Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 46 of 417 (25902)
12-08-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by John
12-07-2002 9:40 PM


quote:
How long would you believe a scientific theory if you were told you could not test it? Not long I imagine. Yet, this is what you ask.
We're not talking about science. Unfortunatley you have made the deliberate decision, based upon no evidence, that only what you can detect empirically exists. Prove yourself correct. Or are you only as "deluded" as I am, running with no evidence?
quote:
I am sure you are aware of my problems with nos. In that light, I can only conclude that this quip is meant for no purpose but to injure.
At the time, if you had posted anonymously, I would have assumed you *were* Nos because your posts are so much alike (support nothing, be brief, be acerbic). Right now you're actually putting forth an effort. Maybe this will continue. If not, you're no better at this than Nos. This was something of an ad-hominem, but I stand by it.
quote:
You can't truly believe that quip had substance? The problem is THE FINDING, not the walking with.
And you know how to find Him, don't you?
But you won't. You won't give up your lifestyle. You won't give up your pride, because you have elevated yourself so far above the "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest" Christians you could not bare to be a Christian, even if you were not "evil", "stupid", or "dishonest".
quote:
Think about this. To walk with God, you have to find him, to find him you HAVE FIRST TO WALK WITH HIM.
So you're trying to make it circular, huh? Well like you said, to walk down the street you have to find it first. I presume you got to work on Friday morning...so you don't have to walk or drive on it first.
quote:
And you take the childish attitude that since I disagree then I must not have looked.
I have my doubts.
quote:
In fact, I quite respected you.
No you didn't. I'm one of those "evil", "stupid", "dishonest" Christians you talked about on your website. And it's not just me that's "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest", it is: me, my family, my friends, the people I go to church with, and most everyone I associate with. I might have pointed out some of your flaws but I didn't talk about your parents, now did I John? Did I talk about whatever sibling(s) you might have? Did I talk about whatever children you might have or will have? Did I talk about your girlfriend? Did I talk about your colleagues? Did I talk about nearly your entire family back at least five generations? Did I?
I think I'm being generous with you.
quote:
I do not gamble.
Nor do I.
quote:
Not against god, but against human irrationality.
If you say so. If there is a God, what distinction do you think He makes between attacks on himself and attacks on his followers?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-07-2002 9:40 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John, posted 12-08-2002 1:10 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 54 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 11:02 AM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 47 of 417 (25907)
12-08-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Primordial Egg
12-07-2002 7:22 PM


PE,
I've attempted one analogy and will now try another.
Suppose you have a modern art museum, and one of the exhibits is a cardboard box on an ornate marble stand, roped off from crowd. This exhibit is from a famous artist, who mostly specializes in extremely complicated (read: weird) pottery but has a nefarious sense of humor1. But of course, the gist here is that we don't know what, if anything, is in the box. People in the crowd speculate. Being modern art nobody can really describe the putative work but several suggestions float about regarding its general nature based upon the artist's previous work: It's a vase, it's a stein, it's a pot, it's a statuary. Nobody can really agree what it is, there are nearly as many hypotheses as there are observers.
Suddenly a new idea emerges. Somebody says, "We don't have any evidence that anything is in the box at all!1 Therefore the box only contains air!" This group then ridicules the others for their unsubstantiated belief in a work that they insist does not exist. The group is then polarized between people who insist the box is empty and people who insist there is something hidden within.
Evaluate the logical validity of this view. How is the "Box is Empty" camp superior to the "Something Hidden" camp?
Are the "empty-box theorists" any higher up on the scale of reason than the others? Are they justified in ridiculing the others for their lack of evidence, when they themselves have no evidence?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-07-2002 7:22 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-08-2002 10:01 AM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 417 (25908)
12-08-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by gene90
12-08-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
We're not talking about science.
So it is ok to throw reason out the window then? I apply the same rules to any investigation. You want to plead that religion is a special case. It isn't.
quote:
Unfortunatley you have made the deliberate decision, based upon no evidence, that only what you can detect empirically exists.
You've got this backwards. I made no such decision. I start with what we've got and follow the leads. And what we've got is sensory data. You can make up any number of extra-sensory entities but 1)they make no difference or 2) their presence can be inferred by reference to sensory data.
quote:
Prove yourself correct. Or are you only as "deluded" as I am, running with no evidence?
Prove a negative? You know how ridiculous this claim is. Prove that Valhalla doesn't exist. Ok. Done. Prove that green fairies don't exist. Ok. Done. Prove that... and so on and so on and so on... And with no evidence, how can one prove anything?
quote:
And you know how to find Him, don't you?
Ummm.... no. Do you read these posts?
quote:
But you won't.
Right. I won't believe in and worship an entity for no reason. That is damning. Assume I take the leap of faith, how do I choose between your god and any other? There is no evidence, not cross-checking, nothing. Nothing.
[quote][b]You won't give up your lifestyle.[quote][b]
What lifestyle is that? The fact is that you don't know what my lifestyle is and so you are just blowing smoke. It is hard to take you seriously.
quote:
You won't give up your pride, because you have elevated yourself so far above the "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest" Christians you could not bare to a Christian, even if you were not "evil", "stupid", or "dishonest".
quote:
So you're trying to make it circular, huh?
Trying? It is blatantly self-fulfilling as you preach it. I don't need to try.
quote:
Well like you said, to walk down the street you have to find it first. I presume you got to work on Friday morning...so you don't have to walk or drive on it first.
You are missing one bit. I can walk outside and find a street WITHOUT having to believe in it first.
quote:
I have my doubts.
But no knowledge of my history. This means that you are again just blowing smoke.
quote:
No you didn't.
Now this is interesting. You now believe that you know my thoughts better than I. How can I take you seriously?
quote:
I might have pointed out some of your flaws but I didn't talk about your parents, now did I John? Did I talk about whatever sibling(s) you might have? Did I talk about whatever children you might have or will have? Did I talk about your girlfriend? Did I talk about your colleagues? Did I talk about nearly your entire family back at least five generations? Did I?
You fault me because my opinions are contrary to those of most of your acquaintances?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 12:15 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 1:20 AM John has replied
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-10-2002 9:21 PM John has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 417 (25911)
12-08-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by John
12-08-2002 1:10 AM


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I might have pointed out some of your flaws but I didn't talk about your parents, now did I John? Did I talk about whatever sibling(s) you might have? Did I talk about whatever children you might have or will have? Did I talk about your girlfriend? Did I talk about your colleagues? Did I talk about nearly your entire family back at least five generations? Did I?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You fault me because my opinions are contrary to those of most of your acquaintances
No he faults your stereotyping,that is blatant on your website. You make a general assumption of people on their beliefs. This is extemely offensive. You seem to take offence when you think Gene knows what you think. Why then should I not feel the same anger when you label me "stupid", "dishonest" ect,not just me but my family friends and congregation.
Oh and this "stupid" "dishonest" Christian and another one both lost posts you have yet to respond to.
------------------
saved by grace
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John, posted 12-08-2002 1:10 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by John, posted 12-08-2002 9:26 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 56 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 12:03 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 417 (25923)
12-08-2002 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by gene90
12-07-2002 7:38 PM


Gene,
quote:
How do you 'look outside' in the spiritual sense? You can walk outside and check your doorstep for footprints. The notion of God is not exactly that close to home. Nowhere to look for footprints. A strong feeling that there is a God, and a lot more testimonies out there than there are for your doorstep goblin
Heh....I forgot to mention that the goblin leaves no footprints . I think we've misunderstood one another here, let me try and restate my analogy more clearly:
If you were to ask me if there was a Goblin outside my door, I would say no. You could then argue, quite successfully, that I "couldn't prove it" and you'd be quite right, I couldn't. But the point is, I still don't believe there's a Goblin outside the front door.
Now, does this take an act of faith? Kind of, but not really. I don't go through all the possibilities in my head and discount them, obviously. But, I say it again, if you asked me whether there was a Goblin outside my door, I'd say no. If you substitute the notion of "Goblin outside the door" with "God" you've pretty much got an internally consistent hard atheism model.
Another interesting way to approach this is to use your idea that what separates the God and the Goblin idea in plausibility is "strong feelings and a lot more testimonies". We can represent this on an Axis of Plausibility, such that if you find the strong feelings and testimonies utterly convincing (e.g an Ayatollah or the Pope) you would score 100, whereas if you find the feelings / testimonies utterly unconvincing (e.g Dawkins, Bertrand Russell) you'd score 0. You now have a continuum of belief in God based upon how seriously you regard the evidence.
The point I was wanted to make with the Axis if Plausibility is the fact that spiritual experiences can be artificially recreated would, in the minds of many, reduce the weighting for the feelings and testimonies and slide down the scale towards 0 - not always into atheism, admittedly.
quote:
Plus...this comes down to either there is a God or not a God. We're not limited to whether the object on your doorstep is a goblin, a pink unicorn, a purple dinosaur, or a couple of missionaries for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Again I don't follow your reasoning, the example I chose was deliberately set up to allow no observable physical manifestation - so we could in fact have had God herself at the door.
quote:
So, suppose...that if I cannot open my front door, and I cannot walk around outside to see...and yet I am ABSOLUTELY certain that there is NO doormat out front, so certain in fact that I ridicule people who believe in the Doormat simply because there is no evidence for it, is that logical? And is that not an analogy for the atheist at least that is at least as fair as your analogy for the theist?
I sense a recurring theme....the sense in which atheism should be logically allowed (if thats the right word) to ridicule those who believe in God.
I'm just going to have to shrug my shoulders on that - I don't know what should and shouldn't be ridiculed. One position is to ridicule nothing, but then life becomes a little dull. Another is to ridicule absolutely everything, but then you don't tend to hang around for very long As humans, we tend to ridicule some things and not others. If your God is a God of forgiveness and understanding, and you can see that, for an atheist, belief in God is the same as a belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy, perhaps you'll understand why God believers are sometimes subject to ridicule by atheists - they simply don't understand where your belief in God comes from.
And besides, many atheists have been subjected to hours of endless preaching by religionists who call them stupid for not accepting God's word or lazy for not doing enough to accept God etc Its a two way street.
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 7:38 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 417 (25924)
12-08-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky
12-08-2002 1:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
No he faults your stereotyping,that is blatant on your website.
I give reasons and I give evidence for I what I believe. Not everything applies to everyone, obviously, but am I to list 5 billion names and note exceptions?
quote:
You make a general assumption of people on their beliefs.
Actually, the beliefs imply things about the people. This isn't an assumption. The belief in a flat earth, for example, implies certain things about the people who believe it. There is nothing I do about this fact.
Secondly, I speak from MY experience and the vast majority of Christians I have known fit the descriptions I give. And I have known a lot of Christians. I was raised in the religion. I went to church three or more times a week during my formative years.
quote:
You seem to take offence when you think Gene knows what you think.
I take offense at gene's sometimes patronizing, arrogant and self-righteous attitude and his assertions about my motives and thoughts.
quote:
Why then should I not feel the same anger when you label me "stupid", "dishonest" ect,not just me but my family friends and congregation.
But I didn't call YOU anything, funkie. You and gene seem to have a real problem seperating the abstract from the specific. I criticise the faith and the general mindset required by the followers. You can decide if that portrayal fits your case.
BTW... There is a forum on my site. If you have a problem with something you read there, please comment on it there.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 1:20 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 5:35 PM John has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 417 (25925)
12-08-2002 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by gene90
12-08-2002 12:52 AM


Gene,
quote:
Suppose you have a modern art museum, and one of the exhibits is a cardboard box on an ornate marble stand, roped off from crowd. This exhibit is from a famous artist, who mostly specializes in extremely complicated (read: weird) pottery but has a nefarious sense of humor1. But of course, the gist here is that we don't know what, if anything, is in the box. People in the crowd speculate. Being modern art nobody can really describe the putative work but several suggestions float about regarding its general nature based upon the artist's previous work: It's a vase, it's a stein, it's a pot, it's a statuary. Nobody can really agree what it is, there are nearly as many hypotheses as there are observers.
Suddenly a new idea emerges. Somebody says, "We don't have any evidence that anything is in the box at all!1 Therefore the box only contains air!" This group then ridicules the others for their unsubstantiated belief in a work that they insist does not exist. The group is then polarized between people who insist the box is empty and people who insist there is something hidden within.
Evaluate the logical validity of this view. How is the "Box is Empty" camp superior to the "Something Hidden" camp?
If it was modern art, I don't think anyone would be surprised if there was nothing in the box , but I understand the analogy.
The point is, whatever is in the box, it may astonish them in an artistic and cultural context, but it would take something special to defy all the laws of nature or be something completely outside the realms of the audience's physical experience and worldview. Your analogy only works within an artistic context. How many people are thinking that there could be a supernatural entity inside the box? As you've argued, you've no reason, other than experience to think there there isn't a supernatural entity inside the box, but our brains don't work like that. It takes something else to anticipate the extraordinary else it wouldn't be, well, extraordinary.
Simple example, if I told you I had a pet iguana, you probably wouldn't be that surprised. If I told you I had a pet gorilla, you probably wouldn't believe me but if I showed you a photo and ownership documents you might. If I told you I had a pet velociraptor then you'd probably want to check it out for yourself, and even if you saw it, you'd probably be checking for robotic components. And even then you'd think I must have drugged you....you'd go through and eliminate every single natural cause to convince yourself that what you were seeing was for real.
Now if I were to ask people who didn't know me what sort of pet I had, how many would think I had an animal which no longer exists? Would they be laughed at? Should they be laughed at?
Its a cliche, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - thats why the empty box vs full box is not a fair analogy - neither scenario is extraordinary enough.
Whether that gives justification for goading, I leave to the philosophers.
PE
PS What do the superscripts refer to?
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 12:52 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 10:42 AM Primordial Egg has replied
 Message 55 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 11:58 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 417 (25928)
12-08-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Primordial Egg
12-08-2002 10:01 AM


hi pe...
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Its a cliche, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - thats why the empty box vs full box is not a fair analogy - neither scenario is extraordinary enough.
Whether that gives justification for goading, I leave to the philosophers.
PE
i think i've seen a recurring theme in some of gene's posts, and his analogy of the box tied in with it... i understand your objections to the analogy, but it was a good one (taken in context)... see, the group who believed something was in the box were so convinced because of past evidences left by the artist... christians believe the order of the universe (among other things) is an evidence of God's existence, which means the "box" of their faith isn't empty nor is it in the least unreasonable...
now the theme i believe i sensed is one that asks how it is that atheists seem to borrow from the christian worldview when arguing against christianity... i've seen others belittle this stance with arguments like "one can't prove a negative," but that in no way invalidates the concept... it's based, it seems to me, in a contradicion, in a mindset that both affirms and denies metaphysical or transcendental entities... the atheist who uses reason and logic to argue with the theist is using something that has no materiality, something unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview yet *is* explainable in a christian worldview...
is logic suspended in time and space? is reason? if not, they are immaterial by definition... the atheist (admittedly i'm speaking of the person who believes the material world is all that exists) who then uses these weapons is borrowing them from the very people who believe they know from whom they come

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-08-2002 10:01 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-08-2002 4:24 PM forgiven has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 417 (25931)
12-08-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by gene90
12-08-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:

We're not talking about science. Unfortunatley you have made the deliberate decision, based upon no evidence, that only what you can detect empirically exists. Prove yourself correct. Or are you only as "deluded" as I am, running with no evidence?

well said... "only that which can be empirically verified exists" is a truth claim and requires, at the very least, elaboration
edited to remove extra quote
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 12:15 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John, posted 12-08-2002 12:29 PM forgiven has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 55 of 417 (25936)
12-08-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Primordial Egg
12-08-2002 10:01 AM


quote:
The point is, whatever is in the box, it may astonish them in an artistic and cultural context, but it would take something special to defy all the laws of nature or be something completely outside the realms of the audience's physical experience and worldview.
The box can represent the supernatural. Everything outside the box represents the laws of nature as we understand them in our daily lives. The ones that believe something is in the box are the equivalent of those who believe there is more to our reality (including the laws of nature) even though they have not seen these laws violated. The ones who believe there is nothing in the box are those who assume that the only "things" in the universe that exist are those that can be empirically verified, and therefore, the laws of the universe can never be suspended, though they have no evidence of this.
There is a very famous Sagan quote, though I'm sure he would roll over in his grave for my using it: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
To be absolutely convinced that there is nothing beyond what can be empirically defined is no better than to be convinced that there is something outside the empirically defined; neither side has empirical evidence anyway. Further, I feel it is better to believe and be convinced that I have subjective and personal evidence for my beliefs than be equally convinced that there is no God and yet admit that I have no evidence at all to back myself up.
The superscript was only an internal reference between the "box is empty" claim and the artists' sense of humor.
quote:
If I told you I had a pet gorilla, you probably wouldn't believe me but if I showed you a photo and ownership documents you might. If I told you I had a pet velociraptor then you'd probably want to check it out for yourself, and even if you saw it, you'd probably be checking for robotic components. And even then you'd think I must have drugged you....you'd go through and eliminate every single natural cause to convince yourself that what you were seeing was for real.
Well hopefully I would do the same if you showed me the pet iguana, to be consistent. Otherwise, I would show a bit of observer bias.
I don't like the analogy because you seem to be going out of your way equate God with something incredible in order to try to demonstrate that the notion of God is incredible. Dinosaurs aren't like God because they leave fossils and are biological entities. IE, a population of dinosaurs is more likely to leave evidence than God, and God does not necessarily leave evidence at all. To find a surviving dinosaur is much more improbable than there being a God because paleontological searches have failed to find velociraptor fossils above the K/T boundary and living velociraptors have not yet been found, though most of the globe has been settled.
No such empirical search can be mounted for God, as atheists are so happy to point out.
Plus, the analogy loses its steam based upon the worldview of the person. The dinosaur analogy only works because we were taught from a young age that velociraptors and their friends are extinct. If we had dinosaurs around, then we wouldn't wonder at your pet. If there were no evidence that there were no dinosaurs (not exploring most of the world and not finding the K/T layer where dinosaurs terminate) around then a pet dinosaur would be credible, would it not? To see the animal would be exciting but it would not necessarily be sufficient to cause a great sense of self-doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-08-2002 10:01 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 56 of 417 (25937)
12-08-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky
12-08-2002 1:20 AM


quote:
You seem to take offence when you think Gene knows what you think.
I know what John thinks. He parades it around in public view, here and on his website.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 1:20 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 417 (25940)
12-08-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by forgiven
12-08-2002 11:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
well said... "only that which can be empirically verified exists" is a truth claim and requires, at the very least, elaboration
How does one verify a particular claim without appeal to some form of sensory information? It is that simple. You and gene both insist on formulating the problem as above, but that is a misrepresentation. I'll gladly admit the possibility of non-empirically verifiable something-or-others but how does one verify the ACTUAL existence of such things? It can't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps you can tell me how it can be done?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 11:02 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 1:01 PM John has replied
 Message 66 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 6:58 PM John has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 417 (25945)
12-08-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by John
12-08-2002 12:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
well said... "only that which can be empirically verified exists" is a truth claim and requires, at the very least, elaboration
How does one verify a particular claim without appeal to some form of sensory information? It is that simple. You and gene both insist on formulating the problem as above, but that is a misrepresentation. I'll gladly admit the possibility of non-empirically verifiable something-or-others but how does one verify the ACTUAL existence of such things? It can't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps you can tell me how it can be done?

the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material... atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from... christians can explain these things.. so my statement above, and in other places, was meant to show that the atheist has to borrow from the christian worldview to even discuss these things
now then, either what i wrote is true or it isn't... is the above statement a knowledge claim? if so, more than merely asserting it as such should be attempted... that seems reasonable to me since others have pointed out that the christian needs to do more than make assertions... the same standards should apply to each

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John, posted 12-08-2002 12:29 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by John, posted 12-08-2002 1:50 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 84 by nator, posted 12-09-2002 8:33 PM forgiven has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 417 (25947)
12-08-2002 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by forgiven
12-08-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material...
This is your claim, not mine. I haven't said anything about a materialistic universe, only about the verification of statements.
quote:
atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...
Why not? This really doesn't make sense.
quote:
christians can explain these things.
By appeal to an unverifiable entity? I can explain anything I wish in the same manner, but no one would take me seriously. Why should I take you seriously?
quote:
so my statement above, and in other places, was meant to show that the atheist has to borrow from the christian worldview to even discuss these things
Then no peoples prior to christianity have been able to discuss these thing or think these things, as there was no christian worldview from which to borrow?
quote:
now then, either what i wrote is true or it isn't... is the above statement a knowledge claim?
It is a knowledge claim, but it isn't my knowledge claim. I have explained my position.
quote:
if so, more than merely asserting it as such should be attempted...
Certainly, but I haven't made the assertion you present. I don't make the claim that that the universe is material-- the word doesn't mean a lot to me actually-- nor do I make the claim that only empirically verifiable things exist. The claim I make is that empirical evidence is the only evidence we've got and that believing something without evidence is irrational.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 1:01 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 2:29 PM John has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 417 (25949)
12-08-2002 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by John
12-08-2002 1:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Originally posted by forgiven:
the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material...
quote:
J:
This is your claim, not mine. I haven't said anything about a materialistic universe, only about the verification of statements.
it isn't a "claim" john, it's the truth.. it's self-evident that in a universe where only materiality exists, transcendenence doesn't...
quote:
f: atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...
quote:
J:
Why not? This really doesn't make sense.
what doesn't make sense? a materialist is one who believes nothing exists outside of nature, nothing that isn't suspended in space/time... to a materialist, where does her power of reason come from? what makes her beliefs more or less reasonable than anyone else's? if her very existence is an accident, why should we believe her apparently reasonable arguments and not those from another purely accidental conciousness?
quote:
f: christians can explain these things.
quote:
J:
By appeal to an unverifiable entity? I can explain anything I wish in the same manner, but no one would take me seriously. Why should I take you seriously?
yes you can, but do you? i have a worldview in which there is no contradiction... the atheist has no such luxury... what you call unverifiable i call obvious evidence... if your reasoning ability is based on the accident of this solar system's existence, how can it be accepted as anything more than a result of that accident? why should your opinions be any more acceptable than anyone else's?... here's a simple question for you, john... is logic material or immaterial?
quote:
f:so my statement above, and in other places, was meant to show that the atheist has to borrow from the christian worldview to even discuss these things
quote:
J:
Then no peoples prior to christianity have been able to discuss these thing or think these things, as there was no christian worldview from which to borrow?
that does not follow from anything i said... assume abiogenesis to be a fact for a moment... there is no human life yet, nobody to classify things... now, did laws of logic exist at this time? was the law of non-contradiction still a law, even with noone around to 'name' it? could, apart from man's existence, a = ~a in the same way at the same time? so you see, it does not follow that the christian worldview needed to be articulated for it to be true... logic need not be known to exist for it *to* exist
quote:
f: now then, either what i wrote is true or it isn't... is the above statement a knowledge claim?
quote:
J:
It is a knowledge claim, but it isn't my knowledge claim. I have explained my position.
then i wasn't speaking to you, i was speaking to whomever made the original statement... it was made as if it contained a truth value... but it was merely asserted and the person asserting it should be held to account
quote:
f: if so, more than merely asserting it as such should be attempted...
quote:
J:
Certainly, but I haven't made the assertion you present. I don't make the claim that that the universe is material-- the word doesn't mean a lot to me actually-- nor do I make the claim that only empirically verifiable things exist. The claim I make is that empirical evidence is the only evidence we've got and that believing something without evidence is irrational.
there is an internal inconsistency in that paragraph... if truth can be ascertained from immaterial entities, why is one considered irrational for maintaining something to be true utilizing those entities? if, as you affirm, empirical evidence is the *only* evidence we've got, and if, as you affirm, other than material entities exist ("empirically verifiable things" are surely material, are they not?), from whence the logic required to hold that view? you are using an entity that can't be empirically verified to assert that only empirically verified entities can be used for evidence
perhaps you don't see the inconsistency in that, but i'm quite sure others do... since you state several times that you don't hold a certain position, why not just say what you do believe? in your view, is existence made up of only those things which are termed 'material'? iow, is all that exists suspended in space/time? i'm not asking you to make a case for your beliefs at this time, i'm simply trying to find out what they are

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John, posted 12-08-2002 1:50 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by John, posted 12-08-2002 6:17 PM forgiven 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