Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing The Christian Apologists
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 76 of 1086 (865763)
10-30-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by GDR
10-30-2019 11:40 AM


Re: Mark Mittelberg
GDR writes:
People promote that mental processes evaluate whether or not a theory is true.
And mental processes are quite capable of doing such a thing.
I'm glad we agree on this point.
God, as in an intelligent creator, was required to make mental processes possible.
It is all belief.
This is your belief - it is only based on belief, and it goes against what evidence we have. You are free to have your belief.
In fact, I hope you hold onto this belief and expand our human knowledge in this area if/when you're able to obtain evidence.
However, God not being required to make mental processes possible is based on the available evidence - not belief.
We can look inside the brain - we don't see God.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - we don't see God.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - we don't see God.
This is the available evidence so far.
Perhaps GDR (or someone claiming "it is all belief" as GDR does) will one day find some evidence that supports that position.
On that day - the available evidence will be in your favour.
But today, all of the available evidence shows us that mental processes work without God.
So today - the available evidence is that no God is required.
That is not belief.
Therefore - it is not "all" belief.
To believe that my conclusion is absolutely true for all time, especially the unknown future - that would be belief.
But to hold this as a confident, tentative conclusion based upon the available evidence - that would not be belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 11:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 4:26 PM Stile has replied
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 4:50 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 77 of 1086 (865767)
10-30-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
10-30-2019 12:48 PM


Re: Turek & Hitch
Thugpreacha writes:
He is quite good, though...
What do you mean by this? That he sounds convincing to you?
That doesn't make him "quite good."
That makes him "quite nice for Thugpreacha to listen to and receive consoling feelings from."
Although I wish for you to be happy, if we're wondering about how to identify reality - I'm not overly concerned on if Thugpreacha is feeling comfortable or not... I'm more concerned with how reality actually is.
In the sense of describing reality, Turek appears to be "terrible." As shown by my above post dismantling the argument of his you chose to describe here.
based on listening to some of his podcasts. (which few if any of you will bother to do)
Why would I listen to his podcasts?
You chose to describe an argument that you though was "good."
That argument is clearly quite terrible at describing reality.
Again, the argument may very well be "good" for making Thugpreacha feel comfortable.
But I'm not interested in watching a podcast so that Thugpreacha can feel comfortable - although I do want you to feel comfortable: that sounds like a waste of time to achieve that goal.
I am interested in describing reality - something that Turek implies he's doing. But all indications show that Turek is quite terrible at this, and it would be a waste of time to further investigate. My curiosity in describing reality would be much more satiated in watching a cat video on YouTube - at least it would be a real cat responding to real environmental conditions.
I respected Dr.Turek for a comment he made about Christopher Hitchens shortly after the man's passing:
I do not.
In fact, it seems extremely rude of Dr. Turek to try and use such an emotional event to sway subscribers in another reality-ignoring claim about reality.
Dr. Turek writes:
I don’t see how anyone who knew Christopher Hitchens could think that a man with such admirable qualities and talents was nothing more than a collection of chemicals— the product of unintelligent processes.
Why? Did he think about it all?
Think of it this way: Let's say God exists and is super powerful and can create anything at all.
God creates humans.
That's good, mind you, I'm quite pleased. But impressive? Amazing that he made a human with admirable qualities? Not really - God can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to make some good humans?
Now, let's say God doesn't exist and we have a mindless world full of mindless processes doing uncontrolled things. By way of evolution, these things slowly develop consciousness and actually gain the ability to have admirable qualities due to their environment and social aspects and eventually make Christopher Hitchens - a man of many admirable qualities. Now THAT is impressive.
Christopher’s intellect, wit, courage, passion, and immense personal charm are evidence to me of a Divine Being— a Divine Being who loves human freedom so much that He would even allow the gifts He bestows to be used against Him.
Yeah - we know that Turek believes a lot of things that are contrary to the evidence. This comes as to no surprise. Perhaps Turek should keep this information-everyone-already-knows-about-Turek to himself for a few moments while Christopher Hitchens' family and friends attempt to focus on Christopher Hitchens for a few days due to his death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 12:48 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 1086 (865780)
10-30-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
10-29-2019 3:32 PM


Re: Mark Mittelberg
Phat writes:
Turek has some valid arguments.
Bring them here.
Phat writes:
... he challenges by asking them to give their explanation (as far as they believe) as to how the universe came about.
Yawn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 10-29-2019 3:32 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 1086 (865781)
10-30-2019 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
10-30-2019 12:48 PM


Re: Turek & Hitch
Phat writes:
Turek learned much of his world view from the late Dr.Norman Geisler.
I'd be more impressed if he learned something from the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 12:48 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 80 of 1086 (865785)
10-30-2019 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Stile
10-30-2019 12:48 PM


It's all belief
Stile writes:
This is your belief - it is only based on belief, and it goes against what evidence we have. You are free to have your belief.
In fact, I hope you hold onto this belief and expand our human knowledge in this area if/when you're able to obtain evidence.
But there is evidence all around us. The fact that mental processes exist is evidence. We can perceive beauty, we are capable of love, empathy, joy, sorrow, hate etc. It is all evidence.
Is it scientific? No. However we can look at the evidence of all that life is and choose to believe that they have an intelligent root or believe that it has all come about through a series of random processes and chance.
Stile writes:
However, God not being required to make mental processes possible is based on the available evidence - not belief.
We can look inside the brain - we don't see God.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - we don't see God.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - we don't see God.
None of that is really pertinent. I look at all of those things and see God in it. That is my belief and yours, (if I may be so bold), is that those exist without an intelligent first cause.
Stile writes:
Perhaps GDR (or someone claiming "it is all belief" as GDR does) will one day find some evidence that supports that position.
On that day - the available evidence will be in your favour.
But today, all of the available evidence shows us that mental processes work without God.
So today - the available evidence is that no God is required.
But you keep answering a different question. You say that those mental processes can carry on without God. The question is whether or not the mental processes exist, (with or without interference), as a result of God or any intelligent first cause for that matter.
Again, we both hold to our beliefs.
Stile writes:
To believe that my conclusion is absolutely true for all time, especially the unknown future - that would be belief.
But to hold this as a confident, tentative conclusion based upon the available evidence - that would not be belief.
Your belief is that there is no god. That is a forever belief. If no intelligent creator exists now, then he won't exist in the future either. Therefore to hold that as true now makes it belief. If there is sufficient evidence in the future to cause you to change your mind then it is simply that you have changed your beliefs.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 10-30-2019 12:48 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Stile, posted 10-31-2019 8:54 AM GDR has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 1086 (865791)
10-30-2019 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Stile
10-30-2019 12:48 PM


Becoming My Own Apologist
Phat writes:
Turek has some valid arguments.
ringo writes:
Bring them here.(...)yawwwwnnnn
Its beginning to look like I will have to attempt to become my own apologist myself since there are certain points in many of these arguments which resonate with me and which I have definite opinions on. Perhaps exercising such discipline will help me in future apologetic as well as practical arguments in my life. Bare with me as I attempt my own apologetic:
Stile writes:
Think of it this way: Let's say God exists and is super powerful and can create anything at all.
God creates humans.
That's good, mind you, I'm quite pleased. But impressive? Amazing that he made a human with admirable qualities? Not really - God can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to make some good humans?
So in essence you are saying that the concept of God in and of itself is unimpressive, given Gods presumed credentials...right?
Stile writes:
Now, let's say God doesn't exist and we have a mindless world full of mindless processes doing uncontrolled things. By way of evolution, these things slowly develop consciousness and actually gain the ability to have admirable qualities due to their environment and social aspects and eventually make Christopher Hitchens - a man of many admirable qualities. Now THAT is impressive.
So, in essence, you are claiming that IF mindless chemicals evolved into intelligent life without the need for creativity or guidance from a Deity this fact in and of itself would be more impressive. Am I right?
First let's keep in mind the basic classic apologetic assumption...that humans (through evolution, a "Fall" or whatever...have no innate desire or need of God. Your argument seems to support this attitude. Hawkings classic quote comes to mind:
quote:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.~The Grand Design
A Universe From Nothing-Lawrence Krauss
Thus, it appears to me at least that the two worldviews have diametrically polar opposite assumptions. The snake told us that "ye shall be as gods" and in a sense, the materialist world view explains how a universe, mindless chemicals, and eventually humans can and will assemble evidence to explain existence without God. Critics will voice statements like this one from the comments section of Krauss's video:
quote:
Science draws a conclusion from evidence and observations where religion makes evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion...
Stikle writes:
We can look inside the brain - we don't see God.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - we don't see God.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - we don't see God.
This is the available evidence so far.
Not exactly. If my worldview is correct, we won't ever see God or be able to see God. Thus, your claim that we don't see God is moot. Your statement should read:
We can look inside the brain. Period.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - Period.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - Period.
All that can be claimed is that we don't see God no matter where we look.
Did it ever occur to you that it might be meant to be this way? That an omnipotent powerful Deity....involved thoroughly in the creative process all around and in us...is so thoroughly and completely unevidenced and undetectable? That perhaps....just perhaps...His existence can only be known through willful acceptance and belief? Not magic, mind you.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 10-30-2019 12:48 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 10-30-2019 4:57 PM Phat has replied
 Message 85 by Stile, posted 10-31-2019 9:34 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 82 of 1086 (865792)
10-30-2019 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phat
10-30-2019 4:50 PM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Phat writes:
Bare with me as I attempt my own apologetic:
You seem to be talking about philosophy more than apologetics. I'd like to see you defend the apologetics on specific doctrines, not just this, "Does God exist?" or, "Do we need God?" rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 4:50 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 8:11 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 83 of 1086 (865801)
10-30-2019 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
10-30-2019 4:57 PM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
I can defend some but not all. Some arguments have no conclusion without evidence and on faith alone. As I delve into the philosophy of the Christian Apologists, I find that many of the arguments are shared among them and (critics say) have been the same for 20 years.
If I were to base my worldview on evidence and secular logic, as you do, I would have to be an agnostic or even an atheist by default. In your terms, being a believer is impossible. For me, it is already too late to renounce my beliefs, even if I became persuaded to "throw God away" which is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, to begin with.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 10-30-2019 4:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 10-31-2019 11:40 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 84 of 1086 (865813)
10-31-2019 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by GDR
10-30-2019 4:26 PM


Re: It's all belief
GDR writes:
But there is evidence all around us. The fact that mental processes exist is evidence. We can perceive beauty, we are capable of love, empathy, joy, sorrow, hate etc. It is all evidence.
That is not evidence that God created such things.
That is evidence that such things exist.
The next question is: How were they created?
Is there any evidence that God did the creating? - The answer to this is "no." As we've looked into such things and never seen anything that would indicate God's presence, only the same regular physics we see in all other things.
Is there any evidence that God was not involved in the creating? - The answer to this is "yes." For the same reason as above.
However we can look at the evidence of all that life is and choose to believe that they have an intelligent root or believe that it has all come about through a series of random processes and chance.
That's right.
You can choose to believe in spite of the current evidence, or choose to move in it's direction.
You can (rightly) say that we do not have all the evidence - there are aspects to life we have yet to understand.
But this doesn't make all the aspects we do understand (where no God is involved) disappear.
And this also don't lend any credibility to one day "finding God" in those yet-to-be-understood areas.
If anything, the pattern shows that it's likely we'll continue to "not find God" the more we learn - as that's what's happened every time we learn something new so far.
I look at all of those things and see God in it. That is my belief and yours, (if I may be so bold), is that those exist without an intelligent first cause.
Your observation is based upon belief.
Mine is based on the facts.
Here's one fact I can say where we've looked for God and none is found:
We know chemical reactions happen in the brain.
We can investigate many of those chemical reactions.
We can replicate those chemical reactions in a lab.
No God is found in those chemical reactions when replicated or studied or understood.
Can you name one fact that leads us to evidence showing God is present?
My claim is that you cannot - it will always end up being your feelings on the matter, your sense that such a thing "simply cannot possibly be" without God - but no actual, factual evidence.
What you call "evidence of God" is simply your feelings.
Feelings are not evidence.
Evidence is facts that cannot be interpreted in various ways according to facts.
Like chemical processes being replicated in the lab occurring without God.
You cannot "interpret" this another way according to the facts. - This is evidence.
You can only "interpret" it another way according to your feelings. - This is not evidence.
But, you can show me to be wrong.
If you think you actually have evidence, all you have to do is provide a single fact that cannot be "interpreted according to the facts" away from God being involved.
If the only way I can "interpret" it another way is according to my own feelings/beliefs... then you will actually have evidence and I will be wrong.
Without that, my current argument stands - according to the evidence.
The question is whether or not the mental processes exist, (with or without interference), as a result of God or any intelligent first cause for that matter.
Right.
I'm not saying that such a thing is fully understood. (I really don't know - maybe it is? I'm simply not aware.)
I'm saying the following 3 things:
  1. I'm saying that there are parts of "the first cause" that provide factual evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way as to show, at a minimum, that there are parts of this "first cause" that do not include God. Like some of the chemical reactions.
  2. I'm also saying that you are unable to produce any parts of "the first cause" that provide factual evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way as to show, at a minimum, that there are parts of this "first cause" that do include God. None at all.
  3. I'm also saying that there are parts of "the first cause" that we do not understand yet.
    -These parts do not lend any more credence to "God must be involved, then" then they do to "God is not involved, then."
#1 provides "some evidence" for God not being involved.
#2 claims that there is "no evidence" for God being involved (you are free to dispute this, if you can, you just have to use facts.)
#3 is no help to either side.
Again, we both hold to our beliefs.
You only have #2 - you only have beliefs.
I have #1 - it may not be a final conclusion as there are parts we still don't understand. But it is above "none" as #2 contains, and therefore is more than "just belief." It contains evidence.
Your belief is that there is no god. That is a forever belief.
That is not my belief, actually.
But I'm not talking about my belief here - I'm talking about what the evidence shows.
My belief (just like yours) is unable to change what the evidence says. That's why it's called "evidence" and not "something GDR or Stile wishes were true."
If no intelligent creator exists now, then he won't exist in the future either.
Why not?
Why couldn't an intelligent creator come to be and create another universe completely separate from our current one? One with different rules, different inhabitants, and (hopefully) a different moral system that prevents heinous evil?
Therefore to hold that as true now makes it belief.
I do not "hold" anything as true. Everything I think is true is tentatively understood. If I got evidence my parents weren't my parents tomorrow - I would accept it. I wouldn't stop loving "those who raised me as my parents" any less - but evidence is evidence. If you can provide any evidence of God, not only would I accept it, I would celebrate it. It would be amazing.
If there is sufficient evidence in the future to cause you to change your mind then it is simply that you have changed your beliefs.
That's not true. I am capable of separating ideas in my mind.
I am capable of understanding "what I believe" and also "what the evidence says."
The two do not always align for me.
I just also understand that when these do not align, I am not able to "force" the evidence to say something to match my belief just because I want it to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 10-30-2019 4:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 85 of 1086 (865815)
10-31-2019 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phat
10-30-2019 4:50 PM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Thugpreacha writes:
Stile writes:
Think of it this way: Let's say God exists and is super powerful and can create anything at all.
God creates humans.
That's good, mind you, I'm quite pleased. But impressive? Amazing that he made a human with admirable qualities? Not really - God can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to make some good humans?
So in essence you are saying that the concept of God in and of itself is unimpressive, given Gods presumed credentials...right?
No, why do you like to paint me as a demon? Do I have horns on both sides of all of my posts?
I'm saying that the concept of God in and of itself is very impressive - equally impressive as the concept of a universe without God in and of itself.
To me, it is equally impressive that "something" (a God-universe or a non-God universe) exists instead of "nothing."
Now, let's step into those existing universes:
Once we've established that we live in a God-existing universe, and God is all-powerful because He created the universe... once that's already accepted... only THEN is it "not all that impressive" that God is capable of creating good humans. Why would it be? Why would it be impressive that an all-powerful God can create something? Wouldn't that sort of be an expected trait of a God that's all-powerful? Kind of like being impressed that Usain Bolt can run 100m faster than Stile, no? Usain Bolt being fast is very impressive (like God existing). But Usain Bolt being faster than Stile is not very impressive (like God creating humans) - this is to be expected.
Once we've established that we live in a non-God-existing universe, we have a dead, sterile universe - with lots of chemicals and reactions and things, but nothing alive.
All kinds of physical things happen - stars exploding, plants forming, atmospheres forming... Do we "expect" life? Do we "expect" humans? I don't think we do. I think it's quite possible that such a universe could continue for billions of years without ever forming life. Maybe forever (given the "wrong-type" of universe...)
But... then something crazy happens. Life does form! And that life, by whatever-other-unintelligently-guided-proccesses... creates humans! And some of those humans are good people with good morals!!!
Now THAT's impressive. Something amazing happening when it's not expected. Like me beating Usain Bolt in a 100m race.
So, in essence, you are claiming that IF mindless chemicals evolved into intelligent life without the need for creativity or guidance from a Deity this fact in and of itself would be more impressive. Am I right?
Basically, yes. But with more flair and trumpets!!
If my worldview is correct, we won't ever see God or be able to see God. Thus, your claim that we don't see God is moot.
I don't think you understand.
You seem to have this idea that "the things Thugpreacha believes are true are an accurate reflection of reality."
I think that because you hold this idea: You think that Stile holds this idea as well.
But, you're wrong. I hold no such idea.
I understand that "our description of the world according to evidence" is not "an accurate reflection of reality." It is only "our best approximation of what we think reality is like."
That is - no matter how many times apples fall from trees and hit the ground - I do not believe that apples fall from trees and hit the ground. I believe this:
"Something we think of as apples" - "goes through a process we partly understand and currently call falling" - "from things we think of as trees" - "and has the possibility of being prevented from further linear movement as an entity through" - "what we think of as the ground."
Now, in order to walk and talk with the rest of us humans - I just say "Apples fall from trees and hit the ground." But I don't hold any of that statement as an "accurate reflection of reality." Only our "current approximation due to our limited understanding of reality."
Because I hold this core paradigm so strongly, and you do not - I think you're having a really hard time understanding my side of this.
(Note: This paradigm is not unique to Stile by any means... almost all scientists and all skeptics-who-aren't-scientists understand this paradigm very well, it began hundreds of years ago as we left the Dark Ages.)
Because of this way-Stile-thinks-of-things: I do no think that "because there is no evidence of God" means that "there absolutely is no such thing as God."
However, even if God exists - if there's no evidence of God, then there's no evidence of God and because "evidence" is (so far) our best way to know things and understand reality - it would then be foolish to believe that God exits - even if He actually does.
Just like driving your car to work every morning.
If there is no evidence that your car isn't safe to drive - it is foolish to spend an hour going over all the safety systems of your car every morning - even if one of the systems is actually out.
(If you don't believe that's accurate, you will be spending an hour every morning going over the safety systems of your car before you drive for the rest of your life.)
God actually existing even though there's no evidence of Him doesn't make my claim moot - it actually makes my claim even more pertinent.
We all do it for most things in our lives. I just understand it, and apply it to God, too.
All that can be claimed is that we don't see God no matter where we look.
Agreed.
And this is evidence that God does not exist.
It is not "as accurate reflection of reality" - but, really, nothing ever is.
Your confusion on this matter is the heart of your problem.
Did it ever occur to you that it might be meant to be this way?
Yes.
That an omnipotent powerful Deity....involved thoroughly in the creative process all around and in us...is so thoroughly and completely unevidenced and undetectable?
Sure.
That perhaps....just perhaps...His existence can only be known through willful acceptance and belief?
Not possible.
His existence may be assumed under such circumstances. But not "known." We (humans) have attempted this method of "knowing things" and it is full of extremely large pitfalls and failures. We called it "The Dark Ages." You are free to try it again, and if you find a way to actually "know things" in a confident way - I will be extremely interested. But your claim that you can "know things" this way is exactly the problem with such a method: I can just as easily claim to "know" that God does not exist according to your same qualifications - and then what?
Not magic, mind you.
Not at all.
More: fulfillment of a personal need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 4:50 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 10-31-2019 10:38 AM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 86 of 1086 (865816)
10-31-2019 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Stile
10-31-2019 9:34 AM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Stile writes:
You seem to have this idea that "the things Thugpreacha believes are true are an accurate reflection of reality."
I think that because you hold this idea: You think that Stile holds this idea as well.
But, you're wrong. I hold no such idea.
I do understand. I believe that God is a part of all reality. And you think that "No God" is a part of all truth. Critics will say that No God is not a belief. But I can argue that "NoGod" is a thing. An idea. Because how on earth could one claim that the absence of evidence equals evidence of absence? (Unless they had a belief that NoGod (as a Noun...a Thing) equates to NoGod as Evidence. ) It is a tough concept to wrap one's mind around but think of it this way.
GIVEN:
That God by definition is omnipresent (everywhere detectable)
God Is All-Knowing and All-Aware. (Omniscient)
Is Hopefully All Good (Omnibenevolent)
Also Given:
Stile believes that evidence is the "best way to know things" and thus a belief.
even if God exists - if there's no evidence of God, then there's no evidence of God and because "evidence" is (so far) our best way to know things and understand reality - it would then be foolish to believe that God exists - even if He actually does.
Your primary hangup is that you allow evidence to be your core belief, which leaves no room for any other possible idea. Critics would say that people like you worship science in the definition of a tried and true best way (only way) of knowing things. Because of this faith in empiricism, you cannot believe any other way, which has given society supercomputers, the eradication of many diseases, longer lifespans, and technological wonders.
I get it. (I think )
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Stile, posted 10-31-2019 9:34 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Stile, posted 10-31-2019 11:14 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 89 by jar, posted 10-31-2019 2:43 PM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 87 of 1086 (865820)
10-31-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
10-31-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Thugpreacha writes:
Stile writes:
You seem to have this idea that "the things Thugpreacha believes are true are an accurate reflection of reality."
I think that because you hold this idea: You think that Stile holds this idea as well.
But, you're wrong. I hold no such idea.
I do understand. I believe that God is a part of all reality. And you think that "No God" is a part of all truth.
This very first sentence shows that you really, really don't understand.
Have another read of my explanation:
quote:
I understand that "our description of the world according to evidence" is not "an accurate reflection of reality." It is only "our best approximation of what we think reality is like."
That is - no matter how many times apples fall from trees and hit the ground - I do not believe that apples fall from trees and hit the ground. I believe this:
"Something we think of as apples" - "goes through a process we partly understand and currently call falling" - "from things we think of as trees" - "and has the possibility of being prevented from further linear movement as an entity through" - "what we think of as the ground."
Now, in order to walk and talk with the rest of us humans - I just say "Apples fall from trees and hit the ground." But I don't hold any of that statement as an "accurate reflection of reality." Only our "current approximation due to our limited understanding of reality."
What part of that do you think can be interpreted to say "Stile thinks that No God is a part of all truth?"
What you should be understanding is that "Stile does not think anything at all can be said to be a 'part of all truth.'"
You're missing this huge paradigm shift between us.
Without understanding this - you're not going to be able to understand anything about me.
This is why everything you ever claim about "Stile thinks this..." is always wrong.
You don't understand the foundation I base things off of - you think it's similar to the foundation you use yourself. It is not. It is very, very different.
Thugpreacha writes:
Stile believes that evidence is the "best way to know things" and thus a belief.
Also incorrect.
Evidence has been proven to be the "best way to know things" (and is therefore not a 'belief.') It's why we have computers and no longer fear the Black Death.
Your primary hangup is that you allow evidence to be your core belief, which leaves no room for any other possible idea.
First - that is not my core belief.
Second - This is you projecting again.
You hold "whatever Thugpreacha holds" as your core belief and that has no room for any other possible idea.
You then apply this concept to me.
But that's not how I work:
I hold "whatever Stile holds" as my core belief - but it is fundamental to this core system that I must have room for ALL other possible ideas.
Therefore, what you claim about me cannot possibly be true.
Critics would say that people like you worship science in the definition of a tried and true best way (only way) of knowing things.
Why do you say I worship science?
I am begging you to show me something that's better than science. It is one of my strongest held desires that we discover something "better" than science for knowing things.
Do you wish for God to be replaced? I don't think you do. That's because you worship God.
I do, however, wish for science to be replaced. That's because I do not worship science.
Let's try an analogy here:
I drive my car, it's a modern Hyundai Elantra.
An acceptable car. It's actually pretty good - but it's far from perfect.
I wish for a replacement. I am begging for someone to give me a better car.
But - this doesn't mean I don't drive my existing car.
My existing car works - it gets me to work and home and to fun places. It is the best-possible-way I have to commute.
No one's given me a better car, yet. But if they did - I'd replace my old car with it and use it immediately.
Science is like this.
Science is an acceptable reality understand-er. It's actually pretty good - but it's far from perfect.
I wish for a replacement. I am begging for someone to give me a better way to understand reality.
But - this doesn't mean I don't use science in the mean time.
Existing science works - it gets us out of the Dark Ages and into the modern Information Age. It is the best-possible-way I have to understand reality.
No one's given me a better way to understand reality, yet. But if they did - I'd replace science with it and use it immediately.
Does that help at all?
Would you compare God to a shitbox like the Hyundai Elantra - where there are obviously many, many vehicles that are "greater" or "better?"
This is one of our differences:
You worship God and do not want Him to be replaced.
I do not worship science/empiricism/materialism, and I definitely do want to replace them all.
Because of this faith in empiricism, you cannot believe any other way, which has given society supercomputers, the eradication of many diseases, longer lifespans, and technological wonders.
I do not have faith in empiricism. I am stuck with empiricism. I have faith that something better will replace empiricism and give us things even greater than supercomputers and the eradication of many diseases. I have faith in more.
I get it. (I think )
Not from what you just posted.
Please try again. Maybe read that car/science analogy a few times. I think it's a really good analogy for what I'm attempting to describe to you about how I think (and many, many other "empiricism-types" you encounter.)
Edited by Stile, : Added section calling my car a shitbox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 10-31-2019 10:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 88 of 1086 (865822)
10-31-2019 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Phat
10-30-2019 8:11 PM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Phat writes:
Some arguments have no conclusion without evidence and on faith alone.
We're talking about scriptural evidence here, so what you're really saying is that apologetic beliefs trump scriptural evidence. That's pretty shaky ground.
Phat writes:
For me, it is already too late to renounce my beliefs....
It's never too late to throw away superstition and embrace reality.
Edited by ringo, : Sp6lling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Phat, posted 10-30-2019 8:11 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 1086 (865827)
10-31-2019 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
10-31-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Phat writes:
GIVEN:
That God by definition is omnipresent (everywhere detectable)
God Is All-Knowing and All-Aware. (Omniscient)
Is Hopefully All Good (Omnibenevolent)
Yet no one has ever provided a model, mechanism, method, process or procedure that detects God anywhere.
Yet the Bible describes God as often unaware and certainly not knowing. (we have been down this path so many times even the grass no longer grows)
Yet the Bible quite often and from the very early books describes a God that is not all good.
Phat, it seems you have a problem for your GIVENs.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 10-31-2019 10:38 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 10-31-2019 3:27 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 1086 (865829)
10-31-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
10-31-2019 2:43 PM


Re: Becoming My Own Apologist
Honestly, I prefer believing in a God of consensus rather than one club's teacher telling me what the book says. I trust that God is experienced by some, though not by all. I also believe that it was meant for this not to be provable by model, mechanism, method, process or procedure. If there is an absolute right and wrong interpretation for the Bible, I go with what I know (or believe) I find little value in the God of the Bible as you describe Him.
The God that you say the Bible describes does not interact with humanity, expects us to go and do, is likely not supernatural, and serves as but a teaching model.
I do not believe that humans are solely responsible for their actions and destiny, would the God whom I believe in exist.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 10-31-2019 2:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 10-31-2019 4:29 PM Phat has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024