Should we believe only in those things for which there is evidence?

[Eudaimonist]

Also, these facts,

The Bible(Historical and Scientific Facts)
Jesus Christ Resurrection(Historical Fact)
The Shroud(Scientific Supernatural Fact)
First Uncaused Cause(Scientific and Philosophical Fact)
Fine Tuning(Scientific Fact)
Morality(Cannot Factually exist without God)
demonic Activity(Experienced by various people with nothing to gain, NDE's and I've experienced them)
Dualism(Scientific Fact)
"macro-evolution" not happening(Scientific Fact)
Intelligent Design(Scientific Fact)

Denying any one of these proven Facts makes you a liar and hypocrite.

None of those are proven facts, and the burden is on you to prove them. You have tried in a small way, but you have come nowhere close to succeeding.

I'm being 100% honest in telling you this. And while you use the term "scientific fact", you don't seem to understand what that term means. None of what you call a scientific fact is such.

"macro-evolution" did not happen, if after watching that video you tell me you believe in the myths of "macro-evolution" then you are an unscientific hypocrite.

Or I am being honest in my views. Perhaps you can explain to me just what you find so convincing about the arguments in that video.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Do you have anything of significance to contribute to this thread?

In other words, off putting cowardice tactic incapable of refuting anything I wrote.

You wrote nothing worth the effort. So that would be a "no" then?

I am still waiting for you to step up to the plate here.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

You wrote nothing worth the effort. So that would be a "no" then?

Nope, so would mean you're waving the white flag as you wrote, http://www.christianforums.com/t7698892-post61715803/#post61715803

In reply to, http://www.christianforums.com/t7698892-5/#post61714389

and I wrote in reply, http://www.christianforums.com/t7698892-6/#post61717385

To which you wrote the current post, in other words you wave the white flag, incapable of refuting this --> http://www.christianforums.com/t7698892-5/#post61714389

I am still waiting for you to step up to the plate here.

Refuted.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

None of those are proven facts,

Take part in the challenge, give your reasons/excuses why you think these aren't fact, that's what the challenge is for, analyze all the Facts and give your reasons so I can refute and destroy until you have no excuse but to believe.

Refusing to do so/refusing to participate in challenge renders you cowardice and not looking for truth, and I will use that against in every and any thread your in talking against God.

and the burden is on you to prove them.

When you give your reasons. tired of writing essay long proofs only for it to be ignored.

You have tried in a small way, but you have come nowhere close to succeeding.

I have and I will when you are brave and take part in the challenge.

I'm being 100% honest in telling you this. And while you use the term "scientific fact", you don't seem to understand what that term means. None of what you call a scientific fact is such.

I'll name one to disprove your lie, The Shroud, Scientifically caused by a burst of light from Jesus Christ body.

Or I am being honest in my views. Perhaps you can explain to me just what you find so convincing about the arguments in that video.

Irreducible Complexity and "speculation" makes "macro-evolution" Impossible, watch the whole video then attempt a rebuttal.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Maybe christians just want Islam to be false because they can't handle the implications of not being able to drink alcohol and eat bacon.
I'm joking of course.

Nope but because "islam", is just false, not knowing a simple Historical Fact like Jesus Christ crucifixion is a joke, like "buddha" eating feces. "atheism", "agnostics", "buddhism" "islam", "hinduism" etc go in the same catagory, fiction.

One Fact in life, Christianity, The Bible

But seriously, I don't know if you're trolling or if you have these sincere beliefs that christianity has already been proven

Trolls don't provide proof, evidence and Facts, I provide them, therefore not a troll, I disprove the liars, trolls, and hypocrites who are against God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) because I love The Lord and I'm tired of seeing my fellow Christians lose faith because of an "atheist"'s lies.

correct but please, don't rely solely on youtube hacks like shockofgod or venomfangx.

How is he a hack? because he destroyed "atheism", get over it.

They are the worst of the worst. Probably worse than Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. And that's saying something. Lane Craig is better, although of course I don't agree with his premises and conclusions.

Craig is one of The Greatest Christian Apologist of All Time. list the premises in which you don't agree with so I can refute it.

If you care about whether your beliefs are true, and I hope you do, apply skepticism to them.

And when done the conclusions throw all skepticism out the window.

Challenge them.

And when done the evidence further proves beyond doubt and for a Fact, God exists and Christianity is The Objective Truth.

And don't just listen to what Christians say about atheists.

I know about "atheist"'s and their logic because of what "atheist" themselves say.

Because it's usually not true.

"atheist"'s disprove that.

 

[Davian]

You wrote nothing worth the effort. So that would be a "no" then?

I am still waiting for you to step up to the plate here.

...

Refuted.

You failing to prove something does not refute anything.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

You failing to prove something does not refute anything.

Actually refuting something has nothing to do with providing anything, just disproving something, and that's what I did with your argument.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I would expect, to claim that something is impossible, one would have to have a very precise understanding of the 'construct', its nature, and the knowable laws of physics. I make no such claims.

Are you making those claims, in claiming that this thing is possible?

That is why I asked *you* if such a thing were possible. It is something that has not been demonstrated to me.

Your original question was, "Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please."

So, in answer to your question, I accept that anything which isn't a logical contradiction is possible. In that regard even an atheist can't deny the possibility of God's existence unless he can demonstrate his own omniscience.

Let's take a simple, and simplified example of WHY I accept possibilities: a ball rolls off a table and falls to the floor. Scientists can observe this happening time after time and will conclude that the ball will always hit the floor. Using that as a working hypothesis, further discoveries might be made and inventions invented using the knowledge gained.

But who is to say that the ball really will always hit the floor. The ball has been observed, and the observation of a million drops will be extrapolated into an infinite number of drops. The reality might be that either somewhere an unobserved ball has failed to reach the floor, or that one day in the future an observed drop will fail to land.

Now despite what you may think, I'm not a complete fruit loop, and I will agree that the ball will always hit the floor. However, I cannot totally discount the possibility that this may not happen occasionally unless I can view every single drop of a ball both historically and in the future.

Science observes and records what happens to all the observed occurrences under a given set of circumstances, but not the unobserved ones. In other words, it has to fill in the unobserved "gaps" and assume that everything will work in the same way.

Thus it is with God. I don't have to prove his possible existence, as his possible existence is a given. I might argue that you have to prove the impossibility of his existence though... So what mechanism and logical sequence would you use to show me that God is impossible?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Take part in the challenge, give your reasons/excuses why you think these aren't fact

They aren't facts until proven otherwise. The burden is on you to show that they are facts. I can only examine your reasons for thinking that they are facts.

Refusing to do so/refusing to participate in challenge renders you cowardice and not looking for truth, and I will use that against in every and any thread your in talking against God.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see you as a worthy discussion partner. You don't seem to understand what it means to present an argument, and you seem very confused on the issue of facts.

I'll name one to disprove your lie, The Shroud, Scientifically caused by a burst of light from Jesus Christ body.

You have not shown that it is a scientific fact that a burst of light from Jesus Christ's body caused the imprint on the shroud. You are simply declaring this a fact. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

You've only proven that you haven't the slightest clue about what the word "fact" even means, much less "scientific fact", which you call in an unwittingly contradictory way a "scientific supernatural fact".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Your original question was, "Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please."

So, in answer to your question, I accept that anything which isn't a logical contradiction is possible. In that regard even an atheist can't deny the possibility of God's existence unless he can demonstrate his own omniscience.

That assumes that the god in question isn't logically contradictory. For many people, concepts like the trinity push the average Christian God concept into that category. And the explanations for theological ideas which devolve into "it's a mystery" mean that there isn't really a definition for god, which makes it impossible to comment on whether or not she even possibly exists.

 

[crimsonleaf]

That assumes that the god in question isn't logically contradictory. For many people, concepts like the trinity push the average Christian God concept into that category. And the explanations for theological ideas which devolve into "it's a mystery" mean that there isn't really a definition for god, which makes it impossible to comment on whether or not she even possibly exists.

You're right in the sense that the Trinity (and the incarnation and hypostatic union) appear to be logical contradictions, yet I accept them. That's because my belief in God stems from other sources than just pure, analytical reasoning. I inserted the clause in my argument to stop anyone coming back with "so you believe a square circle is possible" which would have rendered the argument pointless and childish.

You, of course, have the problem of defining exactly how existence started from nothing, with nothing, by nothing, which also appears to be a logical contradiction. You may turn to the argument that something was infinite, but if infinity represents a unit of time, space or number which cannot be increased by a single unit of measurement (infinity + 1 for example) then we live with that logical contradiction daily.

Besides, your side of the argument seems to have quantum mechanics, within which certain elements seem to present the dilemma that they are both there and not there at the same time, so perhaps we should both admit that we are working with some degree of mystery here.

More importantly though, I reject the argument that you have to define something in exact terms in order to be able to deny the possibility of its existence, and that really was the point of your piece, which is the one I was addressing, sparked by Davian's comment.

Davian: "Does hard smoke exist?"
Me: "Dunno"
Davian: "You can't say you don't know until you can define it"
Me: "Really?, OK then, maybe it's smoke you can touch and feel"
Davian: "So could it possibly exist?"
Me: "I suppose so"
Davian: "Wrong"
Me: "Why?"
Davian: "It's not up to me to tell you why something can't possibly exist, you have to tell me why it can"
Me: " "

 

[Davian]

I see that you have discreetly deleted sections of my post that were relevant to the point I was making. I will respond anyway.

Your original question was, "Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please."

So, in answer to your question, I accept that anything which isn't a logical contradiction is possible. In that regard even an atheist can't deny the possibility of God's existence unless he can demonstrate his own omniscience.

Attempting to shift the burden of evidence? How lame is that?

You are putting words into my mouth. I do not deny the possibility of "God" being more than just a character in a book. However, if that is what you are positing, then the burden of evidence is on you.

Let's take a simple, and simplified example of WHY I accept possibilities: a ball rolls off a table and falls to the floor. Scientists can observe this happening time after time and will conclude that the ball will always hit the floor. Using that as a working hypothesis, further discoveries might be made and inventions invented using the knowledge gained.

But who is to say that the ball really will always hit the floor. The ball has been observed, and the observation of a million drops will be extrapolated into an infinite number of drops. The reality might be that either somewhere an unobserved ball has failed to reach the floor, or that one day in the future an observed drop will fail to land.

Now despite what you may think, I'm not a complete fruit loop, and I will agree that the ball will always hit the floor. However, I cannot totally discount the possibility that this may not happen occasionally unless I can view every single drop of a ball both historically and in the future.

Science observes and records what happens to all the observed occurrences under a given set of circumstances, but not the unobserved ones. In other words, it has to fill in the unobserved "gaps" and assume that everything will work in the same way.

Thus it is with God.

So describe these experiments that work with "God".

I don't have to prove his possible existence, as his possible existence is a given.

You will need to do more than just assert this.

I might argue that you have to prove the impossibility of his existence though... So what mechanism and logical sequence would you use to show me that God is impossible?

You might, but it would be seen as just another tactic in the attempt to shift the burden of evidence to the non-believer.

In your previous post, you made a claim about "inner knowledge".

I ask again, how would one differentiate it from self-deception? Or deceit?

What method would you employ to verify that someone else, say, at your church, believes what you do?

 

[Davian]

<snip>
More importantly though, I reject the argument that you have to define something in exact terms in order to be able to deny the possibility of its existence,

Agreed. However, as history will attest to, those denials are often shown to be in error.

Do you deny the possibility that "God" is nothing more than a character in a book?

Do you deny the possibility that biological evolution is the basis for the all the variety of life on this planet, including humans, with no 'divine' intervention required?

Yes or no?

and that really was the point of your piece, which is the one I was addressing, sparked by Davian's comment.

Davian: "Does hard smoke exist?"
Me: "Dunno"
Davian: "You can't say you don't know until you can define it"
Me: "Really?, OK then, maybe it's smoke you can touch and feel"
Davian: "So could it possibly exist?"
Me: "I suppose so"
Davian: "Wrong"
Me: "Why?"
Davian: "It's not up to me to tell you why something can't possibly exist, you have to tell me why it can"
Me: " "

You have misrepresented what I have said. I find this to be intellectually dishonest. You are not saying "dunno", are you?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Agreed. However, as history will attest to, those denials are often shown to be in error.

Often isn't always.

Do you deny the possibility that "God" is nothing more than a character in a book?

No, it's a possibility.

Do you deny the possibility that biological evolution is the basis for the all the variety of life on this planet, including humans, with no 'divine' intervention required?

No, it's a possibility. But you're still left with the problem of the individual components of life having to come from somewhere...

Yes or no?

Answered. And answered in fact in my previous post where I declared that I don't (and can't intellectually) reject any possibility.

You have misrepresented what I have said. I find this to be intellectually dishonest. You are not saying "dunno", are you?

No, I'm not, because I believe I do know. And if the Holy Spirit reaches out to you then you'll know too. And this is the point where our parallel lines of argument start to truly diverge, as our worldviews are markedly different.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I see that you have discreetly deleted sections of my post that were relevant to the point I was making. I will respond anyway.

Originally Posted by crimsonleaf

Your original question was, "Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please."

So, in answer to your question, I accept that anything which isn't a logical contradiction is possible. In that regard even an atheist can't deny the possibility of God's existence unless he can demonstrate his own omniscience.
​

Attempting to shift the burden of evidence? How lame is that?

I've done nothing discreetly or otherwise. I was addressing your specific question and my answer is not lame at all, but your failure to comprehend is. I'm not shifting the burden of evidence, I'm merely pointing out that everyone who isn't omniscient logically has to accept possibilities. I'm not asking atheists to assert or prove anything. I'm pointing out that establishing anything as possible is needless. I'll go further and say that anything is possible until or unless it can be shown to be impossible. That works for both sides of the argument, so don't feel oppressed.

So describe these experiments that work with "God".

the reference to "Thus it is with God" referred to the subject of possibilities, not the experiment. I can see how I wasn't clear.

Originally Posted by crimsonleaf

I don't have to prove his possible existence, as his possible existence is a given.
​

You will need to do more than just assert this.

I've provided you with a lengthy explanation of why I accept possibilities and why somebody who isn't omniscient must logically do the same. If you haven't understood it then there's little I can do to help you.

You might, but it would be seen as just another tactic in the attempt to shift the burden of evidence to the non-believer.

I've dealt with that. No one has to prove anything. Don't be so paranoid.

In your previous post, you made a claim about "inner knowledge".

I ask again, how would one differentiate it from self-deception? Or deceit?

Well, in my case, as a long-standing atheist it was the last thing I wanted, so self-deception wouldn't seem to hold up as an explanation. Deceit? Why would I lie?

What method would you employ to verify that someone else, say, at your church, believes what you do?

If you mean "believes what you do" to mean "believes the same as you do" then I'd ask them. Not so tough really.

 

[Davian]

I've done nothing discreetly or otherwise.

You edited my post, to alter its intent, and made no notation of those edits.

I was addressing your specific question and my answer is not lame at all, but your failure to comprehend is. I'm not shifting the burden of evidence, I'm merely pointing out that everyone who isn't omniscient logically has to accept possibilities.

This is not true. I am taking the neutral postion. Not accepting a possibility is not the same as denying the possibility, or claiming that it is impossible.

Recall that you said "Your view that God is an impossible construct", not me. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not asking atheists to assert or prove anything. I'm pointing out that establishing anything as possible is needless. I'll go further and say that anything is possible until or unless it can be shown to be impossible. That works for both sides of the argument, so don't feel oppressed.

I am referring specifically to the side making the claims. If you are claiming that something specific is possible, then back up that claim.

Is this claim that you are making of any significance? Show why.

the reference to "Thus it is with God" referred to the subject of possibilities, not the experiment. I can see how I wasn't clear.

You said, "believers believe in God in exactly the same way everyone believes in gravity."

Again: I expect that I could scientifically compare gravitational experiments conducted on Mars with those done by myself on Earth.

How does that work with "God"?

I've provided you with a lengthy explanation of why I accept possibilities and why somebody who isn't omniscient must logically do the same. If you haven't understood it then there's little I can do to help you.

And I have explained why they do not.

I've dealt with that. No one has to prove anything. Don't be so paranoid.

No, the person making the claims has to prove something, that is, they have the burden of evidence.

Well, in my case, as a long-standing atheist it was the last thing I wanted, so self-deception wouldn't seem to hold up as an explanation.

I ask again, how would one differentiate it from self-deception? How could you determine that?

Deceit? Why would I lie?

I am not asking about motive, or making an accusation.

If you mean "believes what you do" to mean "believes the same as you do" then I'd ask them. Not so tough really.

That is not what I asked. You said, "believers believe in God in exactly the same way everyone believes in gravity."

What method would you employ to *verify* that someone else, say, at your church, believes what you do?

What if they did not believe, and are only putting up a front, to avoid the repercussions of family and community? How would you determine that?

 

[crimsonleaf]

You edited my post, to alter its intent, and made no notation of those edits.

I took the question you asked and answered it.

This is not true. I am taking the neutral postion. Not accepting a possibility is not the same as denying the possibility, or claiming that it is impossible.

So you feel comfortable using the phrase "I do not accept the possibility of X" and following it with "But I do not deny X's possibility"? You must be a conversational nightmare.

I am referring specifically to the side making the claims. If you are claiming that something specific is possible, then back up that claim.

Is this claim that you are making of any significance? Show why.

When you use the phrase "show why" at the end of a statement it takes me back too many years to my old school exams. I'm not making specific claims of possibility, I'm saying that everything is possible.

You said, "believers believe in God in exactly the same way everyone believes in gravity."

Again: I expect that I could scientifically compare gravitational experiments conducted on Mars with those done by myself on Earth.

How does that work with "God"?

God is not subject to experimentation, and we've already agreed that He is outside of the scope of scientific analysis. I'm talking about how the believer experiences God, not how he tests for His existence. Perhaps when you accept that you can't squeeze Him into your test tube you'll view Him differently.

No, the person making the claims has to prove something, that is, they have the burden of evidence.

But I'm not trying to prove anything, or even demonstrate it. All I did was answer your one feeble point about having to prove the possibility of something. I repeat - I don't have to prove something I'm not claiming you should believe.

I ask again, how would one differentiate it from self-deception? How could you determine that?

Self-deception is by its very nature self-deceiving, so I couldn't. But people who self deceive usually convince themselves of something they want, not something they don't want. So it would be a pretty pointless form of self-deception wouldn't it? I had been a vigorous, publicly debating atheist for 11 years when things changed instantly. It certainly didn't happen because I wanted it to.

I am not asking about motive, or making an accusation.

Then it's a pointless point and you're wasting my time, which is principally why I've skipped over so many of your other questions.

What if they did not believe, and are only putting up a front, to avoid the repercussions of family and community? How would you determine that?

I wouldn't try, or be particularly bothered. It's not my place to judge the depth of belief in anyone else. If someone is lying to himself and/or me then it's between him and God.

 

[Davian]

Often isn't always.

Often enough, hence the reason one should define what one is discussing.

No, it's a possibility.

No, it's a possibility. But you're still left with the problem of the individual components of life having to come from somewhere...

Ah yes, the god-of-the-(shrinking)-gaps. Not much of an argument for the Christian God, is it?

Answered. And answered in fact in my previous post where I declared that I don't (and can't intellectually) reject any possibility.

Tell me, how do you not lower your bar of credulity so low that anything can jump over it?

No, I'm not, because I believe I do know.

As I said, you misrepresented the nature of our discussion.

And if the Holy Spirit reaches out to you then you'll know too.

Or, from a more parsimonious standpoint, I somehow convince myself that one of the many world relions has some explanatory power regarding the world around us. That would still not make "God" more than a character in a book; I would just think so.

And this is the point where our parallel lines of argument start to truly diverge, as our worldviews are markedly different.

What is my worldview?

 

[Davian]

I took the question you asked and answered it.

So you feel comfortable using the phrase "I do not accept the possibility of X" and following it with "But I do not deny X's possibility"? You must be a conversational nightmare.

Only if you are telling me what I am to say.

You have yet to define X. How am I to consider the possibility of its existence?

So far, all you have is a character in a book.

When you use the phrase "show why" at the end of a statement it takes me back too many years to my old school exams. I'm not making specific claims of possibility, I'm saying that everything is possible.

Even things that you are not aware of, or do not understand?

God is not subject to experimentation, and we've already agreed that He is outside of the scope of scientific analysis.

No, he is "not outside of the scope of scientific analysis". He is of no significance. There is a difference.

I'm talking about how the believer experiences God, not how he tests for His existence. Perhaps when you accept that you can't squeeze Him into your test tube you'll view Him differently.

No, you said: "So, is there evidence for God? Yes, plenty." and "...believers believe in God in exactly the same way everyone believes in gravity."

I don't 'beleive' in gravity. I accept it as an explanation for why things/mass are pulled towards each other. It can be observed. It can be subjected to experiments.

So where did this 'plenty of evidence' go?

But I'm not trying to prove anything, or even demonstrate it. All I did was answer your one feeble point about having to prove the possibility of something. I repeat - I don't have to prove something I'm not claiming you should believe.

Then don't tell me "it's a given".

Self-deception is by its very nature self-deceiving, so I couldn't. But people who self deceive usually convince themselves of something they want, not something they don't want. So it would be a pretty pointless form of self-deception wouldn't it? I had been a vigorous, publicly debating atheist for 11 years when things changed instantly. It certainly didn't happen because I wanted it to.

So your belief may be self deception. And I have not seen anyone demonstrate that "God" is more than just a character in a book - I am not asking for proof, but I am not even getting evidence for this possibility.

Then it's a pointless point and you're wasting my time, which is principally why I've skipped over so many of your other questions.

No it is not. If the subject was gravity, there would be ways of determining if I was lying about its nature. Motive is irrelevant.

I wouldn't try, or be particularly bothered. It's not my place to judge the depth of belief in anyone else. If someone is lying to himself and/or me then it's between him and God.

This is not about judging, or a god that may or may not exist. My point is, two (or more) theists don't have a mechanism that I am aware of to qualify their beliefs. You may be the the only one at your church that actually believes that "god" is more than a character in a book. And I cannot be sure about you.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I'll come down to this, because the rest of your argument can be read and assimilated by others, as can my answers, which I believe adequately address your points and you are starting to argue in a circular manner, which is as frustrating as it is pointless:

Originally Posted by crimsonleaf

I wouldn't try, or be particularly bothered. It's not my place to judge the depth of belief in anyone else. If someone is lying to himself and/or me then it's between him and God.
​

This is not about judging, or a god that may or may not exist. My point is, two (or more) theists don't have a mechanism that I am aware of to qualify their beliefs. You may be the the only one at your church that actually believes that "god" is more than a character in a book. And I cannot be sure about you.

I repeat, I don't care what they believe. It is between them and the God in which I believe.

But maybe you should define what it is you don't believe in. Once we've determined that then we can probably assume that we're talking about what I do believe in. If you're still struggling with what that is (and you really do appear to be struggling) then I believe in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent first cause, defined and described in Holy Scripture and which we call God. I believe in the reality of this God and fail to see how anyone cannot accept the possibility of His existence unless they can show His impossibility. As for the lowering of my credulity bar, my credulity of the unseen is restricted to the acceptance of it merely as a possibility, not necessarily a reality, in as such "credulity", which implies belief, is a misnomer. As for my specific belief in God, I have evidence enough to satisfy my personal needs for belief, although you may view it as self-deception.

My so called "God of the Gaps" comment was merely to point out that it's unreasonable to reject the concept of God (supernatural) as described above whilst not providing an alternative (natural) solution to the question relating to origins, and you've told me you can't reject any possibility which you can't define. So now that I have defined what my belief is, you can have a pop of telling me why He doesn't exist and why He cannot remain a possibility.