Reddit atheists sometimes will argue that truth can only come through science. That which is true equals that which has been observed/tested. Thus a priori arguments cannot produce truth. This is very convenient for them, as the only arguments for God's existence that hold any water happen to be a priori. But it is simply untrue that a priori arguments cannot provide truth statements. My example is mathematics. Things like complex numbers were never actually observed or tested in the real world, yet they have been quite useful in predicting and explaining the world around us. To quote wikipedia, "the mathematical structure of a physics theory often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions... this is not just a coincidence and therefore must reflect some larger and deeper truth about both mathematics and physics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_Effectiveness As a lover of both philosophy and religion, I wish r/debateanatheist and r/debatereligion were more civil and intellectual. sigh
- As a lover of both philosophy and religion, I wish r/debateanatheist and r/debatereligion were more civil and intellectual. sigh
I don't know if /r/theagora is still active but they used to have some interesting and extremely deep conversations there. Most went right over my head but you might like it.
Math is a great philosophical example of the difference between the two, because of the great debate about whether we discover math principles (a priori) or whether we invent them (a posteriori). Its a good and worthy philosophical debate, but I think it has very little to do with whether God(s) exists.
- “If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting”
stumbled upon this tonight and thought you'd get a laugh from it too. Is it too low brow to have a "favorite jack handy" post on hubski?