The Process of Justifying One's Beliefs

[seer]

ME: For instance we know that an intelligence (like us) can create logical, rational machines with precise values - like computers. There is no evidence that non-rational forces could do the same - like creating a rational cosmos with precise values that gives rise to rational beings.

Leonhard: Well, there is since I think there's good reasons for supposing that we're specific constructs made of non-rational forces. Each of us a collective gheist composed of the activity of trillions of little robotic cells, each of which can be further decomposed into their constituent proteins, each of which can be decomposed into their constituent indivisible particles subject to blind mechanical forces. I think you and I disagree on this, but notice this isn't a 'starting point' dispute. Its something that should be reachable by evidence and reason. Who knows, maybe our different starting points will influence the outcome of our reasoning, but I'd have to see this explicitly before believing it. I think its a factual dispute about what the best arguments are, and where the evidence is leaning. I don't rule out dualism at the outset. At least I can imagine being shown that this decomposition not plausible by argument, and I think you can can imagine being shown that it is plausible.

And even if it was my starting point I would just update the starting point if the evidence became strong enough.

Sorry L, I don't have the time to touch on every point so lets deal with this. The above is begging the question - isn't it? Yes we know that these natural forces work to do A,B or C. But that is the very thing in question. We have a very precise universe (i.e. precise universal constants without which no life or cosmos is possible). We know from experience that intelligent could create such precise conditions - and we have zero evidence that some previous natural force could create such conditions.

And BTW L, I'm sorry to hear that you lost your faith.

[pancreasman]

Believe me P, I was not intending to be patronizing in the least, it was an honest question and reflection on my part. And my point is - we all have to live by faith, that is a fact - Descartes proved it years ago, there is no way to prove logically or empirically that what goes on in our minds corresponds to reality. There is no way P to "tease" anything out on that level. And if we want to revert to universal "presumptions" then the universe presumption of mankind has included belief in the divine, in some form. Where does that leave you P?

Refuted and explained clearly too many times.

[seer]

Refuted and explained clearly too many times.

No P, Descartes objection has never been refuted. Especially on this board. But believe what you will.

Peace...

[pancreasman]

No P, Descartes objection has never been refuted. Especially on this board. But believe what you will.

Peace...

Not Descartes, your silly over generalization of what he implies.

[shunyadragon]

I guess you are right. Proof is that which guarantees the truth of a proposition. If X proves that proposition Y is true, then X would guarantee that proposition Y is true.

If there is no self-justifying statement, would the process of justifying one's truth claims go on forever? The process of justifying one's truth claims must come to an end somewhere.

No they do not have to end somewhere, but they usually do when we become satisfied with a self gratifying belief, and we look no further.

Suppose the findings of archaeology, history, science, and so on verified that the Bible is the word of God. A person could ask, "How do you know that the truth can be found by archaeology, history, and science?" Suppose that there is a proof that the truth can be found by archaeology, history, and science. How would you prove that proof? There must be a stopping point where justifying one's truth claims comes to an end.

As far as science there is not likely an end to the search of knowledge, though there will likely be a point of diminishing returns. Proof in reality is only useful in math and logic, and i doubt most claims of truth in logic. Proof is over rated, and doe not work in history and archaeology either.

[3abdulmesii7]

Thank you for your input.

How would one go about proving that the Bible is the word of God?

I hope no one has addressed this yet.

I'm a Catholic, doncha know, so I have a different perspective on this. Unfortunately you're going to have to rebuild your Christianity from scratch.

Before you go about believing the Bible, you need to have your argument for the existence of God down.

Now you need to know that Christianity is from God. You know this because the Apostles performed miracles. These were signs that God sent them. One thing that points to this is the rapid conversion of the world of that era to Christianity. Also see this http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miracles/index.html

Furthermore, the apostles passed on their authority to other people. This is fortunate, since the Apostles themselves didn't establish the canon of scripture. The evidence is that early Christians believed it, and those same people performed some miracles. Also see this http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Since those successors had authority from God, they could require Christians to believe certain things, such as a certain group of early texts were divinely inspired and inerrant. Therefore, given the divinity of Christianity, as evidenced by signs and wonders, it is reasonable to accept the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God.

[3abdulmesii7]

Out of curiosity, would you say that believing in Caesar's crossing the Rubicon is easier to prove than believing that an apostle performed miracles? Are they epistemologically equal? Or something?

[pancreasman]

I hope no one has addressed this yet.

I'm a Catholic, doncha know, so I have a different perspective on this. Unfortunately you're going to have to rebuild your Christianity from scratch.

Before you go about believing the Bible, you need to have your argument for the existence of God down.

Now you need to know that Christianity is from God. You know this because the Apostles performed miracles. These were signs that God sent them. One thing that points to this is the rapid conversion of the world of that era to Christianity. Also see this http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miracles/index.html

Furthermore, the apostles passed on their authority to other people. This is fortunate, since the Apostles themselves didn't establish the canon of scripture. The evidence is that early Christians believed it, and those same people performed some miracles. Also see this http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Since those successors had authority from God, they could require Christians to believe certain things, such as a certain group of early texts were divinely inspired and inerrant. Therefore, given the divinity of Christianity, as evidenced by signs and wonders, it is reasonable to accept the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God.

This is a pretty good attempt to build a coherent basis for your Christianity. Thank you for doing it. BUT, your 'proof' that Christianity is from God is the supposed miracles performed by apostles. It seems to me that this already presupposes the accuracy of the Bible which I thought was going to be a conclusion. Secondly, you're surely aware that several other faiths claim miracles, prophecy and the like to validate their religious claims.

http://www.islamicmiracles.net/

http://www.shareintl.org/background/...s/MI_other.htm


How do we differentiate between miracle claims?

[shunyadragon]

Out of curiosity, would you say that believing in Caesar's crossing the Rubicon is easier to prove than believing that an apostle performed miracles? Are they epistemologically equal? Or something?

Caesar's crossing the Rubicon was simply an engineering achievement, which is the specialty of Rome, and not anything approaching the miraculous.

[shunyadragon]

I hope no one has addressed this yet.

I'm a Catholic, doncha know, so I have a different perspective on this. Unfortunately you're going to have to rebuild your Christianity from scratch.

Before you go about believing the Bible, you need to have your argument for the existence of God down.

Now you need to know that Christianity is from God. You know this because the Apostles performed miracles. These were signs that God sent them. One thing that points to this is the rapid conversion of the world of that era to Christianity. Also see this http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miracles/index.html

Furthermore, the apostles passed on their authority to other people. This is fortunate, since the Apostles themselves didn't establish the canon of scripture. The evidence is that early Christians believed it, and those same people performed some miracles. Also see this http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

Since those successors had authority from God, they could require Christians to believe certain things, such as a certain group of early texts were divinely inspired and inerrant. Therefore, given the divinity of Christianity, as evidenced by signs and wonders, it is reasonable to accept the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God.

I was raised in the Roman Church, and have sense become a Baha'i. From a less biased perspective, the claiming of miracles does not from my perspective a satisfactory basis to believe. Other religions like Islam also experienced very rapid growth and this no more convincing for Islam than Christianity. Judaism did not experience such a spectacular growth, and that does not influence whether it is true or not. Today there is no objective evidence for the miraculous to support the calim of any one particular religion. The anecdotal claims for the miraculous are found wanting on close examination.

It is interesting that the word following 'miracle' in the dictionary is 'mirage.'

[3abdulmesii7]

Good question; the rapid conversion of the Mediterranean is one way to know. Also, I note that Celsus didn't deny Jesus' miracles, but rather accused him of sorcery. (Yeah, I know, that's Jesus' miracles.) My understanding is that that was a common accusation against Christian miracles. Also, note that Paul's conversion from a persecutor of Christians to a Christian himself, which he notes in his epistles, which, I believe, are admitted by secular scholars to have been written by Paul, is a testament to the authenticity of his vision of Christ.

In referring to the accuracy of Scripture, are you considering them _less_ accurate than other historical documents?

You might find this helpful, but it IS rather lengthy. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/mi.../section4.html
I need to read it too. He was an Anglican when he wrote this, not a Catholic. I love his categorical denials of Catholic miracles, on no grounds other than that Catholic priests are known liars.

I've read through some of the miracles in the links that you have provided. Unfortunately, my pseudo-theological musings about God's purpose for Islam do not _necessarily_ militate against Muhammad's being able to perform miracles. Are there any similar attestations of miracles by Joseph Smith, for instance?

In the case of Catholic miracles, their continuation to the present day, in connection with the authority of the Church, makes them unique. I imagine that Islamic miracles cease at some point, but I will look into this.

[3abdulmesii7]

How many cases of Catholic miracles have you examined?

[3abdulmesii7]

Are you requiring more historical evidence for a miracle to be true than a non-miracle, though?

[pancreasman]

Are you requiring more historical evidence for a miracle to be true than a non-miracle, though?

Since a miracle is by very definition an event that does not follow natural order, then miracles in the past are much harder to verify or investigate than more natural events IMO. The evidence that Elvis existed as a real man is unassailable. However, did Elvis rise from the dead?

According to Doss, mainstream journalists and academic critics “cite a long list of quasi-religious factors and conditions that seem to confirm Elvis’s contemporary deification: how in the years since his death, a veritable Elvis religion has emerged, replete with prophets (Elvis impersonators), sacred texts (Elvis records), disciples (Elvis fans), relics (the scarves, Cadillacs, and diamond rings that Elvis lavished on fans and friends), pilgrimages (to Tupelo and Graceland), shrines (his Graceland gravesite), churches (such as the 24-Hour Church of Elvis in Portland, Oregon), and all the appearances of a resurrection (with reported Elvis sightings at, among other places, a Burger King in Kalamazoo, Michigan).”

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=882

Despite a few anecdotal references I'm sure most of us would rightly demand a higher standard of evidence for such a claim. I'd add that even the Catholic church in its investigation of supposed current day miracles rejects a large number of claims, and they're in the miracle business! Doesn't this imply that miracles need to be investigated and a high standard of evidence is needed to even consider a miracle verified?

[3abdulmesii7]

By the way, I am not in the "Roman Church" per se. I love Western Christianity, when done properly, but I am currently in the Greek Melkite Catholic Church, which is an Orthodox Church in full communion with the Holy See.

I wasn't aware that the dictionary was a source of divine revelation.

Alright, more fundamental, then. What criterion do you use to determine whether or not a particular truth is divinely revealed?