|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: So according to you the empirical evidence inevitably and obviously leads to the conclusion that God exists. BUT 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. Is that what you are saying? John writes: Straggler writes: 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. John writes: You reject the evidence that God gives in His creation story, placing your "faith" in a non-creation happening. Typically for one who has no answer to the flaws in their own argument you instead seek to attack a strawman version of your opponent's position. If you can defend your inherently contradictory position on it's own merits then do so. If all you can do is attack strawman versions of the scientific position then I suggest that you concede that your own position is indeed inherently contradictory and take any weaknesses you perceive in alternative positions to the appropriate thread. Defending science is not the topic here. Don't try and wriggle out of your self inflicted hole by attempting to make it so. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
John 10:10 writes: 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. Indeed, just as birds have evolved to make nests and termites have evolved to make termite mounds, we have evolved to make all those things. In your previous post, you claimed that the universe was infinitely more complex than anything humans could make. Now, you seem to be implying that the universe couldn't produce a Swiss watch naturally. First, you glorify your god's universe, and then you denigrate it while contradicting yourself.
John 10:10 writes: 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 have seen no evidence that any gods have given us a creation story. The Muslims claim that the Koran is the word of their god, but they have no evidence for this claim, so we are not exercising faith in not believing them, but they are exercising faith in believing in such an unlikely proposition.
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. Is your faith in your god dependent on the faith that the Bible wasn't authored by ordinary human beings making stuff up, like the Koran or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard (scientology)? More on the topic, would you believe in your god even if you thought that there was no objective evidence for his existence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Apparently you missed my answer, or cannot read and understand my answer.
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. I assume it's the latter. For this I can offer no help to your unbelief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: Concepts Buz. Concepts not definitions are what is important. Sigh. Concept: Online Dictionary:
A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea. 3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept I suppose I'll get heck for defining concept now. Are we moving from empirical evidence to specific instances and occurrences for establishing theory? Specific instances and occurrences bolstered by some evidences are what motivated me to become a Christian and keeps me into Biblical Christianity. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: So according to you the empirical evidence inevitably and obviously leads to the conclusion that God exists. BUT 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. Is that what you are saying? John writes: 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? Straggler writes: Typically for one who has no answer to the flaws in their own argument you instead seek to attack a strawman version of your opponent's position. If you can defend your inherently contradictory position on it's own merits then do so. John writes: Apparently you missed my answer, or cannot read and understand my answer. I assume it's the latter. For this I can offer no help to your unbelief. 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. BUT 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Indeed, just as birds have evolved to make nests and termites have evolved to make termite mounds, we have evolved to make all those things. In your previous post, you claimed that the universe was infinitely more complex than anything humans could make. Now, you seem to be implying that the universe couldn't produce a Swiss watch naturally. First, you glorify your god's universe, and then you denigrate it while contradicting yourself. All types of animals and insects have been given instincts by their Creator to do all manner of behaviors that cannot be explained by evolution or any other explanation. Man has been given the gift of creativeness moreso than any of God's other creatures. Just as a Swiss watch, a spacecraft, or polio vaccene cannot be made without someone's creative design, neither can the universe spring from nothing and produce complex life forms that are infinitely more complex than the puny things man can creatively design and make. When man can creatively take inanimate matter and breathe life into it and produce a single cell creature that can live and begin to evolve, then man will have something boast about. Until then, ..........
I have seen no evidence that any gods have given us a creation story. The Muslims claim that the Koran is the word of their god, but they have no evidence for this claim, so we are not exercising faith in not believing them, but they are exercising faith in believing in such an unlikely proposition. Even Muslims believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and all life therein. Where we differ in our beliefs is in the truth of John 6:28-29, and Luke 6:46.
Is your faith in your god dependent on the faith that the Bible wasn't authored by ordinary human beings making stuff up, like the Koran or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard (scientology)? The Bible was written by men that God chose and inspired to write God's words (2 Tim 3:16-17). My faith in the God of the Bible is dependant on the many many fulfilled prophesies that were fulfilled in the Person of Jesus, and in the fulfilled promises the Lord Jesus gives to those who love Him and keep His words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
John 10:10 writes:
First misconception: That we Christians have "blind faith in God," and require such from unbelievers before they too can believe in God.Huntard writes: We require evidence from unbelievers before we too can believe in god. John10:10 writes:
... we Believers believe it requires more "faith" to believe that Creator God is not the cause for our existence, than to believe that Creator God is the cause for our existence. Once unbelievers begin to honestly consider that God is the cause for our existence, and then ask Him for the why, then the God who is reveals/discloses Himself to those who seek Him.Huntard writes: ... 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 So let me see if I have this straight! One side says that if only folks would consider the possibility that God exists without any evidence, God will cease giving them the cold shoulder and will pour oodles of evidence and confirmation into their starving souls! The other side says that it is no sin to doubt whether God is real and that all they need is for Him to nudge them with a little evidence if He wants them to come around. For me personally, there has never been any evidence apart from my interpretations of my internal feelings, confirmations, andbeliefs. I can honestly say that many of my presumptions could be questioned and reexamined should I find a pressing need to do so, but I have no doubts that raise any red flags in my mind as to whether or not God is real. I don't think that unbelievers have any obligation to reexamine their beliefs any more than I have an obligation to reexamine mine. I don't fear them going to Hell on account of my refusal to convince them of the reality of GOD as I experience GOD. They may even say that the GOD that I experience is nothing more than a product of my imagination. I don't find a need to correct them, for IF what I believe IS true and IF Who I believe in IS real, HE will find a way to interact with them at some point in time. IF not, it does not really matter any more anyway, right? Edited by Phat, : fixed quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Buz writes: Sigh. Concept: Online Dictionary: Sigh. More definitions............ Give it a rest Buz. Argumentum dctionarium infinitum is just tedious and pointless.
Are we moving from empirical evidence to specific instances and occurrences for establishing theory? 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)
Specific instances and occurrences bolstered by some evidences are what motivated me to become a Christian and keeps me into Biblical Christianity. 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 frustration Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: God turned up and I believed he existed, that Christ is my saviour, that the Bible is his word etc.
Phat writes: See...for me it happened a bit differently. Something supernatural (or at least unexplainable) happened and I then assumed that it was God and that the whole story was basically real. To this day I cannot prove that it was God who showed up, but I have a high degree of confidence that it was. There is no real way that I can ever prove that it was and is God, although I am confidant in my belief that He lives.(and lives within me.) I can't prove it either Phat. It's just that for reasons - which are unlikely to have anything to do with my meriting it - I seem to have a higher degree of confidence than you. It's probably due to the fact that all the other options presented appear to be way too Alice-in-Wonderland to even begin to countenance. I'm a mechanical engineer btw - perhaps it's the analytical-approach-to-everything that assists me as it does. I'm sure your doing fine in whatever skin you're wearing. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
John writes: All types of animals and insects have been given instincts by their Creator to do all manner of behaviors that cannot be explained by evolution or any other explanation. Really? Why make assertions that you can't support?
John 10:10: writes: Man has been given the gift of creativeness moreso than any of God's other creatures. Just as a Swiss watch, a spacecraft, or polio vaccene cannot be made without someone's creative design, neither can the universe spring from nothing and produce complex life forms that are infinitely more complex than the puny things man can creatively design and make. If complexity can't exist without creative design, then your god must either be simple, or he must have been designed. But what's interesting in the light of this thread's topic is that you now seem to be attempting to present objective evidence for your god. Do you need these (weak) arguments because your "subjective evidence" is doubtful?
The Bible was written by men that God chose and inspired to write God's words (2 Tim 3:16-17). My faith in the God of the Bible is dependant on the many many fulfilled prophesies that were fulfilled in the Person of Jesus, and in the fulfilled promises the Lord Jesus gives to those who love Him and keep His words. So now it seems as though your belief in your god comes from what you see as evidence (complexity and fulfilled prophesies), not from faith. I thought that Christianity demanded faith. Interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
So now it seems as though your belief in your god comes from what you see as evidence (complexity and fulfilled prophesies), not from faith. I thought that Christianity demanded faith. Interesting. All you prove is that you don't have a clue, nor can you understand what Christian faith is all about. You don't even see that you too have faith, faith that there is no God who is the Creator of our existance. I wish you all the best as you place your faith somewhere other than in the God of the Bible. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Blessings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
John 10:10 writes: All you prove is that you don't have a clue, nor can you understand what Christian faith is all about. You don't even see that you too have faith, faith that there is no God who is the Creator of our existance. Wrong. It does not require Faith to lack Faith in any evidence-less supernatural propositions. Not believing in gods is not the same as believing that there are definitely no gods. I've explained to you that you do not require faith not to believe in all the many religions and gods that you do not believe in. Lack of faith is not faith, by definition. And as for your comment about not knowing what Christian faith is about, that could be said of Christians. There are many different Christian faiths and there are many different reasons given by Christians for believing in their many different gods. This thread is about how different Christians rationalise their faiths in different ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: 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? 1. There would have to be a whole lot more evidence of transitional fossils in place now to get me into the notion of evolution and out of the Biblical POV. That is pie in the sky. Imo, there should be millions of specimens. 2. Nearly all of the latter day unfulfilled prophecies are beginning to emerge into fulfillment so there's little left to dissuade me from the Biblical POV. 3. There's enough evidence in place so that if things like the flood were empirically falsified, I would stick with that evidence and conclude that there were errors in the record. 4. There's far too much personal experience empirical evidence for me ever to become an apostate. Of course that evidence is empirical to me and not such that I should expect you to acknowledge. Now my friend, let me ask you a question. If it could be empirically demonstrated and verified that the debris relative to the Exodus at the Nuweiba sandbar was indeed charriot parts, that the split rock in the region was relative to the Exodus and that the black top mountain in the region was indeed Mt Sinai, imperially verified by additional artifacts in the region, would you be convinced of the Biblical record relative to that event? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
1. There would have to be a whole lot more evidence of transitional fossils in place now to get me into the notion of evolution and out of the Biblical POV. That is pie in the sky. Imo, there should be millions of specimens. There are millions of transitional fossils as every fossil is inherently transitional. Your lack of cognitive ability to understand this is exactly what the ToE says is not an impediment to its validity.
2. Nearly all of the latter day unfulfilled prophecies are beginning to emerge into fulfillment so there's little left to dissuade me from the Biblical POV. Yes, Tyre is uninhabited to this day and Jesus returned in 1844 but he is in hiding.
3. There's enough evidence in place so that if things like the flood were empirically falsified, I would stick with that evidence and conclude that there were errors in the record. It would not matter how much evidence there is against any global flood to as you would not believe even God if he told you otherwise. (as God has done through physics, chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology, history, and linguistics in at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence).
4. There's far too much personal experience empirical evidence for me ever to become an apostate. Of course that evidence is empirical to me and not such that I should expect you to acknowledge. Your relationship with whatever personal god you have made up is meaningless to me except when you try to use the levers of state to force me and mine to worship your, what in IMO, is a false god of hate and fear. To me and many others this constitutes a rejection of the message of Jesus Christ, who preached love, feeding the poor, healing the sick, and turning the other cheek.
Now my friend, let me ask you a question. If it could be empirically demonstrated and verified that the debris relative to the Exodus at the Nuweiba sandbar was indeed charriot parts, that the split rock in the region was relative to the Exodus and that the black top mountain in the region was indeed Mt Sinai, imperially verified by additional artifacts in the region, would you be convinced of the Biblical record relative to that event? Obviously this is not addressed to me as your hatred of what I have to say, from your posts, likely extends to my person in your case. But to answer your question the answer would be an emphatic NO if it came from your usual dishonest sources who violate a Commandment of God. Edited by anglagard, : Had to add the term 'from your posts,likely' to second to last sentence as I do not know Buzsaw except through his posts and therefore make no claim to be his judge, a position exclusively reserved to God under the terms of the Bible itself. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
This thread is about how different Christians rationalise their faiths in different ways. No such thing! This thread is how unbelievers rationalize their "unbelief faith", while trying to look into the things of Christ and analyze the faith of Christians. Jesus said it can't be done unless you are willing to enter into the spiritual kingdom of God (John 3:3-7). It's as simple and as difficult as that!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024