What evidence would convince you?

[mattbballman19]

Of God's existence in particular.

Instead of just throwing out an argument, my intention is to observe various quotas that atheists (or any other ideology you can think which disbelieves in the existence of anything transcendant to the realm of the natural ontology). When observing, I will see if either there, in existence, certain evidences which meet the standars of that particular quota or point out the unreasonableness of the high standards being held for a solution to this question.

I'm posting this in response to a certain passage I just finished in book (in which the Title has escaped my memory), which made a comment similar to this: Either the non-believer in any kind of God (god(s)) is not aware of certain evidences that dis-prove his case, or the demands that (s)he makes on the asserter of G(g)od(s) existence if found to be holding other beliefs, which don't meet there own standard.

My purpose is to take this alleged truth as far as it goes until (which I am willing to accept) it passes or fails (based, of course, on a certain amount of probability, since everyone's minds who has existed past, present, and future aren't here to contribute to this particular discussion. And we don't have a potentially infinite amount of time to discuss it, presuming that either materialsim is true, the fact that an actual infinite is not possible given endless recyclings of reincarnation, or (if the Christian hypothesis is true) the fact that certain parcipitants in this discussion will be seperated into 1 of 2 different destinations has a result of certain decisions which were pivitol/crucial in deciding where they would spend eternity.

Alright, let's go.

[undead]

I suggest you try http://www.infidels.org - you'll be guaranteed to get a good response.

[Ryokan]

a nice little hello from somebody who supposedly cares so much about me. A signed letter typed by his secretary, even.

Actually, some sort of mystical religious experience that I felt had to have a Divine origin. If there is a personal God, you have to have personal belief. Even then, I am not sure I couldn't question the way he runs things, but, I'd believe.

[stevencarrwork]

Tons of stuff would convince me.

For exampple, the Bible says Christians have eternal life. If Christians never died, that would convince me.

Matthew 17:20 is also a good proof 'if you all have faith even like a grain of mustard seed, you all shall say to this mountain,
"Move away to another place", and it shall move.
And nothing shall be impossible to you.'

If Christians could do what Jesus said they can, then I would be convinced.

[voidhawk]

I’m with the French sceptic Denis Diderot (1713-1784) who the story goes when he asked for proof of God’s existence and/or the reality of miracles was taken to a shrine dedicated to the Virgin and shown the piles of crutches left by people allegedly miraculously cured of their crippling illness. Diderot paused looked around then asked
“Where are the false limbs?”

Quite.

If a believer was to pray to their preferred deity for and on behalf of somebody so maimed that they had lost a limb and instantly the limb was restored and that happen every time the believer prayed. That’s what I would call evidence and I would seriously re consider my beliefs.

[Xtokalon]

This thread is ridiculous. I'll be convinced when some Jewish guy named Jesus comes back, claims to be God and walks on water.

Even better, cut out the middle man and get God on the phone. A bearded-guy in the sky with an all-booming voice giving me commands, sending angels, etc ,would be pretty darn convincing too.

[AtheistArchon]

- Hmmmm. I can think of a few things off the top of my head that would convince me, but assuming there's really a deity out there that wants me to believe, is it necessary that I tick off a list?

- I always thought that a being (a god) that wanted everyone to believe would be able to make it happen. You know, provide some empirical evidence to the effect. I don't think that would harm anyone's free will.

- However, I get the gist of the question. I do have a concern, however, that "asking too much" is going to be a red flag for some reason, and I'm not too sure why. God, being god, should technically be able to provide literally anything and not break a sweat.

- Say, for example, a five-mile wide golden cross hovering above the planet 100 miles from the surface. On fire. For five years. That would sure convince me. I daresay a whole slew of atheists and other "heathen" believers would come to Christianity. If I were a god whose rule it was that nobody gets to heaven except via belief in Christianity (Jesus), I'd be happy to get a few million souls in like this.

[Zakath]

What evidence would convince me?

Why don't some of those who claim that the deity talks to them ask him (or her) to tell them what would ultimately convince me.

Then come back and post it here.

First we'll see whether they all agree, since they're asking the same question about the same circumstance to the same individual there should be general concensus... :argh:

I won't hold my breath waiting though. I'm still waiting for Freak to fess up that he can't do a simple thing like determine from his deity if I'm demon possessed...

[Sozo]

Today @ 12:33 PM
Zakath:

What evidence would convince me?

Why don't some of those who claim that the deity talks to them ask him (or her) to tell them what would ultimately convince me.

Then come back and post it here.

First we'll see whether they all agree, since they're asking the same question about the same circumstance to the same individual there should be general concensus...

I'm not holding my breath...

God already knows what will or won't convince you, nothing and anything.

[Zakath]

Today @ 01:37 PM
Sozo:
God already knows what will or won't convince you, nothing and anything.

Was that supposed to be profound or merely snide? :huh:

The challenge was made to those who claim that their deity talks to them. Are you one of those, Sozo?

[Sozo]

Today @ 12:43 PM
Zakath:



Was that supposed to be profound or merely snide? :huh:

The challenge was made to those who claim that their deity talks to them. Are you one of those, Sozo?

Do you have an earnest desire to be convinced?

I don't know about everyone else here, but I don't care if you are convinced or not. Perhaps God does, but whatever He thinks would be necessary to convince you is obviously not sufficient to your standard.

Maybe you should take up Carp fishing, I hear they have been talking for God lately.

[Satori]

There are any number of things which would convince me, and most people, so I don't feel that that is a very good question.

A better question would be: do we have any evidence currently which warrants such beliefs? I think we all know the answer to that is NO, otherwise, we wouldn't be holding this discussion, "god" wouldn't be a baseless metaphysical theory, it would be a fact and no one would with a grain of reason would question it. However, that is far from the case.

Belief in the absense of solid reasons for believing is what faith is all about. Imo, the humans who fashioned and modified these types of politically weighted religions to serve their own selfish agendas knew they couldn't prove their outlandish theories, so they said nonsense like "you must believe, your eternal fate depends upon it" in order to play upon people's base fears and selfish desires to win their blind devotion to the mythology. Why would ancient religious officials (politicians) do that (lie/skew)? For the same reason modern politicians do it of course, for wealth and power, for self-interests. Power corrupts, and NOTHING gives a person more mind-controlling power over others than the belief that the leader is a conduit to the divine and speaks on its behalf. Religion and fear of the unknown is so incredibly transparent and potentially powerful that I would've been far more surprised if some humans *hadn't* devised such theories and used them to brainwash the masses into intellectual submission. It's just part of primate nature/culture to do that, to take the lead and do whatever it takes to dominate and control others, humans, in all their intelligence, have simply taken it to new heights of perversity and broad applicability. It's who we fundamentally are, but that doesn't make it "right", or even "ok" or acceptable.

I think that the cold fact (imo) that religions are huge politically oriented scams is obvious in all that "you must have faith" nonsense. If it were actually true, what would we need faith for? It would simply be a matter of accepting reality. And that is to say nothing of the incredily innane concept that an omnipotent entity would get its jollies by our ability/inability to swallow unsubstantiated theories, as if our ability to swallow a given set of dogmas makes us better people somehow (?), as if swallowing it would actually appease such an entity who seemingly has nothing better to do than remained preoccupied with the petty fleeting thoughts of this relatively insignificant species on this relatively insignificant speck of dust we call earth. The whole thing just screams of total absurdity that never ceases to amaze me every single day. I find the religious point of view to be one that is simply too human-centric to be taken seriously. I can't believe that so many people get wrapped up in this nonsense, and I hope one they they have the wisdom and courage to see through it and move beyond it. I feel its in their personal best interests to do so, as well as the best interests of this world and humanity as a whole. Now is not the time to be negating reason, it's simply too late in the game and there is too much at steak for that archaic nonsense.

best wishes,

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 06:49 PM
Sozo:
Do you have an earnest desire to be convinced?

I think I speak for every non-religious person here when I say this: I don't have the desire to be convinced or not convinced, I only have the desire to understand the (objective as possible) "truth" about our existence no matter what that truth may be. Can you say the same, or is your (presumed) adherence to your chosen dogma and the preservation of your ego from the wrath of your beloved god more important to you than the truth?

Btw, the "desire to be convinced" of something does not denote very much objectivity, it actually (to me) denotes blindness, fear, and desparation.

I don't know about everyone else here, but I don't care if you are convinced or not.

That's a shame, then I'll have to do the caring for the both of us then.

Perhaps God does,

Yes, perhaps it does, but then, perhaps it does not. You don't know either way, dispite your best attempts to convince yourself otherwise.

but whatever He thinks would be necessary to convince you is obviously not sufficient to your standard.

What a tangled web of presumptions we weave. Let's take a closer look at all of these presumptions to see if your above statement has a leg to stand on:

Presumptions:
1. God exists
2. God is an intelligent human-like being with lots of desires
3. God is a man
4. God would like us to be convinced of something
5. God thinks that certain things should be sufficient in convincing us (which, of course, for many rational people and most people who didn't have such theories imposed on them as young children, is entirely insufficient).

Given just a tangle of presumptions, you'll understand if I simply can't take your statement seriously, won't you?

While I have your ear, perhaps you can tell me something: In your opinion/presumptions, why would your god play this head game with us of trying to get us to believe a story which is so incredibly outlandish, suspect, and countered by rational logic and observable evidence? What sort of satisfaction does it derive from such head-games? If it wants us to believe so badly in its own existence and grovel before it in lowly repentant submission, why does it insist on hiding itself from us and obscuring its messages in human political activity and self-contradiction? Seems to me that if your god wanted the world to bow to and worship it (something which seems quite self-absored and below such an omnipotent entity, but whatever) then I would think it would at the very least do us the courtesy of saying hello every once in a while. Yet, it has all these grand expectations of us and remains perfectly silent. Hmm.. I smell a rat, something isn't quite right here, do you smell it too? I'm sure you do, not that makes a shread of difference to someone who is captivated by fear of the unknown, of course.

best wishes,

Satori

[Sozo]

Today @ 02:42 PM
Satori:
I only have the desire to understand the (objective as possible) "truth" about our existence no matter what that truth may be. Can you say the same? Been there, done that.
I'm sure you do, not that makes a shread of difference to someone who is captivated by fear of the unknown, of course.
I have no fear of the unknown, and apparently neither do you.

[Zakath]

Today @ 01:49 PM
Sozo:
Do you have an earnest desire to be convinced?I have an earnest desire to know the truth, if it is apprehendable by my meager intellect.

I don't know about everyone else here, but I don't care if you are convinced or not. Perhaps God does, but whatever He thinks would be necessary to convince you is obviously not sufficient to your standard. Well that's refreshingly, but predictably unhelpful.

Maybe you should take up Carp fishing, I hear they have been talking for God lately. Only to religionists. :bonk:

Why do you bother posting on threads like this if this is all you have to offer, Sozo? :argh:

[Sozo]

Today @ 04:33 PM
Zakath:


Why do you bother posting on threads like this if this is all you have to offer, Sozo? :argh:

Because, I was bull-headed like you and the other atheists/agnostics that post here.

I challenge you guys to quite trying to convince us that there is no God, and to take the same steps that I took to squelch my doubts. At some point I refused to accept all that I know, and gave God the opportuinty to reveal to me all that He is. And He did.

[flipper]

Sozo wrote:

Maybe you should take up Carp fishing, I hear they have been talking for God lately.

By all means, laugh down your sleeve at those kooky jewish guys and their talking fish. At least their "experience" was related as being first hand. Your Beast of Balaam, capacious-yet-spacious whale, and chatty snake are 1000-hands away from you, yet you swallow them uncritically.

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:37 PM
flipper:

Sozo wrote:



By all means, laugh down your sleeve at those kooky jewish guys and their talking fish. At least their "experience" was related as being first hand. Your Beast of Balaam, capacious-yet-spacious whale, and chatty snake are 1000-hands away from you, yet you swallow them uncritically.

I believe them, because I believe Jesus is God, and Jesus confirmed the validity of scripture.

I do not believe in further revelations outside of those given to us by Christ himself, and recorded in the bible.

[Zakath]

Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
Sozo:
I challenge you guys to quite trying to convince us that there is no God, and to take the same steps that I took to squelch my doubts. At some point I refused to accept all that I know, and gave God the opportuinty to reveal to me all that He is. And He did.

And precisely how did this "kenosis" that you challenge us to imitate occur?

[Sozo]

Today @ 01:47 PM
Zakath:



And precisely how did this "kenosis" that you challenge us to imitate occur?

I started reading the bible with the expectation of possiblity that it might actually be what it claims to be, the message concerning Christ and the revelation of who God is, and who we are. I had to accept the fact that I could possibly have been wrong as an unbeliever.

[Zakath]

Today @ 03:00 PM
Sozo:
I started reading the bible with the expectation of possiblity that it might actually be what it claims to be, the message concerning Christ and the revelation of who God is, and who we are. I had to accept the fact that I could possibly have been wrong as an unbeliever. Did that back when I was a teenager. Unfortunately, 30+ years of experience in the "real world" later opened my eyes so that I could actually read what the text said, not what I hoped it would say, or what I wanted it to say.

It was not a pretty picture.

[Sozo]

Today @ 02:27 PM
Zakath:

Did that back when I was a teenager. Unfortunately, 30+ years of experience in the "real world" later opened my eyes so that I could actually read what the text said, not what I hoped it would say, or what I wanted it to say.

It was not a pretty picture.

What was the key evidence in the bible, that actually "opened your eyes"?

[mattbballman19]

03-13-2003 @ 08:53 AM
Ryokan:

a nice little hello from somebody who supposedly cares so much about me. A signed letter typed by his secretary, even.

Actually, some sort of mystical religious experience that I felt had to have a Divine origin. If there is a personal God, you have to have personal belief. Even then, I am not sure I couldn't question the way he runs things, but, I'd believe.

How would you distinguish between competing religious experiences that are said to be doing their job of having people go through particular experiences? Do you think there is an additional way in which you would base the validity of the objective facts upon which the alleged religious experience is derivative of?

[mattbballman19]

03-14-2003 @ 06:48 AM
stevencarrwork:

Tons of stuff would convince me.

For exampple, the Bible says Christians have eternal life. If Christians never died, that would convince me.

Matthew 17:20 is also a good proof 'if you all have faith even like a grain of mustard seed, you all shall say to this mountain,
"Move away to another place", and it shall move.
And nothing shall be impossible to you.'

If Christians could do what Jesus said they can, then I would be convinced.

I guess it would depend on what the Bible meant when it was speaking on eternal life. I think you are taking it to mean eternal natural life, but I don't think that is the way in which the Bible says it is used. I think it is speaking of your soul living on to eternal life whenever it is the final resurrection commences.

Tell me what you think of J.P. Holding's reply to your above verse is, he says that one should consider the social context. In a reply to atheist George Smith, he says, "Once again Smith needs to consider the social context. No Jew would recognize such statements as giving believers carte blanche to ask to have mountains turned over (see more here). This is simply a way of emphasizing God's commitment to bless the believer -- who would be expected not to ask for silly or selfish things in the first place. As far as the passage from John goes, Smith seems to assume here that "greater works" here means miracles or displays of power, but the Greek word here (in spite of some English translations) does not refer to such things."

Found here: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BAE.html#rom37

[Zakath]

Today @ 03:52 PM
Sozo:
What was the key evidence in the bible, that actually "opened your eyes"? I had grown up in a church that had a very figurative view of the Bible and later attended one that had a very literal, inerrantist view. It started to get to me in seminary that YHWH, as described in the Bible wasn't all that different from many of the other deities in the other world religions. After that I started researching other religions and found the so much similarity that I began to wonder "where there's smoke...". Further biblical research showed how flimsy the platform was upon which my beliefs were built...

It was a gradual unravelling of belief that picked up speed as I went along. A bit like a snowball rolling down a snowcovered hill.

Probably one of the hardest parts was standing up and preaching about a loving deity to a congregation and trying to explain things like Revelation where a loving deity tortures his enemies for eternity.

[mattbballman19]

03-14-2003 @ 08:30 AM
voidhawk:

I’m with the French sceptic Denis Diderot (1713-1784) who the story goes when he asked for proof of God’s existence and/or the reality of miracles was taken to a shrine dedicated to the Virgin and shown the piles of crutches left by people allegedly miraculously cured of their crippling illness. Diderot paused looked around then asked
“Where are the false limbs?”

I've always had a problem with this consideration for two reasons : 1.) Unwillingness to believe in the presence of the above requested miracles, due to the sinful nature relentlessly trying to find a natural explanation for the supposed 'rare' event. 2.) The fact that, according to historical records, these miracles have already been done. If these records are accurate, then it seems God has met Diderot's needs. Also, in the contents of these records we find people that are still unwilling to believe, even in the presence of the given miracles!

I guess it would depend on the disposition of the witness of the events. I get 1, from above, from the narrative explicated in the gospel of Luke in which Jesus tells some people that if they don't believe the testimony of the prophets and so forth, then they will not believe even if someone rises from the dead! Of course, all of this rests on the validity of the gospel records recording accurate events, but since we're arguing from within the Christian framework, I would say that these things should be taken for granted.

03-14-2003 @ 08:30 AM
voidhawk:

If a believer was to pray to their preferred deity for and on behalf of somebody so maimed that they had lost a limb and instantly the limb was restored and that happen every time the believer prayed. That’s what I would call evidence and I would seriously re consider my beliefs.

Again (and of course this depends on your specific disposition; skeptical, seeking, and so forth) what would preclude you from devising some kind of excuse along the lines of the imcomplete and noticeably growing knowledge of the scientific community, in their journey for the way in which the universe operates, that maybe some time in the future science would discover some kine of natural explanation for the growing of the arm? I guess, if you are not of the scientific/skeptical bent this would convince, but then I would ask why you don't believe the ones in which have already happened and (of course, this is a matter of debate) have been recorded accurately.

What if the growing back of the arm actually did happen and you did come to the point where you rationally through the occasion, and you decided to write it down, and you found out thousands of years later that these people thought what you wrote down was, I suppose, contrary to the laws of nature, or something along those lines. Wouldn't you be likely to label these people naive to their own subjective presuppositions? I guess your suggestion would demand God to do a miracle for any and everyone who was ever to be born past, present, and future. We could start another thread on whether we are in a good position to accurately come up with regarding what an infinite being is obligated to do.

[Ryokan]

you would think he'd at least be obligated to say hello. I have said it, and he ain't talkin.:nc:

[Zakath]

Jesus said:
Ask and you shall receive.
Seek and you shall find.
Knock and the door shall be opened to you.

Zakath said:
I asked and received only silence.
I sought and found nought but emptiness.
I knocked and knocked and the door remained firmly closed;
No one ever answered.
:argh:

Eventually I got tired of knocking at the door of an empty house.

[Sozo]

Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
Zakath:
It started to get to me in seminary that YHWH, as described in the Bible wasn't all that different from many of the other deities in the other world religions.
And why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with man's perversion of the truth?


It was a gradual unravelling of belief that picked up speed as I went along. A bit like a snowball rolling down a snowcovered hill.

I had the reverse experience.

Probably one of the hardest parts was standing up and preaching about a loving deity to a congregation and trying to explain things like Revelation where a loving deity tortures his enemies for eternity.

Perhaps He doesn't. Perhaps Revelations is a revelation of what happened in heaven during the crucifixion, and resurrection.

[Zakath]

Today @ 09:46 AM
Sozo:


And why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with man's perversion of the truth?Certainly, but based on the evidence I've observed over the years, it's more likely the "perversion of the truth" has to do with creating deities in the first place...

Perhaps He doesn't. Perhaps Revelations is a revelation of what happened in heaven during the crucifixion, and resurrection. Ah, yet another version of "the truth". Doesn't quite jive with Christian orthodoxy now, does it?

[George Blaisdell]

Satori writes:

> I only have the desire to understand the (objective as possible) "truth" about our existence no matter what that truth may be.

There is hope for you then...

The only thing I would caution you on is your standard of truth, that it is of objects... A simple and honest look at your own thinking should show you that by the standard of 'objects', you will find no truth in your thoughts, which are themselves not objects... However much you may try to objectify them.

It is the interface between subject and object that makes a lie of the objective standard of truth. [I have taught objectivism...] And you will not get to the Truth as a Person [Christ] until Christ comes to you, and illumines your understanding. Until then, you have your personal integrity, and my prayers...

God bless...

geo

[Sozo]

Today @ 09:03 AM
Zakath:

Certainly, but based on the evidence I've observed over the years, it's more likely the "perversion of the truth" has to do with creating deities in the first place...

Ah, yet another version of "the truth". Doesn't quite jive with Christian orthodoxy now, does it?

Christian "orthodoxy" has been greatly perverted and served up in the name of tradition.

Christianity is a person, and if it goes beyond that... anything goes, and usually does.

There are 2 sects of Christianity in the world:

The body of Christ

and

The religion that is based on perceived traditions, false hierarchies, and cultural alterations

[mattbballman19]

03-17-2003 @ 11:11 PM
AtheistArchon:
- I always thought that a being (a god) that wanted everyone to believe would be able to make it happen. You know, provide some empirical evidence to the effect. I don't think that would harm anyone's free will.

Don't you think the bringing about of event would compromise certain attributes within the Christian God in particular? What about taking into consideration the sensitive causal counterfactual interconnectivity which, if adjusted to a minute degree, might not bring about the best desired goal, which is desired by an omni-benevolent God?
03-17-2003 @ 11:11 PM
AtheistArchon:
- However, I get the gist of the question. I do have a concern, however, that "asking too much" is going to be a red flag for some reason, and I'm not too sure why. God, being god, should technically be able to provide literally anything and not break a sweat.

I'm guessing the 'literally anything' is within the context of logical possibility?
03-17-2003 @ 11:11 PM
AtheistArchon:
- Say, for example, a five-mile wide golden cross hovering above the planet 100 miles from the surface. On fire. For five years. That would sure convince me. I daresay a whole slew of atheists and other "heathen" believers would come to Christianity. If I were a god whose rule it was that nobody gets to heaven except via belief in Christianity (Jesus), I'd be happy to get a few million souls in like this.

I can't really see this as anymore than speculation. Of course, you can speak for yourself, and that is the particular purpose of this thread, but I don't see how you can confidently assert that other atheists would respond in the same way. I said a couple posts above, that what is to stop dogmatic naturalistic atheists (who basically have the presupposition that whatever is going to happen in this naturalistic universe will have a naturalistic explanation, no matter how rare/spectacular/miraculously looking the event may be? Also, how do you know that the setting up of the cross over a fire would not effect those who become Christians as a result of not seeing a cross over a fire? What if the builing of this cross over the fire causes less to be saved than if the cross over the fire isn't build at all? I can only say that a being which is omnipotent, etc . . . would have the knowledge and the power to balance various counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, the way in which the counterfactuals obtain with regard to different levels of interferance/abstruction/invading of the partiuclar people's freewill, and how to bring about the best of possible world in which the level of direct/indirect interaction with the freedom, and therefore, the goal of how the counterfactuals will come about will lead to the most possible number of persons are saved.

It would seem that any extravagent situation that you contruct would be done so from a limited/finite point of view, which would not be in an appropriate position (epistemic or otherwise) to judge whether that particular situation would make less people than the maximum possible that could have been saved, as a result of properly letting what counterfactuals effect others.

matt

[mattbballman19]

03-18-2003 @ 01:33 PM
Zakath:

Why don't some of those who claim that the deity talks to them ask him (or her) to tell them what would ultimately convince me.

What do you mean by 'talks'? Verbally, through the Bible?, through situations in life that would not seem to be reasonable to attribute to coincident (of course, this would rather be based on our presuppositions on reality) If it was natural, then if would be coincident, but if it was supernatural in general, and Christian in particular, then it would seem that there was some kind of purpose; communicative or otherwise.

Also, the experience itself isn't meant to stand alone as evidence for a true value of a given ideology. It might stand for evidence as the one who is getting the experience, but that experience would serve good apologetic purposes when trying to convince someone who's never had that experience, that there is such a thing as the experience you happen to be experiencing. The only reason the experience is valid is because it corresponds to an objective reality. And that is the question at issue. We must move from the subjective experience, which may or may not correspond to the way in which the world/universe really is, to the actual reality, to see if the reality that we find ourselves to be having this particular experience is able to be properly synthesized. Of course none of this takes away from the rationality of holding to the truth value of that experience, but that is another issue.

03-18-2003 @ 01:33 PM
Zakath:

First we'll see whether they all agree, since they're asking the same question about the same circumstance to the same individual there should be general concensus... :argh:

I also do not see how contradictory testimonies with regard to experiences totally disregards the truth value of all experiences in question. What would consist of this 'general concensus'? Is there any room for grey? If not, why not?

matt

[mattbballman19]

03-18-2003 @ 03:20 PM
Satori:

There are any number of things which would convince me, and most people, so I don't feel that that is a very good question.

A better question would be: do we have any evidence currently which warrants such beliefs? I think we all know the answer to that is NO, otherwise, we wouldn't be holding this discussion, "god" wouldn't be a baseless metaphysical theory, it would be a fact and no one would with a grain of reason would question it. However, that is far from the case.

Couldn't I say the same thing about whatever belief that you are holding? Couldn't I easily say that because there are still discussion going about the truth value of atheist or whatever gives me reason to believe that I would never become an atheist? Of course calling the truthfullness of Christianity a 'baseless metaphysical theory' is begging the question, so I'd be glad to discuss any part of Christianity you 'think' to be baseless in another thread.
03-18-2003 @ 03:20 PM
Satori:
Belief in the absense of solid reasons for believing is what faith is all about. Imo, the humans who fashioned and modified these types of politically weighted religions to serve their own selfish agendas knew they couldn't prove their outlandish theories, so they said nonsense like "you must believe, your eternal fate depends upon it" in order to play upon people's base fears and selfish desires to win their blind devotion to the mythology. .

Huge begged question on the origin of religion. Also I see the genetic fallacy being used here. I don't see need to quote the rest of this paragraph since I see the same fallacious mistakes.


03-18-2003 @ 03:20 PM
Satori:
If it were actually true, what would we need faith for?

Could you name me one thing, from which you discovered with the utilization of your senses which there isn't an amount of faith involved? Also, I would caution you on your usage of the word faith. What exactly is your meaning of the word?


matt

[Zakath]

Today @ 11:18 AM
Sozo:
Christian "orthodoxy" has been greatly perverted and served up in the name of tradition.Nice rhetoric, so what do you suggest instead of "tradition"?

Christianity is a person, and if it goes beyond that... anything goes, and usually does. I thought the "Christ" was a person and that Christianity was a religion...

There are 2 sects of Christianity in the world:
The body of Christ and The religion that is based on perceived traditions, false hierarchies, and cultural alterations
And you, of course, are in the first camp? So which other major doctrines of Christian orthodoxy do you find abhorrent?

[Zakath]

Today @ 12:18 PM
mattbballman19:
What do you mean by 'talks'? Verbally, through the Bible?, through situations in life that would not seem to be reasonable to attribute to coincident (of course, this would rather be based on our presuppositions on reality) If it was natural, then if would be coincident, but if it was supernatural in general, and Christian in particular, then it would seem that there was some kind of purpose; communicative or otherwise.Not quite; pardon my poor communication. I meant "communicates" directly, bisynchronously, immediately. That's two-way communication done without going through an intermediary, without long delays.

It could range from carrying on conversations audibly to mental revelation. But you need to be able to ask a question and get a clear, readily understandable, timely answer.

...The only reason the experience is valid is because it corresponds to an objective reality. And that is the question at issue. We must move from the subjective experience, which may or may not correspond to the way in which the world/universe really is, to the actual reality, to see if the reality that we find ourselves to be having this particular experience is able to be properly synthesized. Thank you. Such an objectively real experience of communication with a deity is what I am asking for. I want to interview/correspond with someone who allegedly communicate to their deity in that fashion.

I also do not see how contradictory testimonies with regard to experiences totally disregards the truth value of all experiences in question. What would consist of this 'general concensus'? Is there any room for grey? If not, why not? I would say the issue is one of degree. Contradiction implies a binary opposition.

For example, on another board (where you and I both have posted in the past) one person claims "god loves all men" while another claims "god hates homosexuals". Both claim to be describing the same deity. Such a contradictory state of affairs appears impossible, even for a deity. "All men" includes those with any variety of sexual practice. If it does not, then the first person is wrong. If it does, then the second person is wrong.

If they are both correct then they may be describing two different deities.

(Of course they could both be wrong, as well.)

Does this help explain the confused state of affairs that religionists can present to outsiders, Matt?

[Sozo]

Today @ 12:56 PM
Zakath:

And you, of course, are in the first camp? So which other major doctrines of Christian orthodoxy do you find abhorrent?

Anything that adds to or takes away from the total sufficiancy provided by Christ through His crucifixion, death, burial, & resurrection.

Jesus plus anything, is abhorrent.

Jesus is the grace of God.
Jesus is our Sabbath.
Jesus paid the tithe.
We are baptized with the Spirit into the body of Christ.
Jesus is the Passover.
He is our propitiation
He is our righteousness.
He is our life!

All of life in every scope of man's understanding comes down to righteousness.

God is right... we are not.
God became one of us so that we can become the righteousness of Christ in God.

[Zakath]

Today @ 02:17 PM
Sozo:
Anything that adds to or takes away from the total sufficiancy provided by Christ through His crucifixion, death, burial, & resurrection...Pretend I wasn't a Christian pastor years ago. Can you translate that into regular English? Can you explain what that means to someone who is not discussing this on a theology board.

[Sozo]

Today @ 01:20 PM
Zakath:

Pretend I wasn't a Christian pastor years ago. Can you translate that into regular English? Can you explain what that means to someone who is not discussing this on a theology board.

The crucifixion of Jesus satisfied a debt that was owed to God through the disobedience of one man - Adam. Every person from the time that Adam chose to find meaning and purpose to life, apart from the one who gave him life, has been a co-debtor of Adam's "sin".

Jesus paid a debt that He did not owe, for us who had a debt we could not pay.

Man's separation from God, because of Adam's sin, is death. Before we could be reconciled to God, the debt had to be paid, and it was. But, removing the debt, does not save us. Removing the debt makes salvation possible, but the reality is in the resurrection, it gives us the prospect of life. Life is the only solution to death, and the resurrection is the restoration of life.

Sin is what separated us from God's life, and Christ took away the sin, but His resurrection is the crux of our hope, for without it we would be nothing more than propitiated corpses.

When we receive His life, we receive all that God intends for us...

righteousness
holiness
sanctification
perfection
redemption
forgiveness


The "church" has done damage to the simplicity of the gospel by adding to our acceptance of Christ's death & resurrection with an array of peripherals that are substitutes for all that was provided for through Christ. There is nothing that we can do or are required to do that can improve upon what has been done.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:25 PM
mattbballman19:

Could you name me one thing, from which you discovered with the utilization of your senses which there isn't an amount of faith involved? Also, I would caution you on your usage of the word faith. What exactly is your meaning of the word?



But surely a naturalistic bias exists among Christians.

There are Christians posting on this forum, who if you told them that there were reports of 3 suns and 3 moons in the sky, would tell you that there was a rational explanation.

So no matter how strange the reports (and 3 suns in the sky seems pretty strange), our first reaction, according to these Christians, should be to look for a naturalistic explanation.

[mattbballman19]

Yesterday @ 02:12 PM
Zakath:

It could range from carrying on conversations audibly to mental revelation. But you need to be able to ask a question and get a clear, readily understandable, timely answer.

Would you except historically recorded events which satisfy this particular demand, or would you need to be in the same room as the phenomena obtains? Also, would further tests would you consider running to test if this audible sound is really from the deity in question, and maybe not a figment of your subjective conciousness, or some person(s) playing some kind of a practical joke on you to get you to think that it may be God who is doing the audible interactions. Also, I still fail to see how you would think that the experience itself would serve sufficient means as an apologetic in and of itself to be a strong enough defeater to convince you of the Christian and/or theistic theory/hypothesis/world-view. I still see the need for outside/objective/empirical/philosophical confirmation as the deciding factor for someone who is 'on the outside' so to speak in deciding the truth-value that the given experience purports to be about.
Yesterday @ 02:12 PM
Zakath:
Thank you. Such an objectively real experience of communication with a deity is what I am asking for. I want to interview/correspond with someone who allegedly communicate to their deity in that fashion.

And you would like this experience to be personal? If so, how do you know that maybe God does not work in the way that you demand due to the available evidence that is bestowed, which sufficient to convince anyone who is of an open heart and an open mind, but is not enough to convince those whose hearts are closed. I believe it was Pascal who said that. Since, we're speaking from within the Christian universe, I would ask that you consider the book by which the Christians believe governs the way in which God psycologically set up man. Christ, in narrating a story about a man who dies, experiences the fires of hell, and wishes to be sent back to the earth in order to warn his friends to turn their lives around so they do not have to experience the torment, which he finds himself. But the angel says something sort of interesting for our interests here. It said that if they do not believe the words of the prophets, then they would not be convinced even if someone we're to rise from the dead. I would see appropriate to generalize from this particular to include everyone to would dogmatically claim when and where they would believe if and only if provided with the demanded circumstances. I would say that the evidence of scriptures themselves, which is backed up by various historical/evidential apologists on the net is suffficient evidence that is needed for the cognitive assen to belief, and that these audible demands that you make are a sort of wishful-thinking based the pyscology proffered in the Luke passage and the unwillingness to consider the already existing evidence available, which, I would challenge, for outwieghs and/or is equal to certian evidence which people base there beliefs on in other circumstances not involving religion or Christianity or anything having to do with the ontologically transendent or philosophically abstract.

Yesterday @ 02:12 PM
Zakath:

For example, on another board (where you and I both have posted in the past) one person claims "god loves all men" while another claims "god hates homosexuals". Both claim to be describing the same deity. Such a contradictory state of affairs appears impossible, even for a deity. "All men" includes those with any variety of sexual practice. If it does not, then the first person is wrong. If it does, then the second person is wrong.

I would say that contradictory reports of certian experiences purported to be derivative of a particular deity would disconfirm the harmony/truth-value of the experiences themselves, but not the deity from which the experiences are proffered to contribute there given provenance. I think your example of God's hating and loving homosexuals and men is a confusion of objective facts and subjective experiences. I would agree with your conclusion about the existence of these opposing objective facts leading toward to the idea there are two contrary deities which are needed to explain the existence of the two contradictory of objective facts, but I think a different quota is needed to explain the existence of two contradictory subjective experiences: the experiences themselves. It wouldn't seem to go back to the objective reality upon which the experience is based since it is not the objective reality which is in question. So I think your comparative analogy is misplaced.

matt

[Woman]

matt:I would say that contradictory reports of certian experiences purported to be derivative of a particular deity would disconfirm the harmony/truth-value of the experiences themselves, but not the deity from which the experiences are proffered to contribute there given provenance. I think your example of God's hating and loving homosexuals and men is a confusion of objective facts and subjective experiences. I would agree with your conclusion about the existence of these opposing objective facts leading toward to the idea there are two contrary deities which are needed to explain the existence of the two contradictory of objective facts, but I think a different quota is needed to explain the existence of two contradictory subjective experiences: the experiences themselves. It wouldn't seem to go back to the objective reality upon which the experience is based since it is not the objective reality which is in question. So I think your comparative analogy is misplaced.

Oh yeah, that makes everything...um...clear as MUD!!!



:argh: :bonk: :argh:

[Zakath]

Today @ 01:47 AM
mattbballman19:
Would you except historically recorded events which satisfy this particular demand, or would you need to be in the same room as the phenomena obtains?Presuming you meant to type "accept" instead of "except", my answer is, "it depends". Let me explain...

To me, when events are "historically recorded" it means that there is independent, reliable verification of the event produced sometime in the past. By independent, I mean that the record is produced by someone who did not have a vested interest in supporting the truth of the event recorded. To put it in perspective; how much veracity would you attribute to the claim of a Hindu theologian regarding the validity of an alleged claim by another Hindu clergyman or theologian written two thousand years ago? I have a similar hesitancy regarding analogous claims by Christian theologians (who, after all, make their living looking for evidence to support the theology they promulgate). To me a disinterested third party verification would carry much more weight.

Also, would further tests would you consider running to test if this audible sound is really from the deity in question, and maybe not a figment of your subjective conciousness, or some person(s) playing some kind of a practical joke on you to get you to think that it may be God who is doing the audible interactions. How about audio or video-tape recording? If a sound is actually within audible range, such instruments would be capable of recording it. Properly designed equipment is one of the great equalizers of science. Ten people recording the same event with ten sets of equipment should produce similar results. Equipment records what it is designed to record, any bias must be built in by the human calibrating it or analyzing the data.
Also, I still fail to see how you would think that the experience itself would serve sufficient means as an apologetic in and of itself to be a strong enough defeater to convince you of the Christian and/or theistic theory/hypothesis/world-view. Simply this, over and over I hear that "Christianity is a relationship". As a psychologist I know from experience that one-sided relationships are generally not productive over the long haul for both parties. There are a few exceptions, like caring for young infants or incapacitated adults. But to claim a "relationship" with an entity that does not communicate is really stretching the meaning of the word beyond the breaking point. A personal experience of the sort you are discussing would be significantly more evidence than I have ever seen toward the existence of your deity.

I still see the need for outside/objective/empirical/philosophical confirmation as the deciding factor for someone who is 'on the outside' so to speak in deciding the truth-value that the given experience purports to be about. Then why are we having this discussion?

And you would like this experience to be personal? Based on the claims of many sects of Christianity (the "accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" types) I don't think it is an unreasonable avenue to pursue. Of course then there's always the other Christians who claim their deity doesn't work that way...

Then I'm back to the starting point: which one of these multiplicity of deities is real, if any of them?

If so, how do you know that maybe God does not work in the way that you demand due to the available evidence that is bestowed, which sufficient to convince anyone who is of an open heart and an open mind, but is not enough to convince those whose hearts are closed. That is merely one viewpoint among many sects of Christian theology. Of course it might be the correct one, or it might not. Until it is investigated there is no way to be certain.

How would you suggest investigating such a claim if it was made for Hinduism?

I believe it was Pascal who said that. Since, we're speaking from within the Christian universe, I would ask that you consider the book by which the Christians believe governs the way in which God psycologically set up man. ... snipped specific citation from Bible...I would say that the evidence of scriptures themselves, which is backed up by various historical/evidential apologists on the net is suffficient evidence that is needed for the cognitive assen to belief, and that these audible demands that you make are a sort of wishful-thinking based the pyscology proffered in the Luke passage and the unwillingness to consider the already existing evidence available, which, I would challenge, for outwieghs and/or is equal to certian evidence which people base there beliefs on in other circumstances not involving religion or Christianity or anything having to do with the ontologically transendent or philosophically abstract. But Pascal was a Christian and saw everything through his particular lens of Christianity. Most of the world is not Christian and sees reality quite differently from those of European Christian descent. I don't believe that the Christian Bible is any more or less of divine origin than the Qur'an, Rig Veda, Bagavad-gita, or Zend Avesta, to name a few of the scriptures of the religions followed by the vast majority of the human race.

I would say that contradictory reports of certian experiences purported to be derivative of a particular deity would disconfirm the harmony/truth-value of the experiences themselves, but not the deity from which the experiences are proffered to contribute there given provenance. I think your example of God's hating and loving homosexuals and men is a confusion of objective facts and subjective experiences.Which position, in your opinion, holds the objective fact and which is the subjective experience?

I would agree with your conclusion about the existence of these opposing objective facts leading toward to the idea there are two contrary deities which are needed to explain the existence of the two contradictory of objective facts, but I think a different quota is needed to explain the existence of two contradictory subjective experiences: the experiences themselves. It wouldn't seem to go back to the objective reality upon which the experience is based since it is not the objective reality which is in question. So I think your comparative analogy is misplaced. That was a lot of text to state you didn't like my analogy! :brow:

Whether you appreciate my analogy or not, you do grant the point I was attempting to illustrate regarding the extreme discrepancy of views relating to the allegedly immutable deity worshipped by the thousands of differing sects Christians.

It ultimately boils down to a simple paradox: If there is one deity. Which of the tens of thousands of sects of Christianity are right? To back the wrong horse, in this case, is to doom the chooser to eternal punishment. It is, ultimately, a VERY important question for which there is no answer.

[mattbballman19]

Yesterday @ 04:17 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40963#post40963)
stevencarrwork:

But surely a naturalistic bias exists among Christians.

Not sure what you mean by 'naturalistic bias'. :huh:
Yesterday @ 04:17 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40963#post40963)
stevencarrwork:
There are Christians posting on this forum, who if you told them that there were reports of 3 suns and 3 moons in the sky, would tell you that there was a rational explanation..

Hmmm. Well, I guess I disagree with those Christians.
Yesterday @ 04:17 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40963#post40963)
stevencarrwork:
So no matter how strange the reports (and 3 suns in the sky seems pretty strange), our first reaction, according to these Christians, should be to look for a naturalistic explanation.

Again, I think you need to clear up what you mean by 'naturalisitic explanation'. But, at first glance, it would seem that you should favor this Christian bent towards a naturalistic explanation, since is that what atheist look for? They would seek an explanation which would preculde any possibility of the supernatural.

matt

[mattbballman19]

Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:

To me, when events are "historically recorded" it means that there is independent, reliable verification of the event produced sometime in the past. By independent, I mean that the record is produced by someone who did not have a vested interest in supporting the truth of the event recorded.

In my readings, I have seen that it was impossible for any history to be recorded without their presuppositions to be effected into it. Also I am assuming that 'vested interest' would be equated with biasness. Glenn Miller has said, on this topic, "that 'bias' actually has NO CORRELATION to 'truth or falsity'. One's pre-disposition to believe X has no logical bearing on the truth-status of X. (In history, this is known as the 'genetic fallacy'; in philosophy it is called the 'argumentum ad hominum'.) For example, if there are two propositions X and ~X, one of which is true (and the other false); and if there are two proponents A and B, with A having a 'bias' toward X and B having a 'bias' toward ~X, then ONE OF THEM IS STILL CORRECT--in spite of 'bias'." So I don't see any good reason for me to doubt the veracity of audible reports based on the alleged fact that the writers of the event had a vested interest in what they we're writing. I also remember reading an article in one of J.P. Holding's article's expounding on this line of thinking saying that we should not believe any reports by the Jews who actually experienced the Holocaust, since they would have a 'vested interest' in what they were reporting. That's seems a little aburd. :smile:

Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:
To put it in perspective; how much veracity would you attribute to the claim of a Hindu theologian regarding the validity of an alleged claim by another Hindu clergyman or theologian written two thousand years ago? I have a similar hesitancy regarding analogous claims by Christian theologians (who, after all, make their living looking for evidence to support the theology they promulgate). To me a disinterested third party verification would carry much more weight.

Regarding your statement on the Hindu, I would consider it possible and investigate the varacity of the claim utilizing the usual means of historigraphy. I don't think I would go straight to the Hindu experience and try to discredit it there, I would try to go into attempting to point out how that experience doesn't correspond to the objective reality that it must derive from to find its validity. The objective reality which Christians look to is the reality of the ontological level of Jesus Christ and how we beleive that he existed, said the things he said, didn't lie when he said them, performed visual miracles as confirmation, and as the ultimate confirmation God rose Jesus from the dead. If these historical facts are accurate, then any other beleif which advocates anything contrary to what Christ was advocating (in light of the presupposed truth-value of the miraculous events surrounding his life and death) then we can see the contradictory inconsistencies of certian experiences that would be impossible for certian experiences to derived from a historically accurate, Jesus Christ involving history.

Again, I fail to see how someone who has a vested interest in what they are reporting or discovering or rationalizing about a given truth related question would in any way effect the actuality/truth/reality of the thing which they are investigating. I see this, as Glenn Miller sees it; the genetic fallacy.
Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:
How about audio or video-tape recording? If a sound is actually within audible range, such instruments would be capable of recording it. Properly designed equipment is one of the great equalizers of science. Ten people recording the same event with ten sets of equipment should produce similar results. Equipment records what it is designed to record, any bias must be built in by the human calibrating it or analyzing the data.

I still think, even in this scientifically tight environment, that there is possiblity for deciet and/or error. Malfunctions are possible. Dishonesty with recording data. And some other factors that I could think which would not guarentee an air-tight certainty that this enviroment would yeild inevitable truth. I also think that my point is still relevant regarding how I think God has already met your quota in how it is recorded in the Scriptures. One question: I would think that after the scientists made their recording of a documented voice from the heavens that could somehow be connected the Judeo-Christian God, wouldn't that transform the integrity of the scientists to informers contains a kind of 'vested interest'? If it is, and if I'm understanding your words like you want me to, then it would seem to discredit your case with the very tools you are utilizing to make your case.

Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:
Simply this, over and over I hear that "Christianity is a relationship". As a psychologist I know from experience that one-sided relationships are generally not productive over the long haul for both parties. There are a few exceptions, like caring for young infants or incapacitated adults. But to claim a "relationship" with an entity that does not communicate is really stretching the meaning of the word beyond the breaking point. A personal experience of the sort you are discussing would be significantly more evidence than I have ever seen toward the existence of your deity.

Well, I think you have some good points. But I would want to question why it is you aren't satisifed unless this particular 'kind' of communication is used. Why isn't any other means of communication warrented to be labeled sufficient communication for the purported relationship that a Christian has with God other than the audible kind?
Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:
Then why are we having this discussion?

To stress the importance of other deciding factors besides experience to determine what or what not would convince of the truth-value of the Christians faith.
Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:
Based on the claims of many sects of Christianity (the "accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" types) I don't think it is an unreasonable avenue to pursue. Of course then there's always the other Christians who claim their deity doesn't work that way

Then I'm back to the starting point: which one of these multiplicity of deities is real, if any of them?

I would say that this found by investigating the objective reality that the subjective experience attempts to tell us about.
Today @ 08:43 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41507#post41507)
Zakath:
That is merely one viewpoint among many sects of Christian theology. Of course it might be the correct one, or it might not. Until it is investigated there is no way to be certain.

How would you suggest investigating such a claim if it was made for Hinduism?

I would say look at the objective reality in which Hinduism is attempting the base their experience, and if there is any disharmony and/or inconsistencies or contradicts the whatever dogma that reality might promlugate then we should reject it. That's a little quick, but sort of communicates my view on that.

The rest of your post is sort of repetative as far as I can see. So I'll leave it at that. Let me know if I missed an important point.

matt

[Zakath]

OK Matt,

We've gone round the barn again and indulged your philosophical maunderings. I'm tired, it's been a long week, so let's cut to the chase...

The topic of the thread is "What evidence would convince you?", meaning what evidence would I, as a non-believer, find convincing.

I have stated what that is: empirical, rational, universally observable evidence.

Do you have such evidence to present to convince me why I should:
a) accept the existence of any deity; and accomplishing this

b) accept the exclusive claims made by your deity and reject all others?

[mattbballman19]

Today @ 03:01 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41853#post41853)
Zakath:

OK Matt,

We've gone round the barn again and indulged your philosophical maunderings. I'm tired, it's been a long week, so let's cut to the chase...

Sorry about my philosophical manderings. :hrm:

Today @ 03:01 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41853#post41853)
Zakath:
Do you have such evidence to present to convince me why I should:
a) accept the existence of any deity; and accomplishing this

Because of the evidence of the testimony of the gospels in what they explicate about the identity of one called Jesus Christ, who claimed to be divine, and substantiated that by rising from the dead. If true, anything (alleged, objective reality and/or subjective experience) contradictory to the testimony of this man, what this man stands for, and the truths that were made evident in the miracles of Christ/rising from the dead as recorded accuratley by the gospels will be found to be false, since two contradictories can not both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
Today @ 03:01 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41853#post41853)
Zakath:

b) accept the exclusive claims made by your deity and reject all others?

You would reject the other if and only if the truth-claims advocated by the others are contradictory to the truth-claims that would be advocated by the Christian explanation. Of course, this depends on the presupposition that Christianity is the truth. But just because it is a presuppostion does not mean it can't be supported by various evidences. If you wish to discuss issues within the Christian faith in particular that you find wanting, I suggest starting a seperate thread for discussion. I'd love that. :brow:

matt

[HemofHisGarment]

03-18-2003 @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=39060#post39060)
Satori:

I find the religious point of view to be one that is simply too human-centric to be taken seriously. I can't believe that so many people get wrapped up in this nonsense, and I hope one they they have the wisdom and courage to see through it and move beyond it. I feel its in their personal best interests to do so, as well as the best interests of this world and humanity as a whole.

Just wondering why you are wrapped up in this website? Searching for an absurd truth within religious theology, or trying to save humanity with your convincing arguments against religion?

With respect!

[HemofHisGarment]

Empirical evidence would negate the need for free will, would it not? God doesn't provide evidence based on our crude standards. God provides for belief in spite of the absense of solid reasoning through subtle and profound means-- this is absolutely what faith in God is about. Faith & free will go hand in hand, allowing us to experience the beauty and mystery of life. The unknown is obviously "transparent"; and it is powerful because as humans we think in terms of the abstract. Our intellects allow us to believe many things of which there is no way to prove or disprove. I personally think that the atheist has much more faith than the "God fearing man" (tongue in cheek), simply because to me it seems so obvious that a Creator designed the universe as well the miraculous human being.
One last thing: one does not have to be religious in order to be spiritual:smile:

[Zakath]

Yesterday @ 11:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47507#post47507)
HemofHisGarment:
Empirical evidence would negate the need for free will, would it not? Not at all. There is considerable empirical evidence available for many things. One still must consider and evaluate the evidence, then draw a conclusion. Now there might be some argument that empirical evidence reduces the need for faith since empirical evidence is more likely to produce knowledge than faith...

God doesn't provide evidence based on our crude standards.As nearly as I can tell, deities present very little evidence at all. Most all of the alleged evidence is presented by their priests and their followers.

God provides for belief in spite of the absense of solid reasoning through subtle and profound means-- this is absolutely what faith in God is about. You sound as if you believe that reason is the enemy of belief?

Faith & free will go hand in hand, allowing us to experience the beauty and mystery of life.I experience beauty and even sublimnity quite well without religious faith...

The unknown is obviously "transparent"; and it is powerful because as humans we think in terms of the abstract. Our intellects allow us to believe many things of which there is no way to prove or disprove. I agree that one cannot prove everything, nor should one have to. My wife doesn't have to "prove" that she loves me every day. I believe she does. But without empirical evidence in the past I wouldn't hold that belief.

I personally think that the atheist has much more faith than the "God fearing man" (tongue in cheek), simply because to me it seems so obvious that a Creator designed the universe as well the miraculous human being. Adult humans have the innate ability (generally) to search for and find symbols and patterns, even from sufficiently large random collections of information. Just because we want to believe that the order in the universe requires an "orderer" doesn't mean it's so. Certain things are "accidents" or unplanned.

One last thing: one does not have to be religious in order to be spiritual:smile: True. But one does have to be a supernaturalist. I am neither religionist or supernaturalist.

[Zakath]

03-21-2003 @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41908#post41908)
mattbballman19:
Sorry about my philosophical manderings. :hrm: No problem. You appear to enjoy the discussions. :smile:
Because of the evidence of the testimony of the gospels in what they explicate about the identity of one called Jesus Christ, who claimed to be divine, and substantiated that by rising from the dead. If true, anything (alleged, objective reality and/or subjective experience) contradictory to the testimony of this man, what this man stands for, and the truths that were made evident in the miracles of Christ/rising from the dead as recorded accuratley by the gospels will be found to be false, since two contradictories can not both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
This begs the question of the accuracy of the gospels.

These writings describe events outside of the course of natural events. Yet the texts, like all religious texts, speak of supernatural events like miracles as things of the distant past. Every modern day biblical-style miracle that I've investigated in over forty years has turned out to be either improperly documented (the actual facts were not reflected in the retelling for undiscernable reasons) or fraudulent (the facts were purposely distorted). Neither do I see empirical evidence that the laws of physics have changed significantly enough over the last 1800 years to allow for resurrection, divine healings, multiplication of foodstocks, walking on water, and the like in Biblical times but not today.

Based on that evidence, I am at a loss as to why I should accept the veracity of Christian scriptures and reject the Zoroastrian, Islamic, Hindu, or others as false.

You would reject the other if and only if the truth-claims advocated by the others are contradictory to the truth-claims that would be advocated by the Christian explanation. Only if I was a Christian. But I'm not.

Of course, this depends on the presupposition that Christianity is the truth. But just because it is a presuppostion does not mean it can't be supported by various evidences. If you wish to discuss issues within the Christian faith in particular that you find wanting, I suggest starting a seperate thread for discussion. I'd love thatI'd like to pursue my first line of questioning. The evidence you've suggested are solely ancient religious stories, common enough in all the other world religions and unconvincing to me (partially because of that commonality.)

What other evidences convinced you?

[HemofHisGarment]

Yesterday @ 09:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47738#post47738)
Zakath:

"...empirical evidence reduces the need for faith..."

Exactly.

"...deities present very little evidence at all... "

'Evidence' presented by God can be found within the subtleties of life (the coincidences, if you will).

"...reason is the enemy of belief?"

God is a perfectly reasonable and organized being. The Laws of Nature/Universe prove this.

"Adult humans have the innate ability (generally) to search for and find symbols and patterns, even from sufficiently large random collections of information. Just because we want to believe that the order in the universe requires an "orderer" doesn't mean it's so. Certain things are "accidents" or unplanned. "

Okay, but this conclusion goes back to perspective. You may look into the night sky and see it void of a Creator, whereas I do not.

"...one does have to be a supernaturalist..."

Supernaturalist beliefs are beyond natural laws...My beliefs are not in line with this...consider, for example, natural phenomena- this is just part of the natural universe created by a perfect God.

I am thinking that the athesit viewpoint is somwhat superficial... :cool: "
Sorry, I have replied to your quote all wrong...just learning how to navigate the site!

[mattbballman19]

No problem. You appear to enjoy the discussions. :smile:

They are pretty cool :thumb:

This begs the question of the accuracy of the gospels.

I wasn't establishing their truth-value by assertion alone, I was postulating a Christian context to argue the hypothetical of Christianity being true and all other competing religious persuasions contradictory to that truth being false.

These writings describe events outside of the course of natural events.

This begs the question in favor of the natural. You can only know that miracles are impossible if every report of one is wrong. You can only know that every report of one is wrong if already know that miracles are impossible. This is arguing a circle. You must go the reports themselves and weigh the evidence for their validity. You can't go to the text with the a natural presuppositional bias, because the existence of the supernatural must be considered, since its possible.

Maybe you're not begging the question, though. Can you describe this natural course of events and explain the impossibility of this regularity to be forever sheilded from an invasion of the supernatural? I don't think that going to historical events with a certain presuppositional mind-set is the best route. Let the evidence determine your philosophy, not the other way around.

Yet the texts, like all religious texts, speak of supernatural events like miracles as things of the distant past.

What's wrong with that?

Every modern day biblical-style miracle that I've investigated in over forty years has turned out to be either improperly documented (the actual facts were not reflected in the retelling for undiscernable reasons) or fraudulent (the facts were purposely distorted).

Care to go over specifics.

Neither do I see empirical evidence that the laws of physics have changed significantly enough over the last 1800 years to allow for resurrection, divine healings, multiplication of foodstocks, walking on water, and the like in Biblical times but not today.

Explain how they must change in order to allow for the supernatural. Of course miracles are not going to be in accordance with natural law, because the rules they follow aren't natural, they are supernatual. If an even happens for which there can be no natural explanation, then would it not be appropiate to lable it supernatural?

The evidence you've suggested are solely ancient religious stories, common enough in all the other world religions and unconvincing to me (partially because of that commonality.)

Of course this begs the question of whether or not the gospels are just stories, but it would seem that you are willing to discuss evidence, so pick a topic and lets hammer it out. :bonk: :smile:

What other evidences convinced you?

It's impossible for me to exhaustively expound upon the particular evidence which has happened to convince me and the ideas that go into knowing Christianity to be true, as opposed to showing Christianity to be true, so, I think, the most sensible thing for me to do is to give you a link for a specific justification for different topics that I believe about Christianity.

The reliability of the NT text: http://tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html

NT written relatively early be people who were in a position to know the truth: http://tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

That the authors were bias had no bearning on them telling the truth: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html

Various external sources substantiating truths in NT: http://tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

The fact if these NT documents are what they claim to be then it can only be said that Christ was who he said he was: http://tektonics.org/tekton_01_03_01.html

If you want to go deeper I suggest you visit http://tektonics.org/index2.html, and I'd be glad to discuss anyone of the articles that you choose.

Or you can contact the owner of the site, J.P. Holding, who is a regular on this forum and he would be glad to discuss the issues with you.

take care

matt

[Nowhere357]

03-10-2003 @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=31454#post31454)
mattbballman19:

Of God's existence in particular.

Instead of just throwing out an argument, my intention is to observe various quotas that atheists (or any other ideology you can think which disbelieves in the existence of anything transcendant to the realm of the natural ontology).
I am an atheist. I do not disbelieve in the existence of anything transcendant to the realm of the natural ontology.

What does this do to your "premise"? :)

[mattbballman19]

I am an atheist. I do not disbelieve in the existence of anything transcendant to the realm of the natural ontology. What does this do to your "premise"? :)

Nothing, since I didn't postulate a premise. My intention was for you, an atheist, who disbelieves in things like realm of the supernatural ontology, to show me what it would take for you to be convinced that there exists that which you do not think exists. :smile:

matt

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 05:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66281#post66281)
mattbballman19:

I am an atheist. I do not disbelieve in the existence of anything transcendant to the realm of the natural ontology. What does this do to your "premise"? :)

Nothing, since I didn't postulate a premise. My intention was for you, an atheist, who disbelieves in things like realm of the supernatural ontology, to show me what it would take for you to be convinced that there exists that which you do not think exists.

You'll notice, I hope, that I put "premise" in quotes. I realize you did not state a logical premise.

My point is that you seem to assume that atheists must disbelieve in the supernatural. I am an atheist. I do not disbelieve in the supernatural.

What does this do to your assumption? :)

I tend to be convinced by evidence.

[mattbballman19]

My point is that you seem to assume that atheists must disbelieve in the supernatural. I am an atheist. I do not disbelieve in the supernatural.

What does this do to your assumption? :)

Ok, I see now. :doh: :thumb: I suppose my question was directed more towards disbelievers in the supernatural then. If I may ask, what parts of the supernatural to you happen to believe in?

I tend to be convinced by evidence.

I hope so. The title of the thread is called 'what' evidence would convince you. :brow:

matt

[garthoverman]

I suppose my question was directed more towards disbelievers in the supernatural then.
Matt,

What do you mean when you say "supernatural"? I think that would help me identify what I would find convincing. To be perfectly blunt, I think the whole notion of "supernatural" is rather irrational since to me it seems that "natural" is predicated on the inherent character or basic qualities of the universe. If some god happens to be that inherent character or quality fine, but that just makes that god the new measure of what's natural.

Looking forward to your response.

Yours,
Garth

[mattbballman19]

Yo Yo

What do you mean when you say "supernatural"?

Here's a good one: "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material"

BTW, what do you mean when you say supernatural?

is rather irrational since to me it seems that "natural" is predicated on the inherent character or basic qualities of the universe.

What do you mean when you say 'the inherent character or basic qualities of the universe'?

If some god happens to be that inherent character or quality fine, but that just makes that god the new measure of what's natural.

God, by definition of being a supernatural agent, is incapable of being apart of inherent character or quality of the universe, if it is so defined as being that which is natural.

matt

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67689#post67689)
mattbballman19:Here's a good one: "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material"

Okay. I disagree with the last part of this definition since there exist natural things which are non-physical or immaterial i.e. concepts, emotions, space & time, etc...

BTW, what do you mean when you say supernatural?

Actually I think the term is rather meaningless, and for that reason I don't "say" it.

What do you mean when you say 'the inherent character or basic qualities of the universe'?

To put it another way, I could say "existing by default," or "attributes of the ultimate reality," or "the most fundamental character." Y'know.... "natural." :wink:

God, by definition of being a supernatural agent, is incapable of being apart of inherent character or quality of the universe, if it is so defined as being that which is natural.

I understand that you wish to define your God as supernatural, however, I'm attacking the descriptor "supernatural" itself since I believe it to be meaningless -- on par with "before the universe" or "200 degrees north lattitude." I'll assume you meant to say "a part" and not "apart," and so I interpret your statements to be describing God's incapability of being a part of the universe or that He exists "outside the universe" (a phrase I think is as meaningless as "supernatural" and the phrases I mentioned above). Being that the universe is "all that is" by definition, if your God is, He is therefore part of the universe. Futhermore, if you are an orthodox Christian (i.e. Jesus is God) then your statement would be plainly false (or at least contradictory with the rest of your doctrine) as it is part of your doctrine that God did become part of the natural world when he assumed human form.

Yours,
Garth

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67496#post67496)
mattbballman19:
Ok, I see now. I suppose my question was directed more towards disbelievers in the supernatural then. If I may ask, what parts of the supernatural to you happen to believe in?

First, I tend to agree with Garth. Supernatural means "things that don't exist."
That said, I think it also can mean things like spirit or soul, and the afterlife. And those things may very well exist, yet be undetectable to scientific method, because they may not consist of matter or classical energy.
IMO the existence of life, and mind, can be seen as indicators that the supernatural may exist.

In that regard, I am more than the sum of my parts. That "extra-ness" may or may not be supernatural.


The title of the thread is called 'what' evidence would convince you.

I deserved that. :)

I am directly aware of my mental experiences. These experiences are not accessible to physical science. Thus I am more than the sum of my parts.

For example, I know that pain actually exists. Pain is not illusion. But deterministic science can only identify "pain" as neurons and chemicals (so to speak). My DIRECT EXPERIENCE shows this to not be the case.

This to me, is ample evidence that deterministic or objective science is inadequate for explaining all of reality. The subjective viewpoint, that is the existence of subjective mental experiences, must be considered.

This is inself is not evidence of supernatural existence, but IMO leaves the door wide open.

I will say that the only theistic argument for the existence of god that has any weight for me, is the claim of personal mental experience.

In that case, I cannot deny that the experience may be true. I can only question the interpretation of the experience.

[SlaveofChrist]

I have read through this thread and seen a lot of demands of God. Think about this... If God were to blatantly reveal Himself so that nobody could deny his existence then our free will would be lost. We would be forced to believe in Him. If we didn't believe in Him then it would be blatant rebellion for which we would obviously be punished. I think God has given us enough evidence. I am a firm believer is using logic and reason to support my belief in God but yes, we do need to have faith. Faith must be necessary or there is no free will.

[Woman]

Empirical evidence would negate the need for free will, would it not?

This makes no sense to me. What does evidence of the supernatural have to do with how one lives his or her life?

All you have to do is look around at the millions of believers who claim to have no doubt. They don't seem to live their lives much differently than the rest of the world. And they don't agree with each other about how to do so.

Also, the prophets and sages and apostles in the Bible were all given such incontrovertible evidence and still managed to screw up a fair percentage of the time.

[HemofHisGarment]

Today @ 04:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72365#post72365)
Woman:

What does evidence of the supernatural have to do with how one lives his or her life?
...the prophets and sages and apostles in the Bible were all given such incontrovertible evidence and still managed to screw up a fair percentage of the time.
This is very true. Proof doesn't negate free will, I suppose. I would think that the proof would still reduce the need for faith, though, as previously pointed out.

~

:bunny:

[mattbballman19]

garthoverman,

In short, your hangup is based on a strict definition of "universe." You've defined it such that nothing can exist beyond its borders (and to ask the question is to be as meaningful as a square circle). This is a possible understanding of "universe," but I would say that I am more sure that "beyond the universe" is more meaningful and intuitively possible than "the universe is everything that exists" is true. Even scientific discourse on the subject is not anathematizing using such terms as "on the boundary of space-time" or "beyond space-time." The Hawking-Penrose theorems utilize this language quite freely. So, even naturalistic considerations would be precluded if this definition were true. In fact, if arguments for God's existence are more probable than their negation, so much the less for your strict view of "universe." Conclusion? The definition of universe must be revised to account for a broader understanding.

matt

[mattbballman19]

Nowhere357

Some philosophers have used the mind-body problem as the impetus for proving the possibility (probability?) of the supernatural. J.P. Moreland and Gary Habermas authored a book entitled Immortality: The Other Side of Death (Thomas Nelson Publishers) where they argue this matter. But one could easily think of a variety of ways something supernatural could be proven: historically (the resurrection of Jesus), philosophically (ontological argument), naturally (cosmological and teleological arguments), and even cognitively (the noological argument -- that is, a mind-body argument). The anti-supernaturalist has too much to prove if she wants to assert "There is nothing beyond the natural" for only one instance of a counterexample makes this claim false. Even worse, How could one get beyond the natural to verify that this claim is true?

matt

[spacemanspiff]

"What evidence would convince you?"


anything to which the existance of an omnipotent all powerful god is the BEST explination.

[Alien Dragon]

But one could easily think of a variety of ways something supernatural could be proven:

Spirits, if they exist, are part of the natural universe.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
At some point I refused to accept all that I know, and gave God the opportuinty to reveal to me all that He is. And He did.

[comment]
I too went through that step but was able to recognize that the "truths" revealed in my being "born again" where nothing but a rehash of the childhood dogma force fed when introspection was practically non-existent.

Carry your "reawaking" one step further and see that it is only an impediment in your subconcious from childhood

[geochron]

What would convince me? I think that's a very interesting question - I'll restrict my comments to the Christian religion.

I can set aside physical manifestations without a second thought - even were they definitively supernatural how would one decide they were the work of the Christian God rather than some other entity. To me, I'll be convinced by the way people live their lives or not at all.

I heard a sermon (I don't hear many) recently that rather put its finger on an important difference (if you will bear with me). The preacher made a distinction between clinging to Christ and following him.

To see the difference, consider how one deals with a moral problem. Many moral problems are not black and white, often we have to choose between evils. If nothing else we seldom have all the information. The difference comes in the way one copes with this uncertainty.

Clinging to Christ means seeking his endorsement of ones solution and thus gaining the comfort of absolute certainty in being right. To me, this just seems to be a cop out in the face of uncertainty, abdicating responsibility for ones actions. Christ is perfect, he's with us, therefore we cannot be wrong.

Following Christ means seeking his help in deciding, but being aware that ones decision may still be wrong. It is our job to continually review our actions and judgements with his help. If we are wrong, it is not Christ's fault, but we can rely on forgiveness since he has already been punished for our mistakes.

The (few) people I have met who seem to be followers of Christ have come nearest to convincing me.

Apologies for inflicting my poorly grasped theology on you! Please don't judge the preacher by what I grasped of his sermon.

[jsolis]

03-14-2003 @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=34875#post34875)
stevencarrwork:

Tons of stuff would convince me.

For exampple, the Bible says Christians have eternal life. If Christians never died, that would convince me.

Matthew 17:20 is also a good proof 'if you all have faith even like a grain of mustard seed, you all shall say to this mountain,
"Move away to another place", and it shall move.
And nothing shall be impossible to you.'

If Christians could do what Jesus said they can, then I would be convinced.

1. If you really thing that you would be convinced by Christians living forever then you are deceiving yourself. Let's say that my patron, Justin Martyr, were still alive. Would that convince you? If if did then you would not be being logical. For an events not having yet happened cannot possibly mean that it will never happen. You would hardly look at Justin and say, "Wow, Christians live forever!" More likely, you would tell say to him, "Justin, the fact that you have not dies yet doesn't mean that you are going to live forever. You could still die tomorrow." One more thing: Even if Christians did live forever, in the sense that you seem to be meaning, in order to know that Christians live forever, you yourself would have to live forever. How, if only Christians live forever (which is what you say, not me) could you know whether Christians were living forever?

If you are going to argue against a position, you must argue against the actual position held. Any you must argue using the terms (e.g., 'eternal life') as defined by the system that you are arguing against. In the Christian system, 'eternal life' is defined with respect to the resurrection on the 'last day.' The doctrine of eternal life, ,then, is not divorced from that of the resurrection. The Bible does not teach merely that Christians shall have eternal life; the Bible teaches that Christians shall be resurrected to that eternal life, unless they are alive when Jesus returns. You are, as Jesus once told one of his critics, "Mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures..."

The same is true for the other matters that you raise, such as what the power of faith is in Matt. 17.

2. I doubt very much that would you be convinced by Christians doing what Jesus said they can. You would chalk those works up to the same sort of power that David Copperfield and other illusionists utilize. You might even, as some of Jesus's critics did, chalk such works up to the devil.

Just out of curiosity, is it typical of you merely to caricature your opponent's position, or some part of it, using such things as 'persuasive definition', and see if he will waste time defending your caricature of his position instead of his actual position?

Peace,
J. Solís, F.J.