A Christian perspective of understanding

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's not strictly true.

Except yes it is, you just deflected into talking about Jesus who I never mentioned. Again what I wrote was:

The substantiation on offer in the form of arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that our universe (and/or life within it) was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intention agent........ is exactly ZERO however. There is none forthcoming, least of all from any of the theists posting here.

Where does that say anything about whether some bronze aged carpenters son turned moral philosopher existed or not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ah yes, that old canard. The assumption there is no truth in something just because you can't see it.

Nice of you to preface your paragraph with what you were about to present, because that is not an assumption I hold or presented. You made it up on my behalf.

But it is a common move when espousing a "truth" for which you have absolutely no substantiation to simply declare some lack of faculty on behalf of those who do not accept it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since there is only stalemate to be achieved on this point, I though to remind smacl of it.

Not much of a statemate really given I could make up any unsubstantiated nonsense I like, pretend that you lack some faculty required to see the truth of it, and then the same "stalemate" would occur.

Unsubstantiated nonsense remains unsubstantiated nonsense before AND after you simply inventing a similarly unsubstantiated faculty required to see the truth of it. No wonder you are anti even being skeptical.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

If you're observing on a plain (or plane perhaps?) which can't be proven even to exist, I'd suggest that is better described as imagining.

Your entitled to consider your philosophy of knowledge supreme and inerrant. Good luck proving it.

Your definition is also specifically based around Christian mythology, where those of other equally valid religious persuasions have very different beliefs. Neither your belief, nor those of other faiths, deal in facts as what they put forward as truth cannot be proven.

See above. Not every view need a proof in order to be considered valid to the holder of that view. You cannot prove your wife loves you (in the event you are married and your wife loves you). But that won't bother you, will it?

Similarly, the biblical explanation regarding the condition of mankind, which explains why the world functions as it does, is by far and away the most fitting and elegant explanation I've come across. The alternative is a disjointed mish mash of philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, etc in comparison.

To me, it's like a bank teller handling genuine notes all day, then being handed a pile of low quality counterfeits. The qualitative difference is that stark.

By all means continue with your demand for proofs. There is no overarching need to operate that way.

The only people who are having their rights to freedom of religious beliefs interfered with in this country are non-Catholics who have no choice but state funded Catholic run schools for their children. You say there is no ultimate authority, yet the 'UN Human Rights Committee have recommended that Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 be amended to provide for modifications to the integrated curriculum to ensure that the rights of minority faith or non-faith children are also recognised therein.' You might call it a dance, I call it abuse of a majority position that is rapidly crumbling, the sooner we see the back of which the better.

I agree.

I'd point out however that human rights lie in the eye of the outlook of the beholder. It follows that the UN position is subject to change depending on the view of the societies which make up it's members.

If secularism advances to the point where there is a detesting of faith (such as is expressed by many on this forum) you could see the day where the UN declares it a human right for children not to be "indoctrinated" with religious instruction.

Although sharing your view on the appalling unfairness of the current system, there is a case for resisting the advance of secularism (lest it subsequently overreach in what it supposes fair and unfair). Beware peace in our time

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above. Not every view need a proof in order to be considered valid to the holder of that view. You cannot prove your wife loves you (in the event you are married and your wife loves you). But that won't bother you, will it?

This is a good example of why I avoid the word "proof" when discussing the existence of god with a theist. I think many people see the word "proof" as being final 100% incontrovertible conclusion.

Instead I ask theists for any "arguments, evidence, data or reasoning" they can offer that lends "any credence" to the idea that a non-human intelligent intentional agent exists and had a hand in the creation of life or the universe.

You guys don't even have that, nor have you ever offered any when asked.

Because the fact is sure none of us can "prove" our spouse loves us, but we can offer a plethora of substantiation lending strong credence to the claim. So the wife analogy, just like your medicine analogy, falls a bit flat again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Similarly, the biblical explanation regarding the condition of mankind, which explains why the world functions as it does, is by far and away the most fitting and elegant explanation I've come across. The alternative is a disjointed mish mash of philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, etc in comparison.

Even if the above were true, which is a different discussion, so what? You make it sound like truth owes us some level of ease, elegance or simplicity. As if one claim should be treated with more credence or respect than another because it manages to be simple while the other is complex.

The merit of "alternatives" should be measured on the level of substantiation they come with, not by the relative level of simplistic ease you personally feel in making it sit in your brain with some level of comprehension. If a truth is disjointed, then that is a measure of you as the observer of it, not of the truth itself. In the same way that calculus is complex and difficult for many, but completely intuitive and easy for me personally. That is a measure of me and them, not of calculus itself.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes it is, you just deflected into talking about Jesus who I never mentioned. Again what I wrote was:

The substantiation on offer in the form of arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that our universe (and/or life within it) was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intention agent........ is exactly ZERO however. There is none forthcoming, least of all from any of the theists posting here.

Where does that say anything about whether some bronze aged carpenters son turned moral philosopher existed or not?

The argument for God is made up of components and the weight those components lend to the overall argument.

If it weren't so, you wouldn't have so much heat generated in arguing for/ against each and every single one of those components.

But it is a common move when espousing a "truth" for which you have absolutely no substantiation to simply declare some lack of faculty on behalf of those who do not accept it.

I'm not sure how else you could be expected to view my espousing, in the event you did lack a faculty.

Not much of a statemate really given I could make up any unsubstantiated nonsense I like, pretend that you lack some faculty required to see the truth of it, and then the same "stalemate" would occur.

Indeed. Or you could dress it up abit and talk about there being no proof of God. In which case I'd respond, why need there be proof? To which you'd respond "that's my philosophy". To which I'd reply "prove your philosophy is a truthgiver". To which you'd respond...

Stalemate.

I'm just reminding what the finish line is, since we've all been down this road before.

beefburrito

King Mob wrote: »

So why didn't God tell them that slavery was wrong?
Was slavery good back then, but not good now? If so, where does God inform us of this change and what changes his mind?

Slavery is alive and well in our generation.
Just look around you and you'll see the zombies....
Most slave's theses days are working in factories call center's and in IT companies.

Working long hard hour's,and maybe 4 week's a year to enjoy the proceeds of their labour.
That's the ones who do take their holidays.

You'll see and hear about people doing 12 hours a day and getting paid for 8 because the one on top gives them a pat on the back for being a good lad.

They're actually slave's to this new system of lick ass culture and aiming to please their overlord's.

6+6+6 18

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument for God is made up of components and the weight those components lend to the overall argument.

An argument which I notice you are still not offering. But certainly some old carpenter having a son is not evidence of a god that I can see. So you are just confirming my point for me as to the complete, not just partial, lack of any arguments, evidence data or reasoning being offered (least of all by you) to suggest this non-human intelligent intentional agent exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure how else you could be expected to view my espousing, in the event you did lack a faculty.

As i say, you are not offering any evidence for a god. Instead you claim people who do not see god exists are lacking some faculty or other. You are also not offering any evidence for this faculty. So basically you are just moving your lack of any substantiation one level further away.

At least when calling a blind man blind, we can substantiate the existence of sight to them. We do not just tell them they can not see what we can see, but we can evidence to them the faculty they lack.

You.... not so much.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Or you could dress it up abit and talk about there being no proof of God.

I just made a post about why I do not ask for "proof" of god. Perhaps you might read it before writing such hypotheticals.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm just reminding what the finish line is, since we've all been down this road before.

The road where, as usual, you will not offer a shred of substantiation for your claim. Yes, we have been down it before and I am happy to go down it again with any theist who wanders in making claims they can not lend a modicum of credence to. Thanks for the platform. Please do it again below.

King Mob

beefburrito wrote: »

Slavery is alive and well in our generation.
Just look around you and you'll see the zombies....
Most slave's theses days are working in factories call center's and in IT companies.

No, most modern day slaves are slaves and work in appalling conditions.
Equating a stable, well paying job in a developed country is a bit silly.

However, I'm having trouble telling if you are being serious or not...

Samaris

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above. Not every view need a proof in order to be considered valid to the holder of that view. You cannot prove your wife loves you (in the event you are married and your wife loves you). But that won't bother you, will it?

I might not be able to prove my wife loves me, but I'll settle for being able to prove she exists! Or at least be able to argue the evidence for her existence. If I have to argue that the only reason you cannot see my wife is because you do not have a sixth sense necessary to do so, I suspect you'd think I was nuts.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your entitled to consider your philosophy of knowledge supreme and inerrant. Good luck proving it.

One major difference between scientific method and religious dogma is that science doesn't claim any supreme and inerrant truth. A scientific viewpoint is simply one that is formed based on objective observation, insofar as we can manage it. Where we have gaps in our understanding, we reasonable say that 'we dont know', where we new evidence shows our current understanding to be inaccurate, we revise that understanding. Compare that to religion which simple inserts 'God did it' for any knowledge, while denying the believer the right to question the dogma they're handed down.

See above. Not every view need a proof in order to be considered valid to the holder of that view. You cannot prove your wife loves you (in the event you are married and your wife loves you). But that won't bother you, will it?

Of course not, I strongly suspect my wife loves because she tells me so without being asked, as do my kids. But then my wife and kids exist on this plane, visible to the naked eye, large and in charge. God on the other hand....

Similarly, the biblical explanation regarding the condition of mankind, which explains why the world functions as it does, is by far and away the most fitting and elegant explanation I've come across. The alternative is a disjointed mish mash of philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, etc in comparison.

To me, it's like a bank teller handling genuine notes all day, then being handed a pile of low quality counterfeits. The qualitative difference is that stark.

By all means continue with your demand for proofs. There is no overarching need to operate that way.

The world is a very complex place, disjointed with the mish-mash you describe. The bible is simpler and to some quite preferable on that basis. So is Narnia. I suspect many people take to religion because it provides simple notions of truth and certainty in a complex, confusing, uncertain and often contradictory world. Choosing a preferred notion of reality over a more probable one displays a level of confirmation bias that make religion seem patently ridiculous to those that aren't religious. You would laugh out loud if a grown adult told you they believed in Santa Claus, that is very much how many people regard a belief in God.

murphthesmurf

conditioned games wrote: »

In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The Bible does give instructions how to treat them right and let them not be a slave no more as follows;

Deuteronomy 15:12–15

12 z“If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Just the hebrew men and women then, screw the foreigners. Coming in taking all our slavery and beatings.

What about that time when that group of kids were laughing at the bald headed fella so God sent a bear to kill the little feckers? I've never read the full story, believe its in the old testament. Thats a bit f% €ked up isn't it.
Why do religious peoplewhen asked for any proof just read another line from the bible? Eg, how do you know God exists? It says so in the bible. How do you know the bible is true? It says so in the bible.
Another of Gods, shall we say 'not so good days' was when he committed planet wide genecide with the great flood. That was a bit harsh wasn't it.
I actually decided there was no God at age 12 shortly after I'd figured out there was no Santa or tooth fairy.

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

I might not be able to prove my wife loves me

So we're agreed that not all that can be known can be proven.

, but I'll settle for being able to prove she exists!

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove.

Would you grant me that same convenience?

If I have to argue that the only reason you cannot see my wife is because you do not have a sixth sense necessary to do so, I suspect you'd think I was nuts.

That would be possible. But not necessarily the case. It would depend on whether you were claiming your wife was just like any other person, in which case I would be supposing no special abilities required to detect her.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

One major difference between scientific method and religious dogma is that science doesn't claim any supreme and inerrant truth.

There is no such thing as science claiming. Science is an activity engaged in by people. And people claim all sorts of things about science.

Some people consider science to be the supreme and ultimately inerrant way to all truth. I say ultimately, because science is supposed to work ever onwards and upwards. Accepting of the fact that today's certainty might well be overturned tomorrow perhaps, but in the meantime, todays's certainly is enough to dispel alternative views.

You see it here all the time. Approach the existence of God how? "By scientifically verifiable method. There ain't no other valid discussion to be had on the subject".

A scientific viewpoint is simply one that is formed based on objective observation, insofar as we can manage it. Where we have gaps in our understanding, we reasonable say that 'we dont know', where we new evidence shows our current understanding to be inaccurate, we revise that understanding. Compare that to religion which simple inserts 'God did it' for any knowledge, while denying the believer the right to question the dogma they're handed down.

I've no issue with science doing science. I've an issue with folk supposing science the only way. That's a philosophy held about science. Not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by no right to question. I consider myself to have every right to question (I'm not sure who's going to slap my questions down, least of all God)

In that, evolving a theology is much the same as evolving scientific understanding. If the observation don't fit, alter the theology so that it does. What about people who haven't heard of Christ? They all doomed? What about this OT (or OTT) God vs. the NT God? How are they to be reconciled?

And the like...

Of course not, I strongly suspect my wife loves because she tells me so without being asked, as do my kids. But then my wife and kids exist on this plane, visible to the naked eye, large and in charge. God on the other hand....

My point was to point out the problem with having a "prove it scientifically" philosophy about God. To presuppose he must be empirically demonstrable isn't a scientific position, it's a philosophical one.

The world is a very complex place, disjointed with the mish-mash you describe. The bible is simpler and to some quite preferable on that basis. So is Narnia. I suspect many people take to religion because it provides simple notions of truth and certainty in a complex, confusing, uncertain and often contradictory world.

That's a fair point and I understand the basis of you holding it. However, the issue is whether the explanation works, not whether it's a simple, elegant one or not. Ockhams Razor prefers the simpler solution, so long as it works.

And I find it does work. I'm not at all confused about the utterly chaotic nature of the world around me, men do as they do because their motivations are infected with precisely the elements the Bible says they are infected with: lust, pride, greed, sloth and all the rest. It can't be but a mess.

I've said it before and it's worth saying again: for me, a mechanical engineer, precision, elegance, fine fit, logical working, muti-layer complexity, output related to input .. is what rings my bell. They are the signs of a well designed and working mechanism. It can't be helped: the alternative mish mash, for all the Ph.D's that go into constructing it, look like the work of a 5 year old with two left hands.

Your observation of the many doesn't cover the whole. You need an explanation why it is that people who are as rational, educated, intelligent as any unbeliever, believe.

Choosing a preferred notion of reality over a more probable one displays a level of confirmation bias that make religion seem patently ridiculous to those that aren't religious. You would laugh out loud if a grown adult told you they believed in Santa Claus, that is very much how many people regard a belief in God.

Many people are straitjacketed into a purely rational way of looking at the world. I've encountered plenty of those, enjoy their company and don't mind in the least if they'd laugh out loud at my believing. They usually don't laugh though, because the discussion usually turns into the kind of ding dong we have on these forums. Since no one can land a knock out blow, there is no basis to get to laughing.

I've also encountered many who possess the space to park the question of God, without their believing or feeling a drive to believe in God. I know others of other faiths/spirituality who are driven to navigate a spiritual path by the same kinds of things that caused me to go down the road I went down. I don't know if their God accommodates my type, but I do hold that my God accommodates theirs.

Everyone but the dullest would see the difference between something which purports to deal with the very biggest questions of life and someone who is purported to deliver presents at Christmas. Perhaps dull isn't the right word - perhaps those who equate belief in God with belief in Santa see the issues navigated by both as being on a par with each other.

Samaris

antiskeptic wrote: »

So we're agreed that not all that can be known can be proven.

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove.

Would you grant me that same convenience?

That would be possible. But not necessarily the case. It would depend on whether you were claiming your wife was just like any other person, in which case I would be supposing no special abilities required to detect her.

Thing is, I'm not claiming an invisible wife to start with.

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

Thing is, I'm not claiming an invisible wife to start with.

I was dealing with the hypothetical you posited.

Care to deal with the rest of the post?

Samaris

Well, you are quite correct, I cannot prove that my - non-existent wife - loves me. However, if I was claiming she existed at all, I would at least be able to prove she did.

Fine, I'll play fair. I could make arguments (if she did exist) that she apparently agreed to marry me which is an indication and that you are quite welcome to come speak to her if you want to make up your own mind. She'll even speak back.

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove.

Giving you the option to make up your own mind on it, if proof is important to you. Proof of God is important to me when someone wants acceptance that he exists, so I'll assume that proof that my hypothetical wife loves me is important to you. Therefore, here is an open and fair route to confirm for yourself with no tricks like "well, if you cannot see her, your heart is not open to her" or "she works in mysterious ways" or "read this rather self-contradictory set of books of doubtful provenance to see her".

Would you grant me that same convenience?

If it makes you happy, then fine, but it does not prove your god exists to me. I really don't care what you believe otherwise - you are perfectly welcome to believe in the Christian god or any other god; I'm pointing out a fallacy in the "you cannot prove that your wife loves you" comparison that you started.

That would be possible. But not necessarily the case. It would depend on whether you were claiming your wife was just like any other person, in which case I would be supposing no special abilities required to detect her.

So, if I came up to you and claimed that my invisible wife, who is actually a fairy princess, was behind you, but you couldn't see her because your eyes are not attuned to fairy dust, you'd just accept that as the obvious truth? That is the level of ridiculous that claims of God's existence (but you, poor heathen, cannot see Him because you have not the required faculties of the Blessed) comes across as.

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is a good example of why I avoid the word "proof" when discussing the existence of god with a theist. I think many people see the word "proof" as being final 100% incontrovertible conclusion.

Instead I ask theists for any "arguments, evidence, data or reasoning" they can offer that lends "any credence" to the idea that a non-human intelligent intentional agent exists and had a hand in the creation of life or the universe.

You guys don't even have that, nor have you ever offered any when asked.

.

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

Samaris

Actually, fair point on what you said, nozz. Proof is an unfair standard. Evidence, data, anything that lends more to the "probably" than the "unlikely" is more workable.

looksee

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

Are we back to this? I thought we had got past the 'you have to prove a negative' stuff. Tell you what, you give us '100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data' that fairies don't exist, and we will take it from there.

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

Actually, fair point on what you said, nozz. Proof is an unfair standard.

An inconvenient standard more like, given that aspects of what we know to be the case (like our wives loving us) can't be proven.

Evidence, data, anything that lends more to the "probably" than the "unlikely" is more workable.

To comment on the likelyhood or otherwise of something, you would have to have some kind of handle on how you go about establishing the likelyhood or otherwise of that something.

You've retreated (wisely) from a proof. Now you appear to be at the realm of empirical evidence/data/anything. Could you establish that this is an appropriate means of establishing the likelyhood of all things.


Without resorting to a philosophy. Without resorting to "well it's seen us good in the past"

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

Well, you are quite correct, I cannot prove that my - non-existent wife - loves me. However, if I was claiming she existed at all, I would at least be able to prove she did.

I'm not interested in realms in which we're agreed about. I'm interested in realm where things aren't so easy for you.

Fine, I'll play fair.

I'd prefer if you'd play rigorously.

I could make arguments (if she did exist) that she apparently agreed to marry me which is an indication and that you are quite welcome to come speak to her if you want to make up your own mind.

And if I am not persuaded? Does that mean your wife doesn't love you. Or that you know she does?

Giving you the option to make up your own mind on it, if proof is important to you. Proof of God is important to me when someone wants acceptance that he exists, so I'll assume that proof that my hypothetical wife loves me is important to you. Therefore, here is an open and fair route to confirm for yourself with no tricks like "well, if you cannot see her, your heart is not open to her" or "she works in mysterious ways" or "read this rather self-contradictory set of books of doubtful provenance to see her".

I couldn't give a fig whether you accept he exists or not, anymore than you need give a fig whether I accept your (hypothetical) wife love you. The question is whether we need to be able to deliver a proof or acceptable-to-others evidence in order that we be justified in holding what we figure to know to be the case.

If it makes you happy, then fine, but it does not prove your god exists to me.

We seem to have crossed purposes along the way. I'm not attempting to prove or convince you that God exists. I'm dealing with attempts to diminish the basis whereby I can be content knowing he exists.

I'm pointing out a fallacy in the "you cannot prove that your wife loves you" comparison that you started.

What fallacy was that (excluding the irrelevant issue of this (hypothetical) wife being physically provable). We were talking about you knowing she loves you, without a proof being available for that. Without others being convinced by the various evidences and arguments you give in support of that

So, if I came up to you and claimed that my invisible wife, who is actually a fairy princess, was behind you, but you couldn't see her because your eyes are not attuned to fairy dust, you'd just accept that as the obvious truth?

As I say, I'm not suggesting you believe me. I'm suggesting the above line of approach doesn't put the slightest dent in the potential for me to stand on perfectly solid ground in claiming I know what I know. You don't, with the above approach, impact at all on the likelyhood or otherwise of God's existence.

Samaris

Probably not, the whole hypothetical was odd enough and rather irrelevant enough to the original topic to not be very convincing no matter how I argued it, although I'll grant now that I didn't argue it well. So it goes sometimes. Although while you might have taken the proof of love thing, I was talking about proof of existance. Proof of a specific emotion being held by the hypothetical is three steps on from that.

Mind you, why are you unconvinced at the prospect of being able to talk directly to her? A far higher standard of evidence has been offered in this case - a person who could confirm or deny. Is your position that you will just never believe she can love me ( !) regardless? Yes, eventually we would have to agree to disagree, but I did give you a fair run at answering the question posed from your own experience first and, for existance at least (since a specific emotional state wasn't my argument anyway), it could be backed up by the government and its official forms and certs. You then have to rely on your feel for the authenticity of those documents, the likelihood of intentional fraud, the likelihood of unintentional fraud and weigh up if I'm telling the truth. I suppose if it was desperate enough to prove this, there's the whole business with bits of the brain lighting up, although she might be pretty annoyed at me for it being necessary to sit there with wires attached to her head.

Bear in mind that even you're not being asked to substantiate the emotional state of a hypothetical, just the existence. (By the way, the term "hypothetical" isn't meant to sound insulting, but I need a word that covers your claim and my "claim".) The comment to nozz was not my opinion changing based on the question being posed to me, but it was actually purely to do with the word "proving" and a god, which isn't possible to prove - but substantive evidence is still a fair enough ask.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Where we have gaps in our understanding, we reasonable say that 'we dont know', where we new evidence shows our current understanding to be inaccurate, we revise that understanding. Compare that to religion which simple inserts 'God did it' for any knowledge, while denying the believer the right to question the dogma they're handed down.

This is not correct. As I believer in God I frequently say "I don`t know" to the plethora of questions I get from Atheists. I do this because I know I cannot understand the mind of God when I do not even understand earthly issues.

By contrast, the scientific community often make an assumption and then set out to prove it. Sometimes this assumption is wrong. They also attempt to talk about things they know nothing about. For example, they assume that just because near death experience has a scientific basis, it therefore cannot have a connection to the afterlife. Surely it makes perfect sense that the pleasure center of the brain where good and evil compete, (will I be good or have that jam muffin) should also be the gateway for the soul.

How often have we heard stories in the news of junkies in a psychotic state who go and stab someone (or worse) and later claiming the devil told them to do it? Perhaps he did, via part of the brain which is a portal between the earthly and the supernatural.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is not correct. As I believer in God I frequently say "I don`t know" to the plethora of questions I get from Atheists. I do this because I know I cannot understand the mind of God when I do not even understand earthly issues.

By contrast, the scientific community often make an assumption and then set out to prove it. Sometimes this assumption is wrong. They also attempt to talk about things they know nothing about. For example, they assume that just because near death experience has a scientific basis, it therefore cannot have a connection to the afterlife. Surely it makes perfect sense that the pleasure center of the brain where good and evil compete, (will I be good or have that jam muffin) should also be the gateway for the soul.

How often have we heard stories in the news of junkies in a psychotic state who go and stab someone (or worse) and later claiming the devil told them to do it? Perhaps he did, via part of the brain which is a portal between the earthly and the supernatural.

Er no, none of that makes any sense.

Mark Hamill

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is not correct. As I believer in God I frequently say "I don`t know" to the plethora of questions I get from Atheists. I do this because I know I cannot understand the mind of God when I do not even understand earthly issues.

If you do not understand the "mind of god" and you do not understand earthly issues, then how do you know that the "mind of god" is not just an earthly issue that you have mistaken as the "mind of god" because you do not understand it?

realitykeeper

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you do not understand the "mind of god" and you do not understand earthly issues, then how do you know that the "mind of god" is not just an earthly issue that you have mistaken as the "mind of god" because you do not understand it?

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

King Mob

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

But maybe, crazy thought here, the book that promotes slavery is not right...?

nozzferrahhtoo

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

You will have to explain to me first, why I would be demanded to offer evidence for a claim I did not make, have never made, and have no intention of making?

If you can do that, then we can talk.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove. Would you grant me that same convenience?

Nope. Rather what we should be doing is demanding proof of things that are actually relevant to the context at hand. As soon as the existence of that users wife becomes relevant for example, I shall likely demand that user prove her existence.

If at any point you want to come into the atheist forum and start claiming, or making claims based on, the idea that a god exists then the demands that you substantiation your claims are not based on your convenience, but on context.

The simple fact is you have not got the first SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that such an entity exists. So you have hopped from cop out number 1 (claiming we lack some faculty to see the truth of it, also unsubstantiated) to cop out number 2 (appeals to what is convenient to you).

Why you need to do those cop outs is anyone's guess really. Better to just admit your have no evidence whatsoever for the tosh you espouse, and move on.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some people consider science to be the supreme and ultimately inerrant way to all truth.

Perhaps they do, but I have to admit to never having met a SINGLE such person in all my life. Rather what I generally tend to meet is people who are interested in the truth and realize that science, despite any flaws it AND the people implementing it have, is so far way out in front as the best methodology we have in finding said truths.

Other methodologies, including the religious penchant for simply making crap up, has not really revealed any, let alone many, truths about our universe.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no issue with science doing science. I've an issue with folk supposing science the only way.

Not accepting YOUR way of simply making stuff up is not the same as claiming science is the ONLY way. I am certainly open to other ways, and evaluating them. That is why I never ask for "proof" of god or ask for scientific evidence of god. Contrary to your narrative, what I actually ask time and time again is for any "Arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends credence to the claim the explanation for our universe lies in the actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent".

Regale me, please do, with explanations on where in that statement I ask for A) scientific evidence or proof.

Rather what I think is happening here is that you can not offer anything of the sort, so instead you choose to whinge about the parameters, right up to making up your own ones to whinge about rather than refer to the ones people here ACTUALLY set out.

No wonder you not just define yourself but NAME yourself as someone openly against skepticism. For the person who simply makes nonsense up, skepticism is enemy number 1.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Care to deal with the rest of the post?

Says the guy skipping and ignoring entire posts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is whether we need to be able to deliver a proof or acceptable-to-others evidence in order that we be justified in holding what we figure to know to be the case.

Again context if everything. Whether you should "need" to offer any substantiation for your position entirely depends on context.

As a theist believing in unsubstantiated nonsense walking about the place day to day, then no, I do not think you "need" to be able to do any such thing. Rather I believe you should be left alone to your fantasies and not bothered in any way.

In the context of coming into a forum that maintains rules about "soap boxing" and substantiation of ones position however then yes I feel you "need" to do so. That is however a matter for the moderators, not me, and their patience tends to be long but limited. But if the best you have to offer us is to come in declaring and asserting beliefs but then trotting out a few standard canards and cop outs to resist not just some but ANY attempts to substantiate them.......... then I merely question the wisdom of you doing so and your intent.

In the wider world context of people making claims based on no evidence I very much indeed do think that they need to substantiate their claims however. Whether it be on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, what we should teach in our schools like in biology class or how (if?) religion should be on the curriculum and so forth...... then yes they very much should by required to "need" to start substantiating their claims.

The fact that that have no, not just little, substantiation for their claims is their problem but somehow it ends up being ours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We were talking about you knowing she loves you, without a proof being available for that.

And yet many of us can substantiate heavily the feelings our spouses of choice have for us. If you can not, then I can recommend a relationship counselor.

Time and time again you give off the impression that you believe "proof" means something that shows something else to be 100% true. Even in science we do not treat anything as totally 100% "proven" in this way.

Rather we treat claims relatively in relation to how much substantiation exists for them at the time. Be it none, some, much, or LOADS. But nothing is certain, nothing is vernacular "proven". But claims that are heavily substantiated are put into accepted science. Claims that are not substantiated AT ALL are shelved as interesting but useless.

So likening the god claim with the wife claim does not hold water. The latter can be well substantiated. The former is not. At all. Least of all by the likes of you who only offers cop outs, excuses, and further unsubstantiated canards in order to dodge ever having to substantiate anything you say at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

By contrast, the scientific community often make an assumption and then set out to prove it.

You do know, I hope, that "prove" in science does not mean the same thing as "prove" in vernacular speech right? In science "prove" actually means "to test".

We do not "prove" anything in science in the way you seemingly understand it. Rather we "prove" by testing. That is to say, we test a hypothesis (what you call an assumption, falsely) to see if we can show it to be false.

If after all attempts to falsify it fail, we then put it into accepted science as something that is very likely to be true. That is all.

So before you come into a forum populated by scientists to tell them what science is, perhaps you could stop and let THEM tell you instead.

realitykeeper wrote: »

For example, they assume that just because near death experience has a scientific basis, it therefore cannot have a connection to the afterlife.

I am not sure who is holding that assumption, other than you on their behalf however.

Rather what they/I actually say is that there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest that NDE is any way linked to an after life.

What they/I also say is that our knowledge of human consciousness and sentience is not complete. However 100% of the current knowledge links both to the brain. 0% of ANYTHING we have in the data set at this time suggests a possibility of disconnect between the two, let alone one surviving the death of the other in any way.

So again, I can only question the wisdom of coming into a forum punctuated by the presence of actual scientists and telling them, rather than allowing them to tell you, what their ACTUAL position and ACTUAL words are.`

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

How convenient of it. The very thing they "require" the absence of is the very thing that would be used to verify it. That is as convenient as the other user above being "anti skeptic". Of course he is. If you want to espouse unsubstantiated nonsense then skepticism is the VERY THING you will hate most.

Funny though the number of charlatans across the spectrum, in religions, in cases of "mind reading" or "fortune telling" and in cases of alternative quack medicine, who decry skepticism or demand faith too.

Demeaning faith rather than rationality is par for the course. It is basic charlatan 101 stuff. So why should it be accepted as anything but a canard in one place, but not every other? By what methodology or means do you suggest we evaluate it as a proper requirement, and positive methodology in one instance but not all the other quackery, charlatanism, and nonsense that YOU personally reject?

As someone who has given themselves the pedestal of "keeper of reality"..... how do you keep it on "faith" in one case, yet withhold "faith" in all the other cases that have no less (or more) justifiable basis for it than you can offer us here?

kylith

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that unicorns don't exist?