|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
GDR writes: I still maintain that materialism is a belief. That's okay.I will continue to maintain the same analogy against such an idea: quote: Such sentences can be constructed in the English language. But I think it's a bit odd to use the same word to describe such obviously different ways of coming to a conclusion. I think saying "GDR believes..." is fine in this context, but the other statement should be changed to: "Stile uses the historical evidence to predict that the next roll will still be between 1 and 6 - assuming a 6 sided die is all we have!" I don't even have to be "materialistic" to do this. I certainly can do this, as it seems the most reasonable in this situation, and still believe in God.I can even believe that God provided the die that's being rolled. There's just no evidence or "reasonable logic" to support doing such. I still don't even get the point of believing God "kicked off the process" of evolution or not.Who cares? The process exists - it appears to be fully natural. It doesn't seem to have any reason to suggest that any part of it is required to be supernatural.So why care if God kicked it off or not? What happens if God didn't kick it off?Is God not strong enough to exist without planning for humans from the beginning? Are humans not strong enough to consider a God that exists that doesn't care about humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
GDR writes:
I'm afraid that your analysis seems a little lacking. I don't see this as being a parallel at all.
The real argument is over the claims of what Jesus did, not if he existed. The same for Joseph Smith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Who reveals it? To whom is it revealed? The revealer of reality is the one true god of this universe: physics, and it reveals its secrets to us humans.
AZPaul3 writes: That is a power your god cannot come close to displaying.
How would you know? The same way you know I am right.
Does the concept of omnipotence threaten your cherished freedom? It threatens all life in the universe in all things. Such a monster would destroy causality and take the entire universe with it.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
It threatens all life in the universe in all things. Such a monster would destroy causality and take the entire universe with it.
I use the same argument with my ghost hunter friend. If any of it were true, if there was anything supernatural or paranormal, it would have to overthrow the laws of physics. Causality would be destroyed and the universe with it.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: Percy writes: You repeatedly claim that your "evidence" is on an equal footing withscientific evidence ("We both have evidence"),... I don't believe that I have ever claimed an equal footing. If you're not trying to pretend that both sides are on equal footings then stop saying "We both have evidence," because we don't both have evidence. We have evidence and you have "something else." There's no point seeking rhetorical arguments that will suddenly transform your religious views into evidence because that just isn't possible.
Philosophical evidence are two very different things - apples and oranges. I think you meant to say that philosophical evidence and scientific evidence are two very different things, and this is true. One is evidence and one isn't. You haven't yet defined philosophical evidence, but it was clear from the beginning that it's not actual evidence. You're just playing word games by putting a modifier on the front of "evidence." What is Philosophy <...etc. and so forth...a quote...an equivocation...> You seem to be on both sides of the fence, but most importantly your quote doesn't explain what philosophical evidence is, so there's nothing useful I can garner from all you said. However after reading this and other material I think that worrying about either philosophical evidence, which seems kind of vague anyway,... Ya think?
...and the reading on definitions of scientific evidence which seems to go beyond empirical evidence,... No, scientific evidence does not go beyond empirical evidence. Scientific evidence, by definition, is empirical evidence, i.e., based upon observation. The theoretical side of science does go beyond the empirical. For example, it was theorized that the Higgs Boson existed before empirical evidence for its existence was found. Once this evidence was produced it meant that the Higgs Boson was no longer theoretical but empirical.
...then I should probably stop worrying about these terms. Until you can provide a concrete definition of "philosophical evidence" you should definitely not be giving it a moment's thought. Scientific evidence is what matters.
In the end I think that the best term is subjective conclusions. That religion is subjective is why there are so many religions in the world. That science is empirical is why there's only one Boyle's Law, one Theory of Relativity, one germ theory of disease.
It is my subjective conclusion that it is ludicrous to think that things such as consciousness and morality can evolve from collections of mindless particles, therefore requiring an external intelligence. I responded to this claim once already and you didn't respond. Now you're just repeating this claim yet again as if no one had ever responded to it. This is what you do, over and over. It's why people get frustrated at you and why you leave because you don't like the treatment that you yourself are instigating. As I understand it, the subjective conclusion of the majority of you... Pasting the "subjective" label on what we say does not make it so. We have evidence for what we say and you don't. You keep forgetting this, not just from one post to the next but from one paragraph to the next. Our replicated evidence-based conclusions are tentative, not subjective.
...is that it is ludicrous to involve an external intelligence when we can observe natural processes having occurred and continuing to occur. Ockham's razor. Why are you postulating the existence of something for which there is no evidence? You need to demonstrate what you're postulating experimentally. For example, mix hydrogen and oxygen and provide a spark. Do this once in the presence of an "external intelligence" and again in the absence of an "external intelligence." Observe whether there are any differences in what happens. Any differences would be evidence that the presence of an "external intelligence" can have an influence on natural processes.
This also leaves open how an external intelligence came to exist. Before you start researching how an "external intelligence" came to exist you have to produce some evidence that it even exists. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: I don't actually have a position on whether God intervened supernaturally in the evolutionary process or not. I am quite happy to simply say that God kicked off the processof evolution and all the natural processes were in place at the outset. This is last Thursdayism.
I read a very good book a couple of years ago by Chris Barrigar...Freedom All the Way Up. You seem to think your inability to make the case yourself is due to a weakness of expression on your part, but that's not true. It's that there's no case to be made. It doesn't matter whether it's you or <fill in the blank, e.g., Chris Barrigar, C. S. Lewis, etc.>, nothing can change that.
I still maintain that materialism is a belief. And yet if you ignore the material world it will quickly convince you how real it is, even killing you if you insist on taking it to that point. But we can ignore all aspects of everyone's non-material or spiritual beliefs and suffer no consequences whatsoever.
I believe that Dawkin's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" doesn't exist. That you're an atheist when it comes to the Flying Spaghetti Monster was kind of the point of its invention. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: Taq writes: I'm afraid that your analysis seems a little lacking. I don't see this as being a parallel at all. Arguments over the existence of Jesus of Nazareth ring hollow to me. It's not as if Christians are all converting to Mormonism because it is easily proven that Joseph Smith was a real person. I see Taq has responded, but I haven't read it yet. My response is to quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious." Like Jesus, Joseph Smith is believed by his followers to be a great prophet and worker of miracles, but unlike Jesus there is unimpeachable evidence that he was a real person who actually existed. The usual response to this is that Joseph Smith (or any founder of any other religion) was nothing like Jesus, as if he were the template, as if true religions can only be founded by people born of virgins who had a final dinner with their apostles before being arrested and crucified. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Taq writes: Sure I'm fine with that.
I would suggest that instead of philosophical evidence, we should call them premises. As such, the overall strength of an argument is dependent on the strength of the premises. Taq writes: I would also suggest that "subjective conclusions" are equivalent to "personal opinion". Of course.
Taq writes: Parsimony is more than just a subjective conclusion. It's a basic part of a pragmatic epistemology. Imagine if we had to throw out every natural explanation we have because it might be the result of some supernatural process that entirely mimics the natural process? Fingerprints at a crime scene? Nope, throw those out. God could have planted the fingerprints at the crime scene. Changes in pressure and temperature causes clouds to form? Nope, that one is gone to. After all, it could be leprechauns creating clouds in a way that just happens to correlate with pressure and temperature. As George Romanes put it 140 years ago: But you are criticizing a belief that I don't hold. I'm not saying that we throw out any empirical or even theoretical science. Yes, I think that God is responsible for life. I also enjoy the little bit of science that I can understand. However, I do think that I am more than just my brain. I realize that you can come up with opinions based on what is observed, but it is my premise that there is more going on than can be observed.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
However, I do think that I am more than just my brain. May I recommend a book.
Why I Left, Why I Stayed: Conversations on Christianity Between an Evangelical Father and His Humanist Son Tony Campolo is an Evangelical Christian, somewhat on the liberal side. You will probably see him as having views somewhat like yours. Bart Campolo is his son. He was a Christian, but he left Christianity. He is still very much a humanist. The book has alternating chapters by the two of them and where they disagree. Bart has been through the kind of issues that concern you. He has thought a lot about them. He still considers himself to be religious, but in the sense of natural religion. He now sees the natural world as all that there is. I don't know whether he will persuade you. But I think you will find that he challenges you. So give it a try. I still have the book on my Kindle, and can discuss it if you want to start a thread about it.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: Taq writes:
I would also suggest that "subjective conclusions" are equivalent to "personal opinion".Of course. You eventually arrived at "subjective conclusions" after beginning with "We both have evidence" and "philosophical evidence" and trying to draw a false equivalence. Can we finally at last get a concession from you that scientific conclusions, (theories) that are arrived at through research and study, experiments, observations, replication, peer review and consensus are not in any way "subjective conclusions"? That they, to the best of human ability, correspond to actual material reality while your religious beliefs do not even come close? That to talk of both having evidence is absurd?
However, I do think that I am more than just my brain. I realize that you can come up with opinions based on what is observed, but it is my premise that there is more going on than can be observed. How would you ever come to know about anything unobservable? Consider other unobservable things that were once believed real, like Thor and Zeus. They now have no believers at all. What is different about your belief in the unobservable? Before you go citing the Bible and the patristic fathers, while fewer writings might have survived you can be sure that people also wrote about Thor and Zeus with just as much faithful fever. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
And in six months GDR will think he has another revelation and start another topic and we will rehash it all once again. He will again realize his arguments are worthless and slink away again. Rinse and repeat
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Tangle writes:
Not true. But of course up to the scientific revolution practically everyone believed in the literal truth of the bible. It was, after all, the word of god, not to be second-guessed by man - even GDR. A couple of quotes from this site that covers it extensively.
history for atheists quote: Further down in a reply to Dawkins there is this:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Just to add to what I already posted when I ran out of time.
Tangle writes: That is really only true for those who try and read the Bible literally. However, I do agree that we can learn a lot about how God has created through the use of science.
It seems to me that science is revealing more about the 'truth' of the bible than the believers. Tangle writes: But of course up to the scientific revolution practically everyone believed in the literal truth of the bible. It was, after all, the word of god, not to be second-guessed by man - even GDR. Another point is that Biblical literalism first came into vogue as a result of the reformation. Luther rebelled against the church, which was largely corrupt, and which to that time had been essentially the body that interpreted all things Christian including the Bible. In place of the church the Bible was inserted and they wanted something that would be an absolute authoritative voice of God. That then evolved into reading it literally as an absolute essentially as if it had been dictated by God. In recent years it has been primarily, but not solely, an American thing. Fortunately, that is slowly fading.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
I've read that. Bart Campolo and I have had two zoom conversations. His Dad was very ill recently. One specific thing that I respected about Bart is that he never encouraged me to drop my faith or throw God away, as our Texas curmudgeon suggested. He is a humanist to the core, yet understands the tradition and dogma that is organized religion.
Tony's bio lists him as a philosopher before it mentions theologian. Tony was one of Bill Clinton's spiritual advisors.
Tony Campolo"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The comments at this blog say it all, in my mind. Here are four:
Taken from About History For Atheists Getting history right is crucial, and no one – neither the religious nor the irreligious – should get a free ride when it comes to instrumentalizing the past. Tim O’Neill’s forthright blog does a valuable job in keeping us all honest, and reminding us that historical evidence rarely behaves as one might want it to.” – Professor Tim Whitmarsh, A. G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge “A brilliantly erudite blog that stands sentinel against the wish-fulfillment and tendentiousness to which atheists, on occasion, can be no less prey than believers” – Tom Holland, best-selling history writer “Tim O’Neill’s blog is a fantastic place to turn for critical investigation of commonly-held assumptions about religion in the ancient world.” – Professor James F. McGrath, Butler University “Tim O’Neill is a known liar …. an asscrack …. a hack …. a tinfoil hatter …. stupid …. a crypto-Christian, posing as an atheist …. a pseudo-atheist shill for Christian triumphalism [and] delusionally insane.” – Dr. Richard Carrier Ph.D., unemployed blogger It figures Carrier might have said those comments. He is like Theodoric. Oh and by the way, Theo....as to why mythicists are as much liars as are apologists? Carriers net worth from the lecture circuit: $6 million dollars. How is he any different from an apologist?
quote: Edited by Phat, : added quote "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024