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. But if you want to prove that God exists, you have more hurdles to go (like the rest of Stefans book Against The Gods?).
-
Good, as this thread is not best suited for this discussion. I also don't agree with everything else you said above, but I don't want to get bogged down in an endless debate. I'll mull over the omniscience argument for a while before responding to it...
-
Stefan makes his arguments against Gods mainly by logic. So these can be called a priori arguments (not assumptions). If the validity of a religion depends on the existence of a God, then the religion can be stated to be false by disproving God. I would say Stefan used to see very little value in religion, but nowadays, even if he thinks gods are nonsense, he sees more positive aspects in religion (like community and moral teachings that are absent from atheist world).
-
Well, he has made the arguments against religion in his books and videos. I can't agree that he makes an a priori assumption that they are false. I bet it's more difficult to follow Christian moral rules as there are quite many of them. Not initiating aggression and not stealing are simple moral rules anybody can follow, and most do in their everyday life, but sadly most people also accept that the state should be allowed to break these rules.
-
Hi @MahtiSonni Yeah, Stefan used to criticize religions much more in the past. If you follow reason and evidence you kind of have to. Nowadays Stefan has come to appreciate Christianity much more as have I. In the end morality is what really matters. I think it is better to derive morality rationally as Stefan has done, but if you are a moral person because of Christianity, the end result is the same.
-
Hi @Tony61R This is my first post on this forum, but I'm a long time FDR listener. I wanted to let you - and anyone else stumbling upon this post - know that I have started a meetup group in Helsinki: https://www.meetup.com/Helsinki-Freedomain-Radio-Meetup/ Join the group and let's meet up!