|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total) |
| |
BodhitSLAVa | |
Total: 884,389 Year: 2,035/14,102 Month: 403/624 Week: 124/163 Day: 17/27 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
I am super busy studying for final exams, but I thought I'd allow myself to be preoccupied for a bit by this discussion here
![]() After reading through this thread it seems to me that we are once again facing the great debate. We have Stile (and his consistently used 4/5-statement outline It interests me that we, as humans, get so caught up in this kind of argument. Focusing so much on the rationality, the mathematics, the science, all it turns out to be is one huge insult-filled, exponent citing spaghetti monster. Haha. We are so quick to lose sight of the much bigger issues at hand. My issue lies with both sides.
For Stile, God does not exist. His subjective experience has told him so. He claims the collective "we" (meaning humanity I'm assuming?) have been unable to prove God's existence, since he cannot be seen, does not answer prayers, etc. This confuses me since the majority of humanity would affirm the existence of some sort of a supernatural power, and there are many testimonies of supernatural experiences out there (ghost sightings, unexplained phenomenon, answering prayer, miracles, etc). Here are some links: http://www.pewresearch.org/...ricans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost http://www.livescience.com/...-people-aliens-ghosts-god.html http://www.rawstory.com/...-still-believe-in-witches-or-ufos This is affirmed by history as well. Moreover, humans in general tend to believe in or at least leave the possibility open to the existence of some sort of supernatural force/forces. (Aliens/God/demons/spirits): So since "we" (as a human race) have (in general) a belief in some sort of supernatural, two things are apparent. 1. Stile is choosing the minority view that the supernatural doesn't exist. 2. It is obvious that Stiles' problem does not actually lie with the supernatural, but with the Judeo/Christian presentation of God. If this were not so he would not have begun his position by attacking (albeit non maliciously) an already established position like "God," and would have wrote "Any sort of supernatural force of any kind" or something of that nature. So my question for Stile would be: "What about the Judeo/Christian God or the people who claim his name do you disagree with?" The churches? The hypocrisy? The assumptions? This is the internet, so one can only get so personal, but I truly believe if this was not a debate, and Judeo-Christianity were not Judeo-Christianity, if it had no name, if the religions did not exist and all you had was an unnamed book on an island somewhere, you would find room in your worldview for clothing the naked, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and setting the oppressed free. (Luke 4:17) That's Jesus. That's God.
Eliyahu, on the other hand, claims that God does exist, and that mathematics can prove the existence of said God. He has argued that due to the anthropic principle God can be proven to exist. While this may be true or false, I would argue that trying to prove God's existence with science/mathematics to those who use the same means to disprove God's existence is equally as futile. Here is a prime example: The opposing side has refused to accept your thesis, and so you really have nothing more to give them than reiterating your point. How you do this is up to you, but no matter how many insults you include, appeals for reason you throw out, and references back to your original point you make they will always refute you with the same things. I know Eliyahu is Jewish, so this is my personal perspective and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way (I am a protestant Christian). Jesus was counter-cultural. Meaning, when those challenging him came with intellectual arguments he confused them by not feeding their intellectualism. He simply loved people, and let that be the testimony that God is real. So, in conclusion, the argument is really actually fruitless, for when debating on such an over-debated topic, especially over the internet, no ground can be gained on either side. It is only faith expressing itself in love that will have any merit in the kingdom (Gal. 5:6) and if that's either of you, I'll be seeing you there! Today. Tomorrow. And in eternity Regards! - Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Hi there!
![]()
If, by "debates like these," you mean debates like this one on the internet, then I am genuinely surprised. I suppose my original conclusion was rushed; I am meaning to speak more towards the "proving of God's existence" side than the "non-believer."
That my friend, is exactly what I'm speaking towards. You have illustrated for us the exact thing I wish to combat. Why is it so often the case that the "religious people" are (either seen as or truly) completely illogical, while rational, well-educated people argue the other side? I truly believe that it is because religious people go about the argument the wrong way. Eliyahu and Faith, for example (they are the names you referenced) are seen this way for a reason.
I would totally agree with you. CS and RAZD are both excellent examples of that balance. I suppose then, that all I'm getting at is that from an I.D. perspective, and a specifically Christian one, I would not be so quick to try and use the same means of arguing my beliefs as "the other side." If I believe this Jesus stuff then I'm not going to approach the argument the same way. If I can love you guys, even through the internet, with at least my typed words, let that be the testimony that God is real. Or dont
I appreciate you saying this Phat. As you know I am still in my Undergraduate studies.....there are many here much wiser than I The conversation then is not fruitless, if the goal is to continue to grow in the the how of saying things, the journey, the process. I see merit in that. I have seen growth in myself from that very thing. I suppose my frustration speaks more towards those (myself included) proponents of I.D. who try and use the same argument process as those against and end up only getting frustrated and seen as illogical. My question would be: Why go about the debate the same way only to be seen a those things? If I had one goal it would be to change the perception of what "religious people" are like. Perhaps I am falling into the very thing I am fighting against. haha. Oh well...such is life. I still have a long way to go. - Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6
|
Hello friends! Looks like Phat and Ringo are still going around in circles these days
![]()
Seems like Phat has referred to Jesus as "the Word" and ringo feels that makes no sense. It makes sense that this phrase seems like nonsense, ringo, but it actually has history and context within the christian tradition. Most likely what Phat is referring to is John 1:1, which reads,
What John is doing here is really brilliant. He knows his audience live in and value the principles of stoicism. The stoics taught that above all, an "ultimate reason," anima mundi, or "λόγος" permeated and animated the entire universe. Thy thought of reason as having a "soul" of some kind, a supreme "existence" that was above all other forms of flesh. People of this time period and location would be swimming in stoicism in the same way we swim in modernism and post-modernism today. So John uses this concept, the concept of the λόγος, to essentially say that Jesus Christ is that λόγος, that "ultimate reason," that "soul of the universe" that has always existed and made flesh. He does this to essentially contextualize the gospel to their worldview and speak in language they understand. Some might even say he is attempting to affirm that the way they conceptualize "ultimate reality" speaks to an even higher truth that has been revealed in the form of Jesus. So yea! Over the years the phrase "The Word" has entered the many forms of "Christianeese" terminology that Christians use without thinking. Hope this makes sense. Hope y'all are well! - Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Hola friends
![]()
It sounds to me Stile like you believe in God a lot more than you think you do
Sounds like the scriptures agree with you more than you realize
This is interesting reasoning to me. I want to understand it better haha. If love has a being, why wouldn't I want to follow it/him/her/they? If a Divine Being exists, and it embodies love, why wouldn't we want more of it in our life? Your reasoning here seems to be throwing away one specific outcome because you have rejected it ahead of time, not because you don't find it compelling. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you and if so I apologize! Much love friends (even you Ringo! lolol), Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Yo Paul, been awhile since we went back and forth lol. Hope life is treating you well these days.
Seems like you're assuming a whole lot about "my" divine being ...I wonder how you will respond to this Raph Edit: Spelling yikes! lol Edited by Raphael, : No reason given. Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Appreciate the response and I think I understand better now!
In response, all love man, but your entire approach to this conversation is pretty intellectually arrogant. Haha. You’re doing a lot of assuming about my positions on things. What I gather from your words is you’ve narrowed in on - or perhaps you were taught and have since rejected - one specific hermeneutic and then used that hermeneutic to come to very specific conclusions that you have airtight ways to disprove. The issue is, there are a multiplicity of hermeneutics used to interpret scripture and I don’t really fit within the walls you’ve built for me. In fact, I’m more apt to agree with you and reject that kind of god too! You speak of “the Abrahamic religions” as if there is a single universally agreed upon systematic understanding in even one of those camps; that’s a pretty reductionist attitude imo. Real scholars take the time to understand the actual arguments of their contemporaries, so they can have an informed dialogue. So in light of the above, I am rejecting all your conclusions and question your interpretive work. I am outside the box you have created for me and don’t claim to believe any of the things you are assuming I do
I mean, I hear and value your belief that my “gods” aren’t real. But it’s certainly not something any of us can demonstrably prove, right? Haha. (This is kind of bait-y but I’m gonna roll with it I think Raph!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
I mean fair. There have been many trying to "sell a product," here on evc and all throughout history. In earlier years I myself have probably done the same haha (avoid my posts from 10 years ago here at all costs lol). But that's not really where im at personally. Frankly, I'm more interested in understanding your perspective more than anything else. I ascribe to be more of a listener these days. I hope that is coming across.
Nope! Haha. I mean for sure, the first couple statements are close. But words are important. I am religious, but just as much as you. You're just religious about different things. I don't think you actually agree with that definition for religion The problem again lies in the fact that you are targeting a very specific hermeneutic, painting with a broad brush and rejecting it wholesale. That's cool with me, because I reject it too (probably, lol, I'd have to ask more questions to fully know). For example, do I "Hold to the Biblical Genesis account?" I guess, but probably not in the way you assume I do. As for my goal here, while I do believe God has revealed Himself to the world in order to lead us to more authentic, healthy, and more joy-filled humanity, and I would love for you to experience it, I'm not really attached to the specific "vengeance-based" system you pointed out. In fact I probably oppose that view as much as you do lol. Ironically, and I don't think I've really done enough listening to make this claim, but at the risk of assuming myself, you strike me far more as a religionist
But I'm not insisting you believe anything. Haha. You can choose to believe what you'd like. I'm only concerned with any misrepresentation from your end. It's ok to be honest and admit I don't fit within the framework you put me in. There are plenty of believers and religionists in scientific, non-religious and anti-religious circles, just as there are plenty of evidence-based and logical thinkers in what you would call "religious" circles. To not acknowledge this would be pretty naïve imo.
Perfect! So then you already know approaching this conversation with an epistemology bias towards the scientific method doesn't work
I hear that of course. I'm fine to limit the discussion to the bare essence, I just feel you haven't taken into account that there are a multiplicity of ways to perceive and understand the bare essence, if that makes sense. The proof is that I do not represent the positions you have assumed I do. I agree that faith - "belief" as you say - is essentially my creed. But it is faith attached to a specific story and system, not belief in a vacuum. Essentially what I'm trying to get across is there are many ways of understanding the ideas you have attacked and dismiss. My hopewould be that there are ways of understanding these issues you would be a lot more comfortable with.
I actually agree! I have been deeply formed by acculturation to be religious, just as you have been deeply formed by acculturation to be anti-religious. Haha. It goes both ways, friend. I'm comfortable with the unproveable faith gaps in my worldview. How do you feel about yours?
I suppose so. But I do not claim to speak for them, I only claim to speak for me. So speak to me, not them
I hear and value your belief (faith choice) to not believe in my god Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Haha! I jest, in all honesty you're not, though if I recall back in the Dreamcatcher days we had quite a few bouts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Apologies on my slow response time friends, middle of seminary midterms for me so a bit swamped haha.
Haha, appreciate you, Phat my friend! Though these days I'm a bit more partial to La Croix
You are not wrong! I do believe. Words are important though. I do believe in the full Genesis account
Well all due respect, but of course your bias is negotiable, as is any bias. The assumption that the scientific method is the only arbiter for how knowledge about truth is gained (epistemology) is an unproveable faith claim. I honor and value your belief that it is, but it is a belief. Where did you find this faith claim, and what objective knower of Truth verified it? Until those questions are verified I will question your bias just as you question mine
Mostly, yes! Though I may add a couple nuances. It seems to me you are wanting to isolate and debate about the "what," ("you believe in a god") and what I am saying is, the "why" and even the "how" are equally as important and cannot be separated from the whole. So, why I believe, and, in particular how believe it, in my view, are connected so deeply to what I believe, that to deal with only the "what" seems too reductionist to me. (LOL tbh this paragraph is a bit of a tongue twister
Ah I understand now! And so to reiterate what is above, in response, I feel that to attempt to attack and dismiss the idea of belief without taking any consideration as to what is believed and how it is carried is too limited to come to an accurate conclusion. It would be like dismissing all donuts because you only ever had an apple fritter and hated it, and then assumed all donuts must be the same. You've never even had a bearclaw!
I respect and hear where you're at. I feel a similar way! I'm glad we can talk about this though!
Haha. I can see where you're coming from and that the process is valuable to you. I am with you on the endless learning, I feel the exact same way. I think that is perhaps part of why I am a person of faith. I am far too skeptical and interested in the "holes" to accept that we know all there is to be known. What if we are operating with only 1% of knowable information? We have no way of knowing. So I am with you man!
No issues, really! Just enjoying the conversation tbh. But I do recognize the argument I am presenting is a common one....in part. I feel I have perhaps beaten to death my point in my responses already haha. But at the risk of doing so again, I think if I were to attempt to synthesize it all it would be: I perceive that you reject a pretty specific conceptualization of faith. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but the more you share the more I am convinced it is so. Statements like this indicate this to me: quote: and quote: From these quotes I can see you reject some pretty specific theological systems and ways of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. You reject the idea that God created evil/suffering/anguish/death and then claims to be the warrior against those things. You reject the idea that God comes with punitive vengeance and as a Christian my goal is to save you from this paradox. In response, I also reject those ideas Oh! And what is your major question?? I'm ready - Raph Edited by Raphael, : Some grammar/spelling issues lol Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6
|
Nah that makes a lot of sense! Though I am a person of faith I have not always been, so I understand personally and grasp intellectually alternate philosophies/worldviews. I like to live life with a healthy intellectual openness, never assuming I have all the answers. Rather, respectfully, I get the sense it is you that approach science with the type of dogmatism you seem to be projecting onto me
But you already accept a belief statement. Haha. You believe the scientific method is the only path to knowing truth. That is not provable or testable and so, a belief statement.
Interesting. Is science a superior ontology? How is such a thing determined? When was this decided? By what objective source was this determined? You claim belief-based systems are not based in reality, but you can't possibly know this for certain. In reality, you believe, by faith, for this to be the case.
Hmm I could, I have done before here in other threads, however I don't know that you would find compelling the evidence I would present So nowadays we are now left with a paradox. The scientific method is a method used to test things. And yet scientists who hold to a more strict scientism (as I perceive you to be) are not open to testing the test or even considering other epistemological tools. In summary, I think I am more skeptical than you
But of course you do! You enter into your entire process with an epistemology bias towards a certain process (the scientific method). What if there are truths untestable by that process? (I would argue there are). How might you go about testing whether or not we are living in a simulation by an unobservable entity? How would you test whether or not you love your mother, or even if love exists at all?
I might beg to differ
I am on board with this, or at least the spirit of it. A healthy skepticism to absolute certainty is healthy, imo. I just think it is important to be honest about the places where we only believe things by faith. I have been honest about mine, and yet you seem reluctant to... That's ok, but I am interested in why certainty is so valuable to you? You say you are a scientist, and yet I sense a refusal to be skeptical about your foundational presuppositions.
Interesting. Well that is fine, haha, as long as you know it is a bias based on an unproveable faith claim and is not actually objective or necessarily true To your second statement here, while I am a person of belief I am a person of evidence. I go where the evidence leads. Contrary to popular belief, faith is based on evidence. However, not all true things are testable, and not all testable things are true. For clarity, what I am saying is I agree we should question truth claims without evidence, and so that is exactly what I am doing when you claim science is an objective lens for discerning truth
Ah gotcha. You're right, I did not grasp the depth of your rejection. I'm curious to understand, why are you anti-theist? Surely a scientist would acknowledge there are unknowable things about the universe and take more of an agnostic stance, no? Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6
|
I'm putting this here as a placeholder. You both have provided really thorough responses and I want to take the proper time and care to respond, all amidst grad work. Apologies if it is a day or so before I can throw it down! Until then,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Response 2 AZPaul Part 1 (Part 2 to come!)
I must clarify and say: I am not anti-science. Science has bettered our lives in a plethora of ways over the past 300 years in particular and that progress should be celebrated! We have not solved all the problems yet but what has been done is remarkable. I am not anti-science, I am merely skeptical of any who would claim to elevate the scientific method as the only epistemological process.
Haha, true! Life would not be the same without donuts and ice cream, a tragedy even! I am grateful for the scientists and science of cooking that allows us to create such awesome things!
I have no problem with the voice of our collective experts having consensus on something. Again I'm not against science, in fact usually, in my faith circles, I am an advocate for championing science as a vital part of a wholistic faith. I'd even be willing to say "the science rules" if you were to provide nuance on what the science rules over. I simply believe there are truths untestable by the scientific method. That does not mean I hate the method or even disagree with the way it is used. I simply recognize its limitations. I read a handful of the link you posted, interesting stuff, though a lot of it was over my head quote: If we are working from ^this classical epistemological definition, then all knowledge is "justified true belief." The writer above also posits that if the aforementioned is true, science then, is in fact a truth-seeking activity [fundamentally]. You resist this, for some reason. But your contemporaries seem to disagree. I don't have the slightest issue with science being a truth-seeking activity. In fact, I would even advocate it should be one of the primary truth-seeking activities. Just not the only one.
And in turn, I understand your motivation to remain with a scientific dogmatism. If science is only one pathway to knowledge of reality than the certainty you had counted on might be in question. Your unbending argument, ironically, reminds me greatly of conversations I have had with religious fundamentalists. We are more like the other side than we realize But what a gift it is to experience uncertainty, my friend. What a gift it is to not have to have all the answers. What a gift it is to rest in the mystery.
I am on board with using tools that actually give accurate results. The Scriptures though, contend that since Truth is totally free it is not a tool, or a process like the scientific method to be controlled. Truth is not beholden to anyone, though Truth loves everyone. (Which, in fact, is the mystery of the gospel.) Truth reveals Himself on His own terms and speaks to people answers to questions outside the scope of what science deals with, the questions we all ask on a fundamental human level. Do you matter? Is love real? Will suffering/war/genocide/child abuse/rape/starvation end? Does justice exist? To all these questions the answer from Truth is "yes." You matter, Paul. You are sacred and your life and the lives of your family and parents and children are holy and objectively divinely valued. Love is real, and love wins in the end. Suffering and injustice is a human creation, and yet it will come to an end.
Two things in response. First, really? What does it fail at? Perhaps you are looking to it for the wrong things. Perhaps some religious person even told you to ask it the wrong questions. And so I disagree. I think, as we have said before, words matter. Sometimes we ask the right source the wrong questions. Sometimes we ask the wrong source the right questions. Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is not the place to find the answer to the question "What is the recipe for the perfect cheese cake?" The Boy Who Lived doesn't really care about cheesecake (though I bet Daniel Radclife does! Maybe lol). In the same way, the Scriptures are not the place to ask "What is the PH of the water in cat urine?" It doesn't care about that question. Same goes with the question "Was the world created in seven literal days?" The book of Genesis, in response, says "I don't care about that question." It has other questions it is answering. It gets to decide what questions it cares about, not you or me. So really, the task for us is to become better discerners of which questions which sources care about, and ask those sources those questions. This is difficult, because it requires humility and listening and acknowledging...we don't have all the answers. Nobody does. Second, I think that statement is a pretty clear example of cultural privilege. With respect, but what an incredibly culturally arrogant and Western-centric thing to claim. The majority of people in the world experience the reality of their faiths on a daily basis, in vivid reality, and would tell you so. The fact that you dismiss what they experience as false shows again, your epistemological bias and arrogant preference for the positions of your own tribe - ironically the thing you accuse religious people of. You only have this perspective because of your holding culture, not because of its objective truth. Not trying to slander or name-call, just trying to be direct and honest.
It seems your own source disagrees with you though. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, their writers define science as "a truth-seeking activity," if truth/knowledge is defined as "justified true belief." I hear you though, I may have misspoke. So, while science may not be interested in "universal truth," it is certainly interested in the progressive pursuit of understanding more "justifiably true things." If you are willing to concede this, then I agree with it! I am just also arguing that science is axiologically limited. It helps us know true things, just not all of the true things.
Sure, but you only trust it based on belief, however justified. As I mentioned earlier, you have no way to discern whether this is a simulation or even if you are dreaming currently. You cannot observe your own brain function, and you only have untestable "markers" you assume will tell you you are dreaming. Anyway. Perhaps I spoke too hyperbolically. Perhaps a statement that more accurately represents my view is: "there are unproveable faith gaps at the foundation of all worldviews and epistemological frameworks." Objective reality may exist, somewhere, but even with the scientific method you have no way of discerning what is is or if this is it. I would be equally skeptical of a religious person claiming to know for certain what objective reality is. However I am not as invested in this path of argumentation tbh haha, this is not really my argument.
We agree here! As long as we recognize your view of reality is clearly skewed to favor a specific epistemological framework that you believe, by faith, is able to tell you all the accurate information.
I can conceive of it, I just do not think you recognize the unprovable faith gap beneath your entire framework (as there is within my own). What I am arguing is perhaps deeper than you recognize. For clarity, I’m arguing that built within the presuppositions of the scientific framework itself is the assumption that the method has all the tools required for gathering information about knowledge. You may rebut this, but you have been dismissing any truths not discovered by this process as “not reality.” Therefore, you are choosing to believe, by faith, whether you realize it or not, that the process has all the epistemological tools required for understanding reality, when, in reality (lol), this is not objectively true. In rebuttal to your thoughts on faith, faith actually has nothing to do with emotions or feelings. The Scriptures would contend that faith is based (in part) on what it calls revelation; that is, evidence that reveals itself to you without your control. Surely evidence, no matter its source, would be considered by one claiming to be a scientist?
Like the answers to the questions above. Science has an epistemological scope that plenty of scientists recognize. This is really the core of my argument. Some truths science does not bother concerning itself with. That's ok, because the field of Faith does have answer for the deeper, more mystical, fundamentally human questions we all ask.
I’m sorry to hear about your mom. Don’t know what I would do. On a lighter note, look who is basing reality on fleeting emotions now
You type this, but I am willing to bet you do not live like it. In reality, you live in deep connection and love with people you are close to, and you care about them, without stopping to reduce your own emotions into chemistry. In this sense, your ideas and the reality of the way (I am again willing to bet) you live your life are in dissonance. In reality, connection matters, love matters, and you matter, and you live as if all are true. Continued in part 2 tomorrow! Edited by Raphael, : Cleanup, grammar, some code issues, formatting Edited by Raphael, : More cleanup, I missed a few! Edited by Raphael, : One final edit for finishing touches (yes I’m a bit of a perfectionist whose asking? lol Edited by Raphael, : Finally done
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6
|
Response to AZPaul3, Part 2!
Well, yeah. But I've already admitted it is a faith statement, lol.
How can I, though, when you will reject any evidence that does not fit your favored epistemological framework? Also, again, sometimes we do not get the right answers because we're asking the wrong questions. Things of the Spirit are Spiritually discerned. I can't show you anything. There is no process or formula or methodology I can control. But if you are open to revelation-evidence (subjective, of course) and willing to seek with an open mind, YHWH, through the Ancient Prophet Jeremiah, says, quote: I don't think you're being an ass. Though I'm more of a beer guy, myself
It is interesting to me that this is how you view faith. I'm frustrated that someone perhaps introduced you to a kind of faith that "explains everything by explaining nothing." My faith doesn't work in such a way. Rather than explaining "everything," we find the Scriptures explains someone, namely, YHWH. A God, yes, but a person, with a character and personality and emotions and agency and hopes and goals. I'll concede, though, that many religious people over the years have probably tried to make the Scriptures be an "explains everything" sort of tool, when that's not what they are at all. "A faith" can center on anything, but healthy believers recognize the Scriptures have a clear agenda, and certain beliefs do not fit within that scope. If, for example, I want to believe Gimli from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an elf, rather than a dwarf, I'm free to believe that, but any avid fan or reader of the series would know this is not only incorrect but such a core part of Gimli's character, to change it would change almost everything about him. Such is the same with the Scriptures. Different cults and fringe groups may believe something, but that does in no way make their warped beliefs representative of the community at large, nor are those fringe beliefs representative of the source material.
I do not disagree with this, really. I'd only add the caveat that I think this is very black and white thinking. Secular, anti-religious regimes have accounted for just as much violence and death in world history as religious. This is pretty well documented, but I don't think this is what you're even arguing.
I believe in aliens for sure! Their eye shape is probably unknowable though lol. or maybe this is a reference to something Im not aware of?
I don't think we really disagree about what maybe you think we disagree about. I'm not anti-science, as you are anti-theist. I think the scientific method is a great epistemological tool, even the best one we've created. I listen to, and courage other people of faith to listen to scientists on issues of the environment, gender, healthcare, pandemics, vaccines, and all sorts of other issues. I do not know that I am even arguing an alternative epistemological process. To bring it all the way back to the name of this entire thread, and where I perceive we disagree really, is this: I reject your assertion "you know that God does not exist." I reject it because you have no way of knowing whether your tools can measure the Divine/Supernatural (even less so for the specific God of the Scriptures). Maybe your table saw works great! But a table saw cannot be used with emotions, or logic, or love. Meaning, your tool, (that I agree works for measuring reality), simply cannot measure what you want it to measure. It can't. Rather, you, yourself, are a person of faith - a believer. LOL. You believe, by faith, that if a God existed your tools would be sufficient to account for him. But that is an infinitely large assumption and totally unknowable. So, what I am saying is, I reject your assertion because it is a truth claim without evidence, and ironically, fairly dogmatic, and dare I even say "religious." I have enjoyed this debate, and am down to continue, however the reason I have made no truth claims, nor have I provided an alternative epistemology is because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you are able to know an unknowable and untestable thing.
Neither do persons of faith, so we are in agreement. And yet you have claimed you know God does not exist. That you can prove it. Seems like a contradiction to me. Can't have the best of both worlds, my man.
This is one of the few things I've seen from you that I totally agree with
Sure, I don't even disagree. As long as you also agree totally anti-religious groups and governments have committed as much violence throughout history, especially in the 20-21st centuries. Here's a Wiki (admittedly non scholarly, low on time) source about the 7-20 million people murdered by Stalin's regime in secular Russia. Should we abolish anti-religion? Violence is less of a religion problem, as it is a human one, it seems. I think the issue I hear in talking with you this far is you have a very black and white view of the world. You buy into the fallacy that "x things/people group/method is good" while "x other thing/group/method is bad." But life is a lot more nuanced.
I'm sorry you feel that way man. This explains a lot. You view faith as worthless. I don't really have anything to offer to change your mind. I don't really know if I care to do such a thing. I value you and your right to feel this way though. I'm sorry no religious person in your life ever presented it in such a way that you could see the richness faith adds to life. Perhaps that comes off as patronizing, I hope not. I'm sorry man. I think that's all I'll say here.
Haha, well as you have seen, it seems to be a pattern that whenever I engage in lines of argumentation like this, many come out of the woodwork, so to speak. Guys like PaulK and I have had our time in the fire in the past To answer your question frankly, it has been my experience that the anti-religious community at EvC is completely shut off and not really open to any answers I could provide to this question. I've been on EvC nearly as long as you man, since I was in high school in fact I'll leave this thought to end. And of course this is an oversimplification. Why did you believe your mother loved you? You might've been able to hook her up and demonstrate oxytocin was released in her brain when she cared for you. But in your real life, in the way you actually live, in reality, you didn't and don't need all of that. You believe it because you saw it to be true. You saw the evidence. Something in you resonated with that evidence, something deeply human. And that was enough. I am the same. All love, Edited by Raphael, : Some grammar issues as usual lol Edited by Raphael, : found an incomplete sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6
|
Hello Percy
![]()
By epistemology I mainly mean "a process by which knowledge is shown to be justified." As I mentioned to AZPaul though, I am not arguing an alternative method. He made a truth claim, ("I know God does not exist") and I rebut it under the grounds that he has no evidence for such a claim.
Most are objective, like the truth that you, Percy, are infinitely valuable and your life is sacred. Or the expanded version of that, that the lives and humanity of all people are intrinsically sacred and valuable. Or the truth that rape is evil. And the expanded version of that, that all injustice, oppression, and abuse is evil and ought to be fought against. Science does not have the tools to tell us these things. Nor should it, its for other things, as you have already said.
Yes. And I must emphasize to you as well. I am not anti-science as AZPaul is anti-theist. I believe science, trust science, and use science all the time. But it is limited, it would be naïve to not recognize this. Science cannot test the supernatural. This is why I disagree with AZPaul's claim that he "knows God does not exist."
I think that's pretty much all I'm arguing, so seems like we're in agreement! However, frankly I don't think AZPaul takes your same position. And I agree! I have zero interest in applying science to the Bible. At least not in the typical creationist way of it.
I don't need to establish one, since it is AZPaul that made a truth claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on him. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the scientific method is axiologically limited. You seem to agree with this. I don't think he does though. Lol
He doesn't need to say it for me to observe his language, and using that language as evidence, draw tentative conclusions about them. Maintaining that science is the only place knowledge about the universe comes from is an unprovable assertion, a faith position. An extremely well evidenced faith position, but a faith position nonetheless.
I mean its not a mystery which ones I believe and advocate for, I've been around here a long time. Lol. Anyway, yes, why wouldn't divine revelation be evidence? If the supernatural existed, and revealed itself, if we are going to follow the evidence, if we are actually interested in reality, why wouldn't we follow that evidence? To your other questions, on the issue of the veracity of the topics you mentioned within scripture, most scholars use (and have used for hundreds of years) similar if not the same hermeneutical tools to determine what is central/core and what is peripheral for orthodox Christianity. Think if it as a circle with another circle within. This works within each area of study. The topic of "God," also known as "Theology" is massive, but there are some things all orthodox scholars agree on. God exists, and exists in trinitarian form is one of those things. The topic of angels would be fairly peripheral, since it is not core to orthodoxy, so there is a pretty large spectrum of belief on the topic. To not get lost in the weeds and get at what I think you're asking, yes, there are a wide range of interpretations of certain things within Scripture. But on others, there is a very narrow range. Virtually all orthodox scholars agree on the narrow stuff. Edited by Raphael, : couple fixes, couple adds
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member Posts: 150 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6
|
I'm gonna also respond to this since I'm trying to get caught up tonight, though I may have to condense this as well, maybe I'll consider it as an extension of my last reply.
Haha, I should have expected this
Seems like we agree here!
I don't dispute the history. But there are plenty of religious people, and people right now in the Christian tribe who are not only nothing like what you have described but oppose it probably more than you do.
Excluding the first one, I respect your freedom to make these faith statements. I won't think you're an ass, no matter how honest or blunt you are. I mean unless you insult my mom, I guess? lol. This is a debate between gentlemen! I am honored to engage.
I don't agree. I think science can tell us a great deal of information that can help us make informed decisions. I think it is an absolutely crucial part of life and decision making. But it is axiologically limited. Science helped us develop nuclear weapons. But science does not ask the question, "should these be used?" "How should these be used? "Why or why not?" These are ethical questions. And beneath the ethics are moral assumptions. Is human life inherently valuable? Why? Who decided?
Sounds to me like you have rejected a specific hermeneutical framework (that I also oppose) and equated it with my perspective. The more I read from you the more I hear this in your words.
I'm glad for you then, that you live in a world with people of faith who can boldly answer this question, "yes!" and pursue it in the real world. Who knows where we'd be with a society of "maybe justice exists" police officers.
I think you are again inserting a specific hermeneutical perspective about those stories I probably disagree with, but we'll go with it. Sure, but so does history in general. The list of peoples murdered in the name of no God stack up just as high. Science hasn't seemed to solve this problem. Now what?
Go for it, just know that I read those scriptures in the original language, and I don't think they are saying what you think they are saying. I've responded to that specific verse here before, though not sure where in the archives it is lol. Really, what I hear, is again that you either 1. Were given or 2. Developed on your own a specific hermeneutical framework about the Scriptures, and then rejected the ideas based on that framework. The issue is there are plenty of other frameworks, and not all are created equal. Now is my turn to say: I'm not trying to be arrogant or an ass myself. Just trying to make it clear that what you have, over and over again assumed as the positions of the scriptures come from many assumptions that most serious scholars dismiss as fringe and untrue.
I think you are actually the same
I realize now perhaps this language is confusing. My bad there. What I mean is that beneath the scientific method is the belief that the method has all the tools to measure reality. This is an assumption. So, rather than saying "unprovable" I'll just stick with the phrase "faith assumption."
I don't really dispute any of this, and its the reason why I use science all the time lol. I feel that perhaps I have gotten ahead of myself with all this....I tried to clarify and condense in my last response to you, so I'll try and reiterate here, and maybe condense what I've been trying to get at with all these posts. I am a bit of a verbal processor haha, maybe that is apparant. I had a pretty strong idea I was heading here, but sometimes it takes writing it all out to clarify it even for myself lol. Here we go. This is my main point in all of this: 1. You claimed you "Know God does not exist." I rebut this claim, and dub it a faith statement because you have no way to test or demonstrate that is is true. 2. The Reason for this: The scientific method has within its foundation a faith assumption that it has all the tools required to test what is real. Its track record is good, however no objective source has verified this (none exists), therefore it is not objectively true. 3. In conclusion, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you have come to such a conclusion, which is something you have not done.
I don't need to, because I did not make a truth claim about something that cannot be known. I have my methods for how I know what I believe is true, but this story is about you, not me - Raph
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021