It's like someone here whom told me, when I first joined... "There is nothing new under the sun." However, we also now have 'science', which does at least, for us humans, demonstrate new stuff
Well, I disagree. Science has no new proof that anything is uncaused. Logic and principle still remain the same. I could be wrong, in that science and maybe philosophy will come up with new principles that will push them in the directions they want to go, but obviously I doubt it.
Philosophical ideas just keep getting repurposed and rebranded, over and over and over again. So here's a point, not made in the video...
If there exists no new thoughts... And all ideas have already been vetted out; over and over and over again, by all passed and present 'great thinkers', and the question of "God's" existence still runs just as 'unanswered' as before, one must ask.... Is it logical to merely 'armchair philosophize' God into existence?
Your propositional logic begins with IF —thus, IF the "question of "God's" existence still runs just as 'unanswered' as before...". Yet your words there imply it currently runs unanswered, or at least ran unanswered before (whenever that was). I disagree. It has been answered.
Whether it be Aquinas, or any other passed philosopher, is their given postulations 'proof' for the existence of God.?.?.?.? You admitted yourself, there are no
new ideas to investigate. Thus, if there will exist no
new ideas, we must completely evaluate the existing ideas, as given.
Now lets shift gears, and think about 'science.' NEW scientific discoveries happen all the time. Please refer back to the 'flat-earther' example... (this is not an attempt at a red herring, please stay with me).
I could debate a 'flat-earther'. The first question I would ask myself might be... "Why does (s)he feel the earth is flat?" It's likely related to the Bible, whether (s)he admits to such, or not.
I would start my argument by stating that 7K years ago, evidence demonstrated a flat earth. 100 years ago, evidence demonstrated a perfect sphere. 25 years ago, evidence demonstrated a pear shaped earth. My question to them would be... Is it possible the earth is not pear shaped? YES.
However, will NEW evidence ever again demonstrate a flat earth? Or, can we safely rule out this prior notion? The flat-earther will still likely cleave to his/her position, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The question becomes, why? Is it based upon logic or emotion?
The same goes for other Biblical assertions. I can now safely rule it out of the equation. FOR ME, it's a battle between logic and emotion. The logic tells me, even after reading Genesis, that hardly anything in there jibes with later human discovery. Thus, I must reject the "truth" of this doctrine. The emotional side of me wants to cleave to it, and rationalize all the parts which seem clearly false (i.e.) "
These stories are allegorical/other/other." By the time I get to the 'resurrection' claim, I will have had to do so many times.
Though it's true that Christianity likely borrowed it's stories from already circulating stories, this is not what deems Christianity false; at least from my perspective. For me, if many stories seem not to fit with later NEW discovery, of how the earth actually works, then my logic tells me to reject the doctrine; in SPITE of my indoctrinated emotional side. This is where you and I look to diverge
Well, I'll have to admit you have a busy mind.
7K years ago, evidence was not understood, but it still demonstrated a globe earth. Also, we don't exactly have a pear shaped earth, but yeah, I know what you mean, the Globe is not perfectly round.
You seem to draw the illogical conclusion that if the flat-earther believes what he does because of the Bible that therefore Bible-derived beliefs, or at least, beliefs that are clung to because of the Bible, are therefore not worth keeping.
You claim that Christianity likely borrowed its stories from already circulating stories. I can't help thinking then, that you consider it beneath reason to believe the Bible is true as written. Dr. What's his name, of the video, made pretty much the same claim, adding that Christianity came after other similar religions. He is wrong, and that was a pretty sloppy statement, factually, implying the whole business began 2K years ago. Christianity didn't suddenly just pop up from a vacuum —it has been around since the Garden, or to my thinking, before; the Gospel has been the whole plan from Creation. The fall and redemption, God's providing a way for man to be with him, have been a theme from the get-go. Why assume then, that Christianity got its notions from other sources? Why not consider that Christ was the prophesied Messiah, even described in the very beginning?
You seem to want to use philosophical arguments, to postulate God? I disagree that 'philosophy' can prove God. For ME to believe in God, I would instead require some form of 'revelation' of His existence. The Bible has these claims in spades. Many claims to 'special revelation' are there. BUT... So are the many falsifiable claims; such as a flood, an Exodus, etc... For me, it requires quite a bit of 'navigation', to ignore some claims, but accept others, when the Book itself states it's all true.
I won't reference the video footage anymore, I hope. But I do still feel your belief is driven from indoctrination and invoking agency without penalty (if false). Indoctrination is a very hard component to shake. I STILL find myself asking, from time to time, what if...? Even though the logical side of me has absolutely no problem rejecting the assertion, due to 'lack in evidence.' This is because we all inherited the instinct to invoke intention all the time, for survival.
The cosmological argument is sufficient proof. It does not lack evidence. The evidence is all around us. What is lacking is the evidence for the not only unsubstantiated stop gaps of eternal universe, or infinite regression of cause, or the eyeballs-turned-backwards pantheism of "The universe is God", but the reason is lacking to support the failure to discard them. The cosmological argument is a simple long-chain cause-and-effect logic. The universe is an effect, which had a cause. I have yet to hear a valid objection to that.
I might post a second response here... I do not want you to feel you have been duped. I find that you and I are more-so similar, than we differ. I feel we have much in common. The question remains, why do you remain a believer, where I do not?
As I think I have said before, I remain a believer for mainly two reasons: 1. One is intellectual: the cosmological argument, and the failure of alternatives. (This is theism, and Abrahamic in nature.) 2. The other is Faith not generated by me. (This is Christianity.) BTW, both these are affirmed 'experimentally' (i.e. experientially) —which seems to be a requirement of science. The fact you have not experienced what I have is no indicator to me that my belief is faulty.
If you should protest that the interpretation of my experience is most likely confirmation bias, then I say so is the interpretation of evidence for Darwinian Evolution, and I don't know how many other theories. I think it more likely that certain presuppositions have been assumed true throughout, that are supposedly proven, but are not. They look for data to confirm their predictions, and they find it. Of Course they find it! After all, when they find it, it must have been what was predicted! But I say this not to debate Evolution, but to show I'm as much a skeptic as you are— maybe more. The slavish affection for sloppy science, such as Global Warmi... er, Climate Change, having become a political matter, and a power play, and the public being pressured into accepting it, is all the reason I need to doubt it. Same goes for Coronavirus. Same goes for election integrity. The "noise against", or the cancelling of, protesting voices, instead of debate, is too much for me.
If you wish to show me that I'm wrong concerning Evolution, then have at it. But I've given up believing either side anymore. (Ken Ham included, lol).
