I see what you did there.
First, he said he has no view or opinion on something... and then gave his opinion.
I can see why he would have been laughed out for making contradictory claims.
I made this thread to see what Christians views were on atheists. That first thing you said has no relevancy.
You have a specific view or opinion on God. Just as Bohr had a specific view or opinion on photons. Both you and Bohr think that your respective objects of interest don't exist. That is your view.
If you had no opinion on the existence of God you would not have made this thread, you would not have joined this website and you would not have learned anything about Christianity. You would be opinionless and apathetic towards the subject. For example, I doubt you have tried to seek out forums devoted entirely to gojdiunnkzk because you have no opinion of gojdiunnkzk.
I wouldn't call them "mine", per se, as they are the scientific community's reality. The reality of demonstrable proof and data.
What if members of the scientific community disagree? The scientific community is far, far, far from homogeneous. You have your own reality and it is distinct from specific members of the scientific community. The scientific community's view of reality is based on the democratic notion that majority rules. You have put reality in a box of demonstrable proof and data and you BELIEVE that this is reality. Perhaps parts of reality can not be demonstrably proven. For example, can the subjective experience of love be demonstrably proven? How? Can consciousness be demonstrably proven? See
Philosophical zombie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Demonstrable proof" still has to be perceived and interpreted by somebody, namely you. You seem to think that the scientific method is perfectly objective in its interpretations of data. This is horribly false. People are involved, so it is not objective.
If you wish to hold views outside those, that's your right, but I wouldn't go equating science's views with "everyone's" and then saying, "We all exist in our own fluid reality."
I didn't equate science's views with everyone's. ???
That's the best part. Things change to fit our current understanding.
Science says, "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from it"?
Christianity says, "Here is the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?"
This is the hallmark of science and is very useful as a tool for establishing functional theories. But, by the definition you gave of "facts", science does not have facts. I would more accurately reword your statement as:
"Science says, "Here are the observations and interpretations of data. What conclusions can we draw from it?""
Those interpretations of data can often change quite radically. And as such, the interpretation of the observations themselves can change. A good example is the realization of the wave-particle duality of matter. The moment an electron was noted to behave as a wave, the interpretation of an electron as a purely particle phenomena had to be shifted. The entire nature of how we do experiments and the implications of our experiments had to change. Did the "facts" change? You said yourself that a fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case." So obviously, science did not have the facts when it thought an electron was purely a particle. What makes you certain that science now has the true "facts" since discovering the wave-particle duality?
Christianity says, "Here is the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?"
This is true of the Christian who has not really experienced anything that they would attribute to God. This is true of the Christian who was raised that way and applies the label due primarily to upbringing, culture or expectation. This is true of the Christian who believes what their parents tell them.
Believe it or not, I thought all Christians were like this. Then I got to know a bunch of Christians and realized that almost no Christians are like this. Most adult Christians have had intense experiences that cannot be justified by purely scientific materialism. These experiences are subjective but nonetheless they comprise the body of 'evidence' for which the Christian bases their faith.
No one wakes up one day with the conclusion, "God is real" and then sets about proving it. It is more likely that they have some sort of intense experiences (aka subjective evidence) that, to them, cannot be justified or adequately explained by strict materialism. After the experience, they may begin seeking God more actively in every day life. And often their experiences intensify and their conviction of the reality of God grows.
This is a logical fallacy, I agree. But you said the definition of a fact was "a truth known by actual experience or observation." So your definition basically begged me to make the fallacy. What I said was not false: Billions of people have experienced or observed God and God's nature. The wording of your definition makes no mention of who needs to be making the observations and having the experiences.
I would suggest rewording your definition of "fact" to add the qualifier:
"3. a truth known by actual experience or observation
by my own senses"
OR perhaps
"3. a truth known by actual experience or observation
by the scientific community. "
This rewording gets rid of the nasty thing known as subjective testimony. But the first option it also leads to all sorts of problems in that anything's existence can be questioned so long as the subjective observer (you) has not experienced it.
The second option assumes the scientific community to be objective, trustworthy, unbiased, objective and without an agenda. And if you are being honest and if you know anything about research and funding, then you know that the scientific community can get nasty when it comes to getting funding. And usually funding does not continue if you repeatedly get no results. This is an impetus for a researcher to get results. Perhaps even 'skewed results'.
Christians swap definitions around all the time. It was to try and separate.
"I hit my finger with the hammer." - Actual experience
"I felt something chilly pass over me and all the windows and doors were closed." - Experience
I can demonstrate and/or replicate an actual experience for you, by hitting your finger.
You can't demonstrate and/or replicate an experience for me, by chilly passing me.
First of all, your hammer example involves a physical object and pain receptors. The second example involves a (potential) non-physical entity and an emotional response.
Lets say I love my spouse very much. I love her to bits. But you don't love her. And I cannot, by any means, replicate this love for her to you. There is no way I can demonstrate and/or replicate my experience of my wife to you. So this is no longer an "actual experience"?
If that's your definition then so-be-it. But I must say its a strange definition because emotional experiences are rarely repeatable.
My own reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be... which is the definition of "the reality".
("The" meaning, denoting one thing already mentioned or used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique.)
I see no hypocrisy or irony there.
The hypocrisy is that you demand people to provide evidence of their reality while presupposing that your own reality is the "state of things as they actually exist".
Here is my counter argument: My reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. Therefore, you are wrong.
Good logic, right? (**sarcasm**)
You are not exempt from the "rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be" qualifier. The way you perceive the world may appear one way but that may not be the correct way. You are not objective (I feel like I've said that several times to you).
You are not objective. You are not objective. You are not objective. Do you think you are?
So you have opinion in the Christian God?
Ok.
I thought belief in the Christian God made you a Christian, not opinion in it.
First of all, I'm not a Christian. Secondly, this is where language becomes really sticky an ambiguous. Because, I guess what you point out is a valid point.
I would say belief is a synonym for opinion.
But, as you say, I guess belief is also a synonym for faith.
But I definitely don't think opinion is a synonym for faith.
Lets just get rid of the word "belief" entirely then to make the discussion more clear. Can we agree that both of us have an opinion on God? And can we also agree that I have faith in God while you do not?
The word "belief" no longer appears in this response except for the four instances above.
I have the same demonstrable proof you do
I'm not sure what you mean. Your comment about knowing more about Christianity than another poster was a totally baseless claim. That poster may be a professor of theology for all you know. He may have a PhD in philosophy or religion and may have spent 40 years learning about Christianity. Why did you make this assumption that you had a greater knowledge and intelligence with regard to Christianity? Why did you make a baseless statement which assumed your superiority and his inferiority with regards to Christianity?
My comment back to you which you have just quoted was not baseless. Please reply to my questions rather than evading your rude comment which assumed a greater knowledge of Christianity than that of another poster.
(Btw, that poster is actually very knowledgeable about Christianity.)
