z10:
There are logical fallacies in the argument Zbd made and Stefan Udrea does have a point.
First off let us look at the argument.
I am not going to argue whether the existence of the divine (even though there are no parameters to actually make it falsifiable) is true or false. If you define the divine as this quasi poetic motion that flows within us all, that is your burden in the discussion not mine.
I have to interject here. While it seems really fun to defend zbd's particular definition of God, that is not my burden at all and I will leave all that fun to zbd himself.
My original question on this topic was to ask Stefan why he thought that zbd's argument didn't follow. That is a question of validity in the argument, not soundness. It is perfectly acceptable for an argument to be valid without us discussing the truth value of any of the premises. My contention is that the argument is valid but I won't be drawn into discussing the truth value of whether or not the god of zbd exists.
The logical fallacy here is the abstract construct of this argument. To know one's own nature means exactly what in this context? Regardless of that, the fallacy has nothing to do with Zbd's inability to argue for his point, but rather with the point's inert relativism. And that is exactly the core problem when discussing religious topics and the proof burden that lies on the associated party. The level of relativism breaks the discussion into the epistemological conundrum of what knowledge is to the personal human being. As one Christian inanely remarked to professor Richard Dawkins on the discussion of religion “Your criteria for proof is too narrow!”. That is plainly ridiculous. You can certainly criticise a specific institution of science. However, you can not criticise the scientific method as a whole and judge it for its “narrow criteria” just because it does not coincide with your beliefs. It would be like arguing against the use of logic WITH logic.
I'm sorry Grouchy but I'm not sure what you are saying here. Who is arguing against the use of logic?
To know one's nature means exactly what it says - to know the ontological ground of one's being.
What Stefan Udrea is trying to do is actually play on the same grounds that religion does. He says that the quantum theory in the surfaced personal interaction with the world does not manifest itself in any way or form. You can not know what quantum theory is just by looking at a red apple.
You say that you can through the conduct of theoretical knowledge on the field of quantum theory. However, that would be ascribing a method to the religious party that it clearly lacks. There is no deep theoretical conduct of any sort in the realm of spirituality, therefore religion equally, as Stefan Udrea makes it, pursues the “knowledge” of the divine on the surfaced personal level, the like of pursuing the quantum theory by looking at a red apple. Personally, I think the religious mind could reach far places in its journey on the spiritual landscape, no doubt. However, it holds no merit to the discussion, and it is by no means a measurement of the true “reality” of the world.
There are many spiritual practices that involve highly evolved technologies of thought and practice, kabbalah and sufism being just two. Also, I think it is begging the question to prima facie divide the world into the "really real" and the "spiritual" and to say that the latter has nothing to say about the former. Zbd's entire argument begins with the premise that the spiritual is the really real, the actual existent that lies behind the appearance of all things.
Your last statement that “there are some humans who have far greater knowledge of the Divine than others” is pretentiously misguided. It fuels the argument that has been misused by many religious debaters. “You need to meditate for twenty years before you can make your case against Islam with this righteous fellow!”. It is the equivalent of a person who merits his understanding of the Mona Lisa just by the fact the he has starred at it for a long time. Now, I do not deny the notion that one should study the subject in debate thoroughly, that is obvious. However, one should not necessarily look at the experience of the debater, but rather at his argument as a whole. There are sadly cases where the lack of knowledge on a certain subject will lead to arguments being recycled time after time. As is evident by the fact that you see people trying to debate professors in evolution without having the slightest inclination, or interest, for what evolution is.
I do not know whether there are people who definately do have more knowledge of the Divine than others. My point was that it is
possible for this to be the case. As I said above, I am merely defending the validity of zbd's argument, not the truth of it. There is a difference between the two and I believe your point above is addressing the latter when I am only concerned with the former.
I think it is perfectly valid to think of a world where certain people have more knowledge of the divine than others. I see nothing
logically wrong with such a world existing and can even name such persons as Rumi or Dante as possessors of said knowledge if it existed. This does not mean that this world does actually exist, but that there is nothing illogical about it existing. I am arguing for the latter and I believe my argument is valid.
Noteworthy though is that the discussion becomes inanely shallow when you attribute your superior understanding of a topic just simply because you have spent “much more time” in its holdings.
My friend, whoever said that I have knowledge of the divine?
Lastly I need to stress the overly stressed statement:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think it is actually a completely ordinary claim to state that an argument is logically valid.
Topic: Atheist Censorship