|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence For Belief | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
EvC Forum has traditionally been divided into two basic sections:
Science Forums and Social & Religious Forums. One issue which we have discussed at length in our many threads and topics is the idea of whether or not Religious and/or Philosophical Belief requires a strict standard of evidence in order to be seriously considered as valid. In this topic, I wish to gather some of the points made by our various debates throughout the forum and present them all together in order to hopefully encourage a discussion on the idea of evidenced beliefs versus myths, legends, fantasies, and other unsupported assertions by believers and secular philosophers alike. This topic is not limited to science nor is it confined to the dogma of belief. It is hopefully a hybrid. Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
So many discussions here!
Percy,to GDR writes:
Go find the objective evidence of this intelligent root cause. Stop asking meaningless rhetorical questions like, "How else could all of creation have come about without an intelligent root cause?"ringo writes: GDR asked why chemicals exist. Presumably, his answer is because God created them. So, the next obvious question is: Who created God? If you can just stop asking at God as "the first uncaused thing", then why not start at chemicals as the first uncaused thing?(...)chemicals are not made up. They exist objectively.
That much can be proven. But what is unknown is in the beginning. We humans were not around to declare anything objectively. Objective evidence must be timeless. We don't have enough information to determine chemicals to be the initial uncaused cause. Again, the human animal is the only animal that defines reality before its own existence. In addition, for all participants, I might mention that this topic could also be called Belief In Evidence. It seems that many people claim no belief in life but always frame their arguments evidentially. Evidence itself is seemingly a hoped-for result. One point that I have brought up before, however, is that evidence removes the belief from the equation entirely. Some argue that God, if God exists (and is the Christian version) wants people to have trust and belief in Him as a precondition to salvation. Critics balk at such a hypothetical suggestion, maintaining a need for evidence before any acknowledgment of Gods existence is given. But as I said before, if you have evidence you do not believe anything any longer. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes:
Reality limits us to physical objective evidence. Speculation requires more. How can philosophy and belief "make more sense" than reality?Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries originated with speculation. Were scientists unimaginative, they would have sat around forever waiting for chemicals to assemble in front of them. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It's the only evidence we have.
We don't have enough information to determine chemicals to be the initial uncaused cause. Phat writes:
If there is evidence, there's no excuse for belief.
One point that I have brought up before, however, is that evidence removes the belief from the equation entirely. Phat writes:
Worst copout ever. Some argue that God, if God exists (and is the Christian version) wants people to have trust and belief in Him as a precondition to salvation. Leprechauns hide because they want you to have faith in them. The Loch Ness monster hides because she wants you to have faith in her. Bigfoot hides because he wants you to have faith in him. Martians hide because they want you to have faith in them. Phlogiston hides because it wants you to have faith in it. The earth pretends to be round because it wants you to believe it's flat.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Humor is evidence of creativity. Creativity is evidence of a Creator. Quid Pro Quo, Dr.Lector
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
There's nothing wrong with speculation that's based on reality - but how can you invent something useful with no basis in reality? Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries originated with speculation.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You make the mistake that Faith constantly makes. Creativity is evidence of A creator - one of many - not THE Creator. In the case of humour, the creators are us. Creativity is evidence of a Creator.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: Thats on topic for this thread! There's nothing wrong with speculation that's based on reality - but how can you invent something useful with no basis in reality? Christianity was invented according to some skeptics. One could argue that it has no basis in reality since "resurrections don't happen". Many people throughout History have not only believed, but in many cases have studied and devoted entire careers to furthering human understanding of this "myth". I submit that the jury is out regarding whether Christianity is a clever myth or not. I for one believe that God exists and is real. you could challenge my claim (and have) by saying that I ignore the message which I am supposed to believe in. So where does this argument go from here? Belief *should* be based on reality. Does subjective experience count as reality? Does an eyewitness account count as evidence for reality? Or are we confining reality to the behavior of chemicals which we have known about and which evidently existed forever?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: Does creative intelligence simply evolve out of chemicals? Do we have evidence that life and creativity can be reproduced in a lab? Is it so silly to speculate that in order for us to be creators suggests that there is likely "THE Creator"? Why or why not? Creativity is evidence of A creator - one of many - not THE Creator. In the case of humour, the creators are us.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Are the twelve patients who think they're Napoleon really Napoleon?
Does subjective experience count as reality? Phat writes:
It can be considered as evidence but no definite conclusions should be drawn from it.
Does an eyewitness account count as evidence for reality? Phat writes:
We're confining reality to reality. Otherwise, we wouldn't have bothered to make up words for fantasy, fiction, etc. Or are we confining reality to the behavior of chemicals which we have known about and which evidently existed forever? And those chemicals didn't exist "forever", only since some time after the Big Bang.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why not? It's a brain function and brain functions are electrochemical.
Does creative intelligence simply evolve out of chemicals? Phat writes:
Yes, going back to Miller-Urey.
Do we have evidence that life and creativity can be reproduced in a lab? Phat writes:
No sillier than it is to speculate that a hobbit could protect a magic ring from orcs and wizards. No more sensible either. Is it so silly to speculate that in order for us to be creators suggests that there is likely "THE Creator"?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
quote:I tend to get nervous when someone brings up the miller urey experiment. It only demonstrated that under certain conditions, organic chemistry occurs. There is a huge leap between that and a cell. Just saying. If you say the word "gullible" slowly, it sounds like oranges. Go ahead and try it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Arachnopuppy writes:
That's why I said, "going back to," Miller-Urey. Anybody who contends that life and non-life are fundamentally different is responsible for refuting ALL of the evidence since Miller-Urey. I tend to get nervous when someone brings up the miller urey experiment. It only demonstrated that under certain conditions, organic chemistry occurs. There is a huge leap between that and a cell.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I want to select this statement of Percy's last reply in rapture thread and reply to it. This seems to be a bit of a sticking point, so if I'm wrong, (just can't see that happening ), then I can learn from it.
Percy writes:
I contend that we objectively know that The Bible exists. We objectively know that the NT claims that Jesus was resurrected. We objectively know a fair bit about what has been written about the 1st century world that Jesus lived in. We objectively know that the Jesus movement spread beginning in that 1st century. "Subjective conclusions?" That's the first time I think I've seen you say that...let me check. Well, way back in Message 419 you did say that "subjective reasoning and intuition are a big part of our conclusions." If you understand that your conclusions are subjective, why are you arguing that they're underpinned by objective evidence? You and I can look at that objective evidence and form our own subjective conclusions about it. We can believe that it is all contrived. We can believe that some of it is accurate or we can even believe that God dictated it to the writers and it is 100 % accurate. Incidentally in regard to my Anglicanism I am pretty much middle of the road. There is a very wide diversity of belief within the Anglican church and it seems the conservative branch think I'm liberal and the liberal branch think I'm conservative, which is not meant in any way to validate my views.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
We also objectively know:
That there are lots of alternative and contradictory religious claims about which collection of writings/stories reveal the truth (bible, Koran, Torah, the vedas etc.) and that which one of these religious beliefs any given individual will claim as the truth is basically an accident of birth (if you had been born and raised in Ancient Greece you’d believe in Zeus, if you had been born on the Middle East you’d likely be arguing that the Koran is the book to follow, in 20th century Canada it happens to be Christianity that is the dominant religion) That features of the Christian story (virgin birth, resurrection, ascending to heaven etc.) are similarly featured in various preceding myths. That humans create myths, tell stories, elaborate, exaggerate, lie, adapt previously heard stories to their own ends, self deceive and generally don’t let reality get in the way of a good story. That dead people don’t come alive again. All of this we objectively know. So, based on this, I’d say that objectively speaking there is no reason to treat the bible as any more true than the other myths that we all agree are just myths and that the fact you are doing so says more about the prevailing culture you were raised in than the truth of Christ resurrection. So I don’t agree that it’s all just subjective interpretation of the same facts. I’m pretty sure that my position incorporates far more of what we know objectively than your subjective beliefs do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024