Redirecting.

[dbedsole]

Ok, folks, here we are. This is the part of the discussion I dread, because it inevitably comes, no matter how I try to avoid it. And the dilemma is always in front of me: do I continue, or let it go?
You see, no matter how hard I try to keep a discussion centered and civil, inevitably someone starts to get rude. And I am from the South (Alabama) and I don't like rudeness. I'm just as human as anyone and don't like being misquoted or insulted. But I'm not at liberty to give it back; my Lord requires kindness and self-control. So I'm asking you politely: disassemble my arguments all day long; I'm under no illusions about the audience of this thread; but keep my character out of the thing. After all, you don't even know me. Don't compare me to Christians I haven't met, or twist my words, or accuse me of absurd things (see recent posts). We're here to debate; if we simply wanted to throw rocks, we wouldn't have to use such big words.
And please, spare me the piffle about wanting affirmation and support. I'm not deluded enough to think I'm among friends. But common courtesy among intelligent human beings shouldn't be too much to ask.
So far, we've managed to have a fairly interesting discussion about Christianity, without resorting too much to mudslinging or canned comebacks. I appreciate that, and I am being sharpened by all of your insights. What I wonder now is if we can take this thing to the next level, and still be ladies and gentlemen about it. What do you say?

[dbedsole]

We've talked a little bit about objectivity and whether it's a valid goal. Let's move on and talk about miracles, since they seem to be a hot button topic around here. Many have argued along the lines of David Hume. If you're unfamiliar, his argument goes something like this:

1) A miracle by definition is a violation of (or exception to) a law of nature,
2) laws of nature are built on the highest degree of probability,
3) hence, a miracle by definition (as an exception) is based on the lowest degree of probability,
4) the wise person should always base his belief on the highest degree of probability,
5) therefore, the wise man should never believe in miracles.

Here are the problems with these assertions:

Structure:
Agnosticism, as a philosophy, is ultimately self-defeating. At its hardest, it asserts that no true knowledge of truth is possible. However, this itself is a truth claim. Thus, it fails the test logically.
But most agnostics don't go this far. They are more likely to assert that no true knowledge of ineffable (unprovable) things is likely, or possible. The problem with this assertion doesn't lie in self-consistency; it lies in the presuppositions of the argument itself. If one affirms that knowledge of finite reality is possible, but not knowledge of infinite reality, he is on shaky ground philosophically, because he will have to justify his knowledge of the finite, divorced from the infinite. He will have to demonstrate on what basis he knows what he knows, especially if he believes the universe came about by chance. But on to miracles:

1) The main problem with Hume's argument is that it is circular; specifically, his term "violation" (of nature). By it he assumes his own conclusion by positing that any occurence in nature not explainable by natural causes is a violation or, from another angle, that only nature can produce events observable in nature. This seems fine and good to a secular humanist who assumes from the beginning that there is no God, but it goes against the rules of logic, even of "objective" logic, which I use here for sake of argument. You cannot assume the very thing you mean to prove, but we all do; thus my dislike of the term "objective".

2) No one should deny that miracles are unlikely, but that doesn't mean they are impossible. Should a wise person always bet on the most likely? Is it more unlikely that an omnipotent God could raise a man from the dead than it is for a universe to come into being by chance? Even Hume himself admitted that we couldn't be sure the sun will always rise tomorrow just because it rose in the past. "Repeatable" phenomena are really based on faith--a hedged bet; I'll grant, maybe even a proven bet, but a bet nonetheless.

If there really is an all-powerful God, raising a man from the dead should be child's play.

[Dunearhp]

Agnosticism, as a philosophy, is ultimately self-defeating. At its hardest, it asserts that no true knowledge of truth is possible. However, this itself is a truth claim. Thus, it fails the test logically.


Logic is itself an invention of man. To plead absolute ignorance is a viable stance.
Yes, I am agnostic.



Is it more unlikely that an omnipotent God could raise a man from the dead than it is for a universe to come into being by chance?


The universe exists. From our perspective it is a sample of one, so arguments based on the probability of this universe coming into being don't work. We are here, that seems to be self evident.

If the existance of something implies a creator, does not the existance of the creator also imply an earlier creator.

Consider my sig.
It is explained at
http://www.the-funneled-web.com/hawking.htm

Then how come the universe is here?

If it wasn't here, what would be? Perhaps a void, or a nullness. I am afraid that I haven't the right term to describe it. "Nothing" is not sufficient, it seems to imply that there is space for "nothing" to be in.

On what basis can we say that the existance of a nullness is more likely than the existance of the universe as it appears, or vice versa? The universe exists. This fact implies nothing.

I have no basis to choose between the nullness, the universe with no creator and the universe with an endless iteration of creators.

THAT is what it means to be a strict agnostic. To me at least.

Thank you for keeping these discussions in your own threads, It allows the forum to stay civil.

The fact that you have only contributed one post outside of your own threads makes you seem overly focused on this topic. Relax man. B)

I mean no offence, but only ever arguing the same topic is unhealthy. And remember that you are not the only person here with cherished beliefs.

Damn, I probably sound like a arrogant asshole. :thumbdow:

Cheers :cheers:

[cjs55]

"To plead absolute ignorance is a viable stance. "

I will argue this is incorrect =)

To be able to type that sentence is knowledge of *something*. You can't be absolutely ignorant. It is impossible, because you made a statement. Even if you are a machine build to act as a man, you are still a machine that knows how to act as a man. But are we talking about something else here? Do you mean absolute truth? Well, here's as close as you get to an absolute truth: I read this message and responded to it.

Ugh sorry, I'm going to hijack this thread somewhat. Forgive me, I am a little intoxicated and cannot be blamed for my philosophical ramblings.


"I mean no offence, but only ever arguing the same topic is unhealthy. And remember that you are not the only person here with cherished beliefs."

Its ok, he is looking for reaffirmation of his belief through logical means, and we are all guilty of doing the same thing at one time or another. I think its generally better to try to come to your belief using logical means, instead justifying your belief logically, but there are many fuzzy areas that make it hard to judge exactly where you are in the spectrum.

For instance, I think Beliefs should never be cherished. Although...maybe thats a cherished belief of mine...if so, I lose =). I like to think of it as more a pure objective logical statement, however.

"Agnosticism, as a philosophy, is ultimately self-defeating. At its hardest, it asserts that no true knowledge of truth is possible. However, this itself is a truth claim."

Ah, the wonderful beginnings of positive nihilsm =).

"They are more likely to assert that no true knowledge of ineffable (unprovable) things is likely, or possible."

Here we go into interesting territory. No 'true' knowledge is possible from an objective standpoint other than a personal objective stanpoint. From a personal level, its obvious to say that i felt a rain drop, but all of these words are tinged with other meanings that are deconstructibale and also available to the 'brain in the vat' argument. However, for the person, you cannot deny that you felt a raindrop. Its truth, for the person. For external things, there is no such thing as truth, only probability and one's ability at understanding it. Truth isn't even what happens, because what happens is never identifiable. We can go down forever into the hole of scientific analysis and never come out. It goes down forever. Maybe this is due to our perceptual filters, maybe not. But, if you can say, make a crop rotation, or fly to the moon, you've done pretty damn well at understanding how the universe works in some way or another. Since the system gives results, we are safe to say that we are at least close to what is really going on, even if we aren't exactly there (and probably never will be)

As far as the rest of your agument goes, I am utterly lost as to what you are trying to prove. If an all powerful god existed, then cetainly there would be no difference to the god, whether raising people from the dead or creating a universe. Infact, if an all-powerful God existed, wouldn't miracles beome moot? The God could do anything at all. There is no difference between non-miracle and miracle anymore to the God's eyes. Its all childs play. But why the hell should an all powerful god exist in the first place? I mean thats what we are really trying to get at here, isn't it?

[Dunearhp]

"To plead absolute ignorance is a viable stance. "

I will argue this is incorrect =)

To be able to type that sentence is knowledge of *something*. You can't be absolutely ignorant. It is impossible, because you made a statement. Even if you are a machine build to act as a man, you are still a machine that knows how to act as a man. But are we talking about something else here? Do you mean absolute truth? Well, here's as close as you get to an absolute truth: I read this message and responded to it.


You are right of course. Absolute was too strong a word to use. I know that I exist. I cannot be ignorant of that fact.

It is hard to express what I am trying to say without using logic. I do not think logic is sufficient, since it's own existance is based on our observations of the world.
Logic cannot take us past the "Big Bang" (It is only by faith that the universe is consistent that it gets that far. Belief in gravity etc.), nor does it apply well to Religion. Again, that is not the whole of an argument :(

I need to think more obout this :)

[Ckyzxr]

What I wonder now is if we can take this thing to the next level, and still be ladies and gentlemen about it.

My guess is that we will not necessarily be able to take this to the next level. The discussion seems to aimed at establishing the absolute existence/non-existence of a higher power. This argument cannot lie on a continuum given the direction you are approaching the issue from and what you are using as evidence for a higher power.

If we attempt to discuss whether there is an "alternate" power unknown to humans at this time that has had some influence (or continues to have influence) on our existence and/or death OR if we attempt to discuss the potential limitations of that "alternate" power, then we may be able to move from this ageless stalemate and tedious debate.

[int]

You see, no matter how hard I try to keep a discussion centered and civil, inevitably someone starts to get rude. ...

What I wonder now is if we can take this thing to the next level, and still be ladies and gentlemen about it. What do you say?

Why are you sensitive to the perceived "rudeness"? Being from "the south" doesn't necessarily justify it...as there are plenty of "rude" southerners...maybe even on this board. :ph34r:

And can someone explain this "next level" thing for me? I've been honestly trying to get there for years and no one has enlightened me more than the french fry I made the other day.

And damn, that was a tasty fry.

[Melody]

hmm... im god, so im pretty sure he exists ^_^

Seriously, though, I need proof that this dude exists. Until I have some, I am indifferent about his existence.

As for the Hume-miracle thing, that guy sounds silly. "Miracle" is a term which is far too abstract to be used in a logical sentence. It reminds me of some Socratic stuffs. Socrates had great logical abilities, but he used words which do not meld with logic. Words such as "love" and "virtue."

It is like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/tocca/disjointlogicidea.png

In my opinion, one should not mix things like this because logic applied so is invalid.

[Melody]

A corollary is "miracles" and any other vague concept as this can be neither proved nor disproved nor analyzed via logic.

Of course, this is my opinion. ^_^

[dbedsole]

"To plead absolute ignorance is a viable stance. "

I will argue this is incorrect =)

To be able to type that sentence is knowledge of *something*. You can't be absolutely ignorant. It is impossible, because you made a statement. Even if you are a machine build to act as a man, you are still a machine that knows how to act as a man. But are we talking about something else here? Do you mean absolute truth? Well, here's as close as you get to an absolute truth: I read this message and responded to it.

I'm with you until the last two sentences, where we part ways. I would argue that "absolute" truth is unnecessary; what we need is reliable truth. Reliable truth is truth that is affirmed both in our personal experience and in history, and is logically defendable, if not completely proveable.



I mean no offence, but only ever arguing the same topic is unhealthy. And remember that you are not the only person here with cherished beliefs."


*sheepish smile* No offense taken; maybe you're right. Thanks.



Its ok, he is looking for reaffirmation of his belief through logical means, and we are all guilty of doing the same thing at one time or another. I think its generally better to try to come to your belief using logical means, instead justifying your belief logically, but there are many fuzzy areas that make it hard to judge exactly where you are in the spectrum.


I've already argued against coming to your belief using logical means. Also, I would affirm that all writing is a form of advocacy; ie, no one writes without some commitments that they are invested in proving, defending, testing, etc. This doesn't mean that we never change our minds, but the tabula rasa is a myth.



For instance, I think Beliefs should never be cherished. Although...maybe thats a cherished belief of mine...if so, I lose =). I like to think of it as more a pure objective logical statement, however.


I agree with you, so I won't argue.



"Agnosticism, as a philosophy, is ultimately self-defeating. At its hardest, it asserts that no true knowledge of truth is possible. However, this itself is a truth claim."

Ah, the wonderful beginnings of positive nihilsm =).


Or theism, if you're a bit more optimistic. :cheers:



"They are more likely to assert that no true knowledge of ineffable (unprovable) things is likely, or possible."

Here we go into interesting territory. No 'true' knowledge is possible from an objective standpoint other than a personal objective stanpoint. From a personal level, its obvious to say that i felt a rain drop, but all of these words are tinged with other meanings that are deconstructibale and also available to the 'brain in the vat' argument. However, for the person, you cannot deny that you felt a raindrop. Its truth, for the person. For external things, there is no such thing as truth, only probability and one's ability at understanding it. Truth isn't even what happens, because what happens is never identifiable. We can go down forever into the hole of scientific analysis and never come out. It goes down forever. Maybe this is due to our perceptual filters, maybe not. But, if you can say, make a crop rotation, or fly to the moon, you've done pretty damn well at understanding how the universe works in some way or another. Since the system gives results, we are safe to say that we are at least close to what is really going on, even if we aren't exactly there (and probably never will be)


This is a pretty good summation of the agnostic argument. The reason it is self-defeating is that probability attempts to replace faith, and it is impossible to live without faith in our day to day lives. (If you don't like the term faith, I'm fine with finding another one to describe the confidence we have in authority...the weatherman to tell us the weather, the earth to continue in its natural laws, etc). I already argued above that even honest agnostics have to admit that probability doesn't give us anything but a basis for faith that God doesn't exist, or at least doesn't intrude into creation. As for logic, it's arrived at no more logically than any other religion or system.



As far as the rest of your agument goes, I am utterly lost as to what you are trying to prove. If an all powerful god existed, then cetainly there would be no difference to the god, whether raising people from the dead or creating a universe. Infact, if an all-powerful God existed, wouldn't miracles beome moot? The God could do anything at all. There is no difference between non-miracle and miracle anymore to the God's eyes. Its all childs play. But why the hell should an all powerful god exist in the first place? I mean thats what we are really trying to get at here, isn't it?

Ok, good point; I got impatient and skipped a few steps. I appreciate your affirmation that God, if he existed, could perform miracles. As to the question of why God should exist, let me ask the question: what is at stake? Would it not explain a lot of things of he did?

[Johnny]

...my Lord requires kindness and self-control...What I wonder now is if we can take this thing to the next level, and still be ladies and gentlemen about it. What do you say?

I say that you are under no obligation to sell, trade in, expel, or otherwise sever any intellectual, emotional, experiential, or otherwise apprehensible connection between you and your Lord that is not of your own will or making. Whatever requirements you place on yourself to affirm this relationship is entirely up to you...and as long as you do not break the law I will not harrass you.

However I would like to ask you, dbesole, why you need others in order to reach this "next level" you are advertising? And why the sensitivity over your character here?

Your assessment of agnosticism is also of your own making, dbedsole. When did agnosticism begin embracing truth statements?

Furthermore, "If there really is an all-powerful God, raising a man from the dead should be child's play", doesn't make any sense. What does raising man from the dead (or not) have anything to do with challenging the existence of an all-powerful God?

:sombrero:

[cjs55]

What does raising man from the dead (or not) have anything to do with challenging the existence of an all-powerful God?

Because it doesn't really have anything to do with it? That was my point about miracles in general. Or am I confused to your point? In fact, my argument sort of debases miracles, because I would consider God a part of the universe if he existed, which makes nature itself subject to omnipotence. Thus, miracles aren't really miracles anymore, they are just a part of the universe and nature.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/tocca/disjointlogicidea.png

That was plato's fault really and his damn idealized form. Most of the Socratic dialogues were written by Plato, and weren't actually anything Socrates necessarily said. Plato just used Socrates to promote his viewpoints. I believe that the dialogues Socrates gave at his court trial and before his death may have actually been real however (just my feeling). I also think that Plato had something to do with this christianity stuff too =p. (idealized form = soul)

I agree that logic cannot fully come up with what virtue is. However it can analyze how and why we came up with it, and from that we can make changes if we feel they are necessary. But certainly, 100% logic is not a good way to "make" things like virtue or beauty, but its a good way to deconstruct them.


what we need is reliable truth. Reliable truth is truth that is affirmed both in our personal experience and in history, and is logically defendable, if not completely proveable.

I agree so much its almost funny.



As to the question of why God should exist, let me ask the question: what is at stake? Would it not explain a lot of things of he did?


Judeo-Christian God? I don't think that really explains anything patricularly well. It is helpful for humanity, and that is why it has been used. The moral structure of the system worked well for the Jews earlier in well, surviving, and worked even better later for the Christians in a totally different form which is quite subtle. Religions last because they work. Now, you could say God makes them work, but why would God then make a bunch of religions that sometimes hate each other and are quite different in their view of the world, 'work'. I mean Buddhism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism all work well pragmatically because they have survived this long. They are all vastly different however, and I just don't see why God would advocate them all. If God doesn't advocate them, then I just go back to the most logical argument which is that they have existed this long only because of their usefulness to the people who practiced the religion, which has nothing to do with the actual existance of God.

A God but not a specific one, on the other hand, does explain some things. However, there are many problems with words such as 'omnipotent'. I'm not sure if a God could be an omnipotent due to how many problems there would be if he was. Could he make 2 + 2 = 5? I think he would have to be able to, because otherwise there would be interesting consequences.

Check out this thing: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm

Now, I could argue some of the responses that little quiz gives, but for the most part I think its pretty good.

When I first plugged in what I thought would be most likely for a God, I put in only one thing. Creator. I think everything else is very unlikely. If it's a personal God, then why aren't I having a chat with it right now? If its omni-anything, problems ensue. If its eternal, problems ensue. It would have to be omni-potent to be perfectly free. I think a creator is possible. But I don't think anything else here is. And, the creator is meaningless to us here, because he has had no effect that I can see on the world other than its creation.


I understand where you are going here. You are trying to say that God can be reliably proven, similar to the faith that I have that the world is round even though I've never seen it, or that electrons flow through wires to power my computer, even though I've never seen it. But these all make extreme sense in the world and in the whole picture of events. Laws of physics govern this and bring together everything, even if they aren't perfect. Everything fits logically, observably, and predicatbly. But I don't see God fitting in the same way, especially any one that is worshipped by humanity at this point. All of these Gods aren't observable, aren't predicatible, and aren't doing anything they are supposed to be doing (the fact that 5 year old children have been mercilessly abused and tortured just really rules out omnibenelovence or omnipotence in my eyes.), puts them out of the realm of 'the sun will rise this morning'. It puts it into the realm of, 'maybe 2 + 2 could be 5'. But thats nothing oberservable or provable by humanity.

Now I suspect the argument will go to "well most of the things that make worth living in lifem, or things which are worth believing in, are not observable or provable by humanity", but I will argue this is not the case if the argument does go there.



Oh, and what is at stake here? Thats certainly up to the individuals perception of reality and what religions have done for humanity. I think they have been somewhat useful, but their usefulness does not rely on their truthfulness in any way.

Certainly if a religion were true it would make many questions much easier, but in my opinion we have an obligation to not take the easy way out in this case. I think it has overall had positive aspects in the past, but in the current state of humanity, this nihilstic postmodern valueless time, religion is a dead way to solve humanity's problems. It has to be done by other more pragmatic means. Our society is stuck between enlightenment and death, and religion is what is failing to bring it forward. We need a new movement.

[Claverhouse]

but in the current state of humanity, this nihilstic postmodern valueless time, religion is a dead way to solve humanity's problems. It has to be done by other more pragmatic means.

Very old joke: 'Nietzsche is Dead' says God.

Although I'm too absorbed with other stuff to take much interest in this topic just now, I'd welcome your options as to which 'other means'...

The Genghis Khan Method ? Universal Anarchy ? A Slave-State ? [ Seriously: read David Wingrove's Chung Kuo series (http://www.chungkuo.org/wingrove.html) ]
Drug legalisation and obligatory use thereof ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Melody]

i think just a bunch more ppl who dont have a religion and are indifferent will do just fine

[Arcael]

i think just a bunch more ppl who dont have a religion and are indifferent will do just fine
Or a bunch of people that keep their beliefs to themselves

;)

[dbedsole]

You see, no matter how hard I try to keep a discussion centered and civil, inevitably someone starts to get rude. ...

What I wonder now is if we can take this thing to the next level, and still be ladies and gentlemen about it. What do you say?

Why are you sensitive to the perceived "rudeness"? Being from "the south" doesn't necessarily justify it...as there are plenty of "rude" southerners...maybe even on this board. :ph34r:


No, it doesn't justify it, it explains it. I don't feel compelled to justify it.



And can someone explain this "next level" thing for me? I've been honestly trying to get there for years and no one has enlightened me more than the french fry I made the other day.

And damn, that was a tasty fry.

The next level is a deliberate effort to move the conversation to different topics about Christianity and God, and not just dickering over one or two issues forever. Stay tuned.

I'm glad you enjoyed your fry.

[dbedsole]

hmm... im god, so im pretty sure he exists ^_^

Seriously, though, I need proof that this dude exists. Until I have some, I am indifferent about his existence.

As for the Hume-miracle thing, that guy sounds silly. "Miracle" is a term which is far too abstract to be used in a logical sentence. It reminds me of some Socratic stuffs. Socrates had great logical abilities, but he used words which do not meld with logic. Words such as "love" and "virtue."

It is like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/tocca/disjointlogicidea.png

In my opinion, one should not mix things like this because logic applied so is invalid.

I don't understand this. Ideally, should the nebulous shape line up with the box? And what does that imply?

[dbedsole]

"To plead absolute ignorance is a viable stance. "

I will argue this is incorrect =)

To be able to type that sentence is knowledge of *something*. You can't be absolutely ignorant. It is impossible, because you made a statement. Even if you are a machine build to act as a man, you are still a machine that knows how to act as a man. But are we talking about something else here? Do you mean absolute truth? Well, here's as close as you get to an absolute truth: I read this message and responded to it.


You are right of course. Absolute was too strong a word to use. I know that I exist. I cannot be ignorant of that fact.

It is hard to express what I am trying to say without using logic. I do not think logic is sufficient, since it's own existance is based on our observations of the world.
Logic cannot take us past the "Big Bang" (It is only by faith that the universe is consistent that it gets that far. Belief in gravity etc.), nor does it apply well to Religion. Again, that is not the whole of an argument :(

I need to think more obout this :)

Thanks for your thoughts. I basically agree with you.

[dbedsole]

...my Lord requires kindness and self-control...What I wonder now is if we can take this thing to the next level, and still be ladies and gentlemen about it. What do you say?

I say that you are under no obligation to sell, trade in, expel, or otherwise sever any intellectual, emotional, experiential, or otherwise apprehensible connection between you and your Lord that is not of your own will or making. Whatever requirements you place on yourself to affirm this relationship is entirely up to you...and as long as you do not break the law I will not harrass you.

However I would like to ask you, dbesole, why you need others in order to reach this "next level" you are advertising?

See my other explanation of the next level. I need others for the same reason you do; reasoning is not done in a vacuum; it is done in relationship and dialogue with others, even those who differ from you.



And why the sensitivity over your character here?

Mainly because it's a waste of time. Every time someone misquotes me or accuses me of something silly, it derails the conversation and I have to go back and show that I'm not guilty of that particular sin. The more I let it go on, the less it looks like a debate and the more it looks like a mudslinging contest to see who can "devise the most impossible slanders", to quote a famous playwright. You've seen yourself the low esteem that Christians are held in by many on this board; it's reasonable that I would be vigilant against ad hominem arguments.



Your assessment of agnosticism is also of your own making, dbedsole. When did agnosticism begin embracing truth statements?


In that case, I'd be interested to hear your definition.



Furthermore, "If there really is an all-powerful God, raising a man from the dead should be child's play", doesn't make any sense. What does raising man from the dead (or not) have anything to do with challenging the existence of an all-powerful God?

Already addressed above.

[dbedsole]

I understand where you are going here. You are trying to say that God can be reliably proven, similar to the faith that I have that the world is round even though I've never seen it, or that electrons flow through wires to power my computer, even though I've never seen it. But these all make extreme sense in the world and in the whole picture of events. Laws of physics govern this and bring together everything, even if they aren't perfect. Everything fits logically, observably, and predicatbly. But I don't see God fitting in the same way, especially any one that is worshipped by humanity at this point. All of these Gods aren't observable, aren't predicatible, and aren't doing anything they are supposed to be doing (the fact that 5 year old children have been mercilessly abused and tortured just really rules out omnibenelovence or omnipotence in my eyes.), puts them out of the realm of 'the sun will rise this morning'. It puts it into the realm of, 'maybe 2 + 2 could be 5'. But thats nothing oberservable or provable by humanity.

Now I suspect the argument will go to "well most of the things that make worth living in lifem, or things which are worth believing in, are not observable or provable by humanity", but I will argue this is not the case if the argument does go there.


Very prescient! Although I don't think I would ever use the word "prove". To tell the truth, my argument doesn't hinge on God being proven in any way. It has less to do with seeing things like electrons or gravity or God, and more to do with reliance on authority for things we cannot see ourselves; ie, we rely on the news to tell us what's going on in other countries, we rely on the weatherman to tell us whether it's going to rain, etc. We don't test all these things for ourselves. You will argue that these are all natural phenomena, common to our experience, and requiring no extraordinary evidence.
All arguments are ultimately circular. If one seeks to prove that a supernatural god need not exist, one will outlaw supernatural phenomena as evidence, while still demanding extraordinary evidence. So I need to ask certain questions here:
1) What constitutes an ordinary vs. an extraordinary claim, and
2) what constitutes ordinary vs. extraordinary evidence? and
3) on what basis (epistemologically) both of these?



Oh, and what is at stake here? Thats certainly up to the individuals perception of reality and what religions have done for humanity. I think they have been somewhat useful, but their usefulness does not rely on their truthfulness in any way.


Adherents of almost all religions would find it patronizing to learn that the usefulness of their beliefs had nothing to do with their truth value.



Certainly if a religion were true it would make many questions much easier, but in my opinion we have an obligation to not take the easy way out in this case. I think it has overall had positive aspects in the past, but in the current state of humanity, this nihilstic postmodern valueless time, religion is a dead way to solve humanity's problems. It has to be done by other more pragmatic means. Our society is stuck between enlightenment and death, and religion is what is failing to bring it forward. We need a new movement.

What do you suggest?

[dbedsole]

i think just a bunch more ppl who dont have a religion and are indifferent will do just fine
Or a bunch of people that keep their beliefs to themselves

;)

But isn't this in itself a belief that you yourself are espousing?

:)

[Johnny]

However I would like to ask you, dbesole, why you need others in order to reach this "next level" you are advertising?

...I need others for the same reason you do; reasoning is not done in a vacuum; it is done in relationship and dialogue with others, even those who differ from you.



Your assessment of agnosticism is also of your own making, dbedsole. When did agnosticism begin embracing truth statements?


In that case, I'd be interested to hear your definition.

On the first point, fair enough. If you're here to share your views and see how they stand up to the forum's scrutiny, I am not interested in stopping you. But what evidence do you have to assert that that I need others for the same reason you do? I don't recall making that declaration...not even metaphorically.

On the second point, here's my definition of agnosticism: noncommittal. Again, why do you attempt to force truth statements on individuals who do not take a position on truth statements?

Lastly, your interest (however motivated) in Hume's work does not go alone. Personally, I like Hume's work very much. Your difficulties with objectivity are also shared among others...including myself. As human beings, much wrangling has gone on to connect the soul to man and the earth. For me, I think our concepts of eternity, infinity, unchanging states, perfection, and so on are problems for us. We're just not smart enough and fast enough to keep up with an ever-changing world we experience. The Sun simply refuses to stop moving despite our efforts to make it stand still in our confused, rational minds.

And to me, the story of Jesus having dragged his own cross up the hill and having died forsaken by his Father is the story we read today because it's an argument that no matter how many tables holding gold coins are turned over, no matter how many followers you have, no matter the people you forgive for their trespasses, feed, and raise from the dead, no matter how many people betray you, beat you, stab you, and watch you die, you are destined to face the Sunset of your life regardless, just as the animals, the plants, the Earth, the Sun, and the universe does. It doesn't matter who you're dad is, dad can't stop change. It's a bitter, hard, unforgiving story that is hard to understand and accept for many without concocting the notion that Heaven awaits us. In many religions the story is so repulsive as to suggest that somehow the "chosen ones" won't have to go through any sort of pain and suffering in life if they follow some narrow path of "righteousness"...LOL.

But life and death as we define it go on in spite of whatever sacrifice(s) you and I think to be making for the future. The unknown future will always be in front of us, no matter our inadequately slow posturing over One God, One Future, One World, One Religion, One Destiny in an ever-evolving world of experience. If you end up not liking the fate of Jesus as I've described, I'm sure there is another text to read that offers his death to you in a fashion that may be more to your personal taste...something that's predictable, like "Jesus came out of death to say it was just to mark the wicked people (666) and the good people (777) for their singular destinies...he's now in Heaven and waiting to come back to take vengeance on all of them. Don't let that 666 mark find its way on you!"

Judas took control of his life, you know dbedsole, made his money, threw it away, and then killed himself rather than face the unknown future with openminded curiosity and let the past go. Maybe the more open-minded agnostics have a leg up on those who embrace Christianity after all?

[Melody]

hmm... im god, so im pretty sure he exists ^_^

Seriously, though, I need proof that this dude exists. Until I have some, I am indifferent about his existence.

As for the Hume-miracle thing, that guy sounds silly. "Miracle" is a term which is far too abstract to be used in a logical sentence. It reminds me of some Socratic stuffs. Socrates had great logical abilities, but he used words which do not meld with logic. Words such as "love" and "virtue."

It is like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/tocca/disjointlogicidea.png

In my opinion, one should not mix things like this because logic applied so is invalid.

I don't understand this. Ideally, should the nebulous shape line up with the box? And what does that imply?

The diagram is meant to show that logic does not mix well with vagueness. The logic is boxlike because it has a 'constant acceleration/velocity' (except at those 90 degree angles, of course =p) and is unchanging. The vague idea is curvy because it has 'varying acceleration/velocity' and changes. For example, depending on which person's head you are in. The intersecting area means that they can be mixed to some degree, as in the sentence "She is virtuous." The non-intersecting areas are those which cannot be mixed, mostly because they simply do not fit within eachother. An example is any feeling, like anger. We all experience anger, but we cannot express it with words. Sure, we can say scientific things about it, and we can say things like, "I am angry," but the concept of 'anger' means much more to us than simple words. This 'much more than simple words' area of anger or any other vague concept is inaccessible to logic.

Therefore trying to manipulate the entire entity 'anger' or other such concepts with simple words is like burning a DVD-sized movie onto a CD-R. Chances are you will be left with something unusable.

[Melody]

The next level is a deliberate effort to move the conversation to different topics about Christianity and God, and not just dickering over one or two issues forever.
That would be great, but these one or two issues are what I find most important. If they are not solved, I cannot continue. Are you proposing the existence of God as a heuristic?


1) What constitutes an ordinary vs. an extraordinary claim, and
2) what constitutes ordinary vs. extraordinary evidence? and
3) on what basis (epistemologically) both of these?
1) An ordinary claim would be like, "Mom, I bought a car last night." An extraordinary claim would be like, "Mom, I drove the car off a cliff last night." In my case, a claim being extraordinary is insignificant. I would only object to a claim that sounds illogical. "Mom, I drove a car off a cliff last night and died. D'oh."
2)Ordinary evidence would be "Here is a photograph with me and the car." Extraordinary evidence would be "There are tire tracks in my driveway." Again, extraordinarity is insignificant. What I object to is illogical evidence. "I just told you I bought a car!" This is what I feel religion does, and is one of my main disagreements with it. "I say it is this way, so it is this way."

Summarizing, the degrees to which evidence and observation can be trusted are low, and I believe this is what you are arguing. But this does not mean that something such as an AIM message from someone that says, "I am dead. I shouldn't have shot myself in the head so many times last night." Has to be given any weight. In other words, I believe the fundamentals of religion are fundamentally more bullshit than the fundamentals of science. In the same way that "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night and died." Is fundamentally more bullshit than "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night."

~~~~~~~~~~~
Do not brag about being from the South. There are many cultures where being nice is taught very well. But when irritable situations arise, it is often the case that sincerity is feigned. To me, this is a mask, and I hate masks. >;[

At least in non-stereotypical-South places there is better knowledge about how loved or hated one really is.

And don't take anything I say insultingly. I have been desensitized by violent videogames, porn, and rap music. Mmmmm violence. *drools*

[Johnny]

I believe the fundamentals of religion are fundamentally more bullshit than the fundamentals of science. In the same way that "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night and died." Is fundamentally more bullshit than "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night."

The fundamentals of science are founded in observation and experience. Religion, however, doesn't have to be founded on observation and experience...it is usually founded on a principle (or set of principles).

In addition ( :lol: ), mathematics is founded on principles and doesn't need to be verified in experience and observation. To the contrary, we fashion much of our experience and observations to conform to mathematics. And this is a problem for science as well...are we really discovering anything "real" about the world in our controlled experiments, or are we only getting better at our notions of wish fulfillment (which may in itself not be fulfilling anything at all)?

See, I'm only able to measure the amount of bullshit in your two statements thanks to the definitions we've created for the words you've chosen - neither is inherently more bullshit than the other. What really distinguishes the cliff from the car? The dinosaurs, say, are now used to make plastic dinosaurs through our ability to fashion polyethylene. Did they ever truly die?

:sombrero:

[Dunearhp]

Save the dinosaurs. Don't use fossil fuels.

[Melody]

I am aware of this. I consider mathematics, among many things, fake. I am very careful when using them.

This gets into the issue of epistomologic tomfoolery, and as you are pointing out, it is homogenous, so that application of it renders anything and everything meaningless. So I do not apply it in the first place.

I am not denying that a god is possible. Of course it is possible. It is that I do not want to see someone arguing for the existence of one in the same way they would argue for the inexistence of one using 'knowledge science.' They should accept that both are equally likely according to this 'science.'

[Almaviva]

Very prescient! Although I don't think I would ever use the word "prove". To tell the truth, my argument doesn't hinge on God being proven in any way. It has less to do with seeing things like electrons or gravity or God, and more to do with reliance on authority for things we cannot see ourselves; ie, we rely on the news to tell us what's going on in other countries, we rely on the weatherman to tell us whether it's going to rain, etc. We don't test all these things for ourselves. You will argue that these are all natural phenomena, common to our experience, and requiring no extraordinary evidence.


First of all, skeptcisim about what goes on in other countries, when my observations only come from the news, seems to me to be almost mandatory.

But anyway, that's not it at all. I can read about tests that scientists who doubted the existence of electrons cooked up to test the claim, and why as a result of many decades of experiments, scientists think that "the electron" is a meaningful construct. Also, if I wanted to, I could duplicate experiements in cathode ray tubes to show that electric charge is quantized in discrete units. In other words:

1. There is no good reason to disbelieve in "the electron".
2. If I did disbelieve it, there are many experiments I could do which support the idea that such a thing is meaningful.

Religious claims pass *neither* of these tests. That is the difference.

[quote="dbedsole"]
All arguments are ultimately circular. If one seeks to prove that a supernatural god need not exist, one will outlaw supernatural phenomena as evidence, while still demanding extraordinary evidence. So I need to ask certain questions here:
1) What constitutes an ordinary vs. an extraordinary claim, and
2) what constitutes ordinary vs. extraordinary evidence? and
3) on what basis (epistemologically) both of these?
[quote]

1. A claim is extraordinary when it requires changing a great deal of understanding about something, especially fundamental things. For example, evolution, in Darwin's time, was a quite extraordinary claim. General relativity was an extraordinary claim. That a new species of termite was discovered in Africa is probably not an extraordinary claim.
2. Extraordinary evidence means that a very great deal of care has been taken to eliminate the sources of error that have been common in scientific study for all time. For example, faulty measurements, various kinds of bias, not accounting for some factors that affect the experiment. So for evidence to be extraordinary, it at least has to be repeatable, verified by many people, and it must have passed a great deal of scrutiny.
3. Because we know that if we're willing to be loose on what constitutes evidence, then we have to believe a whole lot of not very well supported stuff, for example UFOs and astrology. Because people make mistakes, and have emotional or other investments in the outcome, or both.

Anyway, there's room for beliefs and thought that go beyond the scientific method, but to put religious claims in the same category as electrons or weather prediction is just plain silly.

[Ckyzxr]

The next level is a deliberate effort to move the conversation to different topics about Christianity and God, and not just dickering over one or two issues forever.
That would be great, but these one or two issues are what I find most important. If they are not solved, I cannot continue.

Hear, Hear!

[Johnny]

I can read about tests that scientists who doubted the existence of electrons cooked up to test the claim, and why as a result of many decades of experiments, scientists think that "the electron" is a meaningful construct. Also, if I wanted to, I could duplicate experiements in cathode ray tubes to show that electric charge is quantized in discrete units. In other words:

1. There is no good reason to disbelieve in "the electron".
2. If I did disbelieve it, there are many experiments I could do which support the idea that such a thing is meaningful.

Yeah, it's great to dance around the science fire, but we can already dance if we want to...LOL. To say that to disbelieve in the electron because we can duplicate it in experiements using cathode ray tubes is ridiculous in no way argues for either the existence or non-existence of God at all. Worse than that, when we peer into our experience of the electron, we only end up with more questions about our electron models anyway.

Don't get me wrong. Electrons, CRT's and flat-screens rock, but I don't see that they really do much more than keep us distracted and occupied while the real world passes us by...

[Almaviva]

Yeah, it's great to dance around the science fire, but we can already dance if we want to...LOL. To say that to disbelieve in the electron because we can duplicate it in experiements using cathode ray tubes is ridiculous in no way argues for either the existence or non-existence of God at all. Worse than that, when we peer into our experience of the electron, we only end up with more questions about our electron models anyway.

Don't get me wrong. Electrons, CRT's and flat-screens rock, but I don't see that they really do much more than keep us distracted and occupied while the real world passes us by...

Hey, maybe you misunderstand me. What I was arguing there is that electrons and God are in fundamentally different categories.

I'm not saying the fact that you can show the "electron" concept in a lab has anything to do with the existence or not of a God. Just that you really shouldn't compare them.

[Johnny]

Hey, maybe you misunderstand me. What I was arguing there is that electrons and God are in fundamentally different categories.

I'm not saying the fact that you can show the "electron" concept in a lab has anything to do with the existence or not of a God. Just that you really
shouldn't compare them.

No sweat. Your
Religious claims pass *neither* of these tests. That is the difference." statement apparently threw me off your thought-train. I thought you were trying to argue that scientific endeavors offered us a greater degree of assurance that we had a clue about anything than religious endeavors. In that, I'm not clear that your assertion is supported.

To me, your tests don't offer anything truly useful in deciding whether faith in electrons is more worthwhile than religion. I can ask everyone to go to Church, sing songs together, offer peace to one another, and confess their sins in private for atonement, tell them what the purpose is in going through these rituals, and I can give you positive results too. What's the fundamental difference...that the electron-concept doesn't give you a wink and a nod when you ask for it? What makes you think another person will be more likely?

[dbedsole]

First of all, skeptcisim about what goes on in other countries, when my observations only come from the news, seems to me to be almost mandatory.

Oh? All of it? I think I'm impressed.



But anyway, that's not it at all. I can read about tests that scientists who doubted the existence of electrons cooked up to test the claim, and why as a result of many decades of experiments, scientists think that "the electron" is a meaningful construct. Also, if I wanted to, I could duplicate experiements in cathode ray tubes to show that electric charge is quantized in discrete units. In other words:

1. There is no good reason to disbelieve in "the electron".
2. If I did disbelieve it, there are many experiments I could do which support the idea that such a thing is meaningful.

1. Why not? I would argue that there is no reason to disbelieve, for you, because it poses no difficulty to your world view. You've never seen an electron, but you're willing to take it on faith, because your world view doesn't rule it out a priori.
2. True, and there is much historical research that can be done to support the Christian God, but most don't undertake it.



Religious claims pass *neither* of these tests. That is the difference.


I've already argued that we don't test history in the same way we test science. The question is, what would prove God scientifically? If what is required is direct contact or supernatural evidence, then by definition we are talking about a miracle, which is a whole other ball game. I'm more than willing to go in that direction, though.



1. A claim is extraordinary when it requires changing a great deal of understanding about something, especially fundamental things. For example, evolution, in Darwin's time, was a quite extraordinary claim. General relativity was an extraordinary claim. That a new species of termite was discovered in Africa is probably not an extraordinary claim.


The world has been understood from a Christian world view for thousands of years. In fact, modern science came about from a Christian, or at least deistic, world view. How does it change a great deal of understanding?



2. Extraordinary evidence means that a very great deal of care has been taken to eliminate the sources of error that have been common in scientific study for all time. For example, faulty measurements, various kinds of bias, not accounting for some factors that affect the experiment. So for evidence to be extraordinary, it at least has to be repeatable, verified by many people, and it must have passed a great deal of scrutiny.


A) I would argue that there are plenty of amazing claims that find general acceptance without extraordinary evidence. For instance, it is extraordinary that Napoleon managed to do what he did as many times as his army was decimated and nearly crushed. Yet he did; almost no one denies it. Is it repeatable? Hardly.
B) But there actually is quite a bit of extraordinary evidence. To wit: I was reading National Geographic the other day, and there was an article in which the writer mentioned that every human DNA strand has been found to contain a gene from one Mesopotamian male, nicknamed Adam, and I had to laugh out loud. "Nicknamed Adam"; why couldn't his name have actually been Adam? Because the scriptures have already been ruled out as evidence.



3. Because we know that if we're willing to be loose on what constitutes evidence, then we have to believe a whole lot of not very well supported stuff, for example UFOs and astrology. Because people make mistakes, and have emotional or other investments in the outcome, or both.


It's unfortunate that cultural elitism has pressed upon us the idea that our particular time and worldview is superior, not only technologically, but intellectually as well. The bible is actually amazingly well attested, internally and otherwise, tested and approved by scholars through centuries, and yet it is discounted before the fact as a source of evidence, and Christianity is compared to UFO's and astrology, for which there is practically no evidence.



Anyway, there's room for beliefs and thought that go beyond the scientific method, but to put religious claims in the same category as electrons or weather prediction is just plain silly.



But anyway, if you're not willing to rule out things that can't be measured, and can't ever be proven wrong then in my opinion you're losing something at the essense of "objectivity". (Unless you're willing to consider all religions as equal, including Invisible Pink Unicorns.)


You assume that science is sufficient to answer all relevant questions, complain that I have produced no scientific evidence for Christianity, and then affirm that Christianity is outside the realm of science. You assume that Christianity isn't accessible to science at the same time that you demand scientific evidence. How is this objective?

[Almaviva]

No sweat. Your
Religious claims pass *neither* of these tests. That is the difference." statement apparently threw me off your thought-train. I thought you were trying to argue that scientific endeavors offered us a greater degree of assurance that we had a clue about anything than religious endeavors. In that, I'm not clear that your assertion is supported.


Scientific endeavors certainly offer us more assurance about what will happen when we build and measure concrete things. It's pretty tough for anyone to argue that.

As for having a clue about anything, yes there are all sorts of things we're not going to know. Personally, I don't see how religious claims give anyone a feeling that they have more a clue about anything than just admitting they're clueless. When arguments boil down to "we don't know, so my explanation is as good as any other", that doesn't impress me.



To me, your tests don't offer anything truly useful in deciding whether faith in electrons is more worthwhile than religion. I can ask everyone to go to Church, sing songs together, offer peace to one another, and confess their sins in private for atonement, tell them what the purpose is in going through these rituals, and I can give you positive results too. What's the fundamental difference...that the electron-concept doesn't give you a wink and a nod when you ask for it? What makes you think another person will be more likely?

That going to Church, singing songs, offering peace, and confession can be good for people isn't a religious statement at all. It's a hypothesis about the real world, and certainly true, as well as measureable. I've found some of that stuff has been good for me, as an atheist.

If you can show me positive results for something in a repeatable and measurable way, hey, you're doing science now. The wrinkle is that you don't need a God-concept for this stuff to work.

Also note, I'm not claiming belief in religion itself can't be good for people. I feel strongly that *I* don't need it, and in fact I think it's something like a human right that I should be allowed not to have any religious beliefs without being discriminated for it, but I open to the idea that other people make the choice, and for them it may very well be the right one.

(But at the same time, there is a clear difference between scientific claims and religious ones. For instance laser eye correction can be shown to work on people who don't believe in quantum electrodynamics, even if they've never heard of it.)

[dbedsole]

That would be great, but these one or two issues are what I find most important. If they are not solved, I cannot continue. Are you proposing the existence of God as a heuristic?

Sure, what the heck.


1) An ordinary claim would be like, "Mom, I bought a car last night." An extraordinary claim would be like, "Mom, I drove the car off a cliff last night." In my case, a claim being extraordinary is insignificant. I would only object to a claim that sounds illogical. "Mom, I drove a car off a cliff last night and died. D'oh."
The second claim is easily shown to be false by the fact that the person saying it is standing in front of you. It's not an extraordinary claim; it's an impossible claim. God is not impossible.



2)Ordinary evidence would be "Here is a photograph with me and the car." Extraordinary evidence would be "There are tire tracks in my driveway." Again, extraordinarity is insignificant. What I object to is illogical evidence. "I just told you I bought a car!" This is what I feel religion does, and is one of my main disagreements with it. "I say it is this way, so it is this way."


It's possible that religion does occasionally do what you dislike, but that doesn't make it illogical. It just means they did a shoddy job of defending it. The thing in itself remains untouched.



Summarizing, the degrees to which evidence and observation can be trusted are low, and I believe this is what you are arguing. But this does not mean that something such as an AIM message from someone that says, "I am dead. I shouldn't have shot myself in the head so many times last night." Has to be given any weight. In other words, I believe the fundamentals of religion are fundamentally more bullshit than the fundamentals of science. In the same way that "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night and died." Is fundamentally more bullshit than "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night."

You're still confusing impossible claims and scientifically untestable claims. Impossible things can't exist by definition. A person standing in front of you cannot be dead.
~~~~~~~~~~~


Do not brag about being from the South. There are many cultures where being nice is taught very well. But when irritable situations arise, it is often the case that sincerity is feigned. To me, this is a mask, and I hate masks. >;[


Beam me up, Scotty.



At least in non-stereotypical-South places there is better knowledge about how loved or hated one really is.

And don't take anything I say insultingly. I have been desensitized by violent videogames, porn, and rap music. Mmmmm violence. *drools*

I'm not insulted. I'm amused.

[dbedsole]

However I would like to ask you, dbesole, why you need others in order to reach this "next level" you are advertising?

...I need others for the same reason you do; reasoning is not done in a vacuum; it is done in relationship and dialogue with others, even those who differ from you.



Your assessment of agnosticism is also of your own making, dbedsole. When did agnosticism begin embracing truth statements?


In that case, I'd be interested to hear your definition.

On the first point, fair enough. If you're here to share your views and see how they stand up to the forum's scrutiny, I am not interested in stopping you. But what evidence do you have to assert that that I need others for the same reason you do? I don't recall making that declaration...not even metaphorically.

No, but you implied it. You instance your being influenced by Hume below. What is that if not reasoning with another person? Your presence in this discussion is also proof. But this really isn't worth dickering over. If you insist that you aren't influenced by others in your reasoning, I'll accept it and move on.



On the second point, here's my definition of agnosticism: noncommittal. Again, why do you attempt to force truth statements on individuals who do not take a position on truth statements?

I could go through your posts and cull several positions you've taken on proof statements. It's impossible to debate without taking positions on truth statements.



Lastly, your interest (however motivated) in Hume's work does not go alone. Personally, I like Hume's work very much. Your difficulties with objectivity are also shared among others...including myself. As human beings, much wrangling has gone on to connect the soul to man and the earth. For me, I think our concepts of eternity, infinity, unchanging states, perfection, and so on are problems for us. We're just not smart enough and fast enough to keep up with an ever-changing world we experience. The Sun simply refuses to stop moving despite our efforts to make it stand still in our confused, rational minds.


Sounds a lot like a truth statement.



And to me, the story of Jesus having dragged his own cross up the hill and having died forsaken by his Father is the story we read today because it's an argument that no matter how many tables holding gold coins are turned over, no matter how many followers you have, no matter the people you forgive for their trespasses, feed, and raise from the dead, no matter how many people betray you, beat you, stab you, and watch you die, you are destined to face the Sunset of your life regardless, just as the animals, the plants, the Earth, the Sun, and the universe does. It doesn't matter who you're dad is, dad can't stop change. It's a bitter, hard, unforgiving story that is hard to understand and accept for many without concocting the notion that Heaven awaits us. In many religions the story is so repulsive as to suggest that somehow the "chosen ones" won't have to go through any sort of pain and suffering in life if they follow some narrow path of "righteousness"...LOL.

You're right, it's a lousy story if you leave the end off.



But life and death as we define it go on in spite of whatever sacrifice(s) you and I think to be making for the future. The unknown future will always be in front of us, no matter our inadequately slow posturing over One God, One Future, One World, One Religion, One Destiny in an ever-evolving world of experience. If you end up not liking the fate of Jesus as I've described, I'm sure there is another text to read that offers his death to you in a fashion that may be more to your personal taste...something that's predictable, like "Jesus came out of death to say it was just to mark the wicked people (666) and the good people (777) for their singular destinies...he's now in Heaven and waiting to come back to take vengeance on all of them. Don't let that 666 mark find its way on you!"


Is this a book you're working on? :blink:



Judas took control of his life, you know dbedsole, made his money, threw it away, and then killed himself rather than face the unknown future with openminded curiosity and let the past go. Maybe the more open-minded agnostics have a leg up on those who embrace Christianity after all?

Are you under the impression that we should model ourselves after Judas?

[Johnny]

I feel strongly that *I* don't need [religion], and in fact I think it's something like a human right that I should be allowed not to have any religious beliefs without being discriminated for it, but I open to the idea that other people make the choice, and for them it may very well be the right one.

We can go on with what "concrete" is, split hairs over religious and scientific assertions, and talk about what "God" means, but I want to single this quote out because it's way too important.

I wholeheartedly agree and endorse the quote above. It's one thing to justify one's beliefs within oneself or test them publicly. It's quite another to impose those beliefs on others to "save them", to supress one's own insecurities, or to control the behavior of others that do not truly cause any real harm. Whether Christian, Atheist, Polytheist, Agnostic, or whatever, we all get to drag our own crosses up the hill just like the "Son of God" had to with the thieves he ended up getting propped next to...whether we like it or not...with the exact same result for us all in the end. Let's give this act the respect it truly deserves and acknowledge that everyone will decide for themselves what is best for them on the matter!

[Johnny]

On the first point, fair enough. If you're here to share your views and see how they stand up to the forum's scrutiny, I am not interested in stopping you. But what evidence do you have to assert that that I need others for the same reason you do? I don't recall making that declaration...not even metaphorically.

No, but you implied it. You instance your being influenced by Hume below. What is that if not reasoning with another person? Your presence in this discussion is also proof. But this really isn't worth dickering over. If you insist that you aren't influenced by others in your reasoning, I'll accept it and move on.

I did not say that I did not need others. I asked you why you were projecting your needs on me. You are neither qualified nor authorized to speak to my needs, dbedsole. My appreciating Hume's skepticism is not the same thing as my needing Hume's skepticism.




On the second point, here's my definition of agnosticism: noncommittal. Again, why do you attempt to force truth statements on individuals who do not take a position on truth statements?

I could go through your posts and cull several positions you've taken on proof statements. It's impossible to debate without taking positions on truth statements.

Am I to assume that you've never been asked "Why?" before you joined this forum? Also, I myself am not an agnostic. But I am not afraid to speak for those who are being unfairly assessed according to your arguments. Now once again, why are you forcing truth statements on individuals who do not take a position on truth statements?




Lastly, your interest (however motivated) in Hume's work does not go alone. Personally, I like Hume's work very much. Your difficulties with objectivity are also shared among others...including myself. As human beings, much wrangling has gone on to connect the soul to man and the earth. For me, I think our concepts of eternity, infinity, unchanging states, perfection, and so on are problems for us. We're just not smart enough and fast enough to keep up with an ever-changing world we experience. The Sun simply refuses to stop moving despite our efforts to make it stand still in our confused, rational minds.


Sounds a lot like a truth statement.

It is a personal truth statement, and I make no impositions on others here. If you wish to disagree and state your counter argument, I place you under no restrictions.




And to me, the story of Jesus having dragged his own cross up the hill and having died forsaken by his Father is the story we read today because it's an argument that no matter how many tables holding gold coins are turned over, no matter how many followers you have, no matter the people you forgive for their trespasses, feed, and raise from the dead, no matter how many people betray you, beat you, stab you, and watch you die, you are destined to face the Sunset of your life regardless, just as the animals, the plants, the Earth, the Sun, and the universe does. It doesn't matter who you're dad is, dad can't stop change. It's a bitter, hard, unforgiving story that is hard to understand and accept for many without concocting the notion that Heaven awaits us. In many religions the story is so repulsive as to suggest that somehow the "chosen ones" won't have to go through any sort of pain and suffering in life if they follow some narrow path of "righteousness"...LOL.

You're right, it's a lousy story if you leave the end off.



But life and death as we define it go on in spite of whatever sacrifice(s) you and I think to be making for the future. The unknown future will always be in front of us, no matter our inadequately slow posturing over One God, One Future, One World, One Religion, One Destiny in an ever-evolving world of experience. If you end up not liking the fate of Jesus as I've described, I'm sure there is another text to read that offers his death to you in a fashion that may be more to your personal taste...something that's predictable, like "Jesus came out of death to say it was just to mark the wicked people (666) and the good people (777) for their singular destinies...he's now in Heaven and waiting to come back to take vengeance on all of them. Don't let that 666 mark find its way on you!"


Is this a book you're working on? :blink:

Sorry it was so long a story. I hope I didn't confuse the ending too much for you... :lol:




Judas took control of his life, you know dbedsole, made his money, threw it away, and then killed himself rather than face the unknown future with openminded curiosity and let the past go. Maybe the more open-minded agnostics have a leg up on those who embrace Christianity after all?

Are you under the impression that we should model ourselves after Judas?

I must have confused you again. Clearly, I'm offering that we might be better off modeling our views on the matter as the agnostics do...

[Melody]

Summarizing, the degrees to which evidence and observation can be trusted are low, and I believe this is what you are arguing. But this does not mean that something such as an AIM message from someone that says, "I am dead. I shouldn't have shot myself in the head so many times last night." Has to be given any weight. In other words, I believe the fundamentals of religion are fundamentally more bullshit than the fundamentals of science. In the same way that "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night and died." Is fundamentally more bullshit than "Mom, I drove my car off a cliff last night."
You're still confusing impossible claims and scientifically untestable claims. Impossible things can't exist by definition. A person standing in front of you cannot be dead.
Are you sure? I see it as being just as possible as there being a god. To me, the amount I have to stretch my imagination is the same.


I repeat the above statement that application of epistemologic sillyness renders anything and everything meaningless. Including religion.

So do not make any arguments for religion based on applying epistemology to science.

If you apply epistemology to both science and religion and recognize that they are equally fucked concepts according to it, that is good. But if you argue that one is more fucked than the other, I will disagree.

However, because they are both fucked in any case, your argument would then become something along the lines of, "What's the harm in believing in God?"

To which my response would be, "What is the harm in not believing in God?"

[Almaviva]

Oh? All of it? I think I'm impressed.


Obviously we can't be perfect, but yeah, if something is pointed out to me or I realize someone might have something to gain by presenting things a certain way, yes, this is cause for skepticism. (Which doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean it's interesting to ask questions.)





1. There is no good reason to disbelieve in "the electron".
2. If I did disbelieve it, there are many experiments I could do which support the idea that such a thing is meaningful.

1. Why not? I would argue that there is no reason to disbelieve, for you, because it poses no difficulty to your world view. You've never seen an electron, but you're willing to take it on faith, because your world view doesn't rule it out a priori.


It's true! I read about electrons when I was a kid, and have read much since about how they were discovered, and what the term means. I know that the concept wasn't always accepted, and I know some of the reasons why it now is. (Namely, that the concept makes predictions, and that those predictions have been measured in the lab.)

This isn't the same degree of "faith" as when there is no way of demonstrating the thing at all. Yeah you can always play philosophical games "How can we be sure of anything? We obviously can't. There is an element of faith in every bit of our understanding of anything." But we all know this to be silly, when applied to reality. (In other words, nihilists and solipsists still don't jump in front of cars much. Why not?)



2. True, and there is much historical research that can be done to support the Christian God, but most don't undertake it.


What historical research can be done to support the Christian God? (Keep in mind that supporting means providing a better fit some data than the idea that the Bible is fiction.)



I've already argued that we don't test history in the same way we test science. The question is, what would prove God scientifically?


In Modern times, if the Red Sea parted inexplicably, and if the event were caught by many different people on film, and scientists could study it, it would be pretty hard to deny that something pretty weird were going on.

Similarly any number of events described in the Bible. (E.g. I'm sure a number of biologists would be extremely interested in studying the talking donkey.)

So something like that: If you bring me a donkey that talks to me, and there it isn't some kind of hoax, or show me you can turn water into wine, and it passes scrutiny in a lab, well now you've sure got my attention.



The world has been understood from a Christian world view for thousands of years. In fact, modern science came about from a Christian, or at least deistic, world view. How does it change a great deal of understanding?


Because a great deal of the understanding of the world came about in the last couple hundred years. And there are many fewer "gaps" in our understanding of things like biology and physics than there were then. So, while we didn't know much about biology in the 1500's, it's pretty hard to explain a talking donkey knowing what we know now about speech and the brain.

(Obviously there are still huge gaps. For instance people who think we know much about the human brain are fooling themselves.)



A) I would argue that there are plenty of amazing claims that find general acceptance without extraordinary evidence. For instance, it is extraordinary that Napoleon managed to do what he did as many times as his army was decimated and nearly crushed. Yet he did; almost no one denies it. Is it repeatable? Hardly.

Not repeatable. But there are many many different accounts of Napolean. We don't have to rely on one book that's over a thousand years old here. Also, nothing Napoleon did contradicts the known laws of biology or physics. So it's not "extraordinary" in the sense of not being explainable by what we understand to be ordinary.



B) But there actually is quite a bit of extraordinary evidence. To wit: I was reading National Geographic the other day, and there was an article in which the writer mentioned that every human DNA strand has been found to contain a gene from one Mesopotamian male, nicknamed Adam, and I had to laugh out loud. "Nicknamed Adam"; why couldn't his name have actually been Adam? Because the scriptures have already been ruled out as evidence.


The scriptures are ruled out by scientists because you just have to accept too much that flies in the face of observation by doing so. E.g. a talking donkey, a 6000-year old Earth where many independent measurements show an age much older than that, Noah's Ark, and so on. A great many people have tried to reconcile literal interpretations of the Bible scientifically for a couple hundred years, and the results have been dismal.

Your description doesn't sound quite right. We certainly share genes (all of us) with creatures much older than human beings. Heck, 70% of our genes are the same as mice, and we share some genes with yeast!

You can look at genes on the Y chromosome, which only passes from father to son. Or alternatively, in the DNA of mitochondria, which only passes from mothers, to find estimate how long ago and where our last common female ancestor lives. You can do statistics on the variation between people of different ethnic backgrounds. (The answer is that a common anscestor probably goes back somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50,000 years.)



It's unfortunate that cultural elitism has pressed upon us the idea that our particular time and worldview is superior, not only technologically, but intellectually as well. The bible is actually amazingly well attested, internally and otherwise, tested and approved by scholars through centuries, and yet it is discounted before the fact as a source of evidence, and Christianity is compared to UFO's and astrology, for which there is practically no evidence.


Well the idea that balls of different weight fell at different speeds was approved by scholars too, and it was dead wrong, as shown by Gallileo (although the mythical experiment dropping them from the Leaning Tower probably didn't occur.) In other words, before the last few centuries, scientific approaches to questions weren't very advanced at all.

Oh, and astrology does indeed also have centuries of research and tests, and true believers who write books about it (and continue to do so.) Heck, Isaac Newton was a fanatical believer in much of this stuff.

And, yeah, you do have to discount the Bible as a source of evidence if what you're trying to show is that the Bible is not just a work of fiction along the lines of say, "The Illiad". Like I said, you show some independent confirmation for some of the extraordinary (as in outside our current theories of nature) things the Bible claims, and now it's interesting.

It's not that our understanding now is necessarily that much better, and there are certainly things that we are clueless on right now. But any claim needs to have evidence behind it to be accepted as science, this is clear. Using "historical weight" as a barometer for how good a theory is clearly doesn't work.





Anyway, there's room for beliefs and thought that go beyond the scientific method, but to put religious claims in the same category as electrons or weather prediction is just plain silly.



But anyway, if you're not willing to rule out things that can't be measured, and can't ever be proven wrong then in my opinion you're losing something at the essense of "objectivity". (Unless you're willing to consider all religions as equal, including Invisible Pink Unicorns.)


You assume that science is sufficient to answer all relevant questions, complain that I have produced no scientific evidence for Christianity, and then affirm that Christianity is outside the realm of science. You assume that Christianity isn't accessible to science at the same time that you demand scientific evidence. How is this objective?

To me personally, science answers all relevent questions. If someone else feels that Christianity gives them answers that science can't give them, I can respect that. I don't share that feeling.

Many people claim that Christianity is supportable by science. If you claim that, then, gee yes, you're going to need some scientific evidence. If you don't claim that, then you don't need evidence (but don't say that the belief is in the same category as those that are supported by scientific evidence.)