Spoonseeking

This post provides some possible answers to questions raised in the last half of the article referenced in my previous blog post. Why is it that [the non-theist] assumes that there is this universal, immaterial, abstraction called  reason  which binds all men to itself? Reason is not universal.  Reason is not immaterial.  Reason is not abstract, but it does seem to be so.  Reason is a pattern of thought that can be instilled in the human brain and engaged in to arrive at useful conclusions.  The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is material.  As reason is just brain states, it is also material.  It does not equally bind all men.  When one's brain is instilled with reason well-employed, useful conclusions seem to be more possible than otherwise. How can [the non-theist] justify those reasons without first assuming the validity of the laws of logic? i Phones and toothpaste.  To refer back to the previous post on knowledge:  by asking what would we expect if

Recently a fairly long article was promoted by some friends of mine as a criticism of “militant atheists”: http://highchurchpuritan.com/2015/07/27/god-is/ I enjoyed this article.  It seemed a fairly well-stated description of the epistemological basis argument for generic monotheism.  However, it was not without flaw (writing rarely is, especially my own). Believing When True Brandon writes, All truth rests on a single basic proposition: God is. This is the fountainhead of all true knowledge and wisdom. This is the bedrock of all true belief. There is no other foundation for epistemological certainty. This says that God is provides basis for knowledge.  But knowledge isn’t defined, and it has many meanings.  I think in this case it is used as: Knowledge: belief when you have good reasons to believe if the thing is true But using that we can know mutually exclusive things.  We can know Yahweh, and Krishna, and Suijin, and Thor.  This definition is incomplete

Back in 2008 I wrote a blog post where I discussed what I use as a working definition of knowledge.  I recently re-read it and realize that I now strongly disagree with that definition. Here is what I wrote: Knowledge, according to Dr. Bahnsen, requires three things. Belief. To know something, one must first believe it to be true. This should not really be surprising or debatable. Basis. To know something, one must have a reasonable justification for the belief. The belief you have must not be based on invalid data or invalid or arbitrary reasoning. Truth. To really know something, that thing that you know has to be true. The thing known must accurately represent the truth of the situation. I got this during an apologetic course I took at Grace Baptist Church.  There are major flaws with this definition.  When applied it can claim as knowledge multiple mutually exclusive claims.  The biggest problem is #3 - truth.  This definition requires for something to be knowledge for

There are a few popular arguments that are used by Christian apologists that I hear often, in varying forms.  Recently I was contacted by someone that wanted to discuss what they see as my irrationality.  The core of this discussion seems to me to be a form of the Cosmological argument.  I'm publishing it here for comment.  The identity of the other party is intentionally omitted.  I will refer to him as Bill.  If you know Bill and comment on this post, please do so in a way that conceals his identity. For clarity, the posts that are made by the other party will appear as quotes. The discussion Patrick, I see you are a physics major. do you agree that some entity (or thing if you prefer) must have the power of self existence? [Bill], how are you doing?  I hope you are having, in your vernacular, a blessed day.  I certainly agree that things exist, although our perception of that is quite misleading. Its been a good day thx. Perhaps I should rephrase my question. We all