Sceptical argument for Christianity

[Qoeleth]

It seems as there is no evidence which can be accepted- since the demonstration of the veracity of any source of evidence either depends upon itself (resulting in circularity), or it depends upon something else (necessitating, if carried on, an infinite regress).

Let us take the evidence of the senses. What grounds are there for accepting this evidence as true?

Either- it is the senses themselves which prove that the senses can be relied upon (hence, circularity)

Or- it is something else apart from the senses which demonstrate the senses can be relied upon. But this second thing will either be supported only by itself (circularity again), or will defer to something else (which, if, carried on, will eventually stop in circularity, or continue to infinite regression).

So, it seems no evidence may be accepted, because either it reaches the circularity of self-validation, or continues to infinite regress.

This principle may be applied to science. Should I believe science because scientists tell me it is true? This is circular. Or should I believe it because something else tells me (e.g. the evidence of my senses)? But why should I believe the evidence of my senses? If because of the senses themselves, circularity again emerges, or, if for some other reason, the infinite regress seems to be initiated again.

Today’s Gospel makes this thought relevant- Peter replies to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. In other words, there is no reason to believe in anything- all beliefs and all evidence are equally undemonstrable, and nothing can be determined.

So, all things being equally plausible and (name removed by moderator)lausible, it makes sense to go with the one that has the best promise- Eternal Happiness- Christianity.

If all bets are equal in their probability or improbability, why not pick the one which has the best prize? If there is no evidence for materialism, and no evidence for Christianity, and materialism promises nothing, but Christianity promises infinity- logically Christianity is the best choice.

 

[meltzerboy]

It seems as there is no evidence which can be accepted- since the demonstration of the veracity of any source of evidence either depends upon itself (resulting in circularity), or it depends upon something else (necessitating, if carried on, an infinite regress).

Let us take the evidence of the senses. What grounds are there for accepting this evidence as true?

Either- it is the senses themselves which prove that the senses can be relied upon (hence, circularity)

Or- it is something else apart from the senses which demonstrate the senses can be relied upon. But this second thing will either be supported only by itself (circularity again), or will defer to something else (which, if, carried on, will eventually stop in circularity, or continue to infinite regression).

So, it seems no evidence may be accepted, because either it reaches the circularity of self-validation, or continues to infinite regress.

This principle may be applied to science. Should I believe science because scientists tell me it is true? This is circular. Or should I believe it because something else tells me (e.g. the evidence of my senses)? But why should I believe the evidence of my senses? If because of the senses themselves, circularity again emerges, or, if for some other reason, the infinite regress seems to be initiated again.

Today’s Gospel makes this thought relevant- Peter replies to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. In other words, there is no reason to believe in anything- all beliefs and all evidence are equally undemonstrable, and nothing can be determined.

So, all things being equally plausible and (name removed by moderator)lausible, it makes sense to go with the one that has the best promise- Eternal Happiness- Christianity.

If all bets are equal in their probability or improbability, why not pick the one which has the best prize? If there is no evidence for materialism, and no evidence for Christianity, and materialism promises nothing, but Christianity promises infinity- logically Christianity is the best choice.

This seems logical. However, following this logic, Hinduism might be even better. There is reincarnation during which one can learn to be a better person, no possibility of eternal hell or separation from G-d, and eventual attainment of heaven when one is wise enough to shed the illusion of one’s individual existence apart from the universe.

 

[RobbyS]

This seems logical. However, following this logic, Hinduism might be even better. There is reincarnation during which one can learn to be a better person, no possibility of eternal hell or separation from G-d, and eventual attainment of heaven when one is wise enough to shed the illusion of one’s individual existence apart from the universe.

In reincarnation, one does not become a “better”person, but a different life-form. I am no longer me.

 

[RobbyS]

It seems as there is no evidence which can be accepted- since the demonstration of the veracity of any source of evidence either depends upon itself (resulting in circularity), or it depends upon something else (necessitating, if carried on, an infinite regress).

Let us take the evidence of the senses. What grounds are there for accepting this evidence as true?

Either- it is the senses themselves which prove that the senses can be relied upon (hence, circularity)

Or- it is something else apart from the senses which demonstrate the senses can be relied upon. But this second thing will either be supported only by itself (circularity again), or will defer to something else (which, if, carried on, will eventually stop in circularity, or continue to infinite regression).

So, it seems no evidence may be accepted, because either it reaches the circularity of self-validation, or continues to infinite regress.

This principle may be applied to science. Should I believe science because scientists tell me it is true? This is circular. Or should I believe it because something else tells me (e.g. the evidence of my senses)? But why should I believe the evidence of my senses? If because of the senses themselves, circularity again emerges, or, if for some other reason, the infinite regress seems to be initiated again.

Today’s Gospel makes this thought relevant- Peter replies to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. In other words, there is no reason to believe in anything- all beliefs and all evidence are equally undemonstrable, and nothing can be determined.

So, all things being equally plausible and (name removed by moderator)lausible, it makes sense to go with the one that has the best promise- Eternal Happiness- Christianity.

If all bets are equal in their probability or improbability, why not pick the one which has the best prize? If there is no evidence for materialism, and no evidence for Christianity, and materialism promises nothing, but Christianity promises infinity- logically Christianity is the best choice.

Pascal tells us that skepticism was a way of thinking for many of his friends. They could not longer believe in any form of Christianity or Judaism. Then science came along to give them something to believe in.

 

[Hokomai]

It seems as there is no evidence which can be accepted- since the demonstration of the veracity of any source of evidence either depends upon itself (resulting in circularity), or it depends upon something else (necessitating, if carried on, an infinite regress).

Let us take the evidence of the senses. What grounds are there for accepting this evidence as true?

Either- it is the senses themselves which prove that the senses can be relied upon (hence, circularity)

Or- it is something else apart from the senses which demonstrate the senses can be relied upon. But this second thing will either be supported only by itself (circularity again), or will defer to something else (which, if, carried on, will eventually stop in circularity, or continue to infinite regression).

So, it seems no evidence may be accepted, because either it reaches the circularity of self-validation, or continues to infinite regress.

This principle may be applied to science. Should I believe science because scientists tell me it is true? This is circular. Or should I believe it because something else tells me (e.g. the evidence of my senses)? But why should I believe the evidence of my senses? If because of the senses themselves, circularity again emerges, or, if for some other reason, the infinite regress seems to be initiated again.

Today’s Gospel makes this thought relevant- Peter replies to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. In other words, there is no reason to believe in anything- all beliefs and all evidence are equally undemonstrable, and nothing can be determined.

So, all things being equally plausible and (name removed by moderator)lausible, it makes sense to go with the one that has the best promise- Eternal Happiness- Christianity.

If all bets are equal in their probability or improbability, why not pick the one which has the best prize? If there is no evidence for materialism, and no evidence for Christianity, and materialism promises nothing, but Christianity promises infinity- logically Christianity is the best choice.

So does Islam.

 

[Qoeleth]

So does Islam.

True. But all thing being equal, why change the faith and practise in which we find ourselves?

If you already have a ticket in the raffle for the best prize, why change it- all tickets being precisely equal?

Some tickets, like Christianity and Islam promise eternal life. In fact, according to Islam, a Christian who follows the Gospel Laws will be saved- so I can use my Christian ticket to claim the prize in the Islamic lottery, if they turn out to be correct.

But why would anyone opt for a ticket where the prize is nothing- like materialism? If you have a materialist ticket, I suggest you trade it in for one which has a decent prize?

Nothing is able to be determined one way or the other, so truth-claims cannot be the grounds for any preference or decision.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Robby

**Pascal tells us that skepticism was a way of thinking for many of his friends. They could not longer believe in any form of Christianity or Judaism. Then science came along to give them something to believe in. **

Quite so. A religion is something you have to believe in, because there is no absolute proof for it. That’s what scientism is … a religion that some people can believe in. But it’s only knowledge, and knowledge that is never regarded as truly certain. There is not a nickel’s worth of wisdom in all of science.

It is a good deal better religion to worship wisdom than science.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You seem to have trouble accepting reality as God made it, including your rational operstions of intellect,reason, and will. I suggest you start reading Edward Feser and stop all this speculation. Feser has a blog and he is discussing the basis for our knowledge of reality right now, go see it.edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Also, you should reat The Last Superstition which explains the reality based Philosophy of St Thomas and also offers a polimic on modern philosophical errors ( but skip pg 146 - may be too graphic).