The most baffling mystery of all

[Image_of_God]

Whenever evidence isn’t clearly presented by Christianity, there is a big epistemology debate that attempts to prove “If we can’t prove God, you can’t prove science or anything else!” It’s foolishness; you know it’s foolishness, and you continue to plug the same argument. (Again) I’m not saying Science is infallible, but it happens to deal exclusively with what can be seen or manipulated physically. Religion examines the immaterial world, to which there is no evidence, as such - you take it on blind faith. Me not examining the evidence personally is not the same thing as there being absolutely no evidence at all. For example, an obscure and allegedly miraculous picture does not imply a creator God that loves us and wants to bring all of humanity to a point of salvation. It’s just a picture, like every other religion through history has had. Nevertheless, I’m glad there have been some acknowledgements to my skepticism.

In a certain sense, we are claiming that your skepticism is simply another religion (I prefer the word belief). You do not know most of the things you believe with absolute certainty. Your quote, “If we can’t prove God, you can’t prove science or anything else” is a great misunderstanding of the argument at hand. Like in any religion, you likewise place your trust in things you haven’t seen and reject other things you haven’t seen. This isn’t objectively wrong, however it is wrong according to empiricism and scientific realism. They are empty philosophies, claiming to be something they are not.

It’s the same thing with my science textbook as it is with the Bible. I am simply being told things that I do not know with absolute certainty to be true. I am reading someone else’s testimony about something. I have never seen an electron and probably never will. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? The question can be turned towards you: because you have never seen miracles or Jesus with your own eyes does that mean they don’t exist? Admit that the answer to both of these questions are no. Admit that to answer both definitively takes a certain degree of faith.

As warpspeedpetey has said, you are employing a double standard. You cannot dismiss it as foolishness because it is an entirely rational observation.

Some people have said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it does to do so. I find this to be so true. It appears very irrational and an act of blind faith to believe that a universe as orderly as this one could suddenly organize itself at random.

 

[Think_About_It]

In a certain sense, we are claiming that your skepticism is simply another religion (I prefer the word belief). You do not know most of the things you believe with absolute certainty. Your quote, “If we can’t prove God, you can’t prove science or anything else” is a great misunderstanding of the argument at hand. Like in any religion, you likewise place your trust in things you haven’t seen and reject other things you haven’t seen. This isn’t objectively wrong, however it is wrong according to empiricism and scientific realism. They are empty philosophies, claiming to be something they are not.

It’s the same thing with my science textbook as it is with the Bible. I am simply being told things that I do not know with absolute certainty to be true. I am reading someone else’s testimony about something. I have never seen an electron and probably never will. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? The question can be turned towards you: because you have never seen miracles or Jesus with your own eyes does that mean they don’t exist? Admit that the answer to both of these questions are no. Admit that to answer both definitively takes a certain degree of faith.

As warpspeedpetey has said, you are employing a double standard. You cannot dismiss it as foolishness because it is an entirely rational observation.

Some people have said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it does to do so. I find this to be so true. It appears very irrational and an act of blind faith to believe that a universe as orderly as this one could suddenly organize itself at random.

You might liken it to faith, but it’s not like faith in religious claims. My faith in science is laregly governed by the fact that its elements (whatever they may be) are both testable and falsifiable. A theory or concept is an extremely poor one if it does not lend itself to falsification. God is just this type of concept. If I endevour to see an atom, I probably could with relative ease (via a tunneling effect). If I endevour to see a miracle, it will never happen. That, of course, would be testing God, both a grave sin, and the very thing that would put God on equal grounds with science (if He could be tested and confirmed in some way). You see that what I have is much less like faith, and much more like prefering some beliefs over others because they have their base in something that can be confirmed or disconfirmed, validated or falsified. You have to keep in mind that I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist (how could I be assured of that claim any more than the claim that a pink rabbit doesn’t exist? I don’t have the investigative fortitude for that inquiry); I’m saying that you can’t provide any evidence that he does, so why adhere to the belief with such stringency?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You might liken it to faith, but it’s not like faith in religious claims. My faith in science is laregly governed by the fact that its elements (whatever they may be) are both testable and falsifiable. A theory or concept is an extremely poor one if it does not lend itself to falsification. God is just this type of concept. If I endevour to see an atom, I probably could with relative ease (via a tunneling effect). If I endevour to see a miracle, it will never happen. That, of course, would be testing God, both a grave sin, and the very thing that would put God on equal grounds with science (if He could be tested and confirmed in some way). You see that what I have is much less like faith, and much more like prefering some beliefs over others because they have their base in something that can be confirmed or disconfirmed, validated or falsified. You have to keep in mind that I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist (how could I be assured of that claim any more than the claim that a pink rabbit doesn’t exist? I don’t have the investigative fortitude for that inquiry);

the basis for your beliefs, bolded above is demonstrably a logical contradiction. therefore it is false and cannot, therefore, serve as a basis for belief. your religion tag says that you are a critical thinker. this logical contradiction is no different than as if one had said 2+2=5. this isnt something that should be acceptable to a critical thinker.

allow me to demonstrate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles

Verification- and falsification-principles
The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.

so if the basis of your belief is false, what are you going to do about it?

i used to be an atheist. you can tell what i did about it.

I’m saying that you can’t provide any evidence that he does, so why adhere to the belief with such stringency?

because we have plenty of evidence, all the books compiled into the Bible, archeological evidence, logical evidence, from Aquinas, et al.

thats why you should believe, because we have so much evidence, our beliefs arent based on false arguments and logical contradictions. its based millenia of experience.

and the only thing that says it isnt true are the logical contradictions we have demonstrated. so, those ideas that you are counting against belief, are false. so you should believe then as we do.

that said, i was wondering when you were going to address post #31?

 

[Image_of_God]

You might liken it to faith, but it’s not like faith in religious claims. My faith in science is laregly governed by the fact that its elements (whatever they may be) are both testable and falsifiable. A theory or concept is an extremely poor one if it does not lend itself to falsification. God is just this type of concept. If I endevour to see an atom, I probably could with relative ease (via a tunneling effect). If I endevour to see a miracle, it will never happen. That, of course, would be testing God, both a grave sin, and the very thing that would put God on equal grounds with science (if He could be tested and confirmed in some way). You see that what I have is much less like faith, and much more like prefering some beliefs over others because they have their base in something that can be confirmed or disconfirmed, validated or falsified. You have to keep in mind that I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist (how could I be assured of that claim any more than the claim that a pink rabbit doesn’t exist? I don’t have the investigative fortitude for that inquiry); I’m saying that you can’t provide any evidence that he does, so why adhere to the belief with such stringency?

The point you might have glossed over is that the miracles of Jesus, like any historical event, are not testable. All that we have are eyewitness accounts. That’s it.

Another thing I should say is that if you don’t believe miracles can happen, then you will never see one. Because chances are, when they occur, you will find some scientific explanation for their occurrence or deny them. Many miraculous “relics” such as Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Shroud of Turin have been subject to vigorous scientific tests, yet you will not believe them. Why? Because you have already set it in your heart that only certain results are possible. [It is important to note that numerous people report miracles every year before saints are canonized. The Catholic Church goes through them rigorously]

My faith in God does not rest in proofs (even though there is great evidence for His existence), however your disbelief in God does, since you claim all your beliefs to be testable.

As warpspeedpetey has mentioned, there are tons of evidence present for you (remember that evidence doesn’t prove something exists, it merely gives implications). Archeological evidence, as he mentioned, show that Biblical cities were probably real.

 

[Think_About_It]

The point you might have glossed over is that the miracles of Jesus, like any historical event, are not testable. All that we have are eyewitness accounts. That’s it.

You’ll have to admit that miracles are unusal events though. If we read a story about a dragon or a unicorn, we would either discount it as an absurd fairytale (because we don’t see such things today, and there’s no archaelogical evidence for them), or we would have to provide evidence that they do indeed exist in current time. This is something Christians can’t provide, either in trace or in surplus.

Another thing I should say is that if you don’t believe miracles can happen, then you will never see one. Because chances are, when they occur, you will find some scientific explanation for their occurrence or deny them.

I wouldn’t try to deny with science, that which transcends the natural order. However, if I saw something that could adequately be explained by science, it would, ipso facto, not be a miracle. If you mean that my belief in miracles must precede a miracle being manifest to me, then I would have to argue that it wouldn’t be very good evidence of the supernatural. It would be like working the idea in my mind that miracles can happen, and then being ready to label something perfectly natural, miraculous, when I witnessed it - it would be something a kin to a child citing ghosts as the cause for a creeky house (having wrought the belief into his mind, before hand).

Many miraculous “relics” such as Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Shroud of Turin have been subject to vigorous scientific tests, yet you will not believe them. Why? Because you have already set it in your heart that only certain results are possible. [It is important to note that numerous people report miracles every year before saints are canonized. The Catholic Church goes through them rigorously]

Fairy-tale sounding stories don’t provide support for fairy-tale sounding stories. What scientific tests could possibly confirm Our Lady of Guadalupe as legitimate, from our God, representing our Mother, and all while providing evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no malingering took place?

My faith in God does not rest in proofs (even though there is great evidence for His existence), however your disbelief in God does, since you claim all your beliefs to be testable.

I’m not making any blanket claims. I’m just saying, if we can’t have our faith assured in proofs - concrete evidence of the things you’re talking about -, then in what? Well-wishing? Fancy?

As warpspeedpetey has mentioned, there are tons of evidence present for you (remember that evidence doesn’t prove something exists, it merely gives implications). Archeological evidence, as he mentioned, show that Biblical cities were probably real.

If evidence doesn’t prove the existence of something, it is not sufficient evidence. We would not accept insufficient evidence as legitimate proof for anything else in the world, but on this magical, unfathomable, supernatural claim - which bears, in the slightest degree, a resemblance to all other supernatural claims from other religions - you think it’s worthy of buying into. You are not so indoctrinated that you don’t know that, by merely wishing something were true, we can forge a belief for it, and a very pervasive one too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’ll have to admit that miracles are unusal events though.

absolutely not. they may seem unusual because you do not know how they were done. but as we can demonstrate that is a logical fallacy, and therefore a false statement.

skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

1.I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2.Therefore, not-P.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time…In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence.

If we read a story about a dragon or a unicorn, we would either discount it as an absurd fairytale (because we don’t see such things today, and there’s no archaelogical evidence for them), or we would have to provide evidence that they do indeed exist in current time. This is something Christians can’t provide, either in trace or in surplus.

we can provide Biblical documentation, and Biblical archeology in abundance. why are you ignoring this fact?

further, even were there no evidence at all. as stated above.

In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence

so this statement presents a false dilemma as well. both in the idea that there is no evidence and in the idea that one may take this supposed lack of evidence as an inference as to the validity of an event.

it would be something a kin to a child citing ghosts as the cause for a creeky house (having wrought the belief into his mind, before hand).

this is exactly what you are doing though. we dont believe in magic either.

simply because you dont know how an event was done, doesnt say anything about its veracity as demonstrated above.

Fairy-tale sounding stories don’t provide support for fairy-tale sounding stories. What scientific tests could possibly confirm Our Lady of Guadalupe as legitimate, from our God, representing our Mother, and all while providing evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no malingering took place?

what possible scientific test in the 1700’s could have demonstrated a light emitting diode? or dispelled doubt that any such story wasnt fiction?

none. none whatsoever.

this sort of demand stems from what is logically contradictory and therefore false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Scientism

Scientism
The statement “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically”, is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true”.[29] (This kind of issue was a serious problem for logical positivism).

I’m not making any blanket claims. I’m just saying, if we can’t have our faith assured in proofs - concrete evidence of the things you’re talking about -, then in what? Well-wishing? Fancy?

the “concrete” evidence, is empirical evidence. which we have already dismissed as a call to fulfill a logically contradictory requirement, namely that empiricism is a self refuting logical contradiction. the claim that one can only gain knowledge from the senses is not knowledge that one can gain from the senses.

second, there isnt ‘proof’ in any field, as ones axioms may be false. search for proof inclusive of ones own axioms is impossible.

If evidence doesn’t prove the existence of something, it is not sufficient evidence. We would not accept insufficient evidence as legitimate proof for anything else in the world, but on this magical, unfathomable, supernatural claim - which bears, in the slightest degree, a resemblance to all other supernatural claims from other religions - you think it’s worthy of buying into. You are not so indoctrinated that you don’t know that, by merely wishing something were true, we can forge a belief for it, and a very pervasive one too.

apparently tyour only definition of “sufficient evidence” is empirical. which we have utterly crushed as a true standard. we have demonstrated several time now how it is false because it is logically contradictory, simply repeating it in differentn wording, doesnt move the ball at all.

all your stated beliefs are based on logically contradictory and therefore false ideas, but you may have been indoctrinated with these ideas, and dont seem to be able to recognize that they are truly false, even when confronted with the evidence and demonstrations of it.

that is the essence of being indoctrinated, being unable to accept the truth of something no matter the evidence. in this case, the truth is that your ideas are based on logicaly contradictory arguemtns.

you keep holding to the same ideas that we have shown to be false, you just keep repeating them as though there destruction was never demonstrated for you.

why are you ignoring the invalidation of your ideas?

im beginning to think that you are protecting a cherished belief. a faith.

that said, when are you going to reply to post #31?

if you are truly new to this forum, than you dont know me, and have no reason not to respond. are you truly new to this forum?

have you been here before under another name maybe?

 

[Image_of_God]

You’ll have to admit that miracles are unusal events though. If we read a story about a dragon or a unicorn, we would either discount it as an absurd fairytale (because we don’t see such things today, and there’s no archaelogical evidence for them), or we would have to provide evidence that they do indeed exist in current time. This is something Christians can’t provide, either in trace or in surplus.

Miracles are different from “fairytales”. The former are real.

As I mentioned previously, historical events cannot really be proven. We use the documents we have to assume, albeit reasonably, that such and such a thing happened.

I wouldn’t try to deny with science, that which transcends the natural order. However, if I saw something that could adequately be explained by science, it would, ipso facto, not be a miracle. If you mean that my belief in miracles must precede a miracle being manifest to me, then I would have to argue that it wouldn’t be very good evidence of the supernatural. It would be like working the idea in my mind that miracles can happen, and then being ready to label something perfectly natural, miraculous, when I witnessed it - it would be something a kin to a child citing ghosts as the cause for a creeky house (having wrought the belief into his mind, before hand).

In order to believe an electron when I see one, I would have to believe that they exist, not necessarily beforehand, but at some time before or during the sight. If I never believe electrons exist, then even when I do see one, I will not believe in them, because I don’t think they exist. The same is with miracles.

I am not saying that you should believe everything you hear that is supernatural, but I’m also saying that you should not dismiss them all simply because it is not in the scope of what we call “natural” science.

Fairy-tale sounding stories don’t provide support for fairy-tale sounding stories. What scientific tests could possibly confirm Our Lady of Guadalupe as legitimate, from our God, representing our Mother, and all while providing evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no malingering took place?

Okay, you have me here. Yet, scientific tests have found that what has happened with Our Lady of Guadalupe is exceedingly strange. The materials that were used to “make” it have not been found on this Earth! Furthermore, tilmas usually only last about two decades, but using carbon dating they have shown that the tilma is about 400 years old. These are techniques that would be used on any other material, so don’t quickly dismiss them. I think that this is evidence enough that something extraordinary has happened here.

I’m not making any blanket claims. I’m just saying, if we can’t have our faith assured in proofs - concrete evidence of the things you’re talking about -, then in what? Well-wishing? Fancy?

One important thing to say is that if our faith could be proven with absolute certainty, it would not be faith.

That said, what we have been trying to tell you this whole time is that very few things can be proven with absolute certainty. And I think you mean “proof with absolute certainty” when you say “concrete evidence”. The things you believe in: how do you know that they were proven to be true? The fact is that for most of the things you believe in, you don’t. The only concrete evidence that an electron exists is to see one. Anything else is testimony.

If evidence doesn’t prove the existence of something, it is not sufficient evidence. We would not accept insufficient evidence as legitimate proof for anything else in the world, but on this magical, unfathomable, supernatural claim - which bears, in the slightest degree, a resemblance to all other supernatural claims from other religions - you think it’s worthy of buying into. You are not so indoctrinated that you don’t know that, by merely wishing something were true, we can forge a belief for it, and a very pervasive one too.

By the standards of empiricism, all evidence is insufficient, but not according to reason. Let me give you an example: At court, a gun is found that has a man’s fingerprints on it and also the blood of the murdered person. Does it prove that he killed the person? Not in the true sense of the word “prove”. The only way to know with certainty is to have been there. But according to reason, it would be sufficient evidence. The gun is enough to allow us to believe that he did it. Our belief that he did it could be true or false. Simply because we don’t know with absolute certainty that he did it doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

An important distinction should be made. “Magical” and “supernatural” are not the same. All magic is supernatural, but not all supernatural things are magical.

 

[Think_About_It]

In order to believe an electron when I see one, I would have to believe that they exist, not necessarily beforehand, but at some time before or during the sight. If I never believe electrons exist, then even when I do see one, I will not believe in them, because I don’t think they exist. The same is with miracles.

If you didn’t first have the belief that electrons exist, and you saw one, whatever you saw would be being distinct from probably everything else you’ve seen in your life - you just wouldn’t call it an electron (for whatever reason). If I didn’t first believe in miracles, and I was alleged to have seen one, whatever I saw would be indistinguishable from nature - I would then wonder why you’d call it a miracle at all. If it was distinguishable from nature, I would see it (I might even call it a miracle). That would not be the case though.

I am not saying that you should believe everything you hear that is supernatural, but I’m also saying that you should not dismiss them all simply because it is not in the scope of what we call “natural” science.

I don’t dismiss miracles first and formost because they don’t concord with natural science. I don’t believe them because I’ve never seen one, I’ve never met a person who has seen one, I’ve never heard persuasive evidence for someone having seen one, and I am acutely aware of the human mind’s ability to confirm what it wants to confirm - even the most outrageous things.

Okay, you have me here. Yet, scientific tests have found that what has happened with Our Lady of Guadalupe is exceedingly strange. The materials that were used to “make” it have not been found on this Earth! Furthermore, tilmas usually only last about two decades, but using carbon dating they have shown that the tilma is about 400 years old. These are techniques that would be used on any other material, so don’t quickly dismiss them. I think that this is evidence enough that something extraordinary has happened here.

It’s just a weighing of the balance of probabilites from here. There is probably more debunking of Our Lady of Guadalupe than there is veneration for. Or maybe there’s equal parts. Maybe there’s just a little, but the debunking is out there. Professional artists have said that it looked drawn, as by human hands; that it was probably a poor rendition of someone elses work; that it was preserved with a chemical… Some have even said that the story was hijacked from another culture. So when I think about the big bad world of myth and how I’ve never seen a miracle, I’ve never met a person who has seen a miracle, andI’ve never heard persuasive evidence for someone having seen one (and this is while I was Christian as well), then I have to go with what I know: that religions icons are easily forged and there’s a lot of debunking of them by scientists and other examiners.

One important thing to say is that if our faith could be proven with absolute certainty, it would not be faith.

That said, what we have been trying to tell you this whole time is that very few things can be proven with absolute certainty. And I think you mean “proof with absolute certainty” when you say “concrete evidence”. The things you believe in: how do you know that they were proven to be true? The fact is that for most of the things you believe in, you don’t. The only concrete evidence that an electron exists is to see one. Anything else is testimony.

I understand. I don’t have the kind of stringency about me in assessing the claims of every day life that I"m putting forth for the purpose of argument; But in my mind, such miracles or icons or whathaveyou are not even loosely evidenced. There are thousands of miracles around the world claimed by hundreds of religions. If you are Christian, you have to believe that only yours are authentic. Given the debunking that goes on (whether you buy it or not), that becomes a very difficult thing to believe. I don’t think you believe it out of arrogance - because you think your religion is better just because; I think that, like everybody else, you’ll confirm what props up your belief-system. In whatever realm it is I conduct my thought, I do the same. Religion, in general though, can be an attractive myth (you need only look past your own to determine that’s true).

I see where you’re coming from, but in the end, for me, It was too exalted a position to maintain, when I know, factually, had I grown up in another culture, I would be reveling in their doctrines and traditions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I see where you’re coming from, but in the end, for me, It was too exalted a position to maintain, when I know, factually, had I grown up in another culture, I would be reveling in their doctrines and traditions.

we can know that Christianity is mathematically true because of the mathematics of Messianic Prophecy. its undeniable

godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html
mayimhayim.org/Apologetics.htm

there are a great many other analysis of these prophecies, both by mathematician Peter Stoner, and in Josh Macdowells 'evidence that demands a verdict. i can provide more but im in a hurry to make an appointment right now

no other religions have this method of verification. therefore we know that all other religions are false because outrs is demonstrably true.

the only denial is to claim a conspiriacy, for which i have never seena n atheist able to deliver evidence of such a conspiracy.

 

[Think_About_It]

we can know that Christianity is mathematically true because of the mathematics of Messianic Prophecy. its undeniable

godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html
mayimhayim.org/Apologetics.htm

there are a great many other analysis of these prophecies, both by mathematician Peter Stoner, and in Josh Macdowells 'evidence that demands a verdict. i can provide more but im in a hurry to make an appointment right now

no other religions have this method of verification. therefore we know that all other religions are false because outrs is demonstrably true.

the only denial is to claim a conspiriacy, for which i have never seena n atheist able to deliver evidence of such a conspiracy.

Haha man, I am not getting into this debate. Those prophecies are so obviously forced into the text to forge credibility. Besides, I’m sure other religions have something they consider better than every other religion too. You havne’t examined them all yet, have you?

 

[tonyrey]

There are good reasons to believe both love and beauty have objective explanations.

You stated :
“They are things either don’t require an objective answer, or don’t have one: love and beauty are really up to me (and when you’re the beholder, they’re up to you).”
Yet now you say “Social necessities of our evolution, no doubt…”
Do you mean we have to imagine they exist in order to live in society? Why are they social necessities?

There are also good reasons to believe justice, freedom, and goodness are not merely concepts but objective facts which are more significant than the laws of nature.

And every other creed and religion says the same thing; it’s just not convincing.

Do you mean justice, freedom, and goodness are illusions?

It’s not necessary because I don’t need objective truth on what love is or where it came from. There are some objective facts I would like to know from science, like medicine, for example. Other things are either subjective (making science unnecessary) or of no personal interest to me.

Your ideas about love are very confused! You seem to believe it exists (somehow), you don’t need to know what it is or where it comes from and yet it is presumably another social necessity of evolution? If so why? These may seem unimportant or uninteresting questions to you but if you have no answer or explanation your interpretation of reality is superficial and you are certainly not entitled to dismiss “every other creed and religion” as a load of nonsensical superstition…

I mean some of the things.

In that case there must be things for which you cannot draw on your immediate experience, or on science, that you trust… For example, your power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe… What do you think science is based on? Itself?

Truth is a bit dense to comment on in this thread alone. I don’t think truth has to be revealed divinely if we can know it at all, if that’s what you’re driving at…

Do you believe truth exists? Can you see it? How would you define it? If you cannot answer these questions your attack on religion has no foundation…

 

[Think_About_It]

You stated :
“They are things either don’t require an objective answer, or don’t have one: love and beauty are really up to me (and when you’re the beholder, they’re up to you).”
Yet now you say “Social necessities of our evolution, no doubt…”
Do you mean we have to imagine they exist in order to live in society? Why are they social necessities?

The first quote is the answer to what (I can define, express, and experience love however I please, and when you’re the beholder, so can you); the second quote is an answer to why (because they would have aided in our evolution).

Do you mean justice, freedom, and goodness are illusions?

No, I think that they’re something; I think that they’re fairly subjective but vastly agreed upon constructs of our own devising though (not completely agreed upon, but the basic tenants are paralleled throughout many cultures)

Your ideas about love are very confused! You seem to believe it exists (somehow), you don’t need to know what it is or where it comes from and yet it is presumably another social necessity of evolution? If so why? These may seem unimportant or uninteresting questions to you but if you have no answer or explanation your interpretation of reality is superficial and you are certainly not entitled to dismiss “every other creed and religion” as a load of nonsensical superstition…

I appologize for all the fine distinctions. While I think the experience of love is subjective, I think that, very objectively, it is required for our survival. Nevertheless, I don’t require a scientific explanation, per se, for love because defining it, or citing its source is less important than experiencing it. It reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis: “It is better to know the feeling of compunction of heart than to be able to define it.” As it is with love. Know what I mean?

In that case there must be things for which you cannot draw on your immediate experience, or on science, that you trust… For example, your power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe… What do you think science is based on? Itself?

If I cannot draw on either my experience or outside inquiry, from what will I draw and why? Not really certain where you’re going with this, or what you mean by “the intelligibility” of the universe." I think science is based on human attempts to observe, define, and predict the physical world in which we live. What specifically do you want to know about my views on this?

Do you believe truth exists? Can you see it? How would you define it? If you cannot answer these questions your attack on religion has no foundation…

I do believe truth exists; I think many truths are manifest through our sense organs and many through our perceptions of the world around us, granted you assume the world around us is acctually there. I guess I would define truth (in rigid terms) as that which is indisputably factual. Of course, we are not omnicient - we are very finite in our cognitive faculties (impressive though they may be) and so truth tends to become that which is indisputably apperent.

 

[Image_of_God]

If you didn’t first have the belief that electrons exist, and you saw one, whatever you saw would be being distinct from probably everything else you’ve seen in your life - you just wouldn’t call it an electron (for whatever reason). If I didn’t first believe in miracles, and I was alleged to have seen one, whatever I saw would be indistinguishable from nature - I would then wonder why you’d call it a miracle at all. If it was distinguishable from nature, I would see it (I might even call it a miracle). That would not be the case though.

That isn’t necessarily the way it works most of the time. If you don’t believe miracles, even if you saw one, you would not believe it. That’s why it takes time for people who did not believe miracles, even after seeing one to come to terms with it. They usually don’t believe in them right away. It’s similar with anything. Think of creationists. Even if you provided them with evidence that leads to something other than creationism, they will not “see” it, because they don’t believe that such a thing exists.

You attest to what we have been trying to point out this whole time. You refuse to believe because you have not seen. And yet, we continue to ask, how many of the things have you not seen and still believe in? The great majority of your beliefs are based on what you haven’t seen. I myself have never seen an electron nor do I know of anyone (for sure) who has seen one (very few people do). Why should I believe in one?

You say that you could easily prove them and therefore believe in them. But this is an act of blind faith and an assumption for someone who has never seen one.

It’s just a weighing of the balance of probabilites from here. There is probably more debunking of Our Lady of Guadalupe than there is veneration for. Or maybe there’s equal parts. Maybe there’s just a little, but the debunking is out there. Professional artists have said that it looked drawn, as by human hands; that it was probably a poor rendition of someone elses work; that it was preserved with a chemical… Some have even said that the story was hijacked from another culture. So when I think about the big bad world of myth and how I’ve never seen a miracle, I’ve never met a person who has seen a miracle, andI’ve never heard persuasive evidence for someone having seen one (and this is while I was Christian as well), then I have to go with what I know: that religions icons are easily forged and there’s a lot of debunking of them by scientists and other examiners.

For every extraordinary thing there are skeptics. Simply because there are skeptics doesn’t disprove anything. If you are sincerely interested in the truth, you ought to look into it. If you are willing to trust, I venture you won’t be disappointed.

It is quite interesting that those who try to disprove Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Shroud of Turin often come up with the outrageous statements. I was reading recently that a person who believes the Shroud of Turin to be a medieval forgery claimed that it was made by some medieval person using photography. The claim is made in light of the fact that the image on the Shroud appears more clearly in photographs. A second face also appears.

I understand. I don’t have the kind of stringency about me in assessing the claims of every day life that I"m putting forth for the purpose of argument; But in my mind, such miracles or icons or whathaveyou are not even loosely evidenced. There are thousands of miracles around the world claimed by hundreds of religions. If you are Christian, you have to believe that only yours are authentic. Given the debunking that goes on (whether you buy it or not), that becomes a very difficult thing to believe. I don’t think you believe it out of arrogance - because you think your religion is better just because; I think that, like everybody else, you’ll confirm what props up your belief-system. In whatever realm it is I conduct my thought, I do the same. Religion, in general though, can be an attractive myth (you need only look past your own to determine that’s true).

The problem in this case is that the miracles I am telling you about are not past time events. They are things that scientists have studied recently and have not found an explanation whatsoever. It’s not just that they haven’t found an explanation, but that they have found very strange things.

I can understand your skepticism. It is not good to believe everything you hear or every miracle that is claimed. But to believe that nothing other than the ordinary can occur is equally as unbalanced. The very existence of the world and the universe attest to that. If you do not believe the creation of the universe (which has “evidence” in science) to be a miracle, then what is? If you do not believe that the creation of living things in general and us humans in particular is a miracle, then what is? Nothing seems more illogical and requiring of more blind faith than the idea that the Earth and the solar system and the universe randomly coming together as orderly as they are (I thank you, by the way, for giving me the benefit of the doubt).

I see where you’re coming from, but in the end, for me, It was too exalted a position to maintain, when I know, factually, had I grown up in another culture, I would be reveling in their doctrines and traditions.

It is impossible to live without doctrines and traditions. Everyone has one, even if you don’t believe in “religion”. You don’t believe in miracles; that is a doctrine of yours. You hold onto it and revel in it as much as any Christian does the belief in miracles.

 

[Think_About_It]

That isn’t necessarily the way it works most of the time. If you don’t believe miracles, even if you saw one, you would not believe it. That’s why it takes time for people who did not believe miracles, even after seeing one to come to terms with it. They usually don’t believe in them right away. It’s similar with anything. Think of creationists. Even if you provided them with evidence that leads to something other than creationism, they will not “see” it, because they don’t believe that such a thing exists.

I think my explanation covers this unless you’re suggesting I’d be in some sort of denial, rubbing my eyes in disbelief. That’s really a potential element of my personality, of which you are not nearly qualified to judge.

You attest to what we have been trying to point out this whole time. You refuse to believe because you have not seen. And yet, we continue to ask, how many of the things have you not seen and still believe in? The great majority of your beliefs are based on what you haven’t seen. I myself have never seen an electron nor do I know of anyone (for sure) who has seen one (very few people do). Why should I believe in one?

You say that you could easily prove them and therefore believe in them. But this is an act of blind faith and an assumption for someone who has never seen one.

In searching out many truths, I have been able to witness them first hand. I am confident in the fact (I’d rather not call it “faith” because it seems to imply, not simply the accepting of something without evidence, but without the potential for evidence either). You and I know that if I earnestly seek to find out scientific truths either by observing them or replicating them, my “faith” will not have been in vain, and I will be able to confirm what I believed without first examining the thing first hand. As for matters of miracles, there is no way of me investigating one first hand or even replicating one (science is not just history; I can determine if the history is accurate or inaccurate by replicating). To even consider believing in miracles, I have to be able to explore not questionable histories surrounded by controversy, but the reality of miracles this very day. It would either not happen (because they’re not distinguishable from nature) or because it would be testing God. Every religious safeguard has been put firmly in place to bolster belief in things for which there is no compelling evidence, even if you try to investigate them: “Oh no, you have to believe first” (So if I don’t believe them, I won’t see them; but If I do believe them, I’ll see them no matter what!); “Oh no, you can’t just ask for a miracle - that would be testing God” (why does God not want people testing Him? is He unable to provide evidence for His existence upon cordial requests?)

For every extraordinary thing there are skeptics. Simply because there are skeptics doesn’t disprove anything. If you are sincerely interested in the truth, you ought to look into it. If you are willing to trust, I venture you won’t be disappointed.

You have broken that promise retrospectively. I have looked, and I have been disappointed. I’ve tried all of the things that people suggest to feel or to see or to take heart in those things for which faith intially lacks. I’ve tried forgetting about the whole thing and just praying earnestly everyday. Years of getting no signal is quite enough after some time.

It is quite interesting that those who try to disprove Our Lady of Guadalupe or the Shroud of Turin often come up with the outrageous statements. I was reading recently that a person who believes the Shroud of Turin to be a medieval forgery claimed that it was made by some medieval person using photography. The claim is made in light of the fact that the image on the Shroud appears more clearly in photographs. A second face also appears.

What’s outrageous about the statements? That it’s so far from the story you love to hear? Do you believe the artist who examined the item was lying about the traces of creative human effort (what appeared to be an outline to later paint it)? Do you think the person analyzing the chemicals that preserved it was lying about the chemicals he found? I don’t know. If there are no natural explanations for things, I tend to think it is a testament to my igorance and not evidence of supernaturalism. If there are natural explanations, then I definitely consider them. It wouldn’t be surprising if the miracle was forged though. You see pictures of jesus and mary in waffers and pizza slices, oil-stained driveways, and anything you can think of. And you can just imagine how American the features of these aparations are when the alleged miracles happen in America.

 

[Think_About_It]

The problem in this case is that the miracles I am telling you about are not past time events. They are things that scientists have studied recently and have not found an explanation whatsoever. It’s not just that they haven’t found an explanation, but that they have found very strange things.

What scientists? What are they studying and how?

I can understand your skepticism. It is not good to believe everything you hear or every miracle that is claimed. But to believe that nothing other than the ordinary can occur is equally as unbalanced.

I believe in unordinary things, and I would believe in miracles if I saw good evidence for one. If God plants miracles among his people, he certainly doesn’t want them to be free of reasonable doubt or controversy. Certainly doesn’t want them to be obvious. Then what’s the point? Those who are already faithful will continue to be edified, and those who aren’t will continue to be incredulous.

The very existence of the world and the universe attest to that. If you do not believe the creation of the universe (which has “evidence” in science) to be a miracle, then what is? If you do not believe that the creation of living things in general and us humans in particular is a miracle, then what is?

Something that would leave no doubt in the mind of even the staunchest atheist. These miracles are no-doubt aimed at making an appeal to faith, the greatest beneficient of whom are the believers, not those who are lagging (like me).

Nothing seems more illogical and requiring of more blind faith than the idea that the Earth and the solar system and the universe randomly coming together as orderly as they are (I thank you, by the way, for giving me the benefit of the doubt).

It’s a pretty subjective assessment. We happen to be pretty impressed with the order that did form, but if it was different, I’m sure it would be well impressive. It’s not a matter of ill-logic, and it’s not a matter of randomness. The universe didn’t develope the way it did by chance, but by incremental probabilites, none of which were prohibitively unlikely.

It is impossible to live without doctrines and traditions. Everyone has one, even if you don’t believe in “religion”. You don’t believe in miracles; that is a doctrine of yours. You hold onto it and revel in it as much as any Christian does the belief in miracles.

Not really. I don’t have a preference for whether there is a God or miracles or not. I just don’t see the evidence for them. I don’t have a policy against them, if that’s what you mean. It’s not my first premise. My experience is, and if I have to appeal to every other believers special revelations to gain faith, I should wonder if God wants me to believe at all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Haha man, I am not getting into this debate. Those prophecies are so obviously forced into the text to forge credibility.

then they must have had a time travel machine, because the dead sea scrolls are carbon dated prior to Christ.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

as you can see, your contention here that they were forged is impossible.

Besides, I’m sure other religions have something they consider better than every other religion too. You havne’t examined them all yet, have you?

they dont have this sort of mathematical proof and ive looked.

 

[Magnanimity]

I agree and I do help poverty within my means. If I would not do so, you would be quite all right to call me a selfish person, and also a hypocrite.

R Daneel, my apologies for not being able to respond more promptly, alas the duties of famIly and work. But enough about me… My original point in bringing up the Peter Singer argument was to show that we are all really equipped (esp in the West!) to be co-participators in good acts, whether we’re assisting God or not.

Unfortunately I don’t buy the “self-evident in itself”. If something is not self-evident to us (to someone), then it is not self-evident. Some complicated mathematical proof might be self-evident to a highly trained mathematician, but it is not self-evident to a layperson. You are also correct, unsupported faith carries no weight for me. If the belief (faith) can be supported to some degree in a rational manner, that would be a different issue.

I think that in the above you illustrated St Thomas’ distinction while trying to deny it. Your mathematical example is exactly what he was getting at. And as regards faith, those beliefs ‘which can be supported in some way in a rational manner’ is precisely how most Catholics would think of “faith.” But, I’ve somewhat steeped myself in the scholastic tradition, so I may be unrealistically biased here. I doubt that though, as we’ve more recent examples of writings by prominent Catholics on the unity of faith and reason (see the two most recent popes as excellent examples of deep spirituality combined with deep intellectual rigor).

I am sure about that. The difference is “what” constitutes blind faith? This is where the disagreement will happen.

I continue to use Richard Dawkins’ amateurish definition of “faith,” as the best formulation of what is really “blind faith,” - Dawkins says that faith is the belief in something without any evidence. To my mind, that’s a textbook definition of “blind faith.”

If you permit me a little change: “all beliefs SHOULD have a rational basis”.

Fair enough. I cannot argue with that.

Correct. Now, can you tell me the fundamental difference between the testimonial evidence of science and religion? Please do so, because it is very important.

Testimonially, I see no difference in the epistemic support of either type of belief, due to the historical nature of Christ, etc. However, one would have to grant, and I do, the very important difference in the subject matter of theology/religion and that of science. If theology has as its primary subject the supernatural, and yet the sciences have as their subject matter the natural world, therein lies an essential difference. But, this does not get at any essential difference in epistemic justification, because in both areas, many beliefs are going to remain testimonially grounded.

I don’t call the religious faith - in toto - blind, only certain parts of it, especially the assertion that God is benevolent. If you look around the world, can you quote me something fully rational (no theological underpinning) to support this? If you would look at the world with the skeptic’s eye, you see millions of instances when God could have intervened, or even better, prevented…

ok, well if “good” is a positive property which can be exemplified by any intelligent being, and if “evil” is a privation of some good, as Catholic theologians have argued, and further, God can be argued to be purely actual (no privations/potentiality), infinite Being (as has been argued by many), there we have rational support for the belief that God is benevolent.

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

In that specific context, if one reads the entire passage (which is always recommended when reading prose/narrative), it is fairly plain that Christ’s words are a bit of a rebuke to Thomas’ own attitude of “unless I see the holes in his hands and touch the hole in his side, I will not believe…” in other instances, Christ exhorts his disciples and those of John the Baptist to believe on the basis of the “works,” the miracles, themselves.

In the spirit of what I said above, I am making the stronger charge. But! I am willing to change my mind, if some fully rational and secular explanation comes around. There is a good “doctrine”: always argue on your opponent’s playing field. If you would happen to argue with a Protestant, argue on the basis of Sola Scriptura, because that is the only field he would accept as valid. If you happen to argue with an atheist, argue in a fully secular manner. Don’t bring up the Bible, don’t bring up the Cathecism, because those “playing” fields are not acceptable. However, a good, secular argument will help you to convince your opponent.

I agree completely. That’s one reason why I appealed to Peter Singer rather than Mother Teresa or Pope John Paul II. And why above, I offer a scholastic argument for God’s goodness, rather than quote the Scriptures. I wouldn’t go overboard though, in these respects. They are religious beliefs and so occupy a unique place among the overall corpus of one’s beliefs in that they are bolstered by both theology and philosophy, religious poetry and history. I think that to overemphasize the secular or sacred support in these discussions would be a crucial mistake.

 

[Think_About_It]

then they must have had a time travel machine, because the dead sea scrolls are carbon dated prior to Christ.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

as you can see, your contention here that they were forged is impossible.

they dont have this sort of mathematical proof and ive looked.

I think it was the NT events that were forged, as many of these supposed mathematical prophecies seem not to be refering to Jesus at all. Yeah, some theologians will say “a script can have a many layered meaning!” He might as well add on, “including our Christian agenda!” So forgive me for scoffing, but only in the world of religion would we allow for a statement or verse being that flexible in meaning. It’s foolishness.

 

[tonyrey]

Think About It;6355204:

You stated :
“They are things either don’t require an objective answer, or don’t have one: love and beauty are really up to me (and when you’re the beholder, they’re up to you).”
Yet now you say “Social necessities of our evolution, no doubt…”
Do you mean we have to imagine they exist in order to live in society? Why are they social necessities?

The first quote is the answer to what (I can define, express, and experience love however I please, and when you’re the beholder, so can you)…

Do you mean the definition, expression and experience of love is totally different for each person? We certainly express our love in different ways but we cannot do it by torturing, mutilating or killing some one! Doesn’t love imply a desire for, and efforts to ensure, the welfare and happiness of others?

… the second quote is an answer to why (because they would have aided in our evolution).

I still don’t understand how subjective experiences can be social necessities unless they are based on objective facts. A social necessity suggests a relationship between individuals which exists beyond the mind.

Do you mean justice, freedom, and goodness are illusions?

No, I think that they’re something; I think that they’re fairly subjective but vastly agreed upon constructs of our own devising though (not completely agreed upon, but the basic tenets are paralleled throughout many cultures).

“fairly” suggests an objective element. So does the fact that the basic tenets are found in many cultures - which can hardly be a coincidence. Could they be truths that are discovered rather than constructed? We soon discover when we lose our freedom, are treated unjustly or suffer as the result of evil…

I apologize for all the fine distinctions.

No need… far better than being vague!

While I think the experience of love is subjective, I think that, very objectively, it is required for our survival. Nevertheless, I don’t require a scientific explanation, per se, for love because defining it, or citing its source is less important than experiencing it. It reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis: “It is better to know the feeling of compunction of heart than to be able to define it.” As it is with love. Know what I mean?

I understand and agree but “less important” does not mean unimportant. Love cannot be irrelevant to the OP because it is one of the most important aspects of reality (if not the most). It is subjective with regard to thoughts, feelings and decisions but objective with regard to actions and consequences. Like justice, freedom, and goodness it exists whether we recognise it or not. Denying that they exist doesn’t make them disappear!

If I cannot draw on either my experience or outside inquiry, from what will I draw and why?

From the testimony of others and the principles on which all knowledge is based.
What is science based on - apart from observation?

Not really certain where you’re going with this, or what you mean by “the intelligibility” of the universe.

"
I mean we can understand a lot about its physical and chemical structure but it need not be so. We could be like animals which know nothing about atomic particles or evolution. It is also possible the universe could be so disorderly that very intelligent persons could not make sense of it.

I think science is based on human attempts to observe, define, and predict the physical world in which we live. What specifically do you want to know about my views on this?

Because they are directly related to the OP.

I do believe truth exists; I think many truths are manifest through our sense organs and many through our perceptions of the world around us, granted you assume the world around us is actually there.

It is an assumption that is very difficult to dispense with. I’m glad you leave a loophole, implying that there are other truths apart from that which we observe.

I guess I would define truth (in rigid terms) as that which is indisputably factual.

That doesn’t take us very far because the truth is composed of facts! So we have to ask what a fact is…

Of course, we are not omniscient - we are very finite in our cognitive faculties (impressive though they may be) and so truth tends to become that which is indisputably apparent.

There are very good reasons to believe we get beyond appearances, the success of science being one of them. And what about ourselves? Is our knowledge of our thoughts only apparent? Surely our knowledge is based on our thoughts…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think it was the NT events that were forged,

do you have any evidence for this at all?

not just the claim that it is possible. but actual evidence of forgery?

as many of these supposed mathematical prophecies seem not to be refering to Jesus at all.

let me know which ones. there are mountains of discussion on the topic. there are some very specific ones that apply to Jesus. i would think one can only make that claim by cherry picking a few out of context.

Yeah, some theologians will say “a script can have a many layered meaning!” He might as well add on, “including our Christian agenda!” So forgive me for scoffing, but only in the world of religion would we allow for a statement or verse being that flexible in meaning. It’s foolishness.

im not sure what you are refering to here. other than some supposed Christain agenda. but then Christianity was illegal for the first few centuries, what possible agenda could people have to get themselves tortured to death? how does that benefit them if its a lie? and if you say they were fooled then the same thing applies to the Apostles and their followers. what motivation would those people have had to suffer for decades as slaves, prisoners, outcasts, poor and frequently assaulted? they did it because they lived with Christ and saw His work themselves. even if Christ did it all by sleight of hand, when the Apostles began to work ‘miracles’ if ti were only sleight of hand, why would they suffer for a lifetime and then die as martyrs?

even modern cultists dont really suffer for their beliefs for decades and then die by torture. they just commit suicide. usually painlessly. and they never suffer as slaves or prisoners, or being stoned, etc.

you would need some really strong evidence and motivation to even begin to make that case.

do you have any evidence for this agenda at all?