Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

I have both read and understood your answer. I conclude that you are unable to recognise the evident contradiction in your argument.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.Apparently you missed this contradiction or cannot read and understand this contradiction.I assume that it is the latter.For this I can offer no help to your confused thinking.

Sigh. More definitions............Give it a rest Buz. Argumentum dctionarium infinitum is just tedious and pointless. No. As per my previous example:You don't need dictionary definitions to know that we can independently verify 'redness'.You don't need dictionary definitions to realise that despite this consistent labelling we cannot know what the other actually perceives red to be like.One is external objective and independently verifiable property of a common reality. The other is internal, subjective and unable to be independently confirmed in any way.These differences remain no matter which words you use to describe them.This discussion should be about the nature of evidence and the reliability of different types of evidence.This discussion should not be about trying to find a scientific sounding term that includes or discludes that which supports your position (and I apply this equally to both the scientific and the theistic sides of the debate) Do you really think that personal subjective individual experiences are identical as forms of evidence to that which can be seen, touched and measured by all? Even if we call them "empirical"?In what way are the two different and what terms would you use to define these differences?Call your experiences "empirical" if you will. It matters not.
Define "concept" as you have. It matters not.
You are just masking the weakness of your ideas and position through dictionary dodging.Such tactics are beneath you.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling mistakes made in despairing frustrationEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Here you are kind of missing the point of my question.I already know that you consider your personal experiences and the physical evidence available to support you view rather than mine. That goes without saying.The question I am asking relates to the balance of external evidence (as you obviously do not like my use of the term 'empirical' in this context) as opposed to internal "evidence".Do you require that fossils, archaology etc. (all forms of external objective physical evidence that can be experienced by all) support your view in order to maintain your belief in God?Or would your inner, subjective and uniquely personal experience of God's existence be enough to maintain your beliefs even IF all of the physical evidence were to contradict the biblical record?That is the question.NOTE: In this discussion it is not my intention to examine specific interpretations of evidences. I am not trying to trick you into suggesting that your particular interpretation of specific evidence is wrong. I am merely trying to establish whether or not 'external'/physical evidence is critical or supplementary to maintaining your belief in God. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever ascribing the bible with historical accuracy regarding events which can be genuinely and objectively corroborated by archaeological, geological or other physical evidence.That means where the conclusions derived from the physical evidence and the conclusions derived from the biblical record are independently in agreement the two should be considered to corroborate each other.However it does not mean interpreting archaeological evidence in ways that can be deemed consistent with the bible only if biblical knowledge is applied to the evidence in the first place.That would be the subjective interpretation of evidence and much much much less convincing as a result.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.

Well I wrote the OP and proposed the topic and I say yes it is. This sentance makes little sense. But this thread is about analysing the faith of Christians in order to determine whether 'external'/physical evidence or internal/subjective "evidence" provides the basis for such beliefs. Your interpretation of this has lead you to claim that the empirical evidence inevitably and obviously leads to the conclusion that God exists.ANDThat we 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. If by "simple and difficult" you actually mean "contradictory and circular" - Then Yes.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you willing to differentiate between external objective evidence and internal subjective "evidence"?Do you actually acknowledge that there are inherent differences between these two forms of evidence?If so what would you say that the differences are? Is one form of evidence more objective or reliable than the other? Why don't you try actually answering the questions in the OP? The answer "yes both" fails to answer most of the questions posed. Well actually ICANT and Iano (as well as most other theistic contributors to this thread) have stated that internal evidence alone is enough and that external evidence is relatively unimportant to maintaining their beliefs.John is just confused and talking in circular contradictions interspersed with scriptural quotations as usual.Buz seems to put much more emphasis on external physical evidence than the other theists but the point of the question put to him was to ascertain the extent of this emphasis more explicitly. Is external evidence crucial to maintaining his beliefs or merely supplementary to internal evidence?Your position has yet to be ascertained as I am not even clear whether you are capable of differentiating between the two forms of evidence under consideration in terms of their inherent nature. Hence my questions to you at the beginning of this post. At this stage I want to know if individual theists think that external physical evidence is crucial to maintaining belief in God or merely supplementary to the internal and subjective "evidence" that they have for God's existence.Anything else will follow from that............. Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.

For the most rational theists this seems to be the case.Bizzarrely it seems to be the less rational theists who insist that their faith has the most rational foundation.I am sure that there is potential riddle in there somewhere........

We seem to have established 4 categories of believer in terms of the differing forms of evidence and the role each plays in the basis for belief in God.These are:1) Category 1 Believer: Internal evidence is the essential basis of a belief in God.2) Category 2 Believer: External/physical evidence is the essential basis of a belief in God.3) Category 3 Believer: Elements of both internal evidence and external evidence are essential components in forming the basis of a belief in God but neither one nor the other is sufficient in itself.4) Category 4 Believer: Neither internal nor external evidence is required. Such a believer does not know why they believe in God. They just do.Most theists who have replied have declared themselves to be category 1 believers. These are the most consistent and, in terms of ths debate at least, the least interesting as they are not seeking to rationalise their belief in any sense that relies on external, physical, empirical, scientific evidence.Buz might be a category 3 believer or he might be a misguided category 1 believer who for some reason insists on supplementing his inner knowledge of God with physical evidence. I am not sure which as he stopped responding when explicitly asked this question.Bertot says "both" so I can only assume that he is a category 3 believer. If this is true then neither his inner knoweldge of God nor physical evidence alone are sufficient to meet his criteria for belief. But again he has stopped responding so I cannot say for certain what his position is. I am not even sure, that beyond an irrational certainty that he is completely right, Bertot knows himself.Nobody has stated themselves to be a 2) or a 4).The fourth option represents the completely unthinking. Asking these people why they believe in God will garner the same sort of reaction that you would get if you asked a dog why it barks. EvC is probably the wrong place for anyone who might fall into that category. It is included just for completeness. Not because anybody here has declared this to be their view.It is interesting to note that no-one has as yet declared themselves to be a category 2 believer. Category 2 type evidence would very much be the sole basis for a wholly scientific position. It is very telling that no believer seems prepared to declare this type of evidence as solely essential to their belief.I would suggest that this directly leads to the conclusion that physical evidence alone is an insufficiant basis on which to conclude that God exists unless specifically viewed through God tinted spectacles.But before I make that case I will give the theists who claim that their belief in God is partially or wholly reliant on physical evidence a chance to respond.

I sort of agree with you. Maybe theists that fall under this category should be called "apathetic theists" (or apatheists for short).Essentially those who claim no definite inner experience on which to base their belief and no interest in physical evidence supporting the bible (or whatever).Simply those too lazy or uninterested to think about the question of God for themselves who go with the flow in terms of predominant cultural attitudes and beliefs.We all do that to some extent in a whole host of areas so although this sounds quite a damning description it is very much a case of "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" Anyway - The apatheists are not really relevant to this discussion as they are not seeking to rationalise their belief in terms of anything. Not even to themselves.

Hello John 10:10Maybe you could help with the topic at hand by explicitly declaring which of the following categories you consider yourself to be a member of:1) Category 1 Believer: Internal evidence is the essential basis of a belief in God.2) Category 2 Believer: External/physical evidence is the essential basis of a belief in God.3) Category 3 Believer: Elements of both internal evidence and external evidence are essential components in forming the basis of a belief in God but neither one nor the other is sufficient in itself.4) Category 4 Believer: Neither internal nor external evidence is required. Such a believer does not know why they believe in God. They just do.So which is it?Or if none of the above please detail, exactly and precisely, the basis of your belief in God.Many thanks in advance.Strags Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why do intelligent people believe in God?I don't know.That is the honest answer.It genuinely baffles me. And I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there are those intellectually superior to me who do exactly that.Statistically those better educated are less likely to believe.
Statistically those with higher IQs are less likely to believe.But education can lead to belief and I personally hold little stock in the concept of IQ.So, the question remains, why do so many intelligent people believe?The answer remains - I don't know. But.........I would add a few qualifying statements -

There are many (maybe more? - for what that is worth) obviously and extremely intelligent people who do not believe.

The most intelligent believers also seem to be the most "woolly". Their God is less judgemental, less literal and more deistic in nature. Rarely will you get the most intelligent theists declaring that science and religion are at odds with one another. In terms of this discussion most "intelligent" theists will be category 1 theists.

If this thread demonstrates anything it is that personal subjective experience outweighs all objective rationality. Those who believe themselves to have experienced God are incapable of objectively evaluating external evidence. Nobody could objectively conclude that the empirical evidence verifies God yet that is exactly what those theists blinded by faith claim. They also claim that this verification can only be understood if one has complete faith in God in the first place. They also fail to see the circular and contradictory nature of these assertions. I remain unconvinced that intelligence is the overriding factor in such flawed reasoning. A determination to be right seems more prevalent.......

​

In short, I acknowledge the intelligence of the people you speak of but remain unconvinced that there is not something about faith which effectively allows the bypassing of such attribures.

​

The answers garnered in this thread would seem to verify that faith can override rationality and I am not sure how we can effectively seperate intelligence from the ability to rationalise without delving into wild speculation.

​

But I am open to suggestions?

I am not asking for proof. I am merely asking for your view on the basis of your faith.If you have made this so obvious to me/others in the past then what harm does it do to re-iterate this view here?So which are you?1) Category 1 Believer: Internal evidence is the essential basis of a belief in God.2) Category 2 Believer: External/physical evidence is the essential basis of a belief in God.3) Category 3 Believer: Elements of both internal evidence and external evidence are essential components in forming the basis of a belief in God but neither one nor the other is sufficient in itself.4) Category 4 Believer: Neither internal nor external evidence is required. Such a believer does not know why they believe in God. They just do.So which is it?Or if none of the above please detail, exactly and precisely, the basis of your belief in God.Many thanks

So you are basically a category 1 believer who is confused into thinking that physical evidence is also necessary?Or are you a category 3 believer who believes that internal evidence alone is insufficiant?Which is it because your "category 5" is just a confused mish mash of terminology. There are two forms of evidence.Either single form of evidence can be essential to belief. Or elements of both, but neither individually, can be essential to belief.There are no other logical alternatives if belief is based on any sort of "evidence" at all.If you think there are then it just shows demonstrates your confused and irrational thought processes.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

We keep asking theists to explain what they believe and know and we keep getting circularity and contradiction in response.As a case in point: Exactly. If you take the existence of God and the veracity of the bible as unquestionable truth then the truth of the bible and the evidence for God is "obvious" and unquestionable.Completely circular. I am sure that you think you have made some sort of argument clinching point.However to anybody even vaguely objective you have quite evidently just demonstrated what everyone keeps telling you. Namely that your arguments are wholly circular and inherently devoid of any objectivity at all.

Or his born again children subjectively believe that he is doing precisely what they believe he said he would do. That is the very definition of subjective belief.One can only be convinced of the evidence in order to believe if one is already convinced enough to believe.How many variations of the same circular nonsense can you come up with?

By the "inside" you presumably mean those who believe. So according to you if I first believe in Jesus then I will see the reasons to believe in Jesus and thus I will believe in Jesus. I am familiar enough with your contributions to predict that the inherent circularity of this will be lost on you. And yet again........... Round and around we go.If I believe I will know why to believe and thus I will believe.Could you be any more circular if you tried?Edited by Straggler, : I am attributing Johns quotes to myself!!! AaaaRRRggg!!