Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Choosing a faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1471 of 3694 (903025)
11-30-2022 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1317 by Phat
11-08-2022 11:50 AM


Re: The Star Trek Generation
Phat writes:
Percy, I remember years ago when I made up the phrase, "Where we see Monsters, Science shows us Windmills. " You applauded it and told me my mind was singing, IIRC.
Wasn't me.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1317 by Phat, posted 11-08-2022 11:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1472 of 3694 (903026)
11-30-2022 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1339 by GDR
11-09-2022 8:00 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
But it was addressed to you. You quoted Dylan's "ya gotta serve somebody" and insisted that worship was the only alternative, either of a God or something material. And as a way of pointing out that you're wrong I used myself as an example of someone who worships nothing, and of course I'm by no means alone in this. There are things that I value, but nothing that I worship. Obviously one doesn't have to worship something. You have no response?
I suggest that there is a big difference between what we actually worship and the idea of worship as part of a religious function. I'd say that worship is defined by the goals we set in life, It might be money or power, but it might being as best you can being the person that you believe a deity wants you to be.
Now you're just playing word games with "worship". We all know what worship means in a religious context. I still recall the first time someone used this on me. "Oho, Percy," said Fred Williams of The Evolution Fairytale, "so it is evolution that you worship."
Percy writes:
This is a non-answer. It is still circular to say that the portions of the Bible you choose are based on what you see in Jesus who you only know about from the Bible. Unless, as I said, you're making stuff up about Jesus or listening to what other people make up.
Let's say you read a book about any historical figure. Obviously it is someone we have never met nor have we met any individual that personally met them. The book likely gives an account of what they did and possibly about what they believed and maybe even taught. This account may or may not be accurate but we make up our minds as to what we believe about it. Sure we can look for supporting material and it may be strong or weak, but that isn't may point. Forming a conclusion from what we read is not circular. It would be circular if we take that verse in 2nd Timothy and the use it to validate the Bible as being literally true but I'm not doing that.
You wrote this a couple weeks ago, so it should seem new as you reread it now, and it should be self-evident how this is still a non-answer. You're selecting which portions of the Bible to accept based on what you see in Jesus, but what you know about Jesus is from the Bible. That's as circular as can be. You're only fooling yourself if you think your 2 Timothy argument is analogous or relevant.
Actually, the Biblical accounts are the foundation of what I believe, but also, I very much relate top this statement by CS Lewis.
quote:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”
I see Christianity, too, if by that Lewis means Christians and Christian churches and Christian iconography and Christian books and so forth. There is no doubt that Christianity exists. But how is any of that evidence of the truth of Christianity?
But if "seeing Christianity" is just a synonym for believing it then he's just saying the same thing in two different ways.
And what does "By it I see everything else." What is it he is seeing that he can't see if he wasn't "seeing Christianity"? We've already established that atheists experience empathy and altruism just like Christians.
I realize that this doesn't make sense to hardly anyone else here, but it speaks to me.
Why are you writing things that you know make sense to no one else? You've got your beliefs and they work for you. Why is it worth your time trying to convince others of the truth of what you believe?
I realize that I have to deal with suffering but on the other hand I have the understanding of the degree of empathy that others have for those who suffer.
Do you also understand the degree of empathy of those causing the suffering?
I have also have the sense of divine when I see a new parent holding their new born in their arms with absolute adoration or when I see someone risk or give their lives in defence of another.
Okay, but that's you. No one would argue that you shouldn't feel that way. Why are you arguing that because you feel this way it is evidence for what you believe?
Percy writes:
This isn't really a discussion. It's you making non-sequiturs, us pointing them out, and you ignoring them to continue repeating what you've been saying all along. Nothing we say seems to have any effect on you. It doesn't matter what we say, you just keep repeating yourself.
Sure, if you keep asking the same question you will get the same answer. It seems that you want evidence that both of us know doesn't exist.
You've said this before, and my answer is the same: Why do you keep making claims that evidence exists?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1339 by GDR, posted 11-09-2022 8:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1485 by GDR, posted 12-01-2022 6:36 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 1473 of 3694 (903029)
11-30-2022 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1458 by PaulK
11-28-2022 3:31 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes:
No, if Luke was copied from Matthew, as you believe, it was from a Greek copy of the Matthew we have. The rest doesn’t change that,
I simply said that it might have been from a Hebrew version of Matthew. Although I think that a Hebrew version existed I agree that it could well be that it never existed. I think it makes sense as it is targeted at a Jewish audience and that later Matthew would add a Greek version for a broader audience.
Also, I see Luke as using Matthew as an important source for his Gospel I don't see as being the sole source.
PaulK writes:
Do you really think that things only started “looking dicey” for the Jews when the Romans began to besiege Jerusalem? Because that is what you are saying.
I didn't say that and I don't think that to be the case.
Paulk writes:
So Luke would be giving very bad advice from your point of view.
Personally I'd be well entrenched in the hills before it got to that point.
PaulK writes:
The Isaiah passage is expressly about God destroying Babylon. And using the Medes to do it.
o. Your point was that Jesus meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple and you “knew’ this because Jesus was somehow referencing the Babylonian destruction of the Temple. You insisted on that even after I pointed out that the references discussed so far do not include the Babylonian destruction at all. And it seems that you know of no such references.
This is way off the point. The point was simply saying that the 2nd Temple would be destroyed like the 1st one if they went ahead with a militant rebellion.
It isn't the point again, but here is a wiki page on the 1st Temple. Solmoan's Temple
Here is a quote from it.
quote:
Solomon's Temple, also known as the First Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן‎, Bēṯ hamMīqdāš hāRīʾšōn, transl. 'First House of the Sanctum'), was the Temple in Jerusalem between the 10th century BCE and c. 587 BCE. According to the Hebrew Bible, it was commissioned by Solomon in the United Kingdom of Israel before being inherited by the Kingdom of Judah in c. 930 BCE. It stood for around four centuries until it was destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, which occurred under the reign of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar
PaulK writes:
Which of course was part of my point
Since you don’t claim that it was a supernatural prediction, your argument that Jesus must have meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple because the Romans did destroy the Temple can’t be justified on that ground. Which leaves only the possibility that the claim originated after the destruction. Otherwise the fact that the Romans did destroy the Temple is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage.
No. It was part of Jesus' polemic opposing an armed rebellion. Jesus predicted that this was going to happen, and when it did, it would vindicate and affirm His message of peace and love and then they would understand it in relation to Daniel 7 where we see Him coming to the Father, with the establishment of the Kingdom and with Jesus as King. The Kingdom would be the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew or the Kingdom of God in the other Gospels, and was made up of those that followed His ways of p[eace and love.
If it was written after 66AD,. let alone 70AD, it would be then meaningless as it would clearly be contrived.

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 1458 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2022 3:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1474 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2022 5:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1474 of 3694 (903031)
11-30-2022 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1473 by GDR
11-30-2022 4:48 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
I simply said that it might have been from a Hebrew version of Matthew. Although I think that a Hebrew version existed I agree that it could well be that it never existed. I think it makes sense as it is targeted at a Jewish audience and that later Matthew would add a Greek version for a broader audience.
And, as I pointed out that is wrong. Luke is written in Greek therefore the copying was from Greek. An independent translation would not look the same as copying.
quote:
I didn't say that and I don't think that to be the case.
So far as I can see that is exactly what you did say. Otherwise you couldn’t claim that Luke tells people to run when things “start looking dicey” - because Luke says to run when the Roman armies surround Jerusalem.
quote:
This is way off the point. The point was simply saying that the 2nd Temple would be destroyed like the 1st one if they went ahead with a militant rebellion.
That is what you assert. We have yet to see you offer any valid reason why you would think that Jesus meant that - or why you would expect others to think he meant that. That the Isaiah passage offers no support for your claim is relevant.
And I will add that the fact that the Babylonians did destroy the First Temple is not in dispute and really is off the point. Please don’t waste everyone’s time with yet another lame diversion. Either support your assertion or have the honesty to admit that you can’t.
quote:
No
Since you disagree, without offering any reason at all I will repeat the point, You cannot use the fact that the Romans did destroy the Temple as evidence that Jesus meant that the Romans did destroy the Temple. That would require supernatural foresight which you deny.
quote:
If it was written after 66AD,. let alone 70AD, it would be then meaningless as it would clearly be contrived
If it was written before 70AD Jesus couldn’t know that the Romans destroyed the Temple. Therefore that fact could not influence his words. It really is that simple. So why are you still trying to argue a point you should never have made int the first place?
(I will also note that there are reasons to suspect that historically Jesus really was in favour of rebellion. And the Olivet Discourse doesn’t really offer much to argue otherwise).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1473 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 4:48 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 1475 of 3694 (903032)
11-30-2022 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1462 by Stile
11-28-2022 4:25 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Stile writes:
I'm not sure how to read that.

Do you mean "Stile's out to lunch... atheists hold their beliefs due to a personal conviction and would never change their thoughts."?
-in which case... I think you're wrong, for the vast majority of atheists

Or do you mean "Ah, I see now, I originally thought atheists held their beliefs the way I hold mine, but perhaps they don't..."?
Maybe you are seeing more in this than I had intended. I think that most atheists, including those on this forum, would say that they don't know if a higher intelligence responsible for life exists or not. They simply believe that such an entity doesn't exist.
I and other theists do believe that such an entity exists. In both cases it is a belief, and I'm not trying to make an equivalence between the two beliefs.
Stile writes:
Yes, many atheist-bashers seem to push this really, really hard. It's easier to hate on something if you cram a bunch of negative things into the same box/idea.
I don't see many atheists actually ascribing to this, though...
The closest I've seen is atheists actually saying they believe only the material exists... because nothing beyond the material has ever been shown to exist. Therefore, they tend to assume that all things have a materialistic-based answer... since those are the only answers that have ever worked for any question that's ever been answered before.
No problem with that, although I certainly don't see myself as an atheist basher, I simply think that their atheistic conclusions are wrong.
Stile writes:
Personal conviction says:
1. I believe THIS.
2. Nothing can change my mind.

Evidence based says:
1. I'll assume THIS based on what's previously happened.
2. I'll change my mind when you show me something different.

In day-to-day life, the two are almost identical.
The differences only pop up when something new appears and that "new thing" goes against their previous beliefs/assumptions, but not even in the beginning. Only later.

Evidence-based says: I wonder why that happened... what can I do to learn about it? I'm not changing my previous assumptions until I can show that something new really did happen.
Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened. I'm not changing my beliefs.

At this point, the two are still acting exactly the same. Neither has changed their current course of actions.
It's only the reasoning that's different.

Once something's shown and identified, though... that's where the difference comes in:

Evidence-based says: Oops. Guess I was wrong about that, I'll have to change and account for this new information.
Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened, this explanation doesn't make sense. I'm not changing my beliefs.
I think that you are making something out to be black and white but I'd suggest that there is disagreement on what constitutes evidence, at least in this case.
Something as simple Descartes view that I think, therefore I am. We look at a world that can be beautiful or ugly, with love and hate, with peace and war etc. It is evidence of something. I find that the idea of an intelligence behind that is strongly in favour of the existence of a creative intelligence, whereas my interaction with you guys leads me to think that you don't even see that as evidence at all.
We don't agree as to what constitutes evidence so it isn't as black and white as you seem to maintain.
Stile writes:
You can find whatever you'd like.
The evidence paints a different picture.
There is nothing we know or identify about this existence that doesn't have a materialistic answer.
People have been pushing and pushing and pushing for non-material answers for thousands of years. But they're always shown to be wrong. Or else they just push to a smaller and smaller area of "we don't know yet."
At some point, if you're interested in "truth and knowledge," it's just reasonable to pick the side that's making the most progress in that field.
Sure scientific knowledge has expanded greatly and we now can explain lightning and its randomness. for example. Evolution did away with the idea of instant creation but the point is now how a deity did it, but whether or not a deity is ultimately responsible. There is no evidence one way or the other.
For example I want to buy a dozen eggs. My plan is to do so and the means is by driving to the store.
If a deity has a plan for life to develop we would not see the plan, but what we can often see is the means of how the plan was implemented.
Science examines the means but the plan is beyond material examination.
GDR writes:
I find that our existence from a completely material source requires an outside intelligence.
Stile writes:
You can find whatever you'd like.
The evidence paints a different picture.
There is nothing we know or identify about this existence that doesn't have a materialistic answer.
People have been pushing and pushing and pushing for non-material answers for thousands of years. But they're always shown to be wrong. Or else they just push to a smaller and smaller area of "we don't know yet."
At some point, if you're interested in "truth and knowledge," it's just reasonable to pick the side that's making the most progress in that field.
But the material is all we have to deal with., so all we can ever have is material answers. We have an intelligent mind responsible for our existence or we don't. We can only examine the material which tells us nothing about whether or not we have an intelligent origin or a mindless one. If we can only examine material evidence then disregard philosophical or theological thought then the inevitable conclusion is a mindless origin.
Stile writes:
Well, except for when things are based on evidence.
Then it's all about facts and extrapolation using our tools with the best track-record of identifying the unknown.

One has a terrible track record for identifying truth and knowledge.
The other has a fantastic track record.

I don't really see it as much of a competition.
Sure, because the one has the whole material world to work with, and when we only consider the material, then the other has nothing to deal with.

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 1462 by Stile, posted 11-28-2022 4:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1479 by Stile, posted 12-01-2022 9:15 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 1476 of 3694 (903033)
11-30-2022 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1465 by Tangle
11-28-2022 6:01 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Tangle writes:
I'll say this again and as often as you use this "argument". The overwhelming majority of writers on the historicity of Jesus are Christians. It is impossible for a Christian to come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist so any Christian writing about the historicity of Christ is not going to say he never existed now is he? This is not the case for atheists, an atheist can accept the existence of Jesus without accepting that he was anything to do with the supernatural. Erhman is is an atheist as far as belief goes.

Additionally almost all the writers on the historicity of Jesus are not historians - they're theologians, clergy and apologists. Most are preaching or doing literary criticism, not history.
What evidence do you have to support this? I imagine though that you are correct as people study what they are interested in.
Tangle writes:
The more you read about how the bible was compiled, redacted, forged and generally interfered with over the years the more you realise how utterly preposterous the entire edifice of Christianity is. I've just been reading about Christians destroying embarrassing gospels in the Middle Ages, How can anyone take this stuff seriously, it's quite plainly a pure human construct?
I take it very seriously. Also, I'm not concerned about some of the things in the Bible because I recognize the fallibilities of the humans that recorded it. As I said ,I understand the Bible to be a narrative of the progressive understanding of God in the Bible. My views are not inconsistent with many Christian scholars. I am largely on the same page as N T Wright, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, John Polkinghorne etc. That statement is simply to point out that I am not alone in my views, which is not meant to be a statement about their accuracy.

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 1465 by Tangle, posted 11-28-2022 6:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1478 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2022 3:37 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 1477 of 3694 (903034)
11-30-2022 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1470 by Percy
11-30-2022 12:49 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes:
You just restated, though at greater length, your approach of only accepting the parts of the Bible you like. I know your answer is that you accept both the good and the bad of the Bible, but you have not been able to defend this claim, and you have often explicitly rejected bad parts of the Bible,
Sure, because my views are based on the Jesus of the Bible and I understand it all through that lens. I still disagree that the reasoning is circular. Yes, I look to the Gospels to understand that Jesus is about peace and love. These 4 Gospels are account written by men that form a partial biography of Jesus and of His message.
The rest of the Bible is the remaining 62 books written by, (with the exception of Acts), by different authors in different times and situations.
However I can't defend the claim as all I have is my personal experience and conclusions drawn from that, what is written in the Scriptures, and what others have written of their Scriptural understandings. All of that becomes belief without any material evidence to support them.
Percy writes:
The entire emphasis of Christian thought throughout history has been on the afterlife.
Certainly a lot of that is true but there also the faith has led to many very positive social changes. Having read many more current Christian authors
I see the church moving away from that and is more concerned with how we enact God's command to love our neighbour in the here and now. My position in saying that this is the life I can do something to serve God's message of love with, and yes I do believe that there is life to come but that isn't something I should worry about. I'll let God deal with it and I trust in His perfect judgement. As Paul says, "judge not that you be not judged".
Here is a great quote from CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce'.
quote:
That's what we all find when we reach this country. (heaven) We've all been wrong. That's the great joke. There's no need to go pretending the one was right. After that we begin living"
I know that I see the a glass darkly and I'm content with that.

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 1470 by Percy, posted 11-30-2022 12:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1639 by Percy, posted 12-25-2022 12:39 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1478 of 3694 (903035)
12-01-2022 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1476 by GDR
11-30-2022 7:55 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
What evidence do you have to support this? I imagine though that you are correct as people study what they are interested in.
I suppose I could create a list of authors writing about the life of Jesus and look them up on a wiki but do you really doubt it? Can you think of any Christian writer that argues against the historicity of Jesus? I don't know any. How could it be even possible?
It's also much more than something these writers are 'interested' in too, isn't it? It's something they've committed their lives and ultimate salvation to, it's an entire belief system that everything about them hangs off. This is not someone studying barnacles because they're 'interested' in them.
Also, I'm not concerned about some of the things in the Bible because I recognize the fallibilities of the humans that recorded it.
Well sure, that approach allows you to pick the parts you like and discard those that you don't. All very convenient. But you use the word 'recorded' as though the authors of the bible were journalists writing contemporaneous reports of Jesus' words. We know that this is not true. We know that whoever the authors of the gospels were they never saw or heard Jesus and were largely inventing the stories many decades after his alleged death. We can see the mythology grow more elaborate with each author.
We also can see how the writings were changed and edited. Whole gospels were discarded as heretical. They're stuffed full of contradictions.
As I said ,I understand the Bible to be a narrative of the progressive understanding of God in the Bible. My views are not inconsistent with many Christian scholars. I am largely on the same page as N T Wright, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, John Polkinghorne etc. That statement is simply to point out that I am not alone in my views, which is not meant to be a statement about their accuracy.
Do I need to check whether all those writers (including the etc) are Christians?
You are certainly not alone in your beliefs, you have millions of views to choose from, none of which you would be alone in holding. You have the whole spectrum of views from Christ as pure myth, through Gnosticism, Orthodoxy, liberal Anglican Christianity all the way through to Christian fundamentalism. It's only possible to have this diversity of opinion because of the lack of anything substantial behind it.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion, I'm just asking you to recognise that there are other opinions that are equally valid, based on what little evidence there is.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1476 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 7:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1641 by GDR, posted 12-26-2022 2:36 PM Tangle has replied

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


(3)
Message 1479 of 3694 (903037)
12-01-2022 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1475 by GDR
11-30-2022 7:05 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
I and other theists do believe that such an entity exists. In both cases it is a belief...
They can be.
But they don't have to be.
Theism must be a belief - because there is no evidence.
The idea of materialism can be a belief - if one hasn't looked at the evidence and just believes in it.
But the idea of materialism can also be an assumption based on evidence, not a belief, if one looks at the evidence and follows where it leads.
I think that you are making something out to be black and white but I'd suggest that there is disagreement on what constitutes evidence, at least in this case.
Evidence is "something that can be shown to be valid."
And a collection of evidence will only ever lead to conclusions based on confidence levels... higher levels (lots of evidence) and lower levels (not very much evidence.)
When speaking non-scientific language, I like to call these conclusions "assumptions." As that's, basically, what they are... something assumed to be true based on the evidence, but if new evidence is ever identified to call the assumption into question... then the assumption must change.
If you're using a different definition of evidence, I'd like to hear what it is, but it very likely has issues that means it is not actually evidence.
Something as simple Descartes view that I think, therefore I am. We look at a world that can be beautiful or ugly, with love and hate, with peace and war etc. It is evidence of something.
It is evidence that we exist, that the world can be beautiful or ugly, with love and hate, with peace and war etc.
What makes you think that such things are "evidence" of anything more?
I find that the idea of an intelligence behind that is strongly in favour of the existence of a creative intelligence, whereas my interaction with you guys leads me to think that you don't even see that as evidence at all.
You "finding" something or "thinking" something isn't evidence at all.
Evidence is something that can be shown to be valid.
You "finding" something or "thinking" something cannot be shown to be valid. Or, at least, you haven't provided anything that shows it to be valid.
All you have to do is show it to be valid... and then it becomes evidence.
But personal sensations, feelings, opinions, desires, needs... have all been shown to be invalid ways to decipher truth about reality.
We've known this for thousands of years.
It's very intuitive to think it is actually evidence... which is why an explicit method (like the scientific method) is usually used to ensure that it's not involved. Because it is very easy to show that these sorts of things are not and cannot be considered evidence in any way. They include too much risk and lower the confidence level of the assumption so much as to make it nothing more than a wish.
We don't agree as to what constitutes evidence so it isn't as black and white as you seem to maintain.
What I think constitutes evidence isn't something I made up. It's not something I hold personally. It's what the human race has learned over thousands of years to be our very best method in identifying the truth about reality.
If you don't agree with it, then you're not using our best available method for identifying the truth about reality... in which case... why would anyone believe you when you make a claim about what reality is like?
Isn't it reasonable to expect someone that is interested in identifying the truth of reality to use the best available method we know of for identifying the truth about reality?
Evolution did away with the idea of instant creation but the point is not how a deity did it, but whether or not a deity is ultimately responsible. There is no evidence one way or the other.
There is evidence.
There is lots and lots and lots of evidence that shows that having an idea with no connection to reality and offering it as a possibility is almost always wrong. Wrong to a very, very high confidence level. An extremely good assumption, based on evidence, would be that it's an incorrect description of reality.
I agree that you don't want there to be evidence for such a conclusion.
But it does exist. You can ignore it, but the only way to make it go away would take a lot of book-burning and (now) digital-data-destruction.
For example I want to buy a dozen eggs. My plan is to do so and the means is by driving to the store.
If a deity has a plan for life to develop we would not see the plan, but what we can often see is the means of how the plan was implemented.
Science examines the means but the plan is beyond material examination.
Science can easily examine the plan.
Science examines the plan all the time. Usually by questionnairres in double-blind studies. This identifies "the plan" and is used in much scientific research in all sorts of fields/areas.
You seem to be suggesting that "a Planner" has "a plan" and then saying "well, you can't identify a plan... so you don't know if the Planner exists or not."
But this isn't valid.
Science can, and does, identify plans all the time. They just ask the Planners.
Of course, if you are proposing a Planner that cannot be asked because you cannot show that the Planner even exists in the first place... well, then the problem is with you showing your Planner to exist. Not with science having issues with identifying plans.
But the material is all we have to deal with...
I don't think that's true.
The material is all we've found so far to be able to deal with.
But I don't have a problem dealing with anything that's non-material.
Any evidence-based scientist wouldn't have a problem dealing with anything that's non-material... it just needs to be shown to exist, to be valid.
.. so all we can ever have is material answers.
Since your first statement isn't true, your conclusion isn't true either.
Non-material answers are fine.
They just need to be shown to be valid.
We can only examine the material which tells us nothing about whether or not we have an intelligent origin or a mindless one.
There's nothing limiting anyone to only examine the material.
I would love to examine something non-material. It sounds fascinating.
We can examine the material and the non-material... all it has to do is be there for us to examine.
So far, we've discovered that "the material" is the only thing there for us to examine.
And, after examining "everything that we're able to examine" we do see that the evidence leads us to a high confidence assumption that we have a mindless origin, and not an intelligent origin.
If you have anything you can show to be valid that should be taken into account or can alter this assumption... there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.
If you don't have anything you can show to be valid that can be taken into account to alter this assumption... what makes you think it's an "equal" decision between the two options?
If we can only examine material evidence then disregard philosophical or theological thought then the inevitable conclusion is a mindless origin.
We don't only examine material evidence.
We examine all evidence that's possible to be examined. This includes material and non-material and philosophical thought and theological thought.
1. No non-material evidence has ever been shown to be valid, so it cannot be included. You are free to change this, if you can show non-material evidence to be a valid indicator of the truth of reality.
2. Philosophical thought has been shown to be a very low confidence indicator of the truth of reality. It's usually wrong. Why would anyone include this if they want to identify the truth about reality? You are free to change this, if you can show philosophical thought to be a valid indicator of the truth of reality.
3. Theological thought has been shown to be a very low confidence indicator of the truth of reality. It's usually wrong. Why would anyone include this if they want to identify the truth about reality? You are free to change this, if you can show theological thought to be a valid indicator of the truth of reality.
4. The only one left to use as evidence is the material evidence we have that we can show to be valid. And, yes, this leads us to a high confidence assumption that we have a mindless origin.
What part of that would you like to change that you can show to be valid?
Science loves to be shown to be wrong. It means we're learning something new and getting closer to the truth about reality.
You seem to be saying "you only use #4! That means you're purposefully ignoring what #1, #2 and #3 have to add to the conversation! You're biased!"
But what's actually happening is that I'm using #1, #2, #3 and #4 all together... it's just that #1, #2 and #3 don't have anything to add to identifying reality (so far.) So all I'm left with is #4. And I'm totally open to to using #1 or #2 or #3 or #5 or #117 or anything else you'd like to propose... as long as you show it to be helpful in identifying the truth of reality... as long as you show it to be valid.
Why do you find that unreasonable when looking for the truth about reality?
Are you sure you actually want to identify the truth about reality? Or are you chasing something else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1475 by GDR, posted 11-30-2022 7:05 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1480 by Theodoric, posted 12-01-2022 3:34 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1481 by Phat, posted 12-01-2022 4:02 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1642 by GDR, posted 12-26-2022 4:36 PM Stile has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1480 of 3694 (903041)
12-01-2022 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1479 by Stile
12-01-2022 9:15 AM


Post of the month and the month is early
Great, great argument about evidence, reality, and the scientific method. This will be added to my fave pages of this site.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1479 by Stile, posted 12-01-2022 9:15 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1481 of 3694 (903043)
12-01-2022 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1479 by Stile
12-01-2022 9:15 AM


Why can't a Supreme Intelligence guide us towards ultimate purpose?
This looks like a good comment to dissect. How are you Stile? (BTW) We always get along even if we usually disagree. Iron sharpens iron, as they say. GDR and I differ in some ways as believers, but I think we all agree that the supernatural cannot ever leave evidence except perhaps anecdotally, and there are always alternate explanations and interpretations, given that there is never objective evidence.
Stile writes:
Theism must be a belief - because there is no evidence.
Critics will cite "appeal to popularity" and dismiss personal testimonies as worthless, which I suppose is fair game in an evidence-based discussion, although within a family, for example, brothers and sisters are not simply dismissed as incredulous simply because their individual and personal "experience" never happened to you personally. And I suppose, as my critics have suggested before, that I myself should never accept a given experience without questioning it and doubting it if no evidence exists for its validity. But I never did that.
Let's go to the Dictionary:
Oxford Languages writes:
Theism- belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
"There are many different forms of theism"
If we assume that human definition (using our minds and rationality) is the source of belief, the argument is basically one and done.
GDR and (as he himself would argue) other theists would likely say that God by definition existed eternally, long before humans even evolved to the language and thought capability of making Him/Her/It up. Your side would again point to that E word and say that without evidence all that we have is speculation.
ringo would crow on about the relativity of all "God" definitions and accuse Christian Theists of bias. We might reply that we couldn't really help it as our belief was at one point in time more of an instantaneous and ever-expanding epiphany rather than group (and cultural) indoctrination, though Tangle likely would argue that it is all nearly cultural.
To be continued....

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 (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1479 by Stile, posted 12-01-2022 9:15 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1482 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2022 4:09 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 1484 by Taq, posted 12-01-2022 4:18 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 1488 by Stile, posted 12-02-2022 9:19 AM Phat has replied
 Message 1507 by ringo, posted 12-04-2022 1:28 PM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1482 of 3694 (903044)
12-01-2022 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1481 by Phat
12-01-2022 4:02 PM


Re: Why can't a Supreme Intelligence guide us towards ultimate purpose?
Phat writes:
the supernatural cannot ever leave evidence except perhaps anecdotally
What utter crap. Instantly regrow an amputated arm on demand and we're all believers.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1481 by Phat, posted 12-01-2022 4:02 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1483 by Theodoric, posted 12-01-2022 4:11 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1483 of 3694 (903045)
12-01-2022 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1482 by Tangle
12-01-2022 4:09 PM


Re: Why can't a Supreme Intelligence guide us towards ultimate purpose?
Gee I wonder why there has never, ever been evidence of the supernatural. It is like being able to be invisible, but only when no one is looking.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1482 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2022 4:09 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1484 of 3694 (903046)
12-01-2022 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1481 by Phat
12-01-2022 4:02 PM


Re: Why can't a Supreme Intelligence guide us towards ultimate purpose?
Phat writes:
Critics will cite "appeal to popularity" and dismiss personal testimonies as worthless, which I suppose is fair game in an evidence-based discussion, although within a family, for example, brothers and sisters are not simply dismissed as incredulous simply because their individual and personal "experience" never happened to you personally.
There are quite a few categories to deal with. The first big divider would be objective vs. subjective. When we talk about evidence we are most often talking about objective evidence which can be verified by others and by measurement. Experiences, as you describe them, are subjective by their very nature, even experiences that happen to yourself.
Above the level of evidence are the things that convince you of a belief. This can be objective or subjective evidence, but in many cases it is going to be a level of evidence that is specific to yourself and inherently biased by your own psychology. As to family members, if my brothers or sisters related an insane story of being abducted by aliens I certainly wouldn't accept their stories as being 100% true at first blush. I would need more information and evidence. I would put the experience of deities in the same bucket. But that's just me.
GDR and (as he himself would argue) other theists would likely say that God by definition existed eternally, long before humans even evolved to the language and thought capability of making Him/Her/It up. Your side would again point to that E word and say that without evidence all that we have is speculation.
Bigfoot, by definition, is an upright anthropoid ape that lives in North America. Just because I can define Bigfoot does not make it real.
ringo would crow on about the relativity of all "God" definitions and accuse Christian Theists of bias. We might reply that we couldn't really help it as our belief was at one point in time more of an instantaneous and ever-expanding epiphany rather than group (and cultural) indoctrination, though Tangle likely would argue that it is all nearly cultural.
Then how would you explain the geographic distribution of believers? Why are Muslims much more likely to have grown up in a Muslim family and in a country where Islam is more common? If you grew up in a Muslim family in a predominately Muslim country would you believe Muhammad is Allah's prophet, and would you believe in the accuracy of the Koran? I would guess that you would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1481 by Phat, posted 12-01-2022 4:02 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 1485 of 3694 (903050)
12-01-2022 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1472 by Percy
11-30-2022 1:27 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes:
Now you're just playing word games with "worship". We all know what worship means in a religious context.
OK, but the point of worship as I said earlier in this thread is not for God but for me. I often lead the prayers of the people in our Anglican church as a lay person.
I usually end with this. "We pray Lord that our lives will model the life to come, when you will bring about the resurrection of all things, in a renewed world, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, and with true joy and peace for all. With the power of your Holy Spirit, may we be Christ like people, living lives of Christ like love."
Worship is for me , to increase my understanding of God, but more importantly, to hopefully nurture my heart to serve God by reflecting his love for all of creation into our world.
It is not about trying to stroke God's ego or for looking for some favour from God.
Percy writes:
You wrote this a couple weeks ago, so it should seem new as you reread it now, and it should be self-evident how this is still a non-answer. You're selecting which portions of the Bible to accept based on what you see in Jesus, but what you know about Jesus is from the Bible. That's as circular as can be. You're only fooling yourself if you think your 2 Timothy argument is analogous or relevant.
How do we learn about any historical figure? We read about him/her in a book that someone wrote. I learn bout Jesus in 4 books that happen to be in a library of 66 books.
What do you know about Plato that didn't come from a book? Is that circular?
GDR writes:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.” (Lewis)
Percy writes:
I see Christianity, too, if by that Lewis means Christians and Christian churches and Christian iconography and Christian books and so forth. There is no doubt that Christianity exists. But how is any of that evidence of the truth of Christianity?

But if "seeing Christianity" is just a synonym for believing it then he's just saying the same thing in two different ways.

And what does "By it I see everything else." What is it he is seeing that he can't see if he wasn't "seeing Christianity"? We've already established that atheists experience empathy and altruism just like Christians.
To me it means that it makes sense of my life and why I am here and it fits with what I observe and know about the world around me. I certainly don't see it as evidence, let alone proof.
Percy writes:
Why are you writing things that you know make sense to no one else? You've got your beliefs and they work for you. Why is it worth your time trying to convince others of the truth of what you believe?
Why are you, or anyone else here for that matter, trying to convince me that I'm wrong? For myself, I sometimes learn things through discussion here.
Percy writes:
Do you also understand the degree of empathy of those causing the suffering?
I shouldn't have used the term "degree of empathy" as no one knows the degree of anyone else's empathy and how would you measure it anyway.
Percy writes:
Okay, but that's you. No one would argue that you shouldn't feel that way. Why are you arguing that because you feel this way it is evidence for what you believe?
It isn't evidence of anything. Don't know why I included it except that it is the best example I could think of for personal experience. I know it's not meaningful to you or anyone else.
Percy writes:
You've said this before, and my answer is the same: Why do you keep making claims that evidence exists?
I agree that there is no evidence that you would agree is evidence. I consider conscious life evidence of an external consciousness. You don't. Simple as that.

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 1472 by Percy, posted 11-30-2022 1:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1486 by Theodoric, posted 12-01-2022 11:25 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1487 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2022 3:03 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1489 by Taq, posted 12-02-2022 11:33 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1640 by Percy, posted 12-26-2022 1:16 PM GDR 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