Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 64 of 219 (464694)
04-28-2008 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Wumpini
04-27-2008 7:15 PM


Re: Saving Faith does not allow doubt
Wumpini writes:
Because of this faith, all of the decisions that I make in my life will be in accordance with the will of this deity that I believe to exist.
Are you saying you never sin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Wumpini, posted 04-27-2008 7:15 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 12:35 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 65 of 219 (464695)
04-28-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 10:51 AM


Re: Saving Faith does not allow doubt
Wumpini writes:
Therefore, the fact that I have faith means that I am convinced that God exists. I have no doubt.
I have no doubt either - having faith unto 100% conviction. But I'm not sure that that need be the case for all Christians at all times.
Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
More relevant than the dictionary definition to my mind. But conviction levels do vary about things.
James 1:6 - "But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind."
To exhort a person not to doubt (and highlighting the downsides of doubting) appears to me to be accepting of the fact that people doubt.
Romans 14:23 - "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."
The context isn't really dealing with doubt as to God and his existance. Although 100% certain of Gods existance and my eventual salvation, there are times when I doubt. They are but momentary blips occuring due to my taking my eye off the ball. But they occur. You could say I believe 100% x 99.98% of the time... and spent the rest of the time wondering if this isn't all a dream
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 10:51 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 1:02 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 71 of 219 (464707)
04-28-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 12:35 PM


Re: I try not to sin
That's a relief! Welcome to EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 12:35 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 73 of 219 (464710)
04-28-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Thanks for your input
Wumpini writes:
I agree that the two verses that I quoted are not talking about doubting God and his existence. However, they are both indicating that faith does not include doubt.
The first verse in James (1:6) is related to doubting that your prayers will be answered. In other words, we should pray with faith. We should be convinced that our prayers will be heard and answered.
You might agree that James' exhortation is aimed at Christians. In exhorting them not to doubt he presupposes they might be inclined to doubt. Otherwise there is no point exhorting them not to doubt.
Given that a Christian can doubt, it follows that there will be different degrees of conviction between individual Christians.
-
Earlier you say you have no doubt, and here you say there are times when you doubt. When you say that you doubt, does that mean that you question the existence of God? And if so, what would cause you to do this
Clearly it would happen at times when my faith tank is low. For faith is the substance..etc.
As the amperage (substance) dwindles so does the motor (conviction)slow down. Why would that happen? God's discipline turning off the taps? Sin separating me from God? Worldy concerns gaining an upperhand? Satan getting his jollies?
-
Is it due to an intellectual observation (If evolution is true then God cannot exist)?
Or is it due to an emotional situation (If there was a God, I would not be going through this situation)?
Like evolution, God and his gospel can at time seems too fantastic to be true. Unlike God and his gospel however, there isn't enough faith (= evidence) in the universe to put the Humpty Dumpy of evolution back together again for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 1:02 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 4:14 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 76 of 219 (464714)
04-28-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
04-28-2008 4:00 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
Catholic Scientist writes:
If by convinced you mean know 100%, then you are contradicting yourself.
Faith is for things that you don't know for sure.
Although disagreeing with Wumpini that a Christian must necessarily have his level of conviction, I do agree that you are using a dictionary definition of faith whereas he is applying the biblical definition (which, whilst permitting 100% conviction, doesn't demand it in order that it be faith).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2008 4:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2008 4:28 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 81 of 219 (464721)
04-28-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 4:14 PM


Re: Thanks for the welcome
Wumpini writes:
I am wondering though whether these instances are related more to a persons reliance upon God, rather than his belief in the existence of God. In other words, if I believe in God (I have faith) but if I am not willing to depend upon God (I have weak faith). I am just thinking this through in my head so I would appreciate your comments.
The way I see it, my faith operates on (at least) two axes which are connected at a common, zero, origin. The X-axis deals with my reliance on and trust in my God. On a given day I can be full of the joy of the Lord and my faith can 'move mountains'. On others it strikes a lesser note. Trusting and thankful? Thankfully. Joyless and deflated? You'd better believe it!
The Y-axis has to do with belief in Gods existance and the truths of the gospel. Generally speaking, I operate at the top of the scale - irrespective of what's happening on the X-axis. I'm 100% convinced of his existance, my salvation, holiness awaiting, etc. Occasionally however, I find myself down near the bottom of this scale. The characteristic of that place should not be seen as downcastedness or depression or "a bad thing" (which are the characteristics of my occupying a similar position on the X-axis). Rather, it's my wondering if I'm dreaming this all up - so fantastic in so many ways is this God-on-offer.
The question asked at that point ("do you really believe all this?") seems to act as a prompt to consider why I believe what I believe. To cast my mind around to see how well all fits. And fitting I (increasingly) find it. And so back up the Y-axis I go. Back to 100%
-
This is really why I came to this forum. Not to engage in philosophical debates about what constitutes faith, but to gain a better understanding of why people refuse to believe in the existence of the supernatural. I want to gain a better understanding of the scientific view of origins and evolution
After only a few days on this forum, I question whether this is the best place to accomplish that task. It seems that I am constantly under attack, and it has caused me to be overly defensive.
If it's intelligently delivered exposure to the predominant scientific view of origins and evolution then you probably couldn't have come to a better place. There are folk here who can articulate the central ideas pitched at just about any level you wish to enter the discussion at. And they are generally more than willing to oblige the genuine seeker. You'd want to partake in discussions in the appropriate fora however - "Faith and Belief" is not that place.
The general reason why people don't believe in the existance in the supernatural (if they don't believe in it's existance) is the same reason I (who do believe in the supernatural) don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Simply put, there is no evidence of the IPU in order that I could believe in it.
They may be lost sinners Wumpini - but they're not stupid!
-
I truly appreciate your civil and gentle manner.
5047 posts does that to a man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 4:14 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 82 of 219 (464722)
04-28-2008 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
04-28-2008 4:28 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
CS writes:
The Hebrews 11 defintion? That's Old Testament. I follow Jesus' teachings.
Er...Hebrews is in the New Testament CS
Jesus said that the blessed are those who believe and who have not seen.
..which is remarkably like the Hebrews definition of belief. Faith is conviction (belief) in things not seen. Blessed indeed are those that have such a faith. They belong to a most privileged category of people called "the sons on God"
-
Saying that you KNOW means that you have seen and that is why you believe. I believe whilst not KNOWING, as Jesus commanded.
The KJV has an interesting way of putting the Hebrews 11:1 verse.
quote:
"Faith the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Sight is one way for a thing to be evidenced. So too smell, touch, taste, hearing. Faith is another way for a thing to be evidenced - according to that verse. Call it a sixth sense if you like. As effective a way to demonstrate God to a person as is sight and touch a way to evidence that computer screen on front of you right this minute. The biblical sense of faith is anything but blind...
Although it might be your first reaction, rather that respond with the dictionary definition of faith you might want to consider how the Bible utilises the word. And re-examine what Jesus is saying in the light of that. People know God exists by virtue of evidence only. By non-dictionary defined faith...
They are indeed blessed - those who don't know God exists by sight but who know God exists by this other way. For to know of Gods existance by means of this specific way is to be saved.
What could be a greater blessing than that?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2008 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 10:11 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 84 of 219 (464729)
04-28-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Intellecutal Dishonesty
Have you considered the possibility that I do not know how to debate? As far as I know, I have never engaged in a formal debate in my life. Maybe with time I will learn to develop more logical arguments.
The likelyhood is that this has not been considered. Your not having engaged in debate before I mean. You write/think well so it shouldn't be a problem picking up the few things that need to be picked up upon.
Cast out the word "faith" and you'll find yourself embroiled in a discussion about "faith" - although your meaning might have been to head in a different direction.
So long as you're prepared to follow the bites wherever they lead...
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 6:25 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 90 of 219 (464805)
04-29-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2008 10:11 AM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm familiar with your position on faith, but..... it doesn't seem to add up....
Let's have a look...
Jesus says that the blessed are those who believe in him without evidence (unless he just meant that the blessed are the people who have not received the evidence throught their eyeballs (seen)... but I doubt that).
If faith is the evidence that allows you to believe then you wouldn't be blessed in the way Jesus described.
Firstly, Jesus doesn't say the blessed, he merely says blessed.
quote:
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Secondly, Jesus uses the word 'not seen' in the context someone believing through physical seeing. We have no basis for supposing he meant 'without evidence' instead of 'not seen' when the context indicates not having physically seen.
Thirdly, Jesus doesn't say anything about how those who don't see yet believe come to believe so you cannot dismiss their coming to belief via unseen evidence out of hand. Certainly not in the light of Hebrews 11:1 which tells us that faith is evidence of things unseen. Evidence of Christ unseen? Why not?
Also, if faith is the evidence for a belief, and you have faith because you believe, then the evidence is circular.
Faith = the cause. Belief = the effect..in this context.
That is not to say that the word faith is not interchangeable with belief in another context. It's like the word death. Death is used in one context to mean spiritual separation from God. In another context it's used to mean physical dying. Sleep is used in one context to mean Zzzz. In another it refers to Christians who have died.
Although it might be your first reaction, rather that respond with the dictionary definition of faith you might want to consider how the Bible utilises the word. And re-examine what Jesus is saying in the light of that. People know God exists by virtue of evidence only. By non-dictionary defined faith...
I don't believe in a god who picks and chooses which people believe in him and which one don't. Especially if he is going to punish the people that he chose to not believe in him.
I'm not saying God picks and chooses which people believe in him and which don't. I'm just saying that the reason people believe anything is because of their having evidence for it. That God provides evidence to the one and not ther other need not be because of Gods picking and choosing. I would hold that man has a part to play in his own eternal destination.
Oops...that the time. L8r
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 2:32 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 99 of 219 (464830)
04-29-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2008 2:32 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
iano writes:
Secondly, Jesus uses the word 'not seen' in the context someone believing through physical seeing. We have no basis for supposing he meant 'without evidence' instead of 'not seen' when the context indicates not having physically seen.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But Thomas stuck his finger in Jesus' side....
I don't think Jesus was referring to sight and sight alone when he refers to 'not seeing'.
Even in modern usage of the word we might say that someone "saw for themself" when referring to some other sense that they used.
Which only goes to underline my point. We can agree that Thomas believed due to the evidence provided by his empirical senses - touch, sight, hearing etc. (Empirical) evidence leads to belief.
Now we have Jesus saying that there will be people who will believe even though their empirical senses won't be utilised in the process of them believing. They will believe not by evidence provided by empirical senses but (you seem to agree) by this thing called faith.
But we have a definition of faith in the Bible (even if that doesn't match the definition in the dictionary). Faith is defined as a specific kind of evidence. Evidence for non-empirical things.
If people believe in non-empirical things (as Jesus says they will) on account of faith then the biblical case clearly indicates them believing because of evidence available to them. This...
-
I understand the definition, I just don't subscribe to it because that isn't how it works for me personally.
...is your perogative. The biblical case is fairly straighforward however
-
I believe that those who don't see yet believe come to believe by faith. Their faith is what allows them to believe in the absense of evidence, but the faith, itself, is not the evidence. It can't be the evidence because then we have the circular definition.
We only have a circular definition because you assert faith to be blind belief in the absence of evidence whereas the Bible says otherwise. It's your dictionary definition vs. the biblical definition then. The biblical case certainly doesn't involve circular reasoning given that people believing on account of faith is the same as saying people believing on account of evidence.
People believing on account of evidence is usually the reason why people believe anything. I can't think of anything anyone believes in without some evidence of some description supporting the belief.
The general term for evidentialess belief isn't usually 'faith'. It would be more like "wishful thinking", "blind hope", "wild guessing"
-
Also, if faith is the god supplied cause, and some people are without faith (not by choice) then god has let them down.
Why so? IF the time at which God provides evidence of his existance happens to be after a person passes the point of being saved - AND they are permitted the opportunity to reject being brought to that point THEN God would not be letting them down in not providing them evidence of his existance.
They wouldn't qualify for exposure to it by virtue of their choice.
-
And that counters what I understand Jesus' teaching to be about having faith in the absense of evidence as being blessed.
It's Jesus' teaching so heavily modified as to render it other than his teaching. He says "belief without sight". You say "faith without evidence" - clearly contradicting the the biblical definition of faith in the process.
-
But man cannot control what he finds convincing and what he doesn't. I can't just choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
It's not mans job to convince man of God. Man's part can be rejecting Gods attempt to bring him to the point whereby God will convince man of God.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 5:36 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 100 of 219 (464831)
04-29-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2008 10:11 AM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
Thomas was faithless before he touched and saw Jesus. Thomas did not get his faith magically from God and then believe in Jesus because of the evidence that was his faith.
No, Thomas got his faith when he saw that it really was Jesus and when he touched him. He got his faith from evidence, and then he believed. His faith couldn't be the evidence because he didn't have faith until he had evidence. The evidence is what gave him faith, not visa versa.
As pointed out, the word faith is like the word death.. is like the word sleep. In this instance Jesus uses faith and belief interchangably. "Be not faithless but be believing" means "be not un unbelieving but have faith".
If you applied this use to yourself you would find yourself arguing in a circle. You say you believe by faith. But faithfulness is believing in this case. Meaning you believe because you believe.
If you believe in god because of evidence that you have witnessed (one example being this magic faith that God gives to the chosen) then you are like Thomas, and unlike the blessed.
As pointed out, this presupposes your being justified in altering the words that Jesus spoke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 5:40 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 103 of 219 (464846)
04-30-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2008 5:36 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
The way Jesus talks of faith doesn't seem to fit with the Hebrews definition...
I am arguing that Jesus is clearly using the words "faith" and "belief" as meaning the same thing here. It wouldn't be the first place that this has happened. Paul, in arguing for righteous-by-faith in Romans focuses on the example of Abraham. He gives his example as a proof that this is men have always been saved. Yet he (and the OT) tells us that Abraham believed God and was declared righteous as a result. Righteousness by faith = Righteousness by belief. The words being rendered equivilent by Paul in this instance.
Now either faith/belief always mean the same thing (rendering your saying you believe by faith meaning you believe by belief). Or they can mean the same thing at one time and different things at the other. If the latter then the Hebrew definition points to another. That is not to exclude a third way but if a third way then we need a biblical case for it.
How did Thomas get faith by seeing Jesus if faith is the evidence for things that are not seen?
Thomas got his faith (= belief) via empirical evidence. The person who hasn't got empirical evidence gets their faith (= belief) via faith (=non-empirical evidence). The argument is partily made by remembering there are at least two different meanings for the word "faith". Other elements of the argument have already been made
- the use of "not seen" by both Jesus and the Hebrews definition of faith
- the fact that nobody believes anything without some kind of evidence for that belief.
Thomas’s evidence for his belief is not his faith, he only gets his faith after he gets the physical evidence, and the physical evidence is what allowed him to believe.
Hopefully this issue is resolved for you now.
Jesus says that those who are blessed {as opposed to the blessed } are the ones that believe without seeing (ie evidence). If you are going to equate faith with evidence, then you are believing by seeing... Jesus doesn't explicitly say that you are unblessed, but the implication is there.
Firstly, I am not equating faith with evidence, the Bible is.
Secondly, you are inserting the word 'evidence' for the word 'seeing' when the contextual use of "seeing" refers directly to the physical seeing/touching/hearing/whatever of Thomas. There is no justification (that I can see) for suddenly expanding "not seeing" to include no evidence of any description. Contextually, "seeing" and therefore "not seeing" refers to empirical evidence only.
I would agree that you could read the implication 'unblessed' into what Jesus says. But it's too tenuous a position to rely on that alone. There actually is nothing there to add concrete to the notion that Jesus is making a comparitive statement.
Besides, Thomas was most certainly blessed was he not? However he came to believe he did come to believe - which is surely the most blessed thing to have occur to you. If a comparison was being made what would it actually be if both categories of people are blessed in this magnificent sense of believing?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 04-30-2008 1:32 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 104 of 219 (464848)
04-30-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2008 5:40 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
Then the same could be said about the definition provided by Hebrews. Faith itself isn't a substance, they were talking about believing
Belief...the evidence of things not seen? This ruins your own arguement that blessed are those who have belief (the evidence of things not seen) but have no evidence.
As pointed out, this presupposes your being justified in altering the words that Jesus spoke.
To me, it seems like you are the one doing the altering
Jesus himself uses faith and belief interchangeably. Paul uses faith and belief interchangeably. The Bible elsewhere defines faith as being other than belief. I dealing the cards I'm dealt which is a different matter that changing words in a verse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2008 12:47 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 110 of 219 (464944)
05-01-2008 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Blue Jay
04-30-2008 1:32 PM


Re: Conflict of Convictions
First off, it's completely unfair to use two definitions for a word that is in such hot contention on this forum (I mean "faith").
I can't see how unfairness comes into the issue of a word having different meanings. Words very frequently do have different meanings. Since CS and I are discussing what the Bible has to say about faith and the Bible indicates (as least) two meanings for the same words ...
-
Second, it's unfair to use two definitions of the word "evidence," which, to scientists, only encompasses empirical evidence.Therefore, for the sake of the various discussions on this website, I submit that your second definition for "faith" is irrelevant, because, being immaterial, it fits better in a category with the "belief" definition of faith than it does in a category that includes empirical evidence. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion on many "science is faith"-type discussions on this website, and has made a lot of mostly-sane people got bananas.
I'm afraid the scientists will have to get over it. The fact that evidence need not be empirical is established by the necessity to add the adjective ”empirical’ to the word in the case of that class of evidence.
-
In the #2 definition, the "evidence" referred to is, no doubt, a spiritual witness or manifestation that lends credence to the definition-#1 type of faith.
That’s about the size of it. Evidence (of whatever kind) lends credence to a belief (of whatever kind).
-
Surely this must raise some sort of questions in your mind? How can our convictions or manifestations be the same, yet be about different (even contradictory) things? This must automatically lower the "probability" factor for the truthfulness of any given religion (and of the very existence of God) at least a notch? Doesn't the "evidence" just boil down to "my word against yours," anyway? How does this constitute evidence, then?
First things first. If you look out the window right now and see a garden and I look out the window right now and see an industrial estate we can say we share a common evidence-transmission mechanism (that is: sight) but the evidence being transmitted is different. We might agree our convictions and manifestations aren't the same - but would agree that the evidence-transmission mechanism is the same (let’s call it "spiritual sight").
There is no need for me to be concerned that you "see" different things to me. The Bible 'predicts' and explains the nature of other convictions and manifestations - meaning their occurance actually raises my confidence in the Bible.
-
Essentially, for any one of our spiritual convictions to be "true," we would necessitate millions of other peoples' spiritual convictions to be at least partially false. How could anybody be so sure of their personal emotional (or "spiritual," if you prefer) witness as to simply shrug off everyone else's essentially equal spiritual convictions as false?
There is nothing to stop God from evidencing himself to a person in a non-empirical way. Let's suppose he has done so with me. I would now know that God exists (if not in the minds of Philosophers of Knowledge perhaps - but let's wrest control of the English language from them). Let us also suppose that God reveals that a persons salvation is indeed by Gods grace apart from works. I get to know that truth too. Now to your question.
My certainly would have arisen from something God has done - there being no reliance upon me in any of the proceedings which result in my being rendered certain or maintaining that certainty. If I were the only person in the world to whom God revealed himself and this truth, it wouldn't alter my being certain (assuming God maintained certainty in me > by faith = evidence). Because God is the one who is active and me passive there is no need for me to address non-sensical questions such as "how can you be certain it is God and not satan?"
That's how I "shrug off" any belief system which would, for example, suppose a persons eternal standing before God/god to revolve around their own works - as false. That another would stand up and state themselves certain of something else by similar mechanism is neither here nor there to me. This is how I do the shrugging off - without doubt in my mind. What they do is their affair.
-
But, my entire argument for the veracity of my religion is that my own feelings trump yours, even though mine are clearly not superior to yours or, indeed, special in any particular way.
I don't think it's possible to argue ones religion to be objectively true or special or superior.. to be honest. So I don't really try too hard to do that. My purpose here is to trundle around on a Trojan Horse of intellectual discussion whilst leaking as much of the gospel of God as I can. I believe (with Paul) that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Not my arguments.
-
How is this enough evidence for ICANT and Wumpini to declare 100% probability of God's existence?
I can't see how either of them could state 100% probability. Probability would stand outside the realm of whatever pesonal conviction they may have. They could state themselves to be 100% personally convinced (as I do). That would be a different matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 04-30-2008 1:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 05-01-2008 1:34 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 112 of 219 (465000)
05-01-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Blue Jay
05-01-2008 1:34 PM


Re: Conflict of Convictions
Bluejay writes:
My contention is that the "substance" of the term is more important in defining it than is its usage. I want to ask you this question: What is the difference between believing in something non-empirical based on non-empirical evidence, and just believing in something non-empirical?
At their roots, both require me to believe in something non-empirical to begin with. That makes them more similar to each other than to "empirical evidence."
The difference is about the same as the difference between believing in something empirical based on empirical evidence and just believing in something empirical. The former makes logical sense whereas the latter is a nonsense (to my mind) - no one believes empirical things without empirical evidence enabling the belief.
To say you believe there is a computer screen on front of you without referring to the evidence of a computer screen on front of you in some way would be problematic...
But, I only see the necessity of putting an adjective before the word "evidence" when I'm talking about science with people who claim that faith is also "evidence." Outside of this circle, I never have to say "empirical" before "evidence." What you've got is a tautology: it uses your own argument (that faith is evidence) to validate your argument (that faith is evidence).
Most of what we talk about is empirical. Which is why we don't need to say empirical evidence all the time. But were one to question the evidence which leads a person to tell you of the dream they had last night we would quickly get into the non-empirical. But that's besides the point. That point is that ..
Faith = evidence is a definition. Definitions are always tautological. Dog = {insert description of dog} vs. {insert description of dog} = Dog. I'm not so much arguing as pointing out the definition.
There are actually three factors in this analogy though: the "information," the "mechanism," and the "source." The source is, of course, the thing from which the light is reflecting into our eyes. In your analogy, the reason we receive different information is because the information has two different sources, not because the information is different (if we had the same source, we would likely receive the same information).
My analogy took a baseline approach to the issue of different religions (as opposed to the people associated with those religions). In that sense I would certainly hold that anyone depending (in their heart - and I don't mean the fluid pump) upon own works for rightstanding before God is in for a nasty shock.
There is much room for same source interpretation however. We would have to reckon upon tint of spectacles (if worn). Long/short vision etc. It gets complicated: will there be Mormons (your label) saved? I think so. Will there be evangelical Christians (my label) lost? I think so.
-
.. but that this sort of "information" or "evidence" cannot be the basis of actual, solid "knowledge" about God (unless you have an alternate definition of "knowledge," too -- which would also be a red herring), so it shouldn't be factored into any attempts at identifying probabilities.
It's 'solid' that should have gotten the quotes. Knowledge is what you know. Solid, I suggest, is your word for describing a particular way of getting know particular things. Likely; empirical things ...
I wouldn't dream of trying to assign (to another person) probabilities for Gods existance based on any class of evidence I could present. 1 and 0 - the only answers worth a damn - cannot be arrived at secondhand to my mind.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 05-01-2008 1:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 05-01-2008 10:00 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024