Since we've massively pulled a politics thread off-topic and into the realm of religion, I figured I'd see if I couldn't pull that argument over here so that thread can go back on topic.
So let's have the arguments for and against religion here.
But I'm going to submit that there can be no winner; no convincing of absolute truths for those who argue, and for one major reason:
We aren't starting from the same collective premise.
This isn't an argument of law where we collectively agree that some laws have merit and then present why or why not a law has merit under our definitions of what makes a law good or not based on complete empirical evidence. This isn't an argument of social mores, where we agree that some behavior is decent or indecent and can make arguments using real world examples.
This is an argument of faith. And the problem with the arguments for or against faith is simply this: we can't collectively agree if God exists or not.
If my arguments for my beliefs come from the logical starting point of the existence of God, this will never convince someone who believes He does not. The same holds true in reverse.
That being said, let's use this thread to have that discussion out instead of the politics thread. I'm not personally interested in continuing the discussion, as stated, without a collective starting point, it's going to be talking to brick walls and I don't feel like writing my dissertation yet. I've got another political/religious topic for my doctoral in mind.
But I will leave these more learned men to argue for the existence of God. They had more time to study than I, so if they cannot convince you, then who am I to?
St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica
Peter Kreeft's Twenty Arguments for God
So let's have the arguments for and against religion here.
But I'm going to submit that there can be no winner; no convincing of absolute truths for those who argue, and for one major reason:
We aren't starting from the same collective premise.
This isn't an argument of law where we collectively agree that some laws have merit and then present why or why not a law has merit under our definitions of what makes a law good or not based on complete empirical evidence. This isn't an argument of social mores, where we agree that some behavior is decent or indecent and can make arguments using real world examples.
This is an argument of faith. And the problem with the arguments for or against faith is simply this: we can't collectively agree if God exists or not.
If my arguments for my beliefs come from the logical starting point of the existence of God, this will never convince someone who believes He does not. The same holds true in reverse.
That being said, let's use this thread to have that discussion out instead of the politics thread. I'm not personally interested in continuing the discussion, as stated, without a collective starting point, it's going to be talking to brick walls and I don't feel like writing my dissertation yet. I've got another political/religious topic for my doctoral in mind.
But I will leave these more learned men to argue for the existence of God. They had more time to study than I, so if they cannot convince you, then who am I to?
St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica
Peter Kreeft's Twenty Arguments for God
Comment