Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

Not correct! I believe in both.It's just that you accept neither objective nor subjective evidence that there is a God.You do not accept the objective evidence because you do not want there to be God who has created a universe and life therein that is infinitely more complex than anything man has been able to design. Instead, you rely on "blind faith" that the universe and life therein has come to be without Creator God.You do not accept the subjective evidence because God does not reveal/manifest Himself to those who are unwilling to believe in Him whom God has sent (John 6:28-29).

Yes we know.But which came first?Did the empirical evidence cause you to subjectively seek God?Or did your subjective "knowledge" of God allow you to see the empirical evidence for what it "really" is.Which way round is it?Can one who does not want a relationship with God but who is quite prepared to consider his existence in objective terms be convinced by the empirical evidence alone?That is the question that we are trying to answer here.

It doesn't work that way.You say you are quite prepared to consider God's existance, but have no desire to enter into a relationship with Him. It does no good to simply believe in God's existance, or even try to prove to you that God exists through the things (matter and life) He has created, if it has no other meaning than for you to say, "OK, I believe God is the answer to our "what" existance."If you are not interested in the "why," why even bother considering God's existance, and why should we even bother trying to explain anything to you from the perspective of our relationship with God?

This is so typical with mainline science. When the standard definition of science terms fall short of supporting mainline science positions, no problem; retrofit the definition to support your science view, i.e. the mainline scientific interpretation of observations.Your terminology relative to "empirical evidence" is telling; "the idea of empirical evidence ........is key...." Problem: Our side's idea of empirical evidence must comply with yours and not with the standard scientific definition of the term to qualify as hypothesis or theory. It has been repeatedly claimed that there is no ongoing ID creationist science on this board by our counterparts.

---

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

How did I know you were going to say that? So according to you the empirical evidence inevitably and obviously leads to the conclusion that God exists.BUTWe can only see that this evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists if we view the evidence through the lense of complete faith in God's existence.Is that what you are saying? I want to know if God actually exists.
Even if he does exist I am not interested in having a personal relationship with him.
I simply want to establish whether God exists or not.Why does that vex you so much? Why do you consider that stance so unreasonable?

Well we could argue over dictionary definitions all day long.The key to productive debate is communication and understanding. For this reason I gave a fairly detailed example of the conceptual distinctions I am talking about in my colour red example. I have conceptually described what I mean by empirical, objective and independently verifiable evidence that exists in a reality common to all. It is the concepts not the words that are important.As far as I am aware all scientific theories are based on such evidence. Whatever words we use to describe that form of evidence the concepts remain the same. Some forms of evidence are just inherently more reliable whatever label is used.Whether we agree on the words used surely we are capable of grasping the concepts and thus differentiating between "evidence" of the "God has revealed himself to me personally" type and evidence of the "there is a meteor crater in the ground" type.No? It is not a question of "who is the most empirical" according to one dictionary or another. It is a question of reliable evidence and reliable conclusions. It is a question of concepts.The example I gave relating to the colour red shows why some forms of knowledge can be rendered reliable in ways that others cannot. If you disagree conceptually then feel free to make that case. But don't avoid the concepts by hiding behind definitions.Use whatever words you will. The concepts remain the same.So when you consider creationist evidence I would ask that instead of asking yourself "Does this meet the dictionary definition of the term Empirical" instead ask yourself "Is this evidence reliable in terms of it's ability to be independently verified and judged objectively".If the answer to the first question is 'Yes' but the second is 'No' then you can call it "empirical" evidence if you like. I don't care. Whatever label you use it will still be inferior to the evidence upon which all truly scientific theories are based.Concepts Buz. Concepts not definitions are what is important.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Doesn't vex me at all. You're the one who seems to be vexed by me telling you that God does not show Himself to those who are not willing to consider the "why" of our existance.

From wiki

quote:

---

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views about how we know "things," part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or "theory of knowledge". Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas...

​

In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

---

Although Revelation might be considered experiential and thus empirical, in the context of the philosophy of science revelation doesn't cut the mustard. It is quite a long article discussing the various modes of empiricism and the different senses (heh) that it is used in.Rationalism, in simple terms is (again wiki), "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". Science is a subtle blend of empiricism and rationalism.For example, it is a known fact that our perceptions can be erroneous. Optical illusions confirm this for anybody wanting empirical evidence for it. If we sense something we are first faced with the problem - how do I know if that is a sensation that has come from the external to the internal or if it is a sensation purely occurring as a result of internal factors.Take This famous illusion, if we just relied on simple, or naive empiricism we would conclude that since we had experienced the 'snakes' moving, they were in fact moving. Indeed - if we explored things a little more deeply we might even conclude that the 'snakes' 'knew' when we were looking at them because when we stare directly at one it stops moving.Other evidence we could accrue would suggest that this is simply a 'bug' in our visual perception ability.Which empirical observation do we accept as true? This is where rationalism might come into play. We might decide to apply parsimony for example: the explanation that requires the fewest extra entities is the visual 'bug' explanation. We don't need to posit self aware and perceptive pixels on a monitor screen which would just add more layers of complication as we tried to explain how they could do that.We could test the hypothesis by constructing our own illusions that work on a similar 'bug', to see if we still perceive motion. Or maybe we can cover up most of the picture we do have and see if the motion perception is still present. This would be a sort of verification. How would we verify the conscious snake/pixel hypothesis? Until we've answered all those complicated questions I'm not sure we can - it might even be entirely unfalsifiable if it is constructed in a certain way.Its not about retrofitting anything - the philosophy of science has been discussing these concepts for over a hundred years. Feel free to browse wiki which gives a nice overview of the history of empiricism/rationalism/British empiricism/naive realism/logical positivism/analytical philosophy and of course the philosophy of science to verify what I am telling you.

From your silence on this issue it would seem that Percy had it spot on.You do indeed advocate two completely contradictory points of view. You "reconcile" this contradiction by simply refusing to consider or acknowledge it even exists.Bizzarre.

Hi bluegenes, Why would I disagree?I saw a man that had faith in his ability to paddle a canoe over Niagara Falls and survive. The canoe did but he didn't.People exercise faith all the time.When you sit down in a chair that you have never sit in before you exercise faith that it will hold you up.This faith comes from your observation of the chair and the thought process of your mind to determine it will hold you up.If you have a doubt that it will hold you up, you test the chair to see if it is sturdy and then put your hands on the seat and put weight on the seat to see if it will support you.But that is not the kind of faith I am talking about that God gives to a person when they are born again. That faith has nothing to do with my ability to make decisions as it is a God given assurance the He is in control. Anybody that needs or demands a sign of any kind does not have the faith that God deals to everyone who is born again.

---

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

Such evidence would have to exist before I can accept or reject it. You seem to think that it's a question of desire. Complexity is objective evidence for complexity, not for anything else. It does not require faith to have no faith in any Gods (by definition). Do you and I require faith not to believe in Scientology? No. But the scientologists certainly require faith to believe in their mumbo-jumbo. So it is a matter of desire in your mind. You are willing to believe, so you receive the "subjective evidence" for your beliefs. The scientologists are willing to believe in scientology, so they receive the "subjective evidence" for their beliefs.Now we're beginning to understand how it all works, and why there are so many different religions and gods in the world.

You reject the evidence that God gives in His creation story, placing your "faith" in a non-creation happening.Then you wonder why God is silent to you, and is not silent to those enter into a relationship with our Creator God?Bizzarre indeed.

Now that's an interesting statement, ICANT. I think that Straggler might be very interested in discussing that with you, as it relates very well to the topic.It could be argued, then, that apologetics missions like Answers in Genesis are very misguided from a Christian point of view.

Hi Rahvin, First I don't claim to be a Christian.But I told you a long time ago you had never met anyone like me and probably never would again. No reason at all if you will not accept the evidence that has been laid out.You have the recorded witness of people who saw God in the flesh.Everybody says no they lied. The Bible is a lie. Those people never saw anything they were deluded.Some 60 million people died during the dark ages so I could have an opportunity to read the truth from God's Word. But as far as you are concerned they gave their life in vain.I never met Darwin and if I did not want to believe in him you could not produce any evidence to convince me that he did exist. My reasoning would be: Because he was just a made up myth and a lie that is told to keep people from believing the truth. Assuming that God existed would do you no good.Didn't you say at one time you believed in God?Rahvin why do you fight so hard against something you say does not exist?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."

Tell that the Swiss watch maker, or to the designers who designed spacecrafts who took men to the moon and back, or to Salk who discovered how to cure polio. I'm sure all these things would have just evolved all by themselves if given enough time, adaptation, and mutation. The first definition of faith is this: "confidence or trust in a person or thing." Therefore, you must have great faith that there is no God. You say, "Show me the evidence, then I will believe." Yet you reject the evidence God gives in His creation story and life therein. I receive the "subjective evidence" that God says He gives to those who dilligently seek Him (Jer 29:13-14, Heb 11:66), no more and certainly no less.Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given.