Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
41 online now:
Diomedes, Heathen, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric (7 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,369 Year: 18,405/19,786 Month: 825/1,705 Week: 77/518 Day: 3/74 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence For Belief
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 46 (846152)
12-30-2018 1:34 PM


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


  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2 of 46 (846170)
12-30-2018 3:29 PM


Uncaused First Causes
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


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:03 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 46 (846176)
12-30-2018 3:58 PM


Chemtrails
ringo writes:

How can philosophy and belief "make more sense" than reality?


Reality limits us to physical objective evidence. Speculation requires more.
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


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:07 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 5 of 46 (846180)
12-30-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:03 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:15 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 8 of 46 (846183)
12-30-2018 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:07 PM


Re: Chemtrails
ringo writes:

There's nothing wrong with speculation that's based on reality - but how can you invent something useful with no basis in reality?

Thats on topic for this thread!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:26 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 46 (846184)
12-30-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
12-30-2018 4:15 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
ringo writes:

Creativity is evidence of A creator - one of many - not THE Creator. In the case of humour, the creators are us.

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?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 12-30-2018 4:32 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 21 of 46 (846210)
12-31-2018 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
12-31-2018 7:30 AM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
What you say does make sense, but the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one! I have had too much subjective experience that convinced me that the Spirit is real to fully reject Christianity. I would admit, however, that were I to reject Christianity I most certainly would not embrace any of the other beliefs. They make even less sense to me. So in effect, I have proven your theory and observed suggestion.

I think that what GDR is trying to express is a defense of his own reasoning for why he believes as he does. I am in agreement with him because I feel the same way and have the same need to apologetically defend my belief.

I disagree with Tangles premature conclusion that there is no God. He asks how it can be otherwise...and awaits evidence which neither GDR nor I can provide.
Note, however, that he has a particular habit of taking the God of the book and vilifying Him...urging believers to reconsider Whom It Is that they are supporting. In conclusion, I believe that Jesus is alive (ever-present with us in Spirit and I also believe the basic mythos that asserts He will return to Earth again in bodily form or substance. Don't ask me to provide rational reasons---I'll admit it does not make a lot of evidential sense.

Percy brings up a good point when he argues that we fail to be satisfied when our opponents choose to believe differently. Personally, I don't care too much how you, or Stile, or ringo or Tangle believe or accept regarding logic, reason, and reality.

In fact, who gets me most anxious and upset is Faith, for she refuses to even consider that her belief is wrong. The anti Calvinism arguments made sense to me back when we had them though I must admit that my cognitive dissonance levels are through the roof! Pastor ICANT gets my respect not for his observations about science...but for this statement which he made that sums up how I feel as well:

quote:
I don't trust religion or the religious. Most of them belong to the devil.

So make me feel better. Tell me that there is any chance that I can relax without giving up my belief. (Or is faith in "chance" part of my addictive hangups in the first place?

Edited by Phat, : added quote


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 7:30 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 12-31-2018 9:00 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 23 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2018 9:26 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 12-31-2018 10:57 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 31 of 46 (846250)
01-01-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
01-01-2019 2:24 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
I agree with you and that is a good point. The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time. It was written as a message to all of their descendants as well, in my opinion. That includes us today.

There are many reasons why these works could be criticized as they are by many modern scholars. There is no concrete evidence that the stories actually occurred, though I don't rely solely on evidence apart from my own internal subjectivity when it comes to belief. People ask me why I don't consider a spaghetti monster as equally probable...and I simply laugh. But they do have a point and it mystifies me. Then I realize that their disbelief is as incredulous to me as my belief must seem to them. They have valid reasons for rejecting the God they imagine to be the one in the book. They also have valid reasons for rejecting religion. My arguments are not so much to win a debate or convince anyone of anything, except perhaps my sanity. Of course, this being a debate site, my sanity is still on the table.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 01-01-2019 3:51 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 4:16 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 2:46 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 44 of 46 (846285)
01-02-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
01-02-2019 3:46 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
How does the Bible differ from The Lord of the Rings?
Tolkien sat down and wrote a tale from scratch. Made up each and every character and defined their behaviors and tasks relating to the story.

In contrast, the writers of the Bible were recording events that actually happened around them and the reactions of others who encountered these same events. The Bible was not simply made up on the spot. You may have an argument regarding embellishing old tales to make them more palatable to the desired audience--at best.

A century or so ago, authors of fiction went to great length to suggest that their stories were true.
There is no evidence that the authors of the Bible were intentionally writing fiction. Thats my whole point. And it is most definitely the case with Jesus Christ.
I'll Eat A Page From My Bible If Jesus Didnt Exist
A good article. Speaking of Richard Carriers debunking, the author writes:
quote:
Almost no one believes Carrier - outside the circle of eager sceptics. Morris is simply wrong to refer to "many professional historians" who doubt the existence of Jesus. There is no "wave". There is, of course, a spectrum in "historical Jesus" studies, from hyper-sceptical to hyper-credulous (you see a similar spectrum in climate change discussions). Carrier is way down one end, and Christian apologists are at the other.

The remaining 90 per cent of working scholars - thousands of them in real universities around the world - couldn't care less about these margins. They aren't trying to debunk Christianity or prove it. They study the figure of Jesus the way historians study Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. And in the library of Macquarie University, home to the largest ancient history department in the country, there are probably as many tomes devoted to the historical Jesus as there are to Alexander and Caesar combined. The study of Jesus is a vast discipline, of which the head of Adelaide's atheist society appears to have no knowledge, beyond that of Carrier.(...)To repeat a challenge I've put out on social media several times before, I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university somewhere in the world (there are thousands of names to choose from) who think Jesus never lived.

I don't deny that there are substantial questions that could be raised about the Christian faith, but the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth isn't one of them.


I agree with this assessmemnt.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 3:46 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 4:18 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019