4 replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (herehere) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the claim

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like (always assuming the above claim is true)?

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the claim

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like (always assuming the above claim is true)?

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the claim

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like (always assuming the above claim is true)?
3 added 42 characters in body
source | link

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the quoteclaim

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like (always assuming the above claim is true)?

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the quote

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like?

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the claim

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like (always assuming the above claim is true)?
2 deleted 19 characters in body
source | link

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (herehere) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the quote

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like?

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the quote

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like?

Context

For the purpose of this post, I will assume the following quote from @jobermark (here) to be true and will ask a question on the consequences of such truth

[W]e really can only talk about the concept of God, and never productively argue either side of the existence debate.

Consequences of the quote

When facing a question for which argumentation is impossible (such as the existence of God), it sounds like a sound philosopher shall accept the impossibility of ever arguing for one side or the other. It therefore seems that for the question of the existence of God, any sound philosopher should then consider herself / himself as agnostic.

Yet, despite the fact that the problem is unsolvable, most people (incl. some trained philosophers I talked to) do have an opinion on that matter and consider themselves as either theist or atheist.

Question

  • Can we only be theist or atheist by failure of recognizing one cannot argue for one side or the other?
  • Can one consider himself/herself theist or atheist only if their emotions take advantage over a logical reasoning?
  • When I meet a philosopher (trained as such or not) who declare being theist or atheist, can I assume (s)he lack ability for clear reasoning and have gone to conclusion based on what they would like the world to be like?
1
source | link