So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[ddarko]

The word “real” means “conforming to the world, so far as I am able to detect by means of evidence.”

Things that I experience are real. Even if my senses are picking up an illusion of a sandwhich, for example, I am seeing a real illusion. If it weren’t a real illusion, I wouldn’t be experiencing it.

Now, in my investigations, I can try to determine whether or not the sandwhich exists outside of my head. The only way I can do this is to rely on evidence from the world outside of my head.

If, for example, no one else I spoke to could see the sandwhich, I’d have good grounds for thinking I might be mistaken (unless they’re all playing a joke on me, which is a possibility).

It’s no use objecting, “But you may be in the Matrix, and this whole world could be in your head!” because even if that’s true, there’s no way I could ever discover that, making it utterly irrelevant.

When I talk about reality, I’m talking about the world that our senses reveal, whether or not it’s “real” or “The Matrix,” which is an irrelevant and undiscoverable question.

Armed with this basic framework, I am capable of evaluating claims in terms of likelihood, based on the amount of evidence available for them.

Different claims are going to require different evidence. If my claim is, “I feel happy,” then the only evidence necessary is my observation about my emotional state, since it is a claim about the world inside my head.

If my claim is, “There is a conspiracy against me,” then I cannot use my paranoid feelings of persecution as evidence for this claim, since it is a claim about the world outside of my head.

See how that works? Simple.

You just gave a whole bunch of examples of where you use FAITH without evidence lol. How do you know that the evidence for a claim makes a claim more probable? Is that a theorem that was discovered? Was it written down somewhere? Or do you just ***have faith ***its true ?

So dear AntiTheist, it is indeed simple!!! You have faith without evidence!!! There are truths that you take as TRUE without evidence. Every scientific theorem and explanation at some point hinges on a piece of knowledge based on faith. To deny it is ignorance. That is why many atheist can safely be put in to the group known as “intellectually ignorant people”. How can you miss this **simple **point ?

When I talk about “reality,” I’m talking about the world that is revealed by my senses. Whether the world is “really real” or the Matrix is irrevelant. Stop watching movies and wake up already.

LOL. You are the one whose being watching too much movies and being ignorant to the truth. You take by faith that what you perceive is REAL. That is my point. Whats ironic is that you choose to believe certain things on faith while disregarding others simply because they are believed on faith. That’s logical inconsistency so stop being ***NAIVE ***and ***IGNORANT ***and start being RATIONAL

I’m quite consistent – I would implore you to be consistent and subject the extraordinary claims of religion to the same standard of evidence that you would hold any extraordinary claim to.

Haha again with the evidence. You do understand that ‘‘truths need evidence’’ it-self does not have evidence lol? Way to go hot-shot. How about you first start thinking about what you believe first and see if its logically consistent? Do you hold the “truths need evidence” to the same standard of evidence it, it-self claims ?

You, like most Matrix-mongers, have confused “faith” with rational assumptions.

Quiet the contrary. We have fully understood what it means to be rational and seen that ***Faith **is the **SOURCE **of **ALL *knowledge.

I don’t take it on “faith” that the world is real and not the Matrix. When I use the word “real,” I’m discussing the world that my senses reveal, and I don’t care whether it’s the Matrix or not (which is something that I could never know anyway, making it irrelevant).

Oh come on I thought you should have been able to realize yourself whats wrong with what you are saying. The fact that you believe “reality is what my senses reveal” is it-self an article of faith. You have no evidence for it. In-fact you cannot ever have evidence for it. Its logically meaningless to ask for evidence for “reality is what my senses reveal” because your evidence will all be “what your senses reveal”. So you will have to presupposes the truth of your statement. Therefore you can only have faith that its true. Come down to earth AntiTheist…its about time you understood what you yourself believe .

I don’t take it on “faith” that logic is real because we have good evidence that the application of logic has demonstrable effects on the world.

LOL? Ok I am just going to assume that you really have no clue about logic.

If you claim that logic works LOGICALLY, then that is circular logic. You prove nothing. The logical consistency of a system is NOT proof that it is TRUE. When you make a logical prediction, you verify the prediction LOGICALLY. In logic you can’t presupposes the truth you are about to prove as true.

So no my dear AntiTheist, you believe in Logic through faith. You believe that the Universe is REASONABLE.

 

[ddarko]

Seriously, now. You’re all mixed up and confused, and you think that bad Keanu Reeves movies mean that everybody is operating on faith and so every ridiculous idea is on equal footing with actual knowledge.

lol? forget the movie. We are talking about real life here. Matrix is a good action flick with some philosophical underpinnings but what we are discussing is vastly greater than whats in the movie. The truth is that YOU have faith in a lot of things, but your ignorance and pride is blinding you from the fact. All knowledge is through faith. Every system that provides knowledge has concepts that makes its basis accepted on faith. Thats just how it is. If you don’t accept anything on faith, then you can’t move forward. The problem with you is you are willing to accept by faith that “my senses are a way to know truths” but you want to condemn other articles of faith. So you are being a hypocrite and in intellectual terms IRRATIONAL.

Are you sure that this is the road that you wish to go down?

lol no but ironically you are walking down that road and you don’t even seem to fully realize it haha.

 

[ddarko]

Well, presumably you are talking about people who could have potentially been eye-witnesses of a supposed resurrection who then were threatened with death if they did not recant their belief in a resurrection, who did not recant, and who were put to death instead.

This has to be a very small and select group of people. I’m not sure how many people we’re talking about here – in fact, I’m not sure if there is any contemporary evidence that any person who claimed to be an eye-witness to the resurrection was also put to death for not recounting his or her beliefs.

But even if we had good evidence that there really were a handful of people who fell into that category, I’d still think it more likely that those people were mistaken or deluded.

Now, if you just mean that there were a lot of Christian martyrs in history, then sure – but there have been martyrs in a lot of faiths. That someone is willing to die for a belief doesn’t tell you whether or not the belief was true – it just tells you that the person believes it strongly.

To address your point about martyrdom first, as far as I know, no founding persons of any other religion ended up in martyrdom. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

The fact that beyond psychological plausibility, you are willing to believe that these people were deluded just shows the fruitlessness of miracles to atheist. Thanks for proving my point here. No matter what the miracle, there will always be an atheist holding on to his ***faith ***that there is a natural explanation .

That there are different types of evidence. Anecdotal evidence is one kind of evidence. Scientific data is another. Artifacts and archeological finds are another kind of evidence. Etc, and so on.

My contention is that no amount of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural.

If you’re content to call all evidence “stories” and consider them all valid for all claims, then I’m afraid you’re going to get very few people to agree with you.

lol well my dear AntiTheist, you should know that you cannot have Scientific evidence of Historical facts. The fact that for an example the French revolution happened for an example DO NOT have scientific evidence. You have to resort to historical evidence which deals with writings and stories and what you would incorrectly call anecdotal evidence.. So don’t be naive. Get your head out of the gutter. Just because something lacks scientific evidence does not make it FALSE

And btw, after all these discussion, I think I know what your problem is. The best way for you yourself to realize the problem with your position is do the following when you reply to my next post:

*** **Provide me with **EVIDENCE **that "truths need evidence" is true.

Now please think and answer this question because I will have to judge your intellectual capability on how you answer this question

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

We detect them with something other than science. The scientific method is not sole avenue to knowledge.

I agree that the scientific method is not the sole avenue to knowledge – I don’t need to employ “the scientific method” to know that I’m happy, for example – but when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads.

If your claim is that another “reality” exists, we would expect to see evidence of it. If your “evidence” is nothing but your intuition, then you’ve really got nothing to go on.

 

[ddarko]

I agree that the scientific method is not the sole avenue to knowledge – I don’t need to employ “the scientific method” to know that I’m happy, for example – but when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads.

If your claim is that another “reality” exists, we would expect to see evidence of it. If your “evidence” is nothing but your intuition, then you’ve really got nothing to go on.

To add to my request of the following,

1. Provide me with **EVIDENCE **that “truths need evidence” is true.

Also address

1. provide **EVIDENCE **that “when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads” is **true **

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

You take by faith that what you perceive is REAL.

No, I don’t. You are incredibly confused here, and it’s going to take a few paragraphs of explanation to get to the bottom of it.

You are making a category error by confusing rational assumptions with something entirely different: premises of logical arguments that we make within a system built on the foundation of the rational assumptions.

There are assumptions that we all make – assumptions like our senses revealing a universe in which other minds exist – and given those assumptions, we have constructed a system of reason and evidence whereby we evaluate claims made about the world. Within that system, you need premises that come from evidence.

Our discussion – like all discussions about any claims about the external world – takes the rational assumptions as given starting points. In order to evaluate claims about the external world (which we’re both assuming is external and not the Matrix), we need to use the system of logic, reason, and evidence that we’ve come up with. Fundamental to that system is proceeding from true premises that we determine by means of evidence.
If you insist on using the word “faith” to mean both “making rational assumptions” and “accepting claims made about the world (that we’re both assuming to be external) without sufficient evidence,” then you are making a category error that is leading to all of your confusion.

 

[AntiTheist]

Provide me with **EVIDENCE **that “truths need evidence” is true.

Now, as I explained in my last post, our system of logic and reason is constructed on the back of rational assumptions. When we talk about claims and their need for evidence, we’re talking about claims made within this system.

As it so happens, though, we have the evidence of the entire history of human beings analyzing claims. And guess what? Claims that have sufficient evidence turn out to be true much more often than claims that do not have sufficient evidence.

Funny that, eh?

provide **EVIDENCE **that “when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads” is **true **

Once again, look at the history of analyzing claims. Those people who attempt to evaluate claims about the world outside of their heads (“Everyone’s against me!”) using evidence drawn from inside their heads (“I feel like there’s a conspiracy against me!”) are incorrect more often than those who evaluate claims about the world outside of their heads using evidence drawn from outside of their heads.

 

[AntiTheist]

forget the movie. We are talking about real life here.

Then I implore you to stop talking nonsense about “reality” being some other world.

The problem with you is you are willing to accept by faith that “my senses are a way to know truths” but you want to condemn other articles of faith.

As I demonstrated above, you are equivocating on the meaning of the word “faith” by using it to mean both “making necessary assumptions” and “accepting claims about the world (that we’re both assuming is external) without sufficient evidence.”

There’s no contradiction with making necessary assumptions and also refusing to accept claims about the world (that we’re both assuming to be external) without sufficient evidence.

you are willing to believe that these people [early Christian martyrs] were deluded

Slow down there, cowboy. First of all, you have to demonstrate that there really were people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, who were told that they would be killed if they did not recant, and then chose not to recant, and were killed for that reason.

What contemporary evidence do we have that such things happened? [Just to be clear, I’m not asserting that it didn’t happen, but I want to know what evidence we have and how many people we’re talking about]

Second of all, you have to conclude that – if any of these supposed martyrdoms did happen as you describe – that these people’s willingness to die demonstrates that they really did see supernatural things. I don’t think that that is the case.

well my dear AntiTheist, you should know that you cannot have Scientific evidence of Historical facts. The fact that for an example the French revolution happened for an example DO NOT have scientific evidence. You have to resort to historical evidence which deals with writings and stories and what you would incorrectly call anecdotal evidence.

Well, actually, we have a lot more than people’s accounts of the events (although we have a great deal of that). We have evidence that corroborates these accounts: guillotines that were built and used; personal items belonging to major figures like Robespierre, physical evidence around Bastille, orders made by the French military (and other militaries around the world) to acquire supplies, etc., etc., etc.

Furthermore, no one makes outlandish claims about the French Revolution like, “The Reign of Terror ended when flying saucers buzzed the country and took Robespierre aboard for a probing session” or “Various church officials were murdered, came back to life, and had to be put to death again, repeatedly.”

If incidents like those cropped up in accounts of the revolution, then we’d be justified in not believing them without a lot of really good evidence.

Now contrast the evidence we have for the French Revolution with the evidence we have for Jesus’ miracles: a bunch of stories written decades after the supposed events by anonymous non-eyewitnesses.

 

[ddarko]

Now, as I explained in my last post, our system of logic and reason is constructed on the back of rational assumptions. When we talk about claims and their need for evidence, we’re talking about claims made within this system.

As it so happens, though, we have the evidence of the entire history of human beings analyzing claims. And guess what? Claims that have sufficient evidence turn out to be true much more often than claims that do not have sufficient evidence.

Funny that, eh?

Once again, look at the history of analyzing claims. Those people who attempt to evaluate claims about the world outside of their heads (“Everyone’s against me!”) using evidence drawn from inside their heads (“I feel like there’s a conspiracy against me!”) are incorrect more often than those who evaluate claims about the world outside of their heads using evidence drawn from outside of their heads.

Ok stop splattering more garbage. How do you know they are incorrect? My point is that such an assumption can’t be proved or disproved. In the end, you MUST take it as true or false on FAITH.

Secondly, just because something has happened this way so far, it should continue to happen" is ALSO NOT PROVEN. Your ignorance is beyond this world. How can you fail to see that it has to be taken by faith. My only conclusion is that you are intellectually impaired or just full of pride to admit you are wrong. In both cases, you are beyond my help

And to my previous questions, the answer you provided was WRONG. LOGICALLY INCORRECT!! You can’t say using logic is RATIONAL because LOGIC defines what is rational. SAVVY?

So first get me a PROPER answer to my first two questions.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

No, I don’t. You are incredibly confused here, and it’s going to take a few paragraphs of explanation to get to the bottom of it.

You are making a category error by confusing rational assumptions with something entirely different: premises of logical arguments that we make within a system built on the foundation of the rational assumptions.

There are assumptions that we all make – assumptions like our senses revealing a universe in which other minds exist – and given those assumptions, we have constructed a system of reason and evidence whereby we evaluate claims made about the world. Within that system, you need premises that come from evidence.

Our discussion – like all discussions about any claims about the external world – takes the rational assumptions as given starting points. In order to evaluate claims about the external world (which we’re both assuming is external and not the Matrix), we need to use the system of logic, reason, and evidence that we’ve come up with. Fundamental to that system is proceeding from true premises that we determine by means of evidence.
If you insist on using the word “faith” to mean both “making rational assumptions” and “accepting claims made about the world (that we’re both assuming to be external) without sufficient evidence,” then you are making a category error that is leading to all of your confusion.

lol FIRST, tell me how you define what is RATIONAL without using LOGIC. You are failing to see that one has to presuppose LOGIC to judge what is RATIONAL. Your answers are starting to look more and more unintelligent and ignorant now.

 

[Makarios]

John 20:29:
Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[ddarko]

Then I implore you to stop talking nonsense about “reality” being some other world.

lol? I was the one asking you to be rational. You are the one wanting to take irrational positions.

As I demonstrated above, you are equivocating on the meaning of the word “faith” by using it to mean both “making necessary assumptions” and “accepting claims about the world (that we’re both assuming is external) without sufficient evidence.”

There’s no contradiction with making necessary assumptions and also refusing to accept claims about the world (that we’re both assuming to be external) without sufficient evidence.

What exactly are necessary assumptions? So you are saying its ok to assume necessary assumptions as true now lol? Stop shifting your position around.

In your case, there is the problem as to what is necessary. Necessity can be relative. To me God is a necessity. Then from your logic, I am perfectly RATIONAL in believing in a GOD because it is a necessity for me. So you loose this argument either way

Slow down there, cowboy. First of all, you have to demonstrate that there really were people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, who were told that they would be killed if they did not recant, and then chose not to recant, and were killed for that reason.

What contemporary evidence do we have that such things happened? [Just to be clear, I’m not asserting that it didn’t happen, but I want to know what evidence we have and how many people we’re talking about]

I assume history isn’t your strong point either. Just read the history of Rome To be specific, times of NERO. You should get more than enough information. Ignorance is the source of all problems and quiet frankly you seem to be full of it and not an ounce shy of making bold claims though

Second of all, you have to conclude that – if any of these supposed martyrdoms did happen as you describe – that these people’s willingness to die demonstrates that they really did see supernatural things. I don’t think that that is the case.

Well, actually, we have a lot more than people’s accounts of the events (although we have a great deal of that). We have evidence that corroborates these accounts: guillotines that were built and used; personal items belonging to major figures like Robespierre, physical evidence around Bastille, orders made by the French military (and other militaries around the world) to acquire supplies, etc., etc., etc.

Ha? And that is scientific evidence lol? What on earth do those things prove? They might have all existed but nothing might have happened. For an example, I might find a tea pot in my garden but I can’t necessarily conclude that someone was drinking tea in my garden. It could be there for numerous reasons.

Furthermore, no one makes outlandish claims about the French Revolution like, “The Reign of Terror ended when flying saucers buzzed the country and took Robespierre aboard for a probing session” or “Various church officials were murdered, came back to life, and had to be put to death again, repeatedly.”

If incidents like those cropped up in accounts of the revolution, then we’d be justified in not believing them without a lot of really good evidence.

LOL. Alright, I am going to give up. You have no clue how someone judges historicity. I will just say this, if the incident you mention did indeed happen, according to you, it would be simply discarded by people like you because “it was too hard for you to believe” haha.

Thankfully, that’s not how educated historians evaluate history

Now contrast the evidence we have for the French Revolution with the evidence we have for Jesus’ miracles: a bunch of stories written decades after the supposed events by anonymous non-eyewitnesses.

lol? This I would have to disagree. Many historians DO believe that Jesus historically existed. But hey, who am I to argue with the uneducated

 

[ddarko]

Now, as I explained in my last post, our system of logic and reason is constructed on the back of rational assumptions. When we talk about claims and their need for evidence, we’re talking about claims made within this system.

As it so happens, though, we have the evidence of the entire history of human beings analyzing claims. And guess what? Claims that have sufficient evidence turn out to be true much more often than claims that do not have sufficient evidence.

Funny that, eh?

Once again, look at the history of analyzing claims. Those people who attempt to evaluate claims about the world outside of their heads (“Everyone’s against me!”) using evidence drawn from inside their heads (“I feel like there’s a conspiracy against me!”) are incorrect more often than those who evaluate claims about the world outside of their heads using evidence drawn from outside of their heads.

BTW, if you missed my reply, YOUR ANSWER IS WRONG. It was logically INCORRECT. You claim that “our system of logic and reason is constructed on the back of rational assumptions” when logic and reasons are what defines what it means to be a rational assumption in the first place. So your POINT IS NIL. The evidence is garbage because you are using circular logic.

So here are the two questions once again and please provide better intellectual answers this time

1. Provide me with **EVIDENCE **that “truths need evidence” is true.
2. provide **EVIDENCE **that “when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads” is **true **

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

To add to my request of the following,

1. Provide me with **EVIDENCE **that “truths need evidence” is true.

Also address

1. provide **EVIDENCE **that “when it comes to making claims about the world outside of our heads, you need data drawn from the world outside of our heads” is **true **

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

I seem to have touched off some psychological chord in you that is prompting you to make post after post of rambling, juvenile nonsense, punctuated with asinine smilies and that ever-charming el-oh-el netspeak.

For the sake of sane people reading along, I’ll explain. We all make certain very basic assumptions. In philosophy, they’re called “rational assumptions,” but I’ve started to prefer the language “necessary assumptions.” These are things like, “There is a world outside of me that my senses reveal” and “Other minds exist in this world.”

I fully admit that you cannot “prove” these assumptions, though indeed experience confirms their utility. It certainly seems, for example, that there’s a world outside of me that operates independently of my thoughts, and it certainly seems that other people have the capability to think in ways that are different from mine. Even if we were wrong about these assumptions, there appears to be no way to ever find out that we’re wrong, and since it’s so dang useful to make these assumptions, we do.

In order to function, I am forced to make the necessary assumption that there’s a world outside of me and that there are other people.

Within the context of the “external world” granted by these assumptions, we can observe that claims made about the external world supported by evidence from the external world are far more likely to be true than claims made about the external world supported by no evidence or by evidence drawn only from my internal world of feelings and emotions. And it’s not just my personal observations that evidence-based inquiry works when evaluating claims about the external world: we have the entire history of human civilization using evidence-based inquiry to determine the likelihood that claims are true.

The computer that you’re reading this message on is a good example of one of the results of evidence-based inquiry. The people who designed it didn’t determine how to do it by consulting their precious feelings or their intuition: they actually examined the real world and supported their claims with evidence from the world outside of their heads.

It’s asinine to think that just because all humans are forced to make a handful of necessary assumptions in order to function, this means that no claim ever needs to have evidence to support it. There’s an old, old game in the land of theology called “Make everything into faith.” It’s a fun game: just claim that everything, everywhere, is a matter of faith. Those scientists? Faith in their scientific method. Judges and juries? Faith in the testimony they hear…and faith in the idea that evidence can be useful. Historians? Total faith. That raving lunatic on the streetcorner? Faith.

See that? Everyone’s got faith, according to this disingenuous argument. Everybody, they claim, is equally clueless about everything and equally wandering around in a fog mumbling vague things about the Matrix movies and wondering if, “Reality is, like, totally a dream, dude.”

It’s a good thing for the human race that there are enough people who aren’t as absolutely in love with ignorance as these folks are.

Believe it or not, folks, there are people in this world who have knowledge, and to try to pretend that they are on equal footing with your fantasy life – on the basis of the fact that all people have to make necessary assumptions! – is to go far off the deep end.

Remember, our assumptions grant the existence of an external world. We’re having a discussion in the context of having already made these assumptions. And in that context, “faith” means accepting claims about the external world without sufficient evidence. People who – again, in the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – hold beliefs based on sufficient evidence have a superior position: they have beliefs that – again, within the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – are much more likely to be true.

If you want to question the assumptions, go ahead – conclude that I’m a figment of your imagination and a glitch in the Matrix and then go do something else. Hey, maybe if you hid under your covers and counted to ten really loudly, that would make all the meany-bo-beanies vanish, eh?

Now, what’s that, you say? God is a necessary assumption to you? You have a special means of detecting “reality” that’s not available to everyone else and can’t be confirmed by any means of inquiry into the world outside your head? That’s great, guys. Have fun with your fantasy life, but before you do, pause and consider that what we’ve been discussing on this thread are claims. People make claims to others because they want to convince other people of something.

If you don’t think that other people should believe in your god – if you really think that you do not have sufficient evidence for your claim, and it all boils down to your precious little feelings and daydreams – then there’s really no point for you to be discussing it in public. By definition, you’ll never be able to rationally convince someone else.

If, on the other hand, you do think that there is sufficient evidence for your god, then we can discuss it. But in order to do this, you have to accept that we use evidence to determine the likelihood of claims about the (assumed) external world.

Your third option, of course, is to forget about all of this and say, “Aw, heck! This evidence stuff is hard! I’m just gonna go watch my Matrix DVD again! And then I’ll watch Donnie Darko, and every other execrable escapist fantasy every made, which only ever appeals to angsty teenagers and others who have to make up their own reality because they can’t deal with actual reality.”

 

[buffalo]

I seem to have touched off some psychological chord in you that is prompting you to make post after post of rambling, juvenile nonsense, punctuated with asinine smilies and that ever-charming el-oh-el netspeak.

For the sake of sane people reading along, I’ll explain. We all make certain very basic assumptions. In philosophy, they’re called “rational assumptions,” but I’ve started to prefer the language “necessary assumptions.” These are things like, “There is a world outside of me that my senses reveal” and “Other minds exist in this world.”

I fully admit that you cannot “prove” these assumptions, though indeed experience confirms their utility. It certainly seems, for example, that there’s a world outside of me that operates independently of my thoughts, and it certainly seems that other people have the capability to think in ways that are different from mine. Even if we were wrong about these assumptions, there appears to be no way to ever find out that we’re wrong, and since it’s so dang useful to make these assumptions, we do.

In order to function, I am forced to make the necessary assumption that there’s a world outside of me and that there are other people.

Within the context of the “external world” granted by these assumptions, we can observe that claims made about the external world supported by evidence from the external world are far more likely to be true than claims made about the external world supported by no evidence or by evidence drawn only from my internal world of feelings and emotions. And it’s not just my personal observations that evidence-based inquiry works when evaluating claims about the external world: we have the entire history of human civilization using evidence-based inquiry to determine the likelihood that claims are true.

The computer that you’re reading this message on is a good example of one of the results of evidence-based inquiry. The people who designed it didn’t determine how to do it by consulting their precious feelings or their intuition: they actually examined the real world and supported their claims with evidence from the world outside of their heads.

It’s asinine to think that just because all humans are forced to make a handful of necessary assumptions in order to function, this means that no claim ever needs to have evidence to support it. There’s an old, old game in the land of theology called “Make everything into faith.” It’s a fun game: just claim that everything, everywhere, is a matter of faith. Those scientists? Faith in their scientific method. Judges and juries? Faith in the testimony they hear…and faith in the idea that evidence can be useful. Historians? Total faith. That raving lunatic on the streetcorner? Faith.

See that? Everyone’s got faith, according to this disingenuous argument. Everybody, they claim, is equally clueless about everything and equally wandering around in a fog mumbling vague things about the Matrix movies and wondering if, “Reality is, like, totally a dream, dude.”

It’s a good thing for the human race that there are enough people who aren’t as absolutely in love with ignorance as these folks are.

Believe it or not, folks, there are people in this world who have knowledge, and to try to pretend that they are on equal footing with your fantasy life – on the basis of the fact that all people have to make necessary assumptions! – is to go far off the deep end.

Remember, our assumptions grant the existence of an external world. We’re having a discussion in the context of having already made these assumptions. And in that context, “faith” means accepting claims about the external world without sufficient evidence.

If you want to question the assumptions, go ahead – conclude that I’m a figment of your imagination and a glitch in the Matrix and then go do something else. Hey, maybe if you hid under your covers and counted to ten really loudly, that would make all the meany-bo-beanies vanish, eh?

Now, what’s that, you say? God is a necessary assumption to you? You have a special means of detecting “reality” that’s not available to everyone else and can’t be confirmed by any means of inquiry into the world outside your head? That’s great, guys. Have fun with your fantasy life, but before you do, pause and consider that what we’ve been discussing on this thread are claims. People make claims to others because they want to convince other people of something.

If you don’t think that other people should believe in your god – if you really think that you do not have sufficient evidence for your claim, and it all boils down to your precious little feelings and daydreams – then there’s really no point for you to be discussing it in public. By definition, you’ll never be able to rationally convince someone else.

If, on the other hand, you do think that there is sufficient evidence for your god, then we can discuss it. But in order to do this, you have to accept that we use evidence to determine the likelihood of claims about the (assumed) external world.

Your third option, of course, is to forget about all of this and say, “Aw, heck! This evidence stuff is hard! I’m just gonna go watch my Matrix DVD again! And then I’ll watch Donnie Darko, and every other execrable escapist fantasy every made, which only ever appeals to angsty teenagers and others who have to make up their own reality because they can’t deal with actual reality.”

Ever read this?

A Brain in a Vat

 

[ddarko]

I seem to have touched off some psychological chord in you that is prompting you to make post after post of rambling, juvenile nonsense, punctuated with asinine smilies and that ever-charming el-oh-el netspeak.

For the sake of sane people reading along, I’ll explain. We all make certain very basic assumptions. In philosophy, they’re called “rational assumptions,” but I’ve started to prefer the language “necessary assumptions.” These are things like, “There is a world outside of me that my senses reveal” and “Other minds exist in this world.”

I fully admit that you cannot “prove” these assumptions, though indeed experience confirms their utilnquiry works when evaluating claims about the external world: we have the entire history of human civilization using evidence-based inquiry to determine the likelihood that claims are true.

It’s asinine to think that just because all humans are forced to make a handful of necessary assumptions in order to function, this means that no claim ever needs to have evidence to support it. There’s an old, old game in the land of theology called “Make everything into faith.” It’s a fun game: just claim that everything, everywhere, is a matter of faith. Those scientists? Faith in their scientific method. Judges and juries? Faith in the testimony they hear…and faith in the idea that evidence can be useful. Historians? Total faith. That raving lunatic on the streetcorner? Faith.

See that? Everyone’s got faith, according to this disingenuous argument. Everybody, they claim, is equally clueless about everything and equally wandering around in a fog mumbling vague things about the Matrix movies and wondering if, “Reality is, like, totally a dream, dude.”

It’s a good thing for the human race that there are enough people who aren’t as absolutely in love with ignorance as these folks are.

Believe it or not, folks, there are people in this world who have knowledge, and to try to pretend that they are on equal footing with your fantasy life – on the basis of the fact that all people have to make necessary assumptions! – is to go far off the deep end.

Remember, our assumptions grant the existence of an external world. We’re having a discussion in the context of having already made these assumptions. And in that context, “faith” means accepting claims about the external world without sufficient evidence. People who – again, in the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – hold beliefs based on sufficient evidence have a superior position: they have beliefs that – again, within the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – are much more likely to be true.

If you want to question the assumptions, go ahead – conclude that I’m a figment of your imagination and a glitch in the Matrix and then go do something else. Hey, maybe if you hid under your covers and counted to ten really loudly, that would make all the meany-bo-beanies vanish, eh?

Now, what’s that, you say? God is a necessary assumption to you? You have a special means of detecting “reality” that’s not available to everyone else and can’t be confirmed by any means of inquiry into the world outside your head? That’s great, guys. Have fun with your fantasy life, but before you do, pause and consider that what we’ve been discussing on this thread are claims. People make claims to others because they want to convince other people of something.

If you don’t think that other people should believe in your god – if you really think that you do not have sufficient evidence for your claim, and it all boils down to your precious little feelings and daydreams – then there’s really no point for you to be discussing it in public. By definition, you’ll never be able to rationally convince someone else.

If, on the other hand, you do think that there is sufficient evidence for your god, then we can discuss it. But in order to do this, you have to accept that we use evidence to determine the likelihood of claims about the (assumed) external world.

Your third option, of course, is to forget about all of this and say, “Aw, heck! This evidence stuff is hard! I’m just gonna go watch my Matrix DVD again! And then I’ll watch Donnie Darko, and every other execrable escapist fantasy every made, which only ever appeals to angsty teenagers and others who have to make up their own reality because they can’t deal with actual reality.”

Seriously I refuted your point already and you keep bringing it up.

There is no such thing as rational assumption outside of logic and reason. What does it mean to be Rational without presupposing logic in the first place. Stop making arguments using circular logic. Provide me some EVIDENCE for the Questions I ASKED YOU without wasting my time with irrelevant information.

Secondly, even what you say needs EVIDENCE; Whose to say that “making basic assumptions based on necessity” is OK? Do you have evidence for that?

So again, provide VALID evidence. If not, you loose this debate. It proves that you yourself believe in things without evidence and are just being an ignorant in calling others wrong to do so.

And btw, its not “making all things in to faith” its about realizing that nothing really make sense without faith. Unless we realize that we must have **faith **in certain “necessary assumptions” (and stop spattering ******** that its rational to do so), we can not have ANY KNOWLEDGE. People who are atheist and refuse to have faith while accepting scientific conclusions etc. are hypocrites.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

Secondly, even what you say needs EVIDENCE; Whose to say that “making basic assumptions based on necessity” is OK? Do you have evidence for that?

It’s not “OK” – it’s just something we have to do in order to function.

It proves that you yourself believe in things without evidence

I just finished saying that we all make the basic, necessary assumptions without evidence. When I criticize people for believing in things without sufficient evidence, I’m speaking in the context of the external world granted by our assumptions.

Do you actually read what’s in front of you? Or do you just go by what those precious little feelings of yours tell you I wrote?

 

[ddarko]

It’s not “OK” – it’s just something we have to do in order to function.

So what? I can argue that I need a God to function. So now is it ok for me to HAVE FAITH?

And quit playing with semantics. You accept those necessary assumptions on FAITH. Just say it. There is no such things as “this is what we have to do”. Even that is a basic assumption lol. So you have FAITH in the most basic assumptions without which NO knowledge would exist. The problem is that you are too proud or simply unable to see that you do have FAITH.

I just finished saying that we all make the basic, necessary assumptions without evidence. When I criticize people for believing in things without sufficient evidence, I’m speaking in the context of the external world granted by our assumptions.

Do you actually read what’s in front of you? Or do you just go by what those precious little feelings of yours tell you I wrote?

lol how about you start making logical points. I clearly quoted what you wrote "our system of logic and reason is constructed on the back of rational assumptions". Do you or do you not admit that what you said was logically circular? Its in your post. Go back and read it if you forgot.

Another point you make is that “we can’t prove God is necessary”. Well for the sake of argument, lets say ok, but how can you prove that those “basic principles” you are willing to accept are necessary? What does it mean to say that those are necessary? ***Why does something have to be necessary for you to believe in it in the first place? ***Isn’t that it-self a basic assumption ?

Also, faith according to you is belief without evidence. You say that you believe in those “***necessary ***assumptions” (though as I said, what it means to be necessary is also a basic assumptions) without evidence. So you have FAITH. Why are you finding it so hard to admit it?

If you are ok with making SOME basic assumptions WITHOUT evidence, how on earth do you have a basis to say accepting GOD without scientific evidence is irrational? That is my point.

God Bless

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If you kids don’t play nice, somebody’s gonna end up crying.