Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 196 of 253 (119211)
06-27-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hangdawg13
06-26-2004 11:54 PM


quote:
Science practiced without those having belief in God or by those who largely ignore God has no faith except in the abilities of the humans themselves and therefore has subjectivity built into it. In this case the scientist's objectivity is dependent on his integrity which is dependent on moral truth which he may or may not believe in.
So, let's say a scientist who is an athiest comes up with an idea which seems to explain some natural phenomena.
He does some experiments which seem to confim his hypothesis.
He submits his results in a professional, peer-reviewed journal and it is accepted.
Later, three other scientists; a Hindu, a Christian, and a Buddhist, attempt to repeat the athiest scientist's experiments to see if they get similar results. They do, which strengthens the hypothesis that the athiest scientist made.
Can you explain how the ideas and experimental results of the Christian scientist are objective while all the others' are not?
Also, can you explain to me how a belief in "moral truth" has anything to do with science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-26-2004 11:54 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 253 (119216)
06-27-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hangdawg13
06-26-2004 11:54 PM


To Hangdawg13:
I understand your views, but in no way endorse it.
Your use of the terms "objective" and "subjective" is curious at best. You appear to have no idea what they mean, and you use them to suit whatever you want them to mean.
Please define these words:
1) Objective.
2) Subjective.
3) Bias.
4) Explain why biblical truth is (supposedly) objective, as you say it is.
5) Explain (in detail) how science can be subjective.
5 easy questions.
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-26-2004 11:54 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:50 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 198 of 253 (119217)
06-27-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Hangdawg13
06-27-2004 12:26 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
Also, lets get our terms straight: Omnipotent means God is all powerful and can do anything but what violates his own character. Sovereign is what gives God CONTROL over everything.
I would like to know why you do not think God being omnipotent cannot delegate some of his sovereignty to his creations so that they may have some sovereignty in the form of free-will for the purpose of blessing those who choose to love him, letting us experience life without him (to weed out any arrogance when perfection comes), and to make his glorious character fully known.
OK, if you say so, but this seems to result in a great deal of horrific, uneccessary suffering that is pretty inconsistent with the idea of an all-loving, compassionate God.
If God is all-powerful and His character is one of pure love and compassion, it is inconsistent with his character that he let so many millions of people suffer pointlessly over the millenia.
Either God is all-powerful and really not compassionate nor loving, or he is compassionate and loving and of limited power to ease suffering.
Before you say anything about me trying to use my puny human brain to understand the ways of God, let me just point out that you are also using your puny human brain to describe God's character in exceedingly human terms; compassionate, loving, etc.
If you are allowed to say you understand God's character in human terms, why am I not allowed to point out in equally human terms where God's human-described character has been shown to be lacking?
If you simply say "who can understand why God does some things" THAT is when you engage in confirmation bias.
When presented with evidence that God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, you discount and explain away this evidence instead of dealing with it.
You fall back upon the "we can't understand the ways of God" when these inconsistencies pop up, but you seem to understand the ways of God just fine when someone's life is saved, or when someone is converted to your beliefs, or when a person is healed from an illness, etc.
quote:
Faith is every bit as legitimate a method of learning as rationalism or empiricism.
Not if you are trying to learn about the natural world, and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe.
There are hundereds and hundreds of Christian denominations alone, and thousands of religions in the world.
What makes your very particular sect of Christianity correct and the hundreds of others wrong?
All faith/religion is revelation-based, not evidence-based.
Faith doesn't need evidence to support it; you believe in spite of evidence if need be, in fact.
quote:
And just because the foundational principles of Christianity are accepted by faith does not mean the rest does not make sense. Christianity is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts...
Ehhh, I don't think so.
That's kind of like saying "Belief in the existence of alien abductions is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts..."
Of course, I have said in a previous post that the core Christian ideas, which are also those of Humanism, of "do unto others" proscriptions for treating one's fellow humans and for living a good life are pretty universal to all religions and philosophies for a reason; they work to promote certain behaviors among groups of humans so that they live in relative harmony.
It's the practical proscriptions that are rational; they can be widely demonstrated to work, regardless of one's religious beliefs.
The rest of the faith-based beliefs are not, however, rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 12:26 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 4:48 PM nator has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 199 of 253 (119266)
06-27-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by nator
06-27-2004 10:39 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
Either God is all-powerful and really not compassionate nor loving, or he is compassionate and loving and of limited power to ease suffering.
God's perfect righteousness demands that the objects of his love also have perfect righteousness. This is why when we have faith God credits his righteousness to us, so that we can have a personal love relationship with him. While we are yet in sin and suffering apart from God, God is under no obligation of his justice and righteousness to help us. This is why we are saved by GRACE. Since WE are saved by grace we are obligated to treat others with the same grace. This is why love for God and love for fellow man go hand in hand.
What the righteousness of God approves, the justice of God justifies, and the love of God blesses as expressed in the grace of God.
What the righteousness of God disapproves, the justice of God condemns, and the love of God provides a solution (Christ's work on the cross) as expressed in the grace and compassion of God. It is in God's sovereign choice (not an obligation by his character) to offer help to sinners that his compassion is found. He said He will have compassion on whom He has compassion. God is exceedingly gracious and compassionate, but he is not obligated by his justice or righteousness to be compassionate, so there may be those whom he choses not to have compassion.
Purely my speculation here: perhaps since God enjoys being compassionate, he will offer another opportunity for those who have gone to hell to accept him. He certainly is not obliged to, but I wouldn't put it past Him.
Apparently, arrogance or evil comes from the allotment of sovereignty to creatures that are not omnipotent, omniscient, etc... as God is. When creatures, with the sovereignty God has allowed them, reject God as the all in all, they choose to separate themselves from him. This ultimately produces suffering. God has the power to end all suffering at this moment, but we know he will not yet do this because he has told us what must happen first and He is under no obligation of His character to end suffering at this moment as I have shown above.
I have now presented to you three arguments based on God's character and our eternal life how the existence of suffering does not negate his character.
where God's human-described character has been shown to be lacking?
I keep showing you how his character is NOT lacking, yet you ignore my arguments and go on repeating your own.
you discount and explain away this evidence instead of dealing with it.
Explain away I have. However, I have not heard you explain away my explanations except that you keep repeating: "this seems to result in a great deal of horrific, uneccessary suffering that is pretty inconsistent with the idea of an all-loving, compassionate God."
I have shown you three arguments that show how God's character remains consistent. Please address all three of my arguments and point out my flaws, post-hoc, confirmation bias, or otherwise.
and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe.
I go to a Christian college. I have LOTS of friends from all over the nation who accept what I believe. Our beliefs are practically identical. I have heard many writers, poloticians, educators, theologians, and others speak in support of my beliefs.
What makes your very particular sect of Christianity correct and the hundreds of others wrong?
I come from a non-denominational church and have recently gotten involved with a Baptist church. I have friends at school from many different denominations. We all believe basically the same things. There is a common characteristic among all these people: humility and love for God. How Christianity goes wrong is people inject subjectivity and arrogance into it.
Ehhh, I don't think so.
My arguments about how God's character is maintained even though this world has suffering in it make sense. If they don't make sense to you please put some effort in trying to understand them and point out specifically WHY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by nator, posted 06-27-2004 10:39 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by nator, posted 06-28-2004 8:57 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 206 by nator, posted 06-28-2004 9:07 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 207 by nator, posted 06-28-2004 9:26 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 200 of 253 (119360)
06-28-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Sleeping Dragon
06-27-2004 10:30 AM


I realize my usage of the words is curious, but I cannot think of another way to describe my arguments. I did not look them up in a dictionary, but this is how I have come to use them.
1. Objectivity is the removal of self or self-made ideas or selfishness from one's thinking. By doing so one can understand externalities or truth.
2. Subjectivity is a lens through which all externalities are viewed in relation to self or self-made ideas or selfishenss.
3. Bias is allowing preconceived knowledge or ideas to influence perception of externalities. (Bias is not bad as long as it can be temporarily removed when need be; stuborn is bad; I suppose you could say stuborn = bias plus subjectivity)
4. If the Bible was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it would be subjective because people simply made it up themselves. Since it comes from God, a source outside ourselves, it is truth no matter what anyone thinks of it. All truth is objective because it exists regardless of us.
5. Science is in search of truth in only the physical realm. Science in itself is objective, but like anything else it is very easy for subjectivity to be injected into it. When scientists limit ALL truth to the physical realm and believe in only what their senses can perceive and studies can show, they have rejected other truths and overestimated their own abilities. When scientists only have faith in themselves and their own powers, this becomes a source of subjectivity which can skew their theories.
I guess I'm saying that when science is used as a tool to find physical truth it is objective. When scientists believe science is the ONLY tool to find ALL truth, their theories are inevitably influenced by this subjective view.
Well, that explanation sucks, but I'm sure you get the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 06-27-2004 10:30 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-28-2004 2:20 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 06-28-2004 2:52 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 204 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 06-28-2004 3:41 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 253 (119374)
06-28-2004 1:58 AM


The atheists deny the existence of the "all Good God" that Christians claim exist, because of the following logic: God is all Good, God is omnipresent and omnipotent, God created evil and continues to let it exist, and an all Good God cannot therefore exist.
Christians attempt to respond with something like: but we don't know the bigger picture, in the larger scheme of things (of which we are ignorant until after death) it all makes sense, is good and is in perfect harmony with the Christian God's nature.
One example, which I like (Strobel's Case for Faith, if I'm not mistaken) is the scenario of a veterinarian tranquilizing a wild African lion in order to perform some procedure on the animal in order to save it's life. The lion is terrified, very distressed, derives no conscious benefit from the harrowing procedure that it cannot possibly comprehend. Of course the lion could not know, and it would not be possible to explain to the lion that the procedure that seemed very evil to the lion was actually very good.
I have no profound rebuttal or come back for this scenario, which I quite like. Except...
1. God could try a lot harder to explain things to us what the heck all this suffering is about, instead of just given us cryptic religious nonsense.
2. It is still valid to claim that, to the best of our ability to tell, the Christian God is nevertheless still not good.
Why no. 2?
We can only assess God in human terms. In human terms, what God is doing to us: creating us, knowing that we would fall, knowing the misery the world cause so many of us, knowing that only a hand full of humans would every score eternal life, and then condemning the rest to eternal damnation is incomprehensibly bad, even evil. Additionally the God of the Bible OT is a very reprehensible character that, in human terms, would not be considered good.
But Christians claim a very different God. they claim that God is good, God is love.
On what basis do Christians, then make this claim? Surely the tranquilized lion scenario is an admittance that, in human terms God does not look good? What basis do Christians have for claiming that we don't see the bigger picture?
One basis is the own personal testimony about the personal experience of God in their lives. This is the topic of this thread: such testimony stands on confirmation bias and post-hoc reasoning. No Christian in this thread has yet been able to explain how their personal testimony is anything else, or how their lives are anything different from the Buddhist, Shintoist, or atheist that are all subject the randomness and fickleness of the laws of the universe.
The second basis is the Bible. While, as I stated the Bible paints a bad picture of God also, the Bible also underscores Christian claims for the "good" nature of this deity.
So the only basis we have for believing God is good, is not the evidence of the world, not the evidence from the personal experience of Christians, who suffer misfortune and fortune along with the rest of us (they merely rationalise it in a different way): the only evidence is the Bible. And Hangdawg13, you have made multiple reference to the importance of the Bible in underscoring your knowledge.
So the argument is: despite the nature of God's world, and the nature of God as portrayed in some parts of the Bible, God is good because other parts say so.
Which leads us to the basis of another topic, not relevant to this thread. The veracity of the Bible....

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 253 (119378)
06-28-2004 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hangdawg13
06-28-2004 12:50 AM


(Thanks schrafinator for flying the flag)
Hello Hangdawg13,
You know what... You've inspired me to start my prayer journal up again. Until now I usually only wrote about prayer in my journal when God answered big prayers or in an amazing way. But to prevent me from indulging in post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias, I am going to start writing down all of my prayer requests every night and their answers. A year from now I'll let you know how it turns out... assuming I still lack a social life and assuming I will not have become tired and disillusioned with atheists.
You know what.... You've inspired me to start up my positive karma invocation journal up again. Until now I only wrote about positive karmic invocation when the pretty pink pixies answered big prayers (and there have been plenty in addition to my personal examples of karmic healing that I described at the top of this thread). But to prevent me from indulging in post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias, I am going to start writing down all of my karmic requests every night and their answers. A year from now I'll let you know how it turns out...... assuming that I haven't become disillusioned with theists (sorry I do have a social life: the pretty pink pixies are good at providing in that regard).
Tell you what, to save us waiting a year, why don't you read to us from your previous journal. I'll read to you from my positive karma journal. A lot of really good things have happened in my life, which I can easily attribute to those pretty pink pixies and positve karma. Sure, some crap things have happened to, but those pretty pink pixies move in mysterious ways.
Let's trade journal stories!
I'll start: In response to a recent positive karma invocation the pretty pink pixies helped me get a $45k per annum raise in my present job for doing nothing different and I'm not particularly good at my job (all true!). Praise those pretty pink pixies!
Your turn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:50 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 203 of 253 (119387)
06-28-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hangdawg13
06-28-2004 12:50 AM


Something to agree with !!
I guess I'm saying that when science is used as a tool to find physical truth it is objective. When scientists believe science is the ONLY tool to find ALL truth, their theories are inevitably influenced by this subjective view.
This I agree with. It is an excellent statment of what science is about and that it is limited.
However, here we are discussing what science can learn abut the natural world. That is an area which it had proven to be very successful in.
What method can be used to find the other TRUTHS? Those that science can not (and doesn't claim to) deal with. I don't see a lot of real good progress made with any other methods over the centuries. Can you point some out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:50 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 3:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 253 (119398)
06-28-2004 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hangdawg13
06-28-2004 12:50 AM


To Hangdawg13:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
Your points 1 and 2 check out and I'm happy to accept your definitions, though not necessarily the way you've used those two words. (see critique of point 4 below)
Point 3 is fine too, and if you bear with me, I will show how your notion is biased by your definition.
Point 4 is circular reasoning:
1) Bible is true.
2) The existence of Holy Spirit was derived from the Bible.
3) The Holy spirit is truth.
4) The Holy spirit inspired the Bible.
5) Therefore the Bible is true.
You're bringing in the condition of "objective" into the arena by tagging it onto "truth" like so:
6) Truth is objective.
7) Therefore the Bible is objective.
I am sorry, but your reasoning is invalid and suggests a bias (that bible is true, or that the Holy Spirit exists) on your part.
Science is in search of truth in only the physical realm. Science in itself is objective, but like anything else it is very easy for subjectivity to be injected into it. When scientists limit ALL truth to the physical realm and believe in only what their senses can perceive and studies can show, they have rejected other truths and overestimated their own abilities. When scientists only have faith in themselves and their own powers, this becomes a source of subjectivity which can skew their theories.
I guess I'm saying that when science is used as a tool to find physical truth it is objective. When scientists believe science is the ONLY tool to find ALL truth, their theories are inevitably influenced by this subjective view.
Understood and agreed to some degree. It is actually the scientist's job to "limit all truth to the physical realm" because science is based on the physical. To say that one has, through scientific means or otherwise, proved/disproved anything that exists in anything BUT the physical realm is a misuse of science.
They may dismiss the spiritual world (that is, the notion will not/cannot be considered) in a scientific sense , but they cannot reject it (that is, to declare it false or non-existent).
To state that only the physical exist is subjective, yes. But that is hardly the flaws of science, but rather the flaws of scientists. This line needs to be drawn clearly.
To say that the spiritual world cannot exist is harsh and unfounded. It is much more reasonable (and tolerant) to say that there is no physical evidence to support the existence of a spiritual world, and so there is no reason for such an assumption to be made.
This is the gist of the religion/science difference, and the reason why I believe the two should never conflict.
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:50 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 11:34 PM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 205 of 253 (119464)
06-28-2004 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hangdawg13
06-27-2004 4:48 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
God's perfect righteousness demands that the objects of his love also have perfect righteousness. This is why when we have faith God credits his righteousness to us, so that we can have a personal love relationship with him. While we are yet in sin and suffering apart from God, God is under no obligation of his justice and righteousness to help us.
Yet there have been, and are, many people around the world whom have had faith and a personal love relationship with God, yet God hasn't helped them.
They died of the disease, they were killed by the stray bullet, they were molested by the relative.
There have also been, and are, many people around the world who are not what you would describe as Christian, or even believers in any diety, who are mysteriously healed from their illness, avoid the stray bullet, and manage to avoid the pedophile uncle.
quote:
God is exceedingly gracious and compassionate, but he is not obligated by his justice or righteousness to be compassionate, so there may be those whom he choses not to have compassion.
So, God isn't all loving, then?
God is becoming more and more human the more you describe him.
quote:
Purely my speculation here:
Obviously.
quote:
perhaps since God enjoys being compassionate, he will offer another opportunity for those who have gone to hell to accept him. He certainly is not obliged to, but I wouldn't put it past Him.
That's pretty extra-Biblical.
quote:
Apparently, arrogance or evil comes from the allotment of sovereignty to creatures that are not omnipotent, omniscient, etc... as God is.
Maybe it comes from the devil, or demons or something.
Just thought I'd put that out there, as long as are speculating.
Gee, theological speculation is fun! No pesky real world evidence to deal with...you can just make things up as you go along. This is fun!
quote:
When creatures, with the sovereignty God has allowed them, reject God as the all in all, they choose to separate themselves from him. This ultimately produces suffering.
So, all of those slaves in the South who paryed and prayed to God but died in slavery anyway, were separated from God?
quote:
God has the power to end all suffering at this moment, but we know he will not yet do this because he has told us what must happen first and He is under no obligation of His character to end suffering at this moment as I have shown above.
Yes, you have shown me that God is not all-loving and all-compassionate, and is also vain and capricious.
You have also shown me post hoc reasonng.
You have the premise that God is all-loving and all-powerful.
It is shown to you that God does not behave in an all-loving or all-compassionate way.
You then make a new reason for why God seems to appear less than all-loving and all-compassionate; it's our fault.
You are working hard to explain away any idea that might show God in a bad or not all-powerful light.
quote:
I have now presented to you three arguments based on God's character and our eternal life how the existence of suffering does not negate his character.
Well, sure, but it's all just apologetics. I mean, you are really just making stuff up to make God's inaction, and the logical inconsistencies, a bit more palatable.
But I'm not a Christian nor am I a believer, so it is merely so many words to me. It just seems like excuses and a lot of blaming the victim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 4:48 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:32 PM nator has not replied
 Message 214 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 3:15 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 206 of 253 (119465)
06-28-2004 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hangdawg13
06-27-2004 4:48 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
You keep asking me to point out confimation bias in your arguments, yet when I do just that, you ignore it.
Please address this. Please give special attention to the last paragraph:
quote:
If you simply say "who can understand why God does some things" THAT is when you engage in confirmation bias.
When presented with evidence that God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, you discount and explain away this evidence instead of dealing with it.
You fall back upon the "we can't understand the ways of God" when these inconsistencies pop up, but you seem to understand the ways of God just fine when someone's life is saved, or when someone is converted to your beliefs, or when a person is healed from an illness, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 4:48 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:41 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 207 of 253 (119470)
06-28-2004 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Hangdawg13
06-27-2004 4:48 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
It seems you forgot to address these points...
Faith is every bit as legitimate a method of learning as rationalism or empiricism.
quote:
Not if you are trying to learn about the natural world, and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe.
There are hundereds and hundreds of Christian denominations alone, and thousands of religions in the world.
What makes your very particular sect of Christianity correct and the hundreds of others wrong?
All faith/religion is revelation-based, not evidence-based.
Faith doesn't need evidence to support it; you believe in spite of evidence if need be, in fact.
You omitted most of this in your reply except for:
"and not if you expect anyone else to accept what you believe."
...to which you replied:
quote:
I go to a Christian college. I have LOTS of friends from all over the nation who accept what I believe. Our beliefs are practically identical. I have heard many writers, poloticians, educators, theologians, and others speak in support of my beliefs.
By "anyone else" I meant "anyone who doesn't share your beliefs." Religious faith is individual. You can't have the same faith experience as anyone else on the planet, because it happens entirely inside yourself.
When I say that you cannot expect other people to believe you, I mean that in order to believe you, a disinterested observer would just have to take your word for it that what you believe is true.
There is no objective test nor emperical evidence to support your beliefs. You have faith, so you do not need these things.
However, a disinterested observer does need these things to determine reality.
I'd like you to address the rest of the point, please.
Oh, and it's too bad you are surrounded only by people who think exactly as you do. Not a very fertile ground for intellectual stimulation or challenge.
And just because the foundational principles of Christianity are accepted by faith does not mean the rest does not make sense. Christianity is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts...
quote:
Ehhh, I don't think so.
You snipped the quote here in your reply, but I went on to explain;
quote:
That's kind of like saying "Belief in the existence of alien abductions is rational if you accept on faith the founding concepts..."
Of course, I have said in a previous post that the core Christian ideas, which are also those of Humanism, of "do unto others" proscriptions for treating one's fellow humans and for living a good life are pretty universal to all religions and philosophies for a reason; they work to promote certain behaviors among groups of humans so that they live in relative harmony.
It's the practical proscriptions that are rational; they can be widely demonstrated to work, regardless of one's religious beliefs.
The rest of the faith-based beliefs are not, however, rational.

Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety--Karla McLaren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 4:48 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:55 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 208 of 253 (119472)
06-28-2004 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Hangdawg13
06-27-2004 12:26 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
I just realized that you ignored this simple question in your reply:
In short, I know what I know from the Bible.
quote:
You know that the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-27-2004 12:26 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 1:56 PM nator has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 209 of 253 (119515)
06-28-2004 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by nator
06-28-2004 8:57 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
I said:
God's perfect righteousness demands that the objects of his love also have perfect righteousness. This is why when we have faith God credits his righteousness to us, so that we can have a personal love relationship with him. While we are yet in sin and suffering apart from God, God is under no obligation of his justice and righteousness to help us.
You said:
Yet there have been, and are, many people around the world whom have had faith and a personal love relationship with God, yet God hasn't helped them.
Did I ever claim that a relationship with God as a ticket to end all suffering in this life???? No! By "help us" I meant in our state of sin. When we do get a relationship with him and begin learning Bible doctrine, we develop the capacity to have peace of mind and even happiness in any situation: good or bad environment. It is in this way God's character is made known to men and angels in this life. God is proving that Satan's power of arrogance is no power. But this is spiritual truth and is spiritually discerned, it is foolishness to those who are perishing.
So, God isn't all loving, then?
There are two kinds of love: virtue love and personal love. When we love our neighbor as ourselves, this is virtue love. We cannot possibly go around hugging and kissing everyone we meet. Virtue love depends on our character. Personal love depends on the merits of the object. God personally loves everyone that possesses his righteousness, because this is the only merit an object can posses that satisfies his righteousness and justice. God virtue loves "all the world so much that he gave his uniquely born son". Anyone who accepts his son receives God's righteousness and becomes the object of God's personal love. Anyone who does not, is rejected by God's righteousnes and justice and cannot be personally loved by God.
Again this is all spiritual truth and spiritually discerned.
Maybe it comes from the devil, or demons or something.
The devil and demons rejected God in the first act of arrogance.
I see by your post that I am not getting through to you, I'll come back to the rest of it later.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-28-2004 12:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by nator, posted 06-28-2004 8:57 AM nator has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 210 of 253 (119516)
06-28-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by nator
06-28-2004 9:07 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
If you simply say "who can understand why God does some things" THAT is when you engage in confirmation bias.
When presented with evidence that God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving, you discount and explain away this evidence instead of dealing with it.
You fall back upon the "we can't understand the ways of God" when these inconsistencies pop up, but you seem to understand the ways of God just fine when someone's life is saved, or when someone is converted to your beliefs, or when a person is healed from an illness, etc.
I have already explained why there is suffering and how God's character is not compromised, but spiritual truth is foolishness to you.
A mature believer does not have a better life because suffering is diminished. I mature believer has a better life because Bible doctrine gives capacity for happiness in any situation, and because there is a void in every person that only God can fill.
God has given us his Word to help us understand the Big picture. There is no confirmation bias in this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by nator, posted 06-28-2004 9:07 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024