Take Back Our Country

[seer]

That's not what it says. Read it again.

Do you think my beliefs came through honest, thoughtful examination?

No man should change his beliefs if there is not a credible, rational reason for doing so. Of course, once you've convinced yourself that your beliefs "reflect the mind of god" you make yourself impervious to error. At that point, there is no further point in discussion because anything said will be "against the mind of god," and you are in a close-minded loop. So one can get to beliefs using an open-minded process, and end up in a close-minded set of beliefs. If you are wrong (and of course I believe you are), escaping the error is virtually impossible.

Again Carp, since I do believe that the Bible holds the oracles of God I would be foolish not to follow them. And yes, I am closed minded to a degree, but aren't we all? We all have biases and assumptions. And you, being human, are not immune.

Then you will always be where you are. That appears to content you, so - go for it. I don't know why you want to engage with those who do not think like you do, however. There is essentially nothing we can say (about theism) that you are even marginally open to.

But where would you take me? What could you possibly offer? Remember I was agnostic until my late 30s.

And you (again) add to my meaning and take offense. My statement is about how I approach assessing and revising my beliefs. My statement has nothing to do with you, or your rationality. Changes to my beliefs occur in the face of rational arguments that point to errors in my premises or my logic.

This is the problem, I believe there are good rational arguments for theism, you don't. I mean we can go way back to Aquinas' Five Ways. Those argument are rational and logically consistent. You don't find them compelling, but that is more of a personal preference rather than a logical objection.

For the reasons I cited. Two way, Seer, or no way. Sorry if you find that "unfair."

You are still avoiding, no matter how you couch it.

I have no idea what premises you are referring to.

Biblical arguments are pointless when speaking to someone who does not accept the bible on the same terms you do.

None of which are historically verified. I do not accept the miracle claims of the bible any more than I do the miracle claims of any other holy book, or the vast sea of "miracles workers" claiming to have such powers. I won't until I have a rational basis for accepting those claims. Currently, I do not.

What is a rational basis for accepting those claims, for you? In other words, I do not see any logical argument against the possibility of miracles. I think it would come down to the idea that you haven't see one so you won't believe they are possible. But that is based on personal experience, it is not rational argument against the possibility.

[carpedm9587]

Do you think my beliefs came through honest, thoughtful examination?

I have no clue.

Again Carp, since I do believe that the Bible holds the oracles of God I would be foolish not to follow them. And yes, I am closed minded to a degree, but aren't we all?

I try not to be. We all struggle with bias, of course, but I work pretty hard to keep an open mind.

We all have biases and assumptions. And you, being human, are not immune.

Never claimed I was.

But where would you take me?

You seem to be under the impression I want to "take you" somewhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. I enjoy a discussion/debate for the give and take of it, and as a way to test my own beliefs. I am purely nosy about what others believe. That doesn't mean I won't tell you if I think you're wrong or that your reasoning is faulty.

What could you possibly offer?

Nothing but vigorous debate/discussion and conversation.

Remember I was agnostic until my late 30s.

And I was Christian until my early 30s... Same road - different directions.

This is the problem, I believe there are good rational arguments for theism, you don't.

You have no idea what I believe. You DO know that I must have found the arguments for atheism more compelling than those for theism, or I would probably still be Christian.

I mean we can go way back to Aquinas' Five Ways.

I am familiar

Those argument are rational and logically consistent.

I would say sound but not valid, which means they can be rational without being true.

You don't find them compelling, but that is more of a personal preference rather than a logical objection.

Actually, no.

You are still avoiding, no matter how you couch it.

Absolutely. I have no intention of answering unilateral questions. I'll answer yours when you stop stonewalling mine.

What is a rational basis for accepting those claims, for you?

Compelling evidence that they are true.

In other words, I do not see any logical argument against the possibility of miracles.

Depends, of course, on the premises you start with and how you approach the question. In general, I do not accept claims into my belief system if they run counter to my existing beliefs and there is inadequate evidence to support their truth. I would hope we all do that.

I think it would come down to the idea that you haven't see one so you won't believe they are possible.

It is true I have not seen one. There are many things I have not seen that I believe are possible, so your statement is not the basis of my beliefs.

But that is based on personal experience, it is not rational argument against the possibility.

Agreed, though personal experience is a factor in every belief we hold. No belief I hold (that I can think of sitting here now) is based on a single data point. My experience is merely one data point. If I had experienced them, I would be forced to either change my worldview, or explain the phenomenon. Since I have not, that compulsion does not exist.

[Mountain Man]

Seriously, carpe? Answering a post literally one sentence at a time?

I've found this technique most often employed by those who are losing a debate and wish to hide it by getting things hopelessly muddled.

[seer]

I try not to be. We all struggle with bias, of course, but I work pretty hard to keep an open mind.

Try harder...

You seem to be under the impression I want to "take you" somewhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. I enjoy a discussion/debate for the give and take of it, and as a way to test my own beliefs. I am purely nosy about what others believe. That doesn't mean I won't tell you if I think you're wrong or that your reasoning is faulty.

Nothing but vigorous debate/discussion and conversation.

I guess my point is, after all these years and all the debates I have been in, I have yet to see a compelling argument that would cause me to give up my beliefs. Or a worldview that really competes with the one I hold now.

I would say sound but not valid, which means they can be rational without being true.

What is untrue about them? And how do you know they are untrue? That is a pretty broad claim.

Absolutely. I have no intention of answering unilateral questions. I'll answer yours when you stop stonewalling mine.

Yet when you hit me with a series of questions you expected me to answer each and every one.

Compelling evidence that they are true.

Depends, of course, on the premises you start with and how you approach the question. In general, I do not accept claims into my belief system if they run counter to my existing beliefs and there is inadequate evidence to support their truth. I would hope we all do that.

But that is not a rational (i.e. logical) objection, it is a personal one. What we see as evidence, or compelling, can be quite arbitrary. What would such evidence look like?

It is true I have not seen one. There are many things I have not seen that I believe are possible, so your statement is not the basis of my beliefs.

Agreed, though personal experience is a factor in every belief we hold. No belief I hold (that I can think of sitting here now) is based on a single data point. My experience is merely one data point. If I had experienced them, I would be forced to either change my worldview, or explain the phenomenon. Since I have not, that compulsion does not exist

If your objection is not based on personal experience then on what logical basis would dismiss the possibility of miracles?

[Sparko]

Seriously, carpe? Answering a post literally one sentence at a time?

I've found this technique most often employed by those who are losing a debate and wish to hide it by getting things hopelessly muddled.

Yep, the Cuisinart method. Chop up a post till it is incomprehensible when you try to reply. He did that to me several times too.

[carpedm9587]

Yep, the Cuisinart method. Chop up a post till it is incomprehensible when you try to reply. He did that to me several times too.

You should consider chatting with someone that obeys your rules...

[carpedm9587]

Seriously, carpe? Answering a post literally one sentence at a time?

I insert answers to questions asked after the question, and sometimes at the end of the paragraph. Seer asked a lot of questions.

I've found this technique most often employed by those who are losing a debate and wish to hide it by getting things hopelessly muddled.

Your opinion is noted...

[Sparko]

You

I

should

will

consider chatting

take that

with someone

under

that obeys

advisement

your rules...

The rules are located above under FAQ.

[carpedm9587]

Try harder...

Most of the time...

I guess my point is, after all these years and all the debates I have been in, I have yet to see a compelling argument that would cause me to give up my beliefs. Or a worldview that really competes with the one I hold now.

Based on our conversations to date, that does not surprise me one bit.

What is untrue about them? And how do you know they are untrue? That is a pretty broad claim.

Well, the Five Ways is a pretty broad tapestry. It has been years since I've revisited that set of arguments. I simply remember walking them and finding them built on assumptions that were never shown to be true - hence "sound" but not "valid." I'd have to go back to recapture the argument.

Yet when you hit me with a series of questions you expected me to answer each and every one.

Seer, I don't "expect" anything. I post, I ask, you can answer or not answer at will. Most of the time the pattern is you ask and I answer. When I do ask, I often get a "no way, you're not going turn this back on me," or the latest was "I'm not going there, I already feel dirty." I have avoided almost none of your questions to this point. But I'm done answering if the dynamic is not unilateral. Up to you...

But that is not a rational (i.e. logical) objection, it is a personal one. What we see as evidence, or compelling, can be quite arbitrary. What would such evidence look like?

It's actually quite rationale. Assessing truth is like weighing vegetables. Pile up evidence for on one side and evidence against on the other. Not all evidence has the same weight. If the scale tips badly left or right, means highly probable it is true (or untrue), the more "centered" the scale the less we can make any firm statement about what is probably true. Absolute certainty is not within the grasp of humanity.

And if people are accepting/rejecting evidence arbitrarily, then they aren't very intellectually honest, IMO.

If your objection is not based on personal experience then on what logical basis would dismiss the possibility of miracles?

Another question, Seer? Why don't you go back and answer the question you've dodged for a while now. I'll remind you:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, but a man is convinced that god exists and that he has both seen and heard god reveal absolute truths to him.

If you are the man, how do you distinguish between the two scenarios?

[carpedm9587]

I

will take that under advisement The rules are located above under FAQ.

I went a couple levels down. If there is a specific rule I am somehow violating, can you please either post it or link it?

[Sparko]

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, but a man is convinced that god exists and that he has both seen and heard god reveal absolute truths to him.
========

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

[Mountain Man]

I insert answers to questions asked after the question, and sometimes at the end of the paragraph. Seer asked a lot of questions.



Your opinion is noted...

It is, generally, an ineffective and weaselly debate tactic that gives the appearance of answering an argument without actually answering it. It also makes a debate almost impossible for others to read and follow since it does more to obscure than to enlighten. If you find that you are unable to simply and clearly spell out your argument in one continuous response than you need to ask yourself if you really even understand your own position, or your opponent's.

[carpedm9587]

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, but a man is convinced that god exists and that he has both seen and heard god reveal absolute truths to him.
========

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

And you think a biblical quote it going to mean something...? Not to mention it does not answer the question...

[carpedm9587]

It is, generally, an ineffective and weaselly debate tactic that gives the appearance of answering an argument without actually answering it. It also makes a debate almost impossible for others to read and follow since it does more to obscure than to enlighten. If you find that you are unable to simply and clearly spell out your argument in one continuous response than you need to ask yourself if you really even understand your own position, or your opponent's.

Again, your opinion is noted...

[seer]

Well, the Five Ways is a pretty broad tapestry. It has been years since I've revisited that set of arguments. I simply remember walking them and finding them built on assumptions that were never shown to be true - hence "sound" but not "valid." I'd have to go back to recapture the argument.

Perhaps if you revisit it you would find more value in them than you did - being that you are so open minded.

Seer, I don't "expect" anything. I post, I ask, you can answer or not answer at will. Most of the time the pattern is you ask and I answer. When I do ask, I often get a "no way, you're not going turn this back on me," or the latest was "I'm not going there, I already feel dirty." I have avoided almost none of your questions to this point. But I'm done answering if the dynamic is not unilateral. Up to you...

Talk about self serving.

It's actually quite rationale. Assessing truth is like weighing vegetables. Pile up evidence for on one side and evidence against on the other. Not all evidence has the same weight. If the scale tips badly left or right, means highly probable it is true (or untrue), the more "centered" the scale the less we can make any firm statement about what is probably true. Absolute certainty is not within the grasp of humanity.

And if people are accepting/rejecting evidence arbitrarily, then they aren't very intellectually honest, IMO.

Except you already agreed that you have biases and assumptions. Which will color what you see as evidence, good evidence or not. We are not Vulcans.

Another question, Seer? Why don't you go back and answer the question you've dodged for a while now. I'll remind you:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, but a man is convinced that god exists and that he has both seen and heard god reveal absolute truths to him.

If you are the man, how do you distinguish between the two scenarios?

I would have to know each person individually. I know two men, both are degreed, one a Phd. Both are sober minded, solid Christians. They each relate that ONE time and one time only God spoke to them verbally. I have no reason to doubt them. Now if a man I didn't know did the same thing I would take it with a grain of salt. If that what you are asking?