Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 31 of 277 (497364)
02-03-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John 10:10
02-03-2009 5:49 PM


Re: Is God a meteor?
John 10:10 writes:
First misconception: That we Christians have "blind faith in God," and require such from unbeliever before they too can believe in God. Unbelievers have repeated this mantra so long that they believe it's true.
First misconception: That we Atheists have "blind faith that god doesn't exist," we simply say there is no evidence for one. We require evidence from unbelievers before we too can believe in god. Believers have repeated the mantra that there is evidence so long that they believe it's true.
In truth, we Believers believe it requires more "faith" to believe that Creator God is not the cause for our existance, than to believe that Creator God is the cause for our existance. Once unbelievers begin to honestly consider that God is the cause for our existance, and then ask Him for the why, then the God who is reveals/discloses Himself to those who seek Him.
In truth, we Atheists know it requires more "faith" to believe that creator god is the cause for our existence, than to see no reason why to believe that creator god is the cause for our existence. Once believers begin to honestly consider that god requires evidence before we believe in his existence, instead of first "asking" him for the why, and only then the god who they say is reveals/discloses himself to those who seek him. They will never see why this is not real evidence

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John 10:10, posted 02-03-2009 5:49 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 02-04-2009 6:25 PM Huntard has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 32 of 277 (497366)
02-03-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John 10:10
02-03-2009 5:49 PM


Re: Is God a meteor?
John 10:10 writes:
bluegenes writes:
So, meteor or no meteor, you would still require blind faith to believe in a God.
In truth, we Believers believe it requires more "faith" to believe that Creator God is not the cause for our existance, than to believe that Creator God is the cause for our existance.
You may believe that, but it would require blind faith in order to do so. Tell me, did the people living around where you live now 500 years ago require faith not to believe in your God? Surely they had never heard of him. And what about the 70% of the world today who do not come from Christian cultures? They probably never bother to think about your God, and neither would you if you had grown up in a non-Christian area of the world, son of parents of another religion.
Once unbelievers begin to honestly consider that God is the cause for our existance, and then ask Him for the why, then the God who is reveals/discloses Himself to those who seek Him.
Or, in other words, the would be believer creates his own God. I've known many Christians, John, and when questioned closely, all their Gods seem to be slightly different; sometimes very different. It's just as if each one has made up his or her own imaginary friend.
That is not the effect one would expect if a real God was revealing himself to all these people.
In answer to the O.P., you seem to be one of those Christians who believes due to subjective experience, rather than due to objective evidence. Is that correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John 10:10, posted 02-03-2009 5:49 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John 10:10, posted 02-04-2009 9:42 AM bluegenes has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 33 of 277 (497367)
02-03-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Huntard
02-03-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists/Atheists Apply Within
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes:
Actually that's not true. There are only about 1 billion Christians (I'm assuming you are one, it's even less if you are a Jew, and slightly more when you are a Muslim), so that would mean that most people DON'T believe in the same god you do.
Do you have those stats handy?
John 10:10 said "There are more people in the world who believe in God like me than don't like you."
If you check Here you will find that 33% of the world's population are Christian. They believe in God. This information was as of 2005.
Islam makes up 21% of the world's population. They believe in God.
That makes 54% that believe in God even though they don't agree on what God.
But if you look in the non religious group where atheist and agnostic are listed they make up 16% of the world's population.
Are you saying Muslims don't believe in God?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 2:56 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2009 7:09 PM ICANT has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 34 of 277 (497369)
02-03-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ICANT
02-03-2009 6:44 PM


Lots of gods!
ICANT writes:
That makes 54% that believe in God even though they don't agree on what God.
Your stats are much closer than Huntard's. Certainly, the majority of the world are theists. A century ago, the proportion of the world that had no religion was negligible, and we infidels are by far the fastest growing sector. Islam has kept second place due to population explosion, but we will overtake it soon, because of growing apostasy in the Islamic world (they become us!!!).
However, you are wrong to describe the different religions as believing in "God". It should always be plural. Gods. Even within religions, there are so many different interpretations that we should refer to the Christian gods and Muslim gods, always in the plural.
It's a mistake to think that people are actually believing in the same thing. Rather, lots of different gods have been invented. Perhaps there are as many gods as there are theists, because none of you are actually believing in something with an objective existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2009 6:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2009 7:51 PM bluegenes has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 35 of 277 (497371)
02-03-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by bluegenes
02-03-2009 7:09 PM


Re: Lots of gods!
Hi bluegenes,
bluegenes writes:
It's a mistake to think that people are actually believing in the same thing. Rather, lots of different gods have been invented. Perhaps there are as many gods as there are theists, because none of you are actually believing in something with an objective existence.
I am a pastor and I know for a fact they don't believe in the same God.
Yes man has invented his own Gods.
Remember what the serpent told the woman in the garden, "you will become as gods".
Now if Huntard had said the specific God that John 10:10 and I talk about I would have agreed with him 100%.
I do believe there are more atheist in the world than there are born again children of God, and our number is shrinking everyday.
Out of all those who claim to be serving the Lord I would be suprised and elated if 4% were truly born again.
False religion is worse than no religion at all.
I have spent most of my life studying and looking for the truth.
I can not afford to be wrong. My eternal destiny depends upon me being right.
Almost 60 years ago I put my eternal destiny in God's hands. I knew there was nothing I could do to preserve it and my only choice was to let God take care of it.
I can not find the words to explain how God works. But I know the Holy Spirit came into my life that night and sealed my spirit until the day of redemption.
I have questioned God many times as to why something happened.
But I have never question Him concerning my eternal destiny. He said He would give me eternal life if I would trust Him, and He did.
Not only that He gave me all the faith I ever needed and He has added to that faith over the years.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2009 7:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2009 8:53 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 43 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 1:50 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 36 of 277 (497372)
02-03-2009 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by petrophysics1
02-03-2009 2:22 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists/Atheists Apply Within
Straggler writes:
The whole differentiation between objective empirical evidence and purely subjective evidence is the ability to independently verify one form but not the other.
If you are claiming to have "seen" meteors which nobody else saw and for which there is no other objective empirical evidence in favour of then I would class this as subjective "evidence".
Your meteor and your God are thus equally unevidenced in any objective terms.
Really?
Yes. The size of meteor that you are talking about would both have been very obviously trackable and would aso have left some objective evidence behind if it had indeed landed.
So either a massive meteor popped into existence to be witnessed by you and you alone before popping back out of existence again OR you did not actually see what you think you saw.
Maybe you saw something that night. Maybe you imagined it completely. I don't know. But it seems deeply unlikely that whatever it was that you think you saw was in fact a huge meteor.
In October of 1917 around 70,000 people witnessed "something" happen to the sun in Fatima, Portugal. They attributed it to a miracle by the Virgin Mary, but that is not the point. Did something happen or not? It was witnessed by 70,000.
Well it is arguably more likely that a single individual is deluded than a group of 70,000 people. But experiences are inherently not objective no matter how many people we are talking about. Throw in some group psychology, mass hysteria, confirmation bias etc. etc. etc. and you end up with something that has very definitely not been independently verified.
The Sun is a fairly significant object in our solar system and has a rather profound effect on our planet. If something happens to it we tend to notice. If something happens to the Sun itself it will be noticed by more than 70,000 people in Portugal!!
Maybe they saw "something". Maybe they did not. Given the large number of people it seems relatively likely that "something" occurred but it also seems sensible to conclude that this was relatively localised rather than "something" that actually happened to the Sun itself. But no matter how many people we are talking about in the absence of objective empirical evidence to back up this claim there is little reason to assume that a religious miracle has occurred.
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.
Have you ever seen a very large meteor?
No. Well actually in museums I have seen some fairly large fragments. I have seen a couple of very large craters though.
How do you know they exist?
Craters, fragments, photos and the fact that all of this evidence is potentially available for all to examine and study independently.
Did you read some book, which you believe, which told you so?
I have read books that discuss meteors. But a book that told me about meteors but which also said that the only source of evidence for meteors which anyone could now have was the book itself would be very unconvincing evidence for the existence of meteors in objective terms.
Most books about meteors discuss at great length the independently verifiable empirical evidence available for specific meteors.
Other than me, have you ever met anyone who has seen a very large meteor enter the atmosphere? (I'm not talking shooting stars here.)
I haven't strictly met you and I don't think that what you saw was a massive meteor anyway. But the answer to your question is no.
P.S. You seem to be saying that if one person experiences something it is subjective. So do two subjective expierences equal one objective experience? Or what number is required? Or does it depend on what YOU believe?
Numbers have less to do with it than the nature of the evidence itself. The nature of reality is not derived from a democratic vote!! The key to objective evidence is that it is independently and objectively verifiable.
Consider the colour red. I have no idea how you perceive the colour red. This is internal and subjective to you. Likewise you can never know what I perecive when I see the colour red.
But regardless of subjective perception "red" is an external property that we can objectively define and independently verify.
Imagine an experiment. You are locked alone in a windowless room and asked to identify all of the objects on a table that are red. Your answers are recorded. Now you leave the room, I enter and I repeat this exercise. The exercise is again repeated by Percy. But Percy is blindfolded. Percy is our control. The three sets of results are compared. It turns out that we both independently labelled the same objects as red whilst blindfolded Percy labelled a few objects as we did but many others differently. Thus we can conclude that we are both consistently and objectively using the term 'red' to describe light of a certain wavelength.
No matter that our indvidual perception of the colour red is subjective we can confidently declare that 'red' is an objective and independently verifiable property that can be consistently identified by the two of us.
The evidence for meteors, like the definition of the colour red, can be objectively and independently verified.
The "evidence" for your meteor experience, the Portuguese miracle or God himself cannot. Such things are akin to the individual and unknowable subjective perception of the colour red without the ability to independently verify what is actually meant in terms of an external reality.
God is a subjective conclusion.
Meteors (those other than your "personal" meteor anyway) are an objective conclusion.
That is the difference.
There are more people in the world who believe in God like me than don't like you. Does that prove you are out on the lunatic fringe?
I may or may not be on the lunatic fringe but the nature of reality will not be determined by a majority vote in either case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by petrophysics1, posted 02-03-2009 2:22 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 37 of 277 (497374)
02-03-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
02-03-2009 7:51 PM


Re: Lots of gods!
ICANT writes:
I am a pastor and I know for a fact they don't believe in the same God.
Yes man has invented his own Gods.
I'm glad we agree on something.
False religion is worse than no religion at all.
Perhaps the nature of religion is falseness, and "Faith" really means "self-deception", (but you won't agree with that, of course).
However, I'm not really on topic. It seems that you're in the school of belief that doesn't expect evidence for your God outside your own internal experiences with him. For example, you wouldn't have to believe that prophecies were coming true, as Buzsaw does, in order to reaffirm your faith.
Do you think that Christians who look for such things, perhaps things like seeing the shape of Jesus in a stain on the wall type of thing, are perhaps lacking in true faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2009 7:51 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 02-04-2009 2:37 PM bluegenes has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 277 (497375)
02-03-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
02-03-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists/Atheists Apply Within
You have assumed I have only existed for this lifetime, and have as poor a memory as you.
I understand your experience tells you that, but mine does not.
Ever meet someone who has more experience than you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 02-03-2009 3:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 02-04-2009 12:16 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 277 (497380)
02-03-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-01-2009 7:15 PM


Responses To OP Questions
Straggler writes:
QUESTIONS
1) Which came first for you personally (honestly) - Belief in God/Jesus/Bible or knowledge of the empirical evidence that you consider to support this position?
2) Are your beliefs the result of rational and objective conclusions based on physical evidence which have been confirmed by your relationship with God OR are your beliefs based on your relationship with God which you deem to have been confirmed by the objective physical evidence available? Which way round is it?
3) Could you maintain your faith in the absence of any objective empirical evidence that supports this position? (I.e. how faithful are you?)
4) If the objective empirical evidence which you deem to support your beliefs were present but the relationship with God side of your faith was absent would you still believe as you do? (I.e. is the empirical evidence alone enough to maintain your position?)
5) Is empirical evidence or subjective knowledge of God's presence the root basis of your beliefs?
END QUESTIONS
Good job on the OP, Straggler. These questions are well thought out and well articulated with the exception that Imo, you're over emphasizing the empirical thing. Since there's a whole lot of science stuff that's not regarded as empirical, aren't you requiring a higher standard here on us to whom the questions are directed?
Definition: Empirical Evidence:
The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation. This type of evidence is necessary for a theory to be confirmed.
(Embolding mine for emphasis)
1. Since my birth in 1935, no one in my family darkened a church door until I was around 9 or 10 years old, about 1945. When we moved to town the neighbors got permission to take 3 of us older kids to the local Baptist Sunday school & church. This hadn't gone on long before an evangelist/prophecy teacher, Clay Cooper from the West coast somewhere came in and did evangelistic services, integrating Biblical prophecy into the messages. About that time, after the war, the the Jewish people were on the move from Europe and things were progressing in Palestine for the emergence of the Jewish state which was to become Israel in 1948.
As for my conversion, those prophecy messages preached inspiringly, citing the prophecies of Israel relative to the news and other prophetic messages during this week of evening services were what motivated me to be one of the people in the meetings to go forward and kneel at the front pew to ask Jesus to save my soul. Eventually all 8 members of the family became Christians. Our parents have gone on to be with the Lord and all five of my brothers and sisters remain devout evangelical Christians.
The oldest daughter of the neighbor folks who took us to church was beside me at the front pew praying. I was dry eyed and to me it was somewhat like a matter of fact offer from God which I was receiving with little emotion. However the neighbor girl beside me showed emotion and cried some.
A week or so after my conversion some doubts came into my thinking as I thought about my conversion in that I had not experienced any emotional high, so to speak, as the girl beside me had. However as I was reading a little salvation tract of scriptures it became clear to me that this doubt was of Satan. The little tract had the verses of 1st John 5:11, 12, and 13 in it. I believe it was providential that that track was there for me. It said these reassuring words: (perhaps not exact quote but close-it became one of my memory verses) " This is the record, that God has given us eternal life and this life is in his son. He that has the son, has life; and he that has not the son of God has not life. These things have I written to you that believe on his name that you may know that you have eternal life." There was another verse in the tract which was John 1:12. "As many as have received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God."
It was the prophecy evidence coupled with inspirational preaching of the corresponding Biblical prophecies and the sin/salvation message of the gospel of Jesus the savior which motivated me to a conversion experience at a young age.
I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit brings conviction to the conscience of sinful mankind and draws the seeking soul to a salvation experience in which the multipresent Holy Spirit actually becomes integral to the mind/brain area within the body of the person. I believe that that night, the Holy Spirit effected a conversion and I began to grow into maturity as a new babe in Christ Jesus born spiritually into a child of God.
I've answered your #1 question in depth because for me, though it was not an emotional moment experience, but the most significant turning point in my life.
As to whether I was motivated by faith or evidence, it was definitely both; perhaps 50/50. This man, Clay Cooper was not only an inspiring speaker, but well versed in scripture, history, and current events. His nightly messages were put forth in a manner that even a 10 year old inquisitive and impressionable child sat on the edge of the seat, so to speak, so as not to miss the good news.
2. I believe this was covered in my #1 answer.
3. For me I may have responded to gospel message on the basis of guilt/conscience sin problem. Back in those days the great majority of Americans were theists and had an ingrained idea that God existed as well as a belief in Heaven and Hell. Thus, there was an underlying conscious conviction of the sin problem. When explained fully and accurately, the gospel message of the NT makes good sense to a lot of folks.
Having said that, I believe that for me, the possibility of becoming an apostate would have been far greater, were it not for the reasonable evidence, some which I would categorize as empirical and some which may not be regarded as such.
4. This question took a bit more thought for a forthright response. I believe it was the apostle Peter in Ist Peter 2:2
who said "As new babes in Christ, desire the sincere milk of the word, that you may grow thereby...." (not sure if exact)
The closer one draws to God, i.e. reads scripture, prays, attends classes, fellowship, etc, the more I am convinced that God draws to us and the more he reveals himself to us. That is definitely my experience. There have been such phenomenal experiential incidents in my life that I am absolutely convinced of this.
I found that early in my Christian life I needed support from mentors, pastors and teachers coupled with prayer; Otherwise the evidence would have become less meaningless to the Christian life and more of a phenomena that was overshadowed by the pleasures, duties and experiences of the secular as aspects of life. Without the daily reading of the scriptures including things like the wisdom of King Solomon's Proverbs and the prophetical books along with the social and moral good and sensible aspects of the scriptures, the evidence alone would not be nearly as significant.
For one thing the evidence is not understood without corroborating the prophets and itemizing the significant ones so as to ingrain them into the mind. Eschatology is not for novices. Imo many of the notable prophecy preachers are full of beans on some of the issues. Too many of them tend to regurgitate stuff from books of their contemporaries rather than doing the scripture intensive study and corroborating the prophets in order to get the full picture. In short, few care about or are aware of the evidences. Some are vaguely aware, but the cares of the world take priority.
In summary to the above on #4, without the faith/inspiration/gospel aspects of the Christian life, perhaps I would not have researched and apprised myself enough on the evidences to keep me in the faith
Sadly, relative few of the patrons of America's churches are apprised of archaeological evidences such as the significant Exodus research that has been done. Few professing Christians prioritize their Christianity. For most, church is either not relevant or it's a one hour a week social event and the Bible is opened once or twice a week or never.
#5. 50/50
Edited by Buzsaw, : Delete sentence. Add title

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-01-2009 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2009 8:17 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 40 of 277 (497383)
02-04-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by petrophysics1
02-03-2009 9:01 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists/Atheists Apply Within
quote:
You have assumed I have only existed for this lifetime, and have as poor a memory as you.
I'm assuming you are telling a rational narrative of your experiences. I grant you, it's a shaky assumption in this thread, but a certain level of rationality is a prerequisite to communication.
Your description of your experience is that you were raised to believe in god until 13 or 14, when you decided there wasn't a god. Then, more than 20 years later, you changed your mind.
In response to a couple of questions of mine, your rather cryptic answers suggest that you believe had experience outside this universe and have memories outside this lifetime. These are tentative conclusions I've come to from your cryptic responses and may well be in error.
Assuming that my conclusions are accurate, your narrative suggests that for a couple of decades when you didn't believe in god, you didn't have memories of your other lifetime. Curiouser and curiouser.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by petrophysics1, posted 02-03-2009 9:01 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 41 of 277 (497384)
02-04-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-01-2009 7:15 PM


1) everyone has a unique belief system, which may or may not need the so-called 'empirical evidence' ( what's that anyway? ).
2) God may give everyone (Gospel's influence ) a chance to believe in Him. God may do this in accordance to one's unique belief system.
The so-called rationalization developed on a 'more empirical = more rational' is not a good measure of faith.
Moreover, 'empirical evidence' in the far end = an evaluation of probability using your brain. And in the far end, this evaluation is somehow faith-based ( to your surprise? ). It's because scientifically speaking, probability never guarrantees outcomes, you need faith no-matter which side of the coin you are going to pick, even when probability calculated (scientifically ) is in favor of one side.
Now how scientific will be our brain in calculation such a probability? That is, any calculation can be classified as 'scientifically' calculated? If it's not a scientific calculation, what is it then? (faith?)
Another point is, can you stand in the middle of fence without picking an answer? You think you can, but from my speculation, YOU CAN'T!
Actually, the ultimate question is ( you must not miss it ),
Will life go on after physical death?
You can't leave planet earth without the above question answered, either consciously or sub-counsciously.
Now the point is, do you realize that you run out of options but to answer that question?
All Christians/Theist will have that question answered consciously and clearly. How about others, such as atheists?
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-01-2009 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2009 9:06 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 42 of 277 (497387)
02-04-2009 1:05 AM


To go abit further and deeper, it will touch the purpose of planet earth, and the topic of Tree of Life which God has hidden long from you.
Here you go: ( Think please )
Tree of Life:
Do you know where will you go after your physical death?
Answer 1: We have a soul

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 277 (497392)
02-04-2009 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
02-03-2009 7:51 PM


Re: Lots of gods!
Seems I was wrongly informed, thanks for pointing it out. Still, John 10:10 being a Christian, that leaves 66% of the people who don't believe in his god. I don't know if John is a born again, but if he is, and your 4% stat is true, that would mean 96% percent of the world doesn't believe on god like he does. Seems there are still more people that don't believe in god like he does than there are that do, whichever way you cut it.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2009 7:51 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 44 of 277 (497460)
02-04-2009 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
02-03-2009 10:46 PM


Re: Responses To OP Questions
Hey Buz
Good job on the OP, Straggler. These questions are well thought out and well articulated.........
Cheers.
........with the exception that Imo, you're over emphasizing the empirical thing.
I should've know that there would be a "but".
The idea of empirical evidence as opposed to internal "evidence" is absolutely key to the direction that this discussion is likely to take.
Since there's a whole lot of science stuff that's not regarded as empirical, aren't you requiring a higher standard here on us to whom the questions are directed?
I don't think so.
I am completely unaware of any established scientific theories that are not grounded in empirical evidence. Evidence that is empirical and objective in the sense that it physically exists in a reality common to all.
The fringes of modern physics contain some unverified hypotheses but these will not be accepted by the scientific community as having been evidenced until they have been verified by the observation of predicted empirical results.
Buz writes:
Definition: Empirical Evidence:
The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation. This type of evidence is necessary for a theory to be confirmed.
I am not really one for basing arguments on dictionary definitions. Scientific evidence is indisputably empirical in nature by any common definition of the term. Scientific evidence is also objective and independently verifiable as descibed here:
Straggler In a previous post in this thread writes:
Consider the colour red. I have no idea how you perceive the colour red. This is internal and subjective to you. Likewise you can never know what I perecive when I see the colour red.
But regardless of subjective perception "red" is an external property that we can objectively define and independently verify.
Imagine an experiment. You are locked alone in a windowless room and asked to identify all of the objects on a table that are red. Your answers are recorded. Now you leave the room, I enter and I repeat this exercise. The exercise is again repeated by Percy. But Percy is blindfolded. Percy is our control. The three sets of results are compared. It turns out that we both independently labelled the same objects as red whilst blindfolded Percy labelled a few objects as we did but many others differently. Thus we can conclude that we are both consistently and objectively using the term 'red' to describe light of a certain wavelength.
No matter that our indvidual perception of the colour red is subjective we can confidently declare that 'red' is an objective and independently verifiable property that can be consistently identified by the two of us.
Empirical scientific evidence, like the definition of the colour red, can be objectively and independently verified. It is linked to an external property of an objective reality common to all.
Subjective "evidence" such as feeling God's presence cannot be objectively and independently verified. It is purely internal and thus subjective. Such things are akin to our individual and unknowable subjective perception of the colour red BUT without the ability to independently verify what is actually meant in terms of an external reality.
That is the fundamental difference in the nature of empirical evidence and non-empirical "evidence" as far as I am concerned.
In summary to the above on #4, without the faith/inspiration/gospel aspects of the Christian life, perhaps I would not have researched and apprised myself enough on the evidences to keep me in the faith
I enjoyed your description of you finding faith. It is well written, honest and obviously heartfelt.
I would summarise your position in terms of the OP questions as the followng:
Physical evidence (biblical predictions coming true in your eyes) first drew you towards God.
Then you formed a relationship with God.
Having formed a relationship with God you were then able to view further empirical evidence in light of this thus confirming your existing belief further.
You now consider your inner "knowledge" of God and the empirical evidence that you consider to support this belief all but inseperable.
Is that fair?
In order to determine whether empirical or non-empirical evidence is now more important in your eyes I would ask a further question:
IF it could be conclusively demonstrated by empirical means that the flood never happened, the Noah's ark never existed, that the BB took place, that abiogenesis is a common natural occurrance in the universe, that evolution of new species is happening continually and that none of the remaining biblical prophecies were likely to come true would you still believe in God as you do now?
Or does your inner "knowledge" of God not even allow you to contemplate such a scenario?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2009 10:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2009 11:17 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2009 11:42 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 277 (497467)
02-04-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hawkins
02-04-2009 12:56 AM


Carrot Cake Challenge
1) everyone has a unique belief system, which may or may not need the so-called 'empirical evidence' ( what's that anyway? ).
Well some beliefs are more grounded and less prone to being the product of delusion than others.
'empirical evidence' ( what's that anyway? ).
Empirical scientific evidence can be objectively and independently verified. It is linked to an external property of an objective reality common to all. E.g. we can both agree that an object is red in colour, we can both independently measure the wavelength of light that relates to that which we label red.
Despite this I have no idea how you are actually perceiving the colour red internally and subjectively. All we can claim is that we are both consistently labelling an external property of an objective shared reality.
Subjective "evidence" such as feeling God's presence cannot be objectively and independently verified. It is purely internal and thus subjective. Such things are akin to our individual and unknowable subjective perception of the colour red BUT without the ability to independently verify what is actually meant in terms of an external reality.
That is the fundamental difference in the nature of empirical evidence and non-empirical "evidence" as far as I am concerned.
2) God may give everyone (Gospel's influence ) a chance to believe in Him. God may do this in accordance to one's unique belief system.
This is an irrational subjective belief only. It is highly open to delusion as there is no empirical test that can be done or aspect of objective common relaity that can be agreed upon.
The so-called rationalization developed on a 'more empirical = more rational' is not a good measure of faith.
I like apple pie. I don't like carrot cake. Subjectively speaking I know that apple pie is better than carrot cake. Subjectively speaking this is a truth that you cannot deny.
My subjective "knowledge" tells us nothing about the relative merits of apple pie and carrot cake in any objective sense. My preference is purely subjective and essentially irrational. I just prefer one to the other. End of story.
I assume that you subjectively know that God exists.
But your subjective knowledge tells us no more about the existence of God in any objective common shared reality than does my preference for apple pie. A subjective knowledge of God is thus irrational in the sense that it exists no-where but inside your own head and just is with no further basis or rationale available.
Moreover, 'empirical evidence' in the far end = an evaluation of probability using your brain. And in the far end, this evaluation is somehow faith-based ( to your surprise? ). It's because scientifically speaking, probability never guarrantees outcomes, you need faith no-matter which side of the coin you are going to pick, even when probability calculated (scientifically ) is in favor of one side.
Science is about testing conclusions. By testing conclusions we can hone in on the most reliable conclusion possible. You use this form of thinking every single day without even noticing. Science just takes it to the extreme end of scepticism and verification.
For example if your car won't start what might you think? Flat battery? Try the headlights. They still work perfectly. So not a flat battery then. What else? Ignition? How can we test the ignition.......? Etc. etc. etc.
Hypothesis and testing to reach reliable tested verified conclusions. But only empirical conclusions and results can be rendered reliable in this way because non-empirical conclusions cannot be objectively tested.
Faith based "methodology" is more akin to deciding it must be the battery because you somehow irrationally know this to be the case, purchasing and replacing the battery and then not actually starting the car as you know it will now work anyway.
Tested conclusions. That is the key. Nobody in their right mind is randomly drawing conclusions by guessing probabilities as you seem to be asserting!!
Now how scientific will be our brain in calculation such a probability? That is, any calculation can be classified as 'scientifically' calculated? If it's not a scientific calculation, what is it then? (faith?)
Form your hypothesis (educated guess if you will). Devise the most objective and difficult test of your hypothesis that you can conceive of. Test your hypothesis. If it fails the test reject it and start over.
No faith involved.
I guess from your misconceived notion that scientific theories are simply plucked fully formed out of people's arses that you have never actually undertaken any scientific investigation yourself?
Another point is, can you stand in the middle of fence without picking an answer? You think you can, but from my speculation, YOU CAN'T!
I am sure that you subjectively believe this to be an excellent and argument clinching point. Unfortunately I have no idea what you are talking about.
Actually, the ultimate question is ( you must not miss it ),
Will life go on after physical death?
Well there is absolutely no rational, empirical, objective evidence based reason to think that it will.
But if you want to discuss this specifically you should start a new thread as it is not particularly on topic here.
You can't leave planet earth without the above question answered, either consciously or sub-counsciously.
Now the point is, do you realize that you run out of options but to answer that question?
All Christians/Theist will have that question answered consciously and clearly. How about others, such as atheists?
An ability to provide unevidenced irrational answers and to claim certainty where only ignorance can seriously exist is neither particularly noble nor impressive.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hawkins, posted 02-04-2009 12:56 AM Hawkins 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