|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5068 days) Posts: 23 From: Ottawa ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why so friggin' confident? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is there any material or physical reason that would disallow the existence of God. In that case, no - as best as I can tell the God hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Several versions of God have potentially been falsified to certain levels of confidence. An honest God that wants us to believe both that he exists and created the World 15,000 years ago is probably false.
Now we are starting to narrow down and define exacally what evidence is to the support of belief. Given the above statement by yourself, it would follow that belief in God, a supreme being that is eternal in character and nature is both rational and reasonable due to the nature of physical things. In other words my belief or faith (not in the religious sense) is supported by reasonable, logical and rational evidence, correct? Again, in other words there is compelling evidence that he does exist. There is certainly something that compels you to believe in God. And it is this something I'd like to get to grips with. What is it?
So in this context it is reasonable to believe by the dictionary definition 1. my belief is supported by good evidence, whether one agrees with it or not. It is certainly reasonable to deduce from what you are saying that you believe that your belief is supported by good evidence. The problem is, that whenever we look for at the totality of related evidence I can not find a reason to be compelled to be accept the Christian view over the Islamic view. So why are you so friggin' confident that the Christian view of the Creator being is the right one? If I had two theories, both of which I felt had the same level of evidence in favour of them - I wouldn't arbitrarily pick one to believe in - so why have you?
Also, initially, in response to your first question about the virgin birth, it would not be unreasonalbe to believe(based on material, physical reasons) that if God does exists, he could alter or intervine in the material that he created, to bring about what you describe as a miracle, correct?. In other words this is as reasonable a BELIEF as you have in evolution Right - but on exactly the same grounds it would also be equally reasonable to believe that if God does exist, he didn't at least in this case create a miracle. So why are you so confident that, in this case he did?
If my REASONS for holding such beliefs are still not valid and not evidence thus far, how could you hold a BELIEF that something is incomplete (by this I assume you mean conclusive evidence) and at the same time BROADLY CORRECT and consider it a valid example of evidence and BELIEF? I'm not sure you've given much in the way of reasons. At the moment you seem to have 1. I believe in a being that can create miracles because the universe is a miracle.2. Since the virgin birth is a miracle it is possible that this being did it. 3. Therefore I am confident that the virgin birth did in fact happen. But that reasoning can't be everything. After all, you don't believe that every single proposed miracle that as ever been dreamed of is true, do you? Do you believe that Muhammad flew around the Middle East on a horse? And by incomplete I do not mean does not have conclusive evidence, sorry. If I say that computers work by processing 1s and 0s I would be broadly correct but very incomplete. If I say they work by a series of transistors processing various voltages which are later logically translated into 1s and 0s and later these are translated into the various outputs that a computer has I would be being a little more complete (but still incoomplete) and still being broadly true.
Secondly, how do you "accept", that life has changed dramatically over millions of years? By accept do you mean Believe based on incomplete or complete evidence. I mean the evidence in favour that statement is so strong and uniquely compelling that it would be perverse to deny it as a fact.
In other words you might be correct about the method on how this took place, or you could be incorrect. But if I am not mistaken, you do believe that evolution was that method, correct. Nearly. I consider that evolution happened/happens is a fact and I am confident that the theory of evolution can explain at least partially how it happened/happens.
So there is no more confusion after this, why dont we drop the religioous definition of faith, because I think I have clearly established that there is only substantiated faith or belief or not. That's fine - I've not used it. I merely pointed out that in debates and arguments in the past religious people have simply refused to discuss their reasons and evidence for believing specific things like the virgin birth and have retreated to statements along the lines of 'it's a matter of faith, I don't need evidence' and said that is why there is the disparagement of this kind of thing.
Thirdly it would not stand in contrast to the type of evidence for believing that Mary was a virgin, when she was carrying her child. But why do you believe that but you don't believe that Muhammad flew around on the back of a horse? What criteria are you using to be so confident of one, and not of the other. If it isn't the old 'its a matter of faith', then what is it?
I know in your mind you want it to be different, but there are simply to many other explanations besides that of evolution to explain the existence of things, as I have indicated. Evolution of course, does not explain anything and the theory of evolution certainly doesn't explain existence - it just explains how life changes. When it comes to explanations for how the universe came to exist, how life came to originate I have no confidence in one particular theory because as you say there are many. Some look more promising than others, and some could just be made up in someone's head for all we know. The question is - since there are so many, why are you so friggin' confident that yours is the right one?
I do accept that life has changed dramatically on earth over the last few billion years as a fact. The part after the or statement is not one that I understand Nor do I understand how a God could create matter from nothing, if indeed he did, or how he could impregnat a women with the miraculous, but there is certainly enough evidence to suggest he exist, correct? A bit of confusion there Bertot. Sorry about that, my fault. My sentence about saying that I didn't understand the part after the 'or' was poorly worded. I was referring to your sentence where you said:
quote: I was just saying I didn't understand that section, the next paragraph I wrote was me trying to translate and answer it as best I could:
quote: Though I appreciate you don't know how he did it, how do you know that he did do those things, but he didn't help Muhammad's airborne equine activities?
Here we have in your instance and mine, the only possible way to believe anything that we did not see occur. By using the available evidence to come to a conclusion that is viable and reasonable. Call it faith, call it belief,call it late for dinner, its either reasonable or it is not. The flying Spagetti monster is not. To paraphrase you, "Is there any material or physical reason that would disallow the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" But yes - I don't doubt that given the amount of confidence you have in these statements you believe that there is available evidence that Mary was a virgin and that there are reasons why you are confident that this was in fact the case. There are the Gospels, I don't remember which ones explicitly state she was a virgin was it two of them? OK so that's our evidence the writings of people who for the sake of argument we'll concede were witnesses. I'm fairly sure they didn't do a gynaecological check but they were witnesses to other miracles and presumably they believed Jesus or Mary or whoever told them of the virgin birth when they said that was the case. So the virgin birth is at best, second hand. No problem there. There were witnesses to the Muhammed horse flying expedition that wrote about it. And Muhammad himself dictated words confirming that he was in direct contact with God. So, what makes you confident that 1. Mary was a virgin2. Muhammad didn't fly on a horse. No rush on replying. I'm in Scotland away from the internet until approx Wednesday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I'm throwing in the towel on trying to enforce this thread's topic, for these reasons:
Buz, that means you may resume participation here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Mod writes:
No rush on replying. I'm in Scotland away from the internet until approx Wednesday. Thanks for your response, I will reflect on what you have written, then type out a response. You are in Scotland away from the internet, eh. Sounds like fun, I was there back in the early 90s, while stationed in the UK, both are beautiful places. You are away from the internet in scotland, I knew there was reason that Brian had so much trouble thinking straight, I guess he has to shoot to an up to date place everytime he wants to type something, ha, ha. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Does this mean you recognize that you can be wrong or that you are not a sinner? Can you supply any evidence of your infallibility? Do you think you can stop talking in mystical pablum? There seems to be four question here: (1) Can I be wrong? Yes, when it come to some of my behaviors, attitudes, and actions. My Lord constantly talks to me about these issues, and leads me in the way everlasting. (2) Am I a sinner? I was (past tense) a sinner who was (past tense) saved by God's grace, and continues being saved (present tense) by God's grace. Now I'm one of God's children who sometimes sins. (3) Can you supply any evidence of your infallibility? Nothing other than following to the best of my ability the infallible ONE sent by God the Father (John 6:28-29). (4) Do you think you can stop talking in mystical pablum? One person's pablum is another person's filet minion. Blessings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Percy,
The religious types will say their belief is based on evidence, when that evidence is discussed, it turns out to be part of the {set} that is believed to be true. Thus what they have (or claim to have) is an internally consistent {set} of beliefs (the fact that no two christians believe exactly the same set is a curious, but irrelevant, aside), but they have no evidence that the {set} is true. This is where John 10:10 turns to scripture as evidence that the bible is true (while using the bible as evidence that the scripture is true, completing the internally consistent set). This is where Buz turns to archaeological evidence to show that places that occur in the bible occur in the world, but dismisses evidence that there is no record of the possible jewish cohabitation with egyptians that matches the mythology of the bible. Similar with the chariot wheels in the red sea, etc etc. He believes he has evidence, but on inspection it turns out that he has faith that the "evidence" is true, rather than actual evidence.
In other words, the "faith" is indeed of the second definition above, the part that is believed includes more than just belief in god/s. So the question really is a matter of definition of what is the {set} that is believed that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Reality Man writes:
and
Message 3: The root of intelligence is to be able to define one's position in the world, humility if you will, so Ha!but I listen to a lot of discussions and stuff, enough to the point that I can think in terms of "Black Boxes" a programmers' term for a functional object that receives input and ejects output, and of which the precise workings of that "black box" is not important to the users. We need to use the entire "Black Box" for the {set} of beliefs that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To continue,
A typical Young Earth Creationist Literal Biblical Fundamentalist (YECLBF) "black box" set of (internally consistent) beliefs would include:
The second issue of {evidence} is confirmation bias.
This is where your typical YECLBF cites creationist websites as evidence, as he believes they are true because of confirmation bias. And then we have cognitive dissonance ...
And this is where your typical YECLBF ignores or denies any contradictory evidence while confirming their biased belief in creationist arguments. The fourth issue of {evidence} I would like to bring up involves delusion:
A person who believes false information from creationist websites (whether via confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance or not) is deluded1b by the false information. This kind of delusion can be rectified by the presentation of {evidence} from outside the black box (ie from objective evidence of reality, from other christians, etc) that contradicts the belief and that demonstrates the error\falsehood of the creationist website argument. This can then lead to cognitive dissonance, and then either rejection of the falsified creationist argument, or denial of the contradictory evidence, leading to delusion3. While this later case may not result in people drowning their kids because they heard the word of {god} telling them to (ie clinical delusions), it does mean a certain degree of rejection of the real world. I think it is only fair to exclude this kind of clinical delusion3 from the discussion of faith Thus I would submit that this sets an outer limit to what can be believed on faith2 - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence - alone, because beliefs that are contradicted by evidence are based on denial of evidence (via cognitive dissonance or delusion). In other words, rational faith cannot be confirmed nor invalidated by evidence from outside the belief set. The typical YEC black box set listed above fails this test. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : fails Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : clrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Can I be wrong? Yes, when it come to some of my behaviors, attitudes, and action. My Lord constantly talks to me about these issues, and leads me in the way everlasting. It would only be your communications with God that are of interest here, but thanks for the distraction. So, John 10:10, are your communications with God absolutely, 100%, without doubt genuine. Is there no room for your being delusional? Is sea gull Jesus beyond question because he gets all of his communications from His Dad?
One person's pablum is another person's filet minion. The person who mistakes pablum for filet minion is wrong. He may prefer pablum, but that does not make it more then pablum. His preference for pablum may lie, as your arguments to date, in a lack of teeth. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You know this, I know this and a number of others on this forum know this. The problem is the ones who don't know this because of the "black box" mentality sort of a super "can't see the forest for the trees."
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Bluescat
The problem is the ones who don't know this because of the "black box" mentality sort of a super "can't see the forest for the trees." We all live in our own black boxes, though some look outside the box. Those that only see "unknown territory" are more likely to be attuned to reality than those that have that plus "here there be dragons" territory/s (The land where da Nile flows freely) ... and where walls need to be built to keep the dragons at bay. Enjoy. ps - did you escape the big freeze? My bro lives in Fitchburg. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Admin writes: Buz, that means you may resume participation here. Thanks very much, Admin. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
This is where Buz turns to archaeological evidence to show that places that occur in the bible occur in the world, but dismisses evidence that there is no record of the possible jewish cohabitation with egyptians that matches the mythology of the bible. Similar with the chariot wheels in the red sea, etc etc. He believes he has evidence, but on inspection it turns out that he has faith that the "evidence" is true, rather than actual evidence. But RAZD, there are unknowns, un-empirically substantiated and debatable aspects of all hypotheses and theories. I have posted responses to the arguments relative to the debatables while debating the Exodus. I am not going into any of that here, but cite it to make my point. You and yours acknowledge the debatables and mysterious aspects of abiogenesis as well as the Big Bang, for example. It is the same for Biblicalists here with the Exodus. We who argue for it go with the researched givens relative to evidence which undergirds our faith. We do the best we can with the debatables and unknowns similarly as you do. We believe that this evidence as with others like the prophecies that we have enough evidence to effect an/a hypothesis and go from there working on the debatables. As with you people we all, regardless of ideology, must exercise a greater or lesser degree of faith, the degree of faith depending on the ratio of givens to non-givens in the hypothesis. The only difference in the ideologies, relative to faith, is that compatible terminology is graciously afforded to secularists while faith is the only terminology strictly encumber upon Biblicalists by mainstream science, media and fora which happens to have the majority bully pulpit. Can we agree on that, RAZD? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Buz,
I am not going into any of that here, but cite it to make my point. Percy breathes a sigh of relief ... thanks.
We who argue for it go with the researched givens relative to evidence which undergirds our faith. In other words, you admit confirmation bias.
As with you people we all, regardless of ideology, must exercise a greater or lesser degree of faith, the degree of faith depending on the ratio of givens to non-givens in the hypothesis. As I said above, we all live in our own black boxes ... however some have gray boundaries where there are unknowns, boundaries that are constantly tested, and some have rigid walls to keep out dragons.
The only difference in the ideologies, relative to faith, is that compatible terminology is graciously afforded to secularists while faith is the only terminology strictly encumber upon Biblicalists by mainstream science, media and fora which happens to have the majority bully pulpit. I don't think it depends on who believes what rather it depends on the degree of faith one relies on, as opposed to the degree of evidence based knowledge that is tested against reality, particularly when reality based tested knowledge is discarded. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes: I don't think it depends on who believes what rather it depends on the degree of faith one relies on, as opposed to the degree of evidence based knowledge that is tested against reality, particularly when reality based tested knowledge is discarded. It does make a difference what you believe. The problem here is nobody knows what faith is. Everybody here is talking about faith as the trust I would have in my dog or my bank to keep my money safe. My wife not to poison my food, etc. When it comes to faith in God it does not work that way. When a man comes to God he must believe that God is. And That God will do what He says He will do.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
When talking about Biblical faith found in the Bible this is the only definition for faith.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. How does a person obtain faith?
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The source of faith.
Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. bolding added So man must hear the word. Be convicted by the Word.When convicted by the Word, a man comes to God believing God. God provide's all the faith a person needs. He will provide all the evidence a person needs. I can be very confident in what I believe because gave me all the faith and evidence I need to trust Him to do what He says He will do. I know that there are very few that can understand what I am saying and how I can be that confident. That is OK we all make our decisions based on and for different reasons as onifre says "that is cool". God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
So man must hear the word. Be convicted by the Word. What if someone hears the Word but is not convicted by the Word?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT
It does make a difference what you believe. The problem here is nobody knows what faith is. ... When talking about Biblical faith found in the Bible this is the only definition for faith. ... I can be very confident in what I believe because gave me all the faith and evidence I need to trust Him to do what He says He will do. I know that there are very few that can understand what I am saying and how I can be that confident. That is OK we all make our decisions based on and for different reasons as onifre says "that is cool". Thank you for telling us about your "black box" ... that's cool. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : s by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024