T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t you believe your mind is real? If so you have no basis for believing anything is real!
- Status
P
Pieman333272
Guest
This statement again derives from a misunderstanding of what I said. I meant that the evidence supported it from an objective perspective, but the person convinced himself that it was subjective.
But we do have an understanding of the circumstances and details in multiple cases. The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Fatima, the Resurrection, we all have historical details on.
I agree in this case, but there are still historical criteria which can prove this couldn’t have possibly been a psychosis of any sort.
I said HISTORICAL TEXTS. Historical texts =/= hearsay. Primary Sources exist. Secondary sources which derive from reliable primary sources exist. These things can be used to prove the attestation of the apparitions and empty tomb, from which we can DEDUCE the resurrection. For more on this, I advise you read Mike Licona’s “The Resurrection of Jesus”, available at amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308226270&sr=8-1 to get an idea of how the objectively analyzed evidence supports the Resurrection.
Well, there are additional things, such as context, and whether the texts are reliable. Sai Baba is in a much different context - a modern one. Where’s the video? Where’s Joe Nickell’s Conversion story? Maybe after I see some of that we can talk.
By analyzing all the other reasonable options and seeing where the details lead. I mean, after we refute aliens, ghosts, and psychoses, if the claim is reliable that “Mary came and gave me a vision of hell” (that is, it isn’t fabricated at a later date), God is the best explanation. I don’t need to wait until you come up with a new mental illness as an excuse, or find some other improbable but natural explanation - maybe from Quantum Physics - I can safely say the evidence leads to the conclusion that God did it.
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
If God were to appear before me He could hand me a physical object that would remain after He left. It doesn’t have to be anything remarkable. Other people could look at it later and say, “So what?” But any time I would have doubts about whether or not I had a hallucination I could pick up the object and know, “God gave this to me. That was no hallucination.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
You could have been hypnotised, given the item and told to believe for the rest of your life that it was given to you by God!
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
I think you should remember that atheist are a very conflicted, intellectually dishonest group of people.
They can’t stop going on about this God they say they don’t believe in.
They can’t leave Christians alone.
They typically redefine atheism into some passive “lack of belief” instead of the correct “presence of disbelief” definition.
Atheists have the same inner knowledge of God that the rest of us do. It’s not a case of disbelief or lack of belief, it’s a case of attempting to reject their own inner knowledge of God, trying to disbelieve but not doing very well at it; hence the lifelong God-fit, the constant hanging out a Christian sites yapping at Christian heels, basically falling all over themselves trying not to believe in God. People who genuinely disbelief in the existence of something just don’t act this way about that thing which they “believe” isn’t there.
I think it’s important to remember this is actually a God-fit covered up with vain, pseudo intellectualism because essentially, the atheist HAS to be much smarter than the overwhelming majority of people have always been throughout all of history. The atheists only hope is that he’s smarter than everyone around him about something which has eternal implications and I doubt their ego is REALLY big enough to believe that, hence you have the conflicted nature.
The up side:
Like all fits, the God-fit eventually ends…same as in the child who just tires himself out on the living room floor. In the end almost all atheists (by far) return to Church and once there, they usually become some of the most admirable Christians in the congregation.
I think it’s best to understand that they have to get through their fit before they can get over the fit.
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
You’ve been watching too many movies! I don’t think that hypnotism is that powerful. Besides, I don’t know any hypnotists and the explanation is just too far-fetched for my situation. Also – despite what some theists may think – I really do want to believe that God exists. I just need some credible evidence – something that I can hang my hat on.
S
samiam1611
Guest
I think you should remember that atheist are a very conflicted, intellectually dishonest group of people.
They can’t stop going on about this God they say they don’t believe in.
They can’t leave Christians alone.
They typically redefine atheism into some passive “lack of belief” instead of the correct “presence of disbelief” definition.
Atheists have the same inner knowledge of God that the rest of us do. It’s not a case of disbelief or lack of belief, it’s a case of attempting to reject their own inner knowledge of God, trying to disbelieve but not doing very well at it; hence the lifelong God-fit, the constant hanging out a Christian sites yapping at Christian heels, basically falling all over themselves trying not to believe in God. People who genuinely disbelief in the existence of something just don’t act this way about that thing which they “believe” isn’t there.
I think it’s important to remember this is actually a God-fit covered up with vain, pseudo intellectualism because essentially, the atheist HAS to be much smarter than the overwhelming majority of people have always been throughout all of history. The atheists only hope is that he’s smarter than everyone around him about something which has eternal implications and I doubt their ego is REALLY big enough to believe that, hence you have the conflicted nature.
The up side:
Like all fits, the God-fit eventually ends…same as in the child who just tires himself out on the living room floor. In the end almost all atheists (by far) return to Church and once there, they usually become some of the most admirable Christians in the congregation.
I think it’s best to understand that they have to get through their fit before they can get over the fit.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Alright. You seemed to be talking about some personal experience (“direct, immediate revelation”) in post 132. An experience itself is, by definition, subjective (mind-dependent). That’s why I was talking about something that is in the mind versus something out of the mind in the real world.
The point of the paragraph you were responding to is if we have cases verified by evidence were A is the correct explanation, but have no cases yet in which B is verifies to be a correct explanation, A is more likely by default.
For example, one explanation for why Bob got struck by lightening is that Bob may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time during an electrical storm which is caused by certain weather patterns. Another explanation is that Bob was struck by a lightening dragon. Since we have cases of the former, although they are rare, they are, by default, more likely than the latter because we have no verified cases of the latter.
Now, those miracles you mentioned may be worth discussing. Although I’m certain something happened, I’m certainly not convinced that anything magical, or supernatural, happened.
You are basically saying that testimony itself is sufficient to demonstrate a miracle. This is what I’m contesting. Even if you had multiple primary sources, who were eyewitnesses, this would still be testimony. This is what I’m contesting.
You can find multiple, consistent eyewitnesses to an alleged alien abduction. Yet, you presumably don’t believe that aliens are coming to Earth to abduct people.
Historians generally don’t, as historians, consider multiple eyewitnesses to some magical event to be grounds for believing the event happened.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that those alternatives you mentioned are unfalsifiable, you seem to think that rejecting alternative explanations is the same thing as proving your explanation. You don’t seem to see the logical disconnect.
The fact is we do have cases in which hallucination is the correct explanation (you’d probably use this as an explanation for those who experience alien abductions). Unless and until there is evidence that a god exists, a hallucination is, by default, more likely to be true.
The explanations offered as alternative possibilities are largely irrelevant because the burden of proof is on those who claim they know.
Just to be clear, lack of belief in a god in no way hinges on any of these alternative explanations. Rather, it hinges on the fact that no evidence has been presented for the existence of a god. If one wants to consider some allegedly magical event as evidence, one must consider similar events for similar claims to be evidence for those claims.
Because I have just as high of a standard of evidence for the claim that a god is the best explanation for an alleged miracle as I do of claims of alien abductions, yet I wouldn’t consider testimony to be evidence of an alien abduction, I wouldn’t consider testimony itself to be evidence that a god exists.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
it exists outside of the mind in the real world, then it should be objectively verifiable. If it isn’t verifiable, then we have no basis for believing that it is real.TruthSeeker60;7993973 said:
Don’t you believe your mind is real? If so you have no basis for believing anything is real!
I’m amazed that you don’t see how your statement is a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Believing that my mind (a conscious entity) exists in no way leads to believing that nothing exists.
If you were trying to make it sound as if I thought my mind doesn’t exist (I think this is what you may have been trying to do, yet if so, you failed to use proper grammar to make this point), that doesn’t follow from what I said. I said that a thing should be objectively verifiable “If it exists outside [meaning independently] of the mind.” It be nonsense to speak of the mind existing independently of itself.
W
Windfish
Guest
Why are you contesting this? What are your epistemic grounds for dismissing an entire category of evidence a priori?
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
I’m not dismissing evidence. Rather, I’m disputing whether or not something qualifies as evidence at all for certain claims.
Would you consider the testimony of those who experienced alien abductions to be evidence for alien abductions?
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Yeah, but that doesn’t equate to a priori rejecting B or suspending judgement until A, C, D, and any other potential explanations are explored and refuted, regardless of whether or not B is supernatural.
Sure, if you want.
There are multiple criterion of authenticity that Bible Scholars use to determine if an event is historical. Not only is the resurrection attested in the earliest primary and reliable secondary texts, it passes every single one of the criteria just right.
Again, CONTEXT. There are key questions we must ask ourselves before we accept that, even if it seems on par with something else we believe.
See above. Historians DO consider an event which passes every criteria of authenticity for the specific field of scholarship to be historical. “Supernatural” and “magical” parts of stories are just cop-outs: If a historian ever, ever, gets to the point where he can declare an event historical or ahistorical based solely on a philosophical or scientific law or position, he has stopped being an honest historian.
Well, if something HAD to happen, and the evidence already supports my explanation but you come up with something else that seems to be able to explain it, it isn’t fallacious to fall back on my explanation when all the others are out of the picture.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
If they’re demonstrably reliable, as the Gospels are, then yes.
W
Windfish
Guest
What is your epistemic grounds, then, for that selectivity? What epistemologist did you glean that from?
Yes, that would be evidence. You seem to misunderstand what evidence is. It is merely the support for any given proposition. That support may be insufficient or poor, but it is still offered as evidence.
D
Dave2300
Guest
In my opinion, you usually don’t. People believe what they are determined to believe. That said, there are evidences you could discuss with him or her, but you are not going to PROVE it to him or her. They have to arrive at that themselves.
You might begin by taking THEIR reasons for not believing and addressing those in order. E.g. How could a loving God allow evil to exist in the world?
Answer, God might ask US the very same question. How could we allow evil in our own world, and why are we so evil. Nine tenths of man’s problems are due to man.
That would be a start.
Find out what keeps him or her from believing, and talk about that first.
You might begin by taking THEIR reasons for not believing and addressing those in order. E.g. How could a loving God allow evil to exist in the world?
Answer, God might ask US the very same question. How could we allow evil in our own world, and why are we so evil. Nine tenths of man’s problems are due to man.
That would be a start.
Find out what keeps him or her from believing, and talk about that first.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
W
Windfish
Guest
Unless you are dealing with logic, mathematics, and metaphysics, you are never going to get that kind of certainty. We will always deal with probabilities when it comes to everything else.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
So you’re saying that testimony alone is sufficient to conclude that aliens are abducting people? How many witnesses would it take? Would you believe that Caesar had an apparition before crossing the Rubicon because a historical text said that that happened?
W
Windfish
Guest
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
I’m not talking about absolute certainty, which is a red herring.
What I’m talking about is something that has been demonstrated to probably be true. There are ways of doing this. Being consistent (or reliable as he put it) usually does little to demonstrate that a miracle claim is true.
I mean, a story of magic can be consistent, but that says little about whether or not it is true. A magician may consistently (or reliably) perform a magic trick without anyone in the audience being able to realize how the trick is being done, but that is insufficient for believing that actual magic (as opposed to a magic trick) has been performed.
It something cannot, in a greater quantity, be sufficient for believing the claim, then it’s not evidence (data that can reasonably demonstrate the truth of an assertion) for that claim.TruthSeeker60;7997377:
Yes, that would be evidence. You seem to misunderstand what evidence is. It is merely the support for any given proposition. That support may be insufficient or poor, but it is still offered as evidence.
So you’re saying that testimony alone is sufficient to conclude that aliens are abducting people?
That is not what I am saying at all.
First of all, I find it sad that you automatically reach for an authority rather than think for yourself. Philosophy is not the type of field of expertise where one is justified in downloading whatever an authority figure has said.
Second, I’m not claiming that testimony cannot be evidence for an event, I’m just unconvinced that it can. Considering that, what grounds do you have for considering testimony to be sufficient grounds for believing any claim for which there is enough testimony? I hope it wouldn’t lead to believing in alien abductions, like it seems like it has logically lead Pieman333272.
- Status