An interesting quote that I came across...

[Clawhammer]

Check the attachment.
I found the thought intriguing.
Discuss?

[Cicero]

He was a great Christian man.

[User Deleted]

Weather god created us or not our thought is the same, no matter what the only thing we can only prove is our own consciousnesses, not even prove that it is correct, simply that your thoughts are. Anything else is really a theory. Despite gravity being a theory as far as anyone can see it is true, so with that knowledge it is best to trust gravity is true until proven otherwise. I disagree with him, the only thing that you really can prove is your own thought. So why disbelieve your own consciousnesses, the only truly un-falsifiable thing? Perhaps it isn't just chemicals, from our extensive observations that is what seems true, but technically, how do you know the chemicals are real? You touched them? Well, that was a sensation produced by your consciousnesses, so perhaps everything is an illusion by your own mind. Perhaps I'm a thought of yours or vice versa. Simply because there is no true proof for anything other than we have thought doesn't mean we disbelieve anything and everything, though. So even if a god did not create us we do not need to disbelieve in thought. Now with it disproven that you cannot use lack of god as a means to disbelieve in thought, using thought against god is valid.

QED

Did I just disagree with C. S. Lewes? Yes, yes I did.

He seems like an incredibly intelligent man, but it is ironic to think he would say not believing in a god is a reason to not use thought to disbelieve god, thought being the only provable thing. By his logic I should believe nothing is real and go rot in the sewers telling myself that nothing is real.

[Korashk]

Most atheists don't trust their thoughts in disbelief of god. That's pretty much why they're atheists. They let other things like facts and evidence determine their views.

[Iris]

It's with those same thoughts that he thinks he must believe in God. What's to say the thoughts to believe in God are any more valid than the thoughts not to believe in himself?

[Mortal Coil]

It's definitely an interesting argument, but one that does not take into account the theories of evolution and certain psychological schools of thought (partially because psychology wasn't exactly a big thing in his times.)

[Clawhammer]

Weather god created us or not our thought is the same, no matter what the only thing we can only prove is our own consciousnesses, not even prove that it is correct, simply that your thoughts are. Anything else is really a theory. Despite gravity being a theory as far as anyone can see it is true, so with that knowledge it is best to trust gravity is true until proven otherwise. I disagree with him, the only thing that you really can prove is your own thought. So why disbelieve your own consciousnesses, the only truly un-falsifiable thing? Perhaps it isn't just chemicals, from our extensive observations that is what seems true, but technically, how do you know the chemicals are real? You touched them? Well, that was a sensation produced by your consciousnesses, so perhaps everything is an illusion by your own mind. Perhaps I'm a thought of yours or vice versa. Simply because there is no true proof for anything other than we have thought doesn't mean we disbelieve anything and everything, though. So even if a god did not create us we do not need to disbelieve in thought. Now with it disproven that you cannot use lack of god as a means to disbelieve in thought, using thought against god is valid.

QED

Did I just disagree with C. S. Lewes? Yes, yes I did.

He seems like an incredibly intelligent man, but it is ironic to think he would say not believing in a god is a reason to not use thought to disbelieve god, thought being the only provable thing. By his logic I should believe nothing is real and go rot in the sewers telling myself that nothing is real.

It's an interesting pint that you raise, but what he is saying is that there is a void in the origin of thought. If it is simply a random phenomenon, how do we define truth? We are given the concept of existence, but with a random phenomenon, how can we trust any speculation about it, and what strength is there to the rule of scientific logic? The point is, that there is a gap there, and the only solid evidence for anything to make any sense and for our concept of truth to be solid, there must be a true source, or else it's like trying to fly by your shoelaces.

And I think that you gravely mistake what he is trying to tell you. He is saying that one option doesn't make sense because there is no sense
that we can tell is truly reliable, and there is only one way that can truly lead to any absolutes.

It's with those same thoughts that he thinks he must believe in God. What's to say the thoughts to believe in God are any more valid than the thoughts not to believe in himself?

Again, his point is that the concepts behind thought and truth are of divine origin, and not a random chemical reaction, which would be unpredictable. How can something that is a product of random chance truly claim to have access to solid truth, if it even exists?

It's definitely an interesting argument, but one that does not take into account the theories of evolution and certain psychological schools of thought (partially because psychology wasn't exactly a big thing in his times.)

I am curious about your answer... You seem vague? He is talking about logic an understanding themselves; science and psychology are the products of what we assume to be solid truth, specific rules governing our universe which are "just there."

IN ADDITION: I cannot claim to be speaking for Lewis, anything beyond the quote which I posted is my own speculation and conclusions.

[darkwoon]

It's an interesting pint that you raise, but what he is saying is that there is a void in the origin of thought. If it is simply a random phenomenon, how do we define truth?
The definition of truth depends of the context in which you want to define it.

We are given the concept of existence, but with a random phenomenon, how can we trust any speculation about it, and what strength is there to the rule of scientific logic?
Common argument: you exist, since you can conceptualize the idea of your own existence. At worst, you may just be an idea - but that idea would still exist, since it was conceptualized.

The strength of the scientific logic is to not rely on a single reference, but on many. To not rely on speculation, but on experiment. To not rely on the first impression, but to rely on repeatable events. Divinity is neither repeatable, experimentable, and cannot be measured against any reference.

The point is, that there is a gap there, and the only solid evidence for anything to make any sense and for our concept of truth to be solid, there must be a true source, or else it's like trying to fly by your shoelaces.
No true source is needed. You cannot question your own existence, only its form. What is true is that you cannot demonstrate with absolute certainty that you are what you think you are. You have to admit that what you percieve is a starting point, a reference, a "truth" from your own perpective.

He is saying that one option doesn't make sense because there is no sense that we can tell is truly reliable, and there is only one way that can truly lead to any absolutes.
Except that when you think about it, faith is just another unreliable concept, and a much less grounded one that your own senses. I can smell a rose, I can touch it, I can think of the concept "rose". But divinity? I can conceptualize it, but I can't touch it. I can't smell it. From my own point of view, faith is inferior to senses when it comes to establishing solid absolutes.

Again, his point is that the concepts behind thought and truth are of divine origin, and not a random chemical reaction, which would be unpredictable. How can something that is a product of random chance truly claim to have access to solid truth, if it even exists?
Because even if your existence is the product of randomness, its perception of the world is not. My finger may be longer than yours - yet I can measure my screen to be 2 of my fingers high. I'm a random product, but I can use myself to measure the world around me. And my results will be a solid truth according to my own referential. How I was created plays zero role in this.

[Iris]

Again, his point is that the concepts behind thought and truth are of divine origin, and not a random chemical reaction, which would be unpredictable. How can something that is a product of random chance truly claim to have access to solid truth, if it even exists?

and my point is that the thought that human thought is unreliable is, in itself, unreliable.

[Carlsen]

.
It will be much easier if God will show his face.




.