Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8883 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-18-2019 1:31 PM
208 online now:
14174dm, Aussie, AZPaul3, candle2, Diomedes, edge, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tanypteryx, Taq (11 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: candle2
Post Volume:
Total: 845,873 Year: 910/19,786 Month: 910/1,731 Week: 267/438 Day: 52/33 Hour: 10/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Evidence For Belief
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1 of 46 (846152)
12-30-2018 1:34 PM


EvC Forum has traditionally been divided into two basic sections:
Science Forums and Social & Religious Forums.

One issue which we have discussed at length in our many threads and topics is the idea of whether or not Religious and/or Philosophical Belief requires a strict standard of evidence in order to be seriously considered as valid. In this topic, I wish to gather some of the points made by our various debates throughout the forum and present them all together in order to hopefully encourage a discussion on the idea of evidenced beliefs versus myths, legends, fantasies, and other unsupported assertions by believers and secular philosophers alike.

This topic is not limited to science nor is it confined to the dogma of belief.

It is hopefully a hybrid.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 2 of 46 (846170)
12-30-2018 3:29 PM


Uncaused First Causes
So many discussions here!
Percy,to GDR writes:

Go find the objective evidence of this intelligent root cause. Stop asking meaningless rhetorical questions like, "How else could all of creation have come about without an intelligent root cause?"


ringo writes:

GDR asked why chemicals exist. Presumably, his answer is because God created them. So, the next obvious question is: Who created God?

If you can just stop asking at God as "the first uncaused thing", then why not start at chemicals as the first uncaused thing?(...)chemicals are not made up. They exist objectively.

That much can be proven. But what is unknown is in the beginning. We humans were not around to declare anything objectively. Objective evidence must be timeless. We don't have enough information to determine chemicals to be the initial uncaused cause. Again, the human animal is the only animal that defines reality before its own existence.

In addition, for all participants, I might mention that this topic could also be called Belief In Evidence. It seems that many people claim no belief in life but always frame their arguments evidentially. Evidence itself is seemingly a hoped-for result. One point that I have brought up before, however, is that evidence removes the belief from the equation entirely. Some argue that God, if God exists (and is the Christian version) wants people to have trust and belief in Him as a precondition to salvation. Critics balk at such a hypothetical suggestion, maintaining a need for evidence before any acknowledgment of Gods existence is given. But as I said before, if you have evidence you do not believe anything any longer.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:03 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3 of 46 (846176)
12-30-2018 3:58 PM


Chemtrails
ringo writes:

How can philosophy and belief "make more sense" than reality?


Reality limits us to physical objective evidence. Speculation requires more.
Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries originated with speculation.
Were scientists unimaginative, they would have sat around forever waiting for chemicals to assemble in front of them.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:07 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 4 of 46 (846179)
12-30-2018 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
12-30-2018 3:29 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Phat writes:

We don't have enough information to determine chemicals to be the initial uncaused cause.


It's the only evidence we have.

Phat writes:

One point that I have brought up before, however, is that evidence removes the belief from the equation entirely.


If there is evidence, there's no excuse for belief.

Phat writes:

Some argue that God, if God exists (and is the Christian version) wants people to have trust and belief in Him as a precondition to salvation.


Worst copout ever.

Leprechauns hide because they want you to have faith in them. The Loch Ness monster hides because she wants you to have faith in her. Bigfoot hides because he wants you to have faith in him. Martians hide because they want you to have faith in them. Phlogiston hides because it wants you to have faith in it. The earth pretends to be round because it wants you to believe it's flat.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 3:29 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 4:05 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 5 of 46 (846180)
12-30-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:03 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Humor is evidence of creativity. Creativity is evidence of a Creator. Quid Pro Quo, Dr.Lector

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:15 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 6 of 46 (846181)
12-30-2018 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
12-30-2018 3:58 PM


Re: Chemtrails
Phat writes:

Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries originated with speculation.


There's nothing wrong with speculation that's based on reality - but how can you invent something useful with no basis in reality?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 3:58 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 4:15 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 7 of 46 (846182)
12-30-2018 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
12-30-2018 4:05 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Phat writes:

Creativity is evidence of a Creator.


You make the mistake that Faith constantly makes. Creativity is evidence of A creator - one of many - not THE Creator. In the case of humour, the creators are us.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 4:05 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 4:18 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 8 of 46 (846183)
12-30-2018 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:07 PM


Re: Chemtrails
ringo writes:

There's nothing wrong with speculation that's based on reality - but how can you invent something useful with no basis in reality?

Thats on topic for this thread!

Christianity was invented according to some skeptics. One could argue that it has no basis in reality since "resurrections don't happen". Many people throughout History have not only believed, but in many cases have studied and devoted entire careers to furthering human understanding of this "myth". I submit that the jury is out regarding whether Christianity is a clever myth or not. I for one believe that God exists and is real. you could challenge my claim (and have) by saying that I ignore the message which I am supposed to believe in.

So where does this argument go from here?

Belief *should* be based on reality. Does subjective experience count as reality? Does an eyewitness account count as evidence for reality? Or are we confining reality to the behavior of chemicals which we have known about and which evidently existed forever?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:26 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11882
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 9 of 46 (846184)
12-30-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:15 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
ringo writes:

Creativity is evidence of A creator - one of many - not THE Creator. In the case of humour, the creators are us.

Does creative intelligence simply evolve out of chemicals? Do we have evidence that life and creativity can be reproduced in a lab? Is it so silly to speculate that in order for us to be creators suggests that there is likely "THE Creator"? Why or why not?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 10 of 46 (846185)
12-30-2018 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
12-30-2018 4:15 PM


Re: Chemtrails
Phat writes:

Does subjective experience count as reality?


Are the twelve patients who think they're Napoleon really Napoleon?

Phat writes:

Does an eyewitness account count as evidence for reality?


It can be considered as evidence but no definite conclusions should be drawn from it.

Phat writes:

Or are we confining reality to the behavior of chemicals which we have known about and which evidently existed forever?


We're confining reality to reality. Otherwise, we wouldn't have bothered to make up words for fantasy, fiction, etc.

And those chemicals didn't exist "forever", only since some time after the Big Bang.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 4:15 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 11 of 46 (846186)
12-30-2018 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
12-30-2018 4:18 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Phat writes:

Does creative intelligence simply evolve out of chemicals?


Why not? It's a brain function and brain functions are electrochemical.

Phat writes:

Do we have evidence that life and creativity can be reproduced in a lab?


Yes, going back to Miller-Urey.

Phat writes:

Is it so silly to speculate that in order for us to be creators suggests that there is likely "THE Creator"?


No sillier than it is to speculate that a hobbit could protect a magic ring from orcs and wizards. No more sensible either.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 12-30-2018 4:18 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Lammy, posted 12-30-2018 4:43 PM ringo has responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3598
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 46 (846187)
12-30-2018 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:32 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
quote:
Yes, going back to Miller-Urey.

I tend to get nervous when someone brings up the miller urey experiment. It only demonstrated that under certain conditions, organic chemistry occurs. There is a huge leap between that and a cell. Just saying.

If you say the word "gullible" slowly, it sounds like oranges. Go ahead and try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:52 PM Lammy has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 13 of 46 (846189)
12-30-2018 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Lammy
12-30-2018 4:43 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Arachnopuppy writes:

I tend to get nervous when someone brings up the miller urey experiment. It only demonstrated that under certain conditions, organic chemistry occurs. There is a huge leap between that and a cell.


That's why I said, "going back to," Miller-Urey. Anybody who contends that life and non-life are fundamentally different is responsible for refuting ALL of the evidence since Miller-Urey.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Lammy, posted 12-30-2018 4:43 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4726
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 14 of 46 (846192)
12-30-2018 7:21 PM


Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
I want to select this statement of Percy's last reply in rapture thread and reply to it. This seems to be a bit of a sticking point, so if I'm wrong, (just can't see that happening ), then I can learn from it.
Percy writes:

"Subjective conclusions?" That's the first time I think I've seen you say that...let me check. Well, way back in Message 419 you did say that "subjective reasoning and intuition are a big part of our conclusions." If you understand that your conclusions are subjective, why are you arguing that they're underpinned by objective evidence?


I contend that we objectively know that The Bible exists. We objectively know that the NT claims that Jesus was resurrected. We objectively know a fair bit about what has been written about the 1st century world that Jesus lived in. We objectively know that the Jesus movement spread beginning in that 1st century.

You and I can look at that objective evidence and form our own subjective conclusions about it. We can believe that it is all contrived. We can believe that some of it is accurate or we can even believe that God dictated it to the writers and it is 100 % accurate.

Incidentally in regard to my Anglicanism I am pretty much middle of the road. There is a very wide diversity of belief within the Anglican church and it seems the conservative branch think I'm liberal and the liberal branch think I'm conservative, which is not meant in any way to validate my views.


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 1:59 AM GDR has responded
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2018 4:39 AM GDR has responded
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2018 5:11 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 15 of 46 (846200)
12-31-2018 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
12-30-2018 7:21 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
We also objectively know:

That there are lots of alternative and contradictory religious claims about which collection of writings/stories reveal the truth (bible, Koran, Torah, the vedas etc.) and that which one of these religious beliefs any given individual will claim as the truth is basically an accident of birth (if you had been born and raised in Ancient Greece you’d believe in Zeus, if you had been born on the Middle East you’d likely be arguing that the Koran is the book to follow, in 20th century Canada it happens to be Christianity that is the dominant religion)

That features of the Christian story (virgin birth, resurrection, ascending to heaven etc.) are similarly featured in various preceding myths.

That humans create myths, tell stories, elaborate, exaggerate, lie, adapt previously heard stories to their own ends, self deceive and generally don’t let reality get in the way of a good story.

That dead people don’t come alive again.

All of this we objectively know. So, based on this, I’d say that objectively speaking there is no reason to treat the bible as any more true than the other myths that we all agree are just myths and that the fact you are doing so says more about the prevailing culture you were raised in than the truth of Christ resurrection.

So I don’t agree that it’s all just subjective interpretation of the same facts. I’m pretty sure that my position incorporates far more of what we know objectively than your subjective beliefs do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 12-30-2018 7:21 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by GDR, posted 12-31-2018 3:10 AM Straggler has responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019