Comments on: The Argument From Confusion http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-argument-from-confusion/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-argument-from-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1028 MitchLeBlanc Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:58:58 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1055#comment-1028 Do you disagree that the Christian God has laid out some requirements as to what is required for a relationship with him? Presumably, God wants some type of personal relationship with you and presumably there are conditions to this relationship. At the very least, if God desires that you reside in heaven, presumably, there is going to be some criteria involved. You would need to have some G-Belief that this is the case, and some further G-Belief on how to acquire such a state. Also, no one is arguing that because you dispute one doctrine it would stop God from hearing or answering your prayers, that is simply a strawman. Do you disagree that the Christian God has laid out some requirements as to what is required for a relationship with him? Presumably, God wants some type of personal relationship with you and presumably there are conditions to this relationship. At the very least, if God desires that you reside in heaven, presumably, there is going to be some criteria involved. You would need to have some G-Belief that this is the case, and some further G-Belief on how to acquire such a state.

Also, no one is arguing that because you dispute one doctrine it would stop God from hearing or answering your prayers, that is simply a strawman.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-argument-from-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-10139 MitchLeBlanc Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:58:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1055#comment-10139 Do you disagree that the Christian God has laid out some requirements as to what is required for a relationship with him? Presumably, God wants some type of personal relationship with you and presumably there are conditions to this relationship. At the very least, if God desires that you reside in heaven, presumably, there is going to be some criteria involved. You would need to have some G-Belief that this is the case, and some further G-Belief on how to acquire such a state. Also, no one is arguing that because you dispute one doctrine it would stop God from hearing or answering your prayers, that is simply a strawman. Do you disagree that the Christian God has laid out some requirements as to what is required for a relationship with him? Presumably, God wants some type of personal relationship with you and presumably there are conditions to this relationship. At the very least, if God desires that you reside in heaven, presumably, there is going to be some criteria involved. You would need to have some G-Belief that this is the case, and some further G-Belief on how to acquire such a state.

Also, no one is arguing that because you dispute one doctrine it would stop God from hearing or answering your prayers, that is simply a strawman.

]]> By: Collin H. http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-argument-from-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1027 Collin H. Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:14:10 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1055#comment-1027 I have a number of objections, but the first one that comes to mind is that it is silly to assume that every christian must have beliefs for themselves to have a relationship with God. If I were to dispute one doctrine which many others accept, but pray, would this stop an omniscient benevolent being from hearing my prayers, and would it stop an omnipotent being from being able to answer my prayers? The answer to this is no, it is simply a non-sequitor fallacy. I have a number of objections, but the first one that comes to mind is that it is silly to assume that every christian must have beliefs for themselves to have a relationship with God. If I were to dispute one doctrine which many others accept, but pray, would this stop an omniscient benevolent being from hearing my prayers, and would it stop an omnipotent being from being able to answer my prayers? The answer to this is no, it is simply a non-sequitor fallacy.

]]> By: Collin H. http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-argument-from-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-10138 Collin H. Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:14:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=1055#comment-10138 I have a number of objections, but the first one that comes to mind is that it is silly to assume that every christian must have beliefs for themselves to have a relationship with God. If I were to dispute one doctrine which many others accept, but pray, would this stop an omniscient benevolent being from hearing my prayers, and would it stop an omnipotent being from being able to answer my prayers? The answer to this is no, it is simply a non-sequitor fallacy. I have a number of objections, but the first one that comes to mind is that it is silly to assume that every christian must have beliefs for themselves to have a relationship with God. If I were to dispute one doctrine which many others accept, but pray, would this stop an omniscient benevolent being from hearing my prayers, and would it stop an omnipotent being from being able to answer my prayers? The answer to this is no, it is simply a non-sequitor fallacy.

]]>