Reason or Faith? (moved)

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Awesome.





Awesome.



No.

When you speak of the laws of physics and biology, you are referencing what is generally referred to as the "laws of nature". This term is a generic and broad term which encompasses such things like the laws of physics which you mentioned.

These natural laws are simply descriptions of what happens within the universe i.e, they predict what will happen in a closed system. A closed system is one in which there is no causal input into it from the outside. Nothing outside the system is causing something to happen.

But what if a supernatural agent intervenes and causes something to happen (a miracle) which does not lie within the productive power of the things in the universe?

Are the laws violated in such a case?

Yes. Supernatural literally means "beyond natural". If a supernatural agent causes something to happen in the natural world, then yes, it is violating the laws of the natural realm with something beyond natural. That is what we mean by "supernatural". If it didn't violate the natural realm, it would be "natural".

No. The laws of nature are not violated because they only predict what would happen in the absence of any sort of divine intervention.

That is not something stated in natural la. Divine intervention would certainly violate natural law. Otherwise, the divine would be part of natural law.

The scientific laws have implicit in them ceteris paribus conditions, i.e. they predict what will happen all things being equal. So if there is no causal input into this system from without, these naturals laws are descriptions of how the universe will operate.

If there is causal input from outside of the system, these natural laws are not violated after all, for the the law has built into it these implicit conditions.

Okay. But the natural law depends on "all things being equal". Once supernatural agents make things "unequal" the law is violated.

To conclude, a miracle such as a man rising bodily from the dead or a man walking on water, is not an instance of a violation of the laws of nature. Rather a miracle is an event which does not lie within the productive power of nature, and this points us to a supernatural agent.

As you're trying to convince me that a man has risen from the dead, that's circular.

I would be skeptical and look for evidence that would lend support to your claim, which incidentally, is what one will find if they look for this in Jesus' case.

I don't understand. Why would you be skeptical? Are you saying you don't believe me? I was simply be walking on water. You don't need to look for evidence, I'm telling you.

Your hypothetical and the gospel accounts of the miraculous are not analogous. Your claim is not attended by other miracles. Your claim is not attended by multiple independent eyewitness accounts. You are making the claim on an internet forum, not as a first century Jew whose birth was foretold by prophets long before. Your claim does not come out of a first century Judaistic socio-historical context in which the long awaited messiah was expected to finally come.

They don't need to be analogous. Here, I'll let you in on a secret: I can fly too. Either you accept my claim, or you do not.

There are many things that differentiate you from Jesus and thus, even though you may make the same claims Jesus made, your claims do not carry the same weight as His.


I don't understand. You don't believe that I can walk on water, but you show absolutely no skepticism that I've seen the birth of a child? What gives?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
But this fact, by itself, does not disprove the existence of the supernatural. You are still operating from a presuppositional bias. We all do this, of course, so I'm not criticizing you. I am merely wanting to clarify that you have such a bias in operation in your thinking.

I'm not trying to disprove the supernatural. But I cannot put supernatural processes into play without having a reason to do so. I do not yet have a reason to do so. Doing so would also be operating from a presuppositional bias.

But it seems you're assuming here that positing a supernatural Creator precludes a study of the processes and stuff of the universe He has created. I can look at a car and understand that it has a designer, but why should that prevent me from studying its design and figuring out how it works? Doing so might even give me some insight into the nature of the car's designer...

But a car's designer isn't supernatural (except for the 2005 Kia Serento, that design came straight from hell itself!).

Yes, I do.

Is there a reason that could not apply here?
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Not initially. We start with a Supreme Being. Then we examine who this Supreme Being could possibly be.

Or what it could be. When you say "who" you're already leading me down a road I can't agree to explore yet.

We need to eliminate first the completing explanations for the resurrection to who how those explanations fall short. The one examines the many circumstances surrounding the resurrection claim and answer the question as to what is the best explanation given the evidence. But dealing with the objections comes first.

That's fine. But does it offer evidence that the resurrection itself happened as claimed, or just dismantle alternate claims?
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I should add that I'm not trying to be a pain. I'm really trying to find some sort of faith, but with all of the questions that bounce around my head, I find no comfort in it. I worry that I never will. I'm not the kind of person who can turn their brain off to this sort of thing.

I should add that I would also rather not be discussing this on here, and I'm trying to find local pastors, ministers or priests to talk to about it in person, but I haven't had any bites yet.

So thanks for being patient.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Or what it could be. When you say "who" you're already leading me down a road I can't agree to explore yet.

That works for a start: what



That's fine. But does it offer evidence that the resurrection itself happened as claimed, or just dismantle alternate claims?

J Warner Wallace and Habermas both deal with positive evidence for the resurrection. If I claimed someone rose from the dead, and another person simply pointed to where the body was, case closed. But if I claimed someone rose from the dead, and the body is gone, there are several possibilities. One is that someone stole the body. Another is that someone moved the body. But at least one possibility is that someone actually came back to life after being dead. (another is that they weren't dead in the first place). You don't survive the kind of beating and death the Romans delivered. They were expert in killing. It would have been impossible to steal or move the body of someone when there were guards whose sole purpose was to prevent such.

Habermas deals with all the alternate claims but then outlines the positive reasons to consider the veracity of the resurrection story. One mistake would be to take each argument for the resurrection separately. It's a cumulative case and when you put all the facts together, you have to go with what best explains the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I should add that I'm not trying to be a pain. I'm really trying to find some sort of faith, but with all of the questions that bounce around my head, I find no comfort in it. I worry that I never will. I'm not the kind of person who can turn their brain off to this sort of thing.

I should add that I would also rather not be discussing this on here, and I'm trying to find local pastors, ministers or priests to talk to about it in person, but I haven't had any bites yet.

So thanks for being patient.
You're not a pain. You ask good questions and these are the kind of discussions I enjoy. If the Christian faith can't stand up to tough questions then it's not worth believing. IMO.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Here are some resources on the resurrection. I've seen the video, worth watching as an intro to the minimalist facts view:
Here is an essay by Habermas on the minimalist facts methodology on the resurrection:
Evidence for the resurrection:
Here is a search on J Warner Wallace's site on the resurrection:
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not trying to disprove the supernatural. But I cannot put supernatural processes into play without having a reason to do so. I do not yet have a reason to do so. Doing so would also be operating from a presuppositional bias.

I think you have to put the supernatural right at the beginning of all things. "Ex nihilo, nihilo fit." Out of nothing, nothing comes. But we have the universe. What, then, brought it into being? It had to have been caused by something. And simple deductive reasoning leads us to a personal, timeless, immaterial, and incredibly powerful First Cause - very much like the supernatural God described in the Bible.

But a car's designer isn't supernatural (except for the 2005 Kia Serento, that design came straight from hell itself!).

You've missed my point. You suggested that positing a (supernatural) Creator precludes scientific investigation and my analogy was offered, not to argue for the supernatural, but to illustrate that knowing a designer exists does not preclude investigating his design. I might also add that being able to explain how a car operates, does not negate the existence of its designer. In the same way, being able to offer scientific explanations of the processes and material stuff of the universe does not necessarily negate the existence of its Creator.

Is there a reason that could not apply here?

Can confirmation be at play in our discussion? Maybe. But on whose side? In regards to what claims do you believe confirmation bias is at work?

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes. Supernatural literally means "beyond natural". If a supernatural agent causes something to happen in the natural world, then yes, it is violating the laws of the natural realm with something beyond natural. That is what we mean by "supernatural". If it didn't violate the natural realm, it would be "natural".



That is not something stated in natural la. Divine intervention would certainly violate natural law. Otherwise, the divine would be part of natural law.



Okay. But the natural law depends on "all things being equal". Once supernatural agents make things "unequal" the law is violated.



As you're trying to convince me that a man has risen from the dead, that's circular.



I don't understand. Why would you be skeptical? Are you saying you don't believe me? I was simply be walking on water. You don't need to look for evidence, I'm telling you.



They don't need to be analogous. Here, I'll let you in on a secret: I can fly too. Either you accept my claim, or you do not.





I don't understand. You don't believe that I can walk on water, but you show absolutely no skepticism that I've seen the birth of a child? What gives?

I don't believe you can walk on water because you have given me no reason to think you can other than your word. Now if multiple independent witnesses said you did then I would be persuaded to look deeper into the matter. I also know you have said what you have said because you are trying to prove a point as opposed to attempting to report something that you in fact have actually done.

With regards to your having witnessed the birth of a child, I don't really have any reason to believe you are lying about it.
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I don't believe you can walk on water because you have given me no reason to think you can other than your word. Now if multiple independent witnesses said you did then I would be persuaded to look deeper into the matter. I also know you have said what you have said because you are trying to prove a point as opposed to attempting to report something that you in fact have actually done.

You're right, I forgot to mention that my buddy Devon has witnessed me do it several times. The lifeguards at the pool where I practice have mostly all seen me do it. There's a woman who was at the pool one day saw it.

I was trying to make a point. What do you think it is?

With regards to your having witnessed the birth of a child, I don't really have any reason to believe you are lying about it.

But you believe I'm lying when I say I can walk on water? What's the difference between the two claims?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I think you have to put the supernatural right at the beginning of all things. "Ex nihilo, nihilo fit." Out of nothing, nothing comes. But we have the universe. What, then, brought it into being? It had to have been caused by something. And simple deductive reasoning leads us to a personal, timeless, immaterial, and incredibly powerful First Cause - very much like the supernatural God described in the Bible.

Whoa. What simple deductive reasoning achieves that?

You've missed my point. You suggested that positing a (supernatural) Creator precludes scientific investigation and my analogy was offered, not to argue for the supernatural, but to illustrate that knowing a designer exists does not preclude investigating his design. I might also add that being able to explain how a car operates, does not negate the existence of its designer. In the same way, being able to offer scientific explanations of the processes and material stuff of the universe does not necessarily negate the existence of its Creator.

I'm not following. I'm not getting past the car analogy. What can we learn about the designer of a car from looking at the car - assuming we've only ever seen one car.

Can confirmation be at play in our discussion? Maybe. But on whose side? In regards to what claims do you believe confirmation bias is at work?

No, I mean when we start using the phrase "you must believe to see" isn't that confirmation bias waiting to happen?
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Whoa. What simple deductive reasoning achieves that?

Well, there's the 3-step syllogism of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1.) Whatever begins to exist had a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

What is the nature of such a cause? We know that before the moment of the Big Bang there was no time, space, matter or energy. So, whatever produced all these things had to have been transcendent to them. The First Cause of the universe, then, would have to be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. It is obvious, too, that to supply the enormous amounts of energy that exist in the universe the First Cause must itself have been incredibly powerful. As well, the First Cause of the universe must have been personal. Consider the following quotation:

"there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation" (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3).

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-t...ersonal-creator-of-the-universe#ixzz3hTroJ8BS


So it is that we can arrive through simple deduction to the conclusion of a First Cause of the Universe that is remarkably like the God revealed in the Bible. And this argument is only one such argument among a great many!

I'm not following. I'm not getting past the car analogy. What can we learn about the designer of a car from looking at the car - assuming we've only ever seen one car.

Really? You can't think of anything at all that might be discerned about the designer of a car by studying his design? How about his creativity? Or his rationality? Or his concern for practicality? Why would these things not be evident to some degree in the nature of his design of the car?

No, I mean when we start using the phrase "you must believe to see" isn't that confirmation bias waiting to happen?

As I understand it, "confirmation bias" is the tendency to look for evidence which confirms what one already believes is true but reject any opposing evidence. If I was wanting to indulge such a bias, I would not spend time on this subforum talking to atheist after atheist who level every sort of disparaging criticism and counter-argument one could imagine to the things I believe as a Christian. :) In any case, I'm not convinced that believing first in order to see is indulging intellectual or philosophical myopia. "Believing in order to see" is essentially exercising faith, which one must do in a variety of mundane ways every day. When I use public transit, or mail a letter, or have a dentist work on my teeth, or sit in an unfamiliar chair I am "believing before I see." I have no perfect guarantee that the bus will get me where I want to go, or that my letter won't get lost by the postal service, or the dentist won't do a shoddy job on my teeth, or the chair won't collapse when I sit on it. In order to find out if these things will operate the way I believe they will, I must exercise faith in them, trust myself to them in one way or another. Only then will I see if my faith in them was warranted.

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Well, there's the 3-step syllogism of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1.) Whatever begins to exist had a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

What is the nature of such a cause? We know that before the moment of the Big Bang there was no time, space, matter or energy. So, whatever produced all these things had to have been transcendent to them. The First Cause of the universe, then, would have to be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. It is obvious, too, that to supply the enormous amounts of energy that exist in the universe the First Cause must itself have been incredibly powerful. As well, the First Cause of the universe must have been personal. Consider the following quotation:

"there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation" (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3).


Lost me there. How is it that the creator must be personal?

So it is that we can arrive through simple deduction to the conclusion of a First Cause of the Universe that is remarkably like the God revealed in the Bible. And this argument is only one such argument among a great many!

Again, you lose me at the end.

Really? You can't think of anything at all that might be discerned about the designer of a car by studying his design? How about his creativity? Or his rationality? Or his concern for practicality? Why would these things not be evident to some degree in the nature of his design of the car?

Looking at the car? How do we scale creativity? Rational in comparison to what? How is the car practical, and for whom?

As I understand it, "confirmation bias" is the tendency to look for evidence which confirms what one already believes is true but reject any opposing evidence.

Not exactly. Confirmation bias is also the tendency to elevate the importance of evidence which confirms your hypothesis, and downplay the evidence that does not. It can also be to create links between perceived evidence, and the objective that are not there, or has a simpler explanation.

If I was wanting to indulge such a bias, I would not spend time on this subforum talking to atheist after atheist who level every sort of disparaging criticism and counter-argument one could imagine to the things I believe as a Christian. :) In any case, I'm not convinced that believing first in order to see is indulging intellectual or philosophical myopia. "Believing in order to see" is essentially exercising faith, which one must do in a variety of mundane ways every day. When I use public transit, or mail a letter, or have a dentist work on my teeth, or sit in an unfamiliar chair I am "believing before I see." I have no perfect guarantee that the bus will get me where I want to go, or that my letter won't get lost by the postal service, or the dentist won't do a shoddy job on my teeth, or the chair won't collapse when I sit on it. In order to find out if these things will operate the way I believe they will, I must exercise faith in them, trust myself to them in one way or another. Only then will I see if my faith in them was warranted.

That's all true, but you certainly wouldn't get on a bus in New York believing it would take you to London. You wouldn't bring your letter to a trash collector if you want it delivered. You wouldn't go to a optometrist to fix your teeth. You wouldn't sit on a cardboard box with the expectation it will hold you up.

There is also the difference of each of these examples having a definitive and objective answer. If the bus doesn't take you to your destination it is a failure. If your destination is simply a "nice place" then your destination is far more subjective. And this is the problem, things that can be seen only by those who believe tend to be subjective and left to interpretation, confirmation bias, and cognitive disonance. Things that are objective can be seen by anyone.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
You're right, I forgot to mention that my buddy Devon has witnessed me do it several times. The lifeguards at the pool where I practice have mostly all seen me do it. There's a woman who was at the pool one day saw it.

When did Devon witness these instances of you walking on water? When did the lifeguards witness this? What are their names? When did the woman see you do it? What is her name? I am interested in getting to the bottom of the matter and would like to gather as much information as possible the same way I have investigated the gospel accounts. I have more questions when these are answered.

I was trying to make a point. What do you think it is?

The point you were trying to make was that if I do not believe you can walk on water, then why do I believe Jesus did.

To which I will answer as I have before...

You are not Jesus. You are a person on an internet forum who will say that they have walked on water to see how I will respond, not because you are attempting to report something that has actually taken place, which is what the gospel writers were doing.



But you believe I'm lying when I say I can walk on water? What's the difference between the two claims?

One claim is a claim to have done something which the natural order of things has no power to produce i.e. a miracle. The other is not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Lost me there. How is it that the creator must be personal?

Shall I repost the quotation? It seemed pretty clear to me...

Looking at the car? How do we scale creativity? Rational in comparison to what? How is the car practical, and for whom?

All of your questions are quite beside my point, which was that there are some things that can be discerned about a designer from the nature of his design. Are you flatly denying this is possible? Or are you just throwing out some red herrings?

That's all true, but you certainly wouldn't get on a bus in New York believing it would take you to London. You wouldn't bring your letter to a trash collector if you want it delivered. You wouldn't go to a optometrist to fix your teeth. You wouldn't sit on a cardboard box with the expectation it will hold you up.

And your point is?

There is also the difference of each of these examples having a definitive and objective answer. If the bus doesn't take you to your destination it is a failure. If your destination is simply a "nice place" then your destination is far more subjective. And this is the problem, things that can be seen only by those who believe tend to be subjective and left to interpretation, confirmation bias, and cognitive disonance. Things that are objective can be seen by anyone.

Again, I'm not really getting your point. How does what you're saying here relate to the point I was making with my analogy?

Selah.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
And what evidence is that belief based on?

It could be anything from the Bible, to extra-biblical support for the resurrection, to nature, to answered prayers, to the testimonies of others, to a personal experience, to proofs of God's existence, to changed lives.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,598
Hudson
✟281,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
And if, upon examination, the evidence presented is not sufficient to warrant the high level of confidence one has in that belief, the appropriate word for that would be...

The appropriate response would be to adjust your confidence level accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This isn't a good analogy to faith. You are talking about confidence, which may or may not be justified. If you walked into the dentist's office and saw that his diploma was from Clown College, your confidence in his skill as a dentist would lessen. If a chair that appeared sturdy suddenly collapsed when someone sat on it, you wouldn't maintain that the chair is sturdy, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Your confidence in the chair would decrease. When you send mail through the postal service, you do so knowing, from experience, that your mail will be delivered most of the time. If your mail was always getting lost, then your confidence in the postal service would decrease. In each of these instances, you have a good reason to believe something to be true, and you reconsider your beliefs when evidence suggests that you ought to.

Two things: 1.) Only the OP should be posting to the responses he/she receives in his/her thread. If you want a discussion on the KCA, start your own thread.

2.) I was not talking primarily about confidence. As I said, I never have a perfect guarantee that what I believe will happen when I do the things I described actually will happen. Inasmuch as this is so, I must exercise faith (which entails confidence in some degree but is not entirely confined to it) in my belief concerning what I expect to happen. Just as I have good reason to trust my mail to the postal service, or believe the bus will arrive at its proper destination, or have faith in the skills of my dentist, I have good reason to believe, trust and put my faith in God.

If you want to chew on how God exists outside of time and the coherency of describing God as transcendent, then I would forward you to the following website:

www.reasonablefaith.org

Dr. Craig has done a much better job of answering the questions you've asked than I could do. If you want the best answers to your questions, refer to his website.

Selah.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Which to follow?
We are saved, not by reason, but by faith.

The reason this is so, is because God did not give us a mind to seek him, but gave spiritual gifts. It is the spirit within a person that hopes for more, beyond reason. But hope is of the body, and faith is of the spirit, so even when all hope is gone, faith perseveres. Reason, even with hope leads to death, but hope with faith leads to life. Reason is why. Faith is how.
 
Upvote 0