[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[anonymous person]

I love the presumption that you're somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. What happened to that humility that Jesus taught his followers?

It is not presumptuous to claim that one knows something to be true when they have good reasons and evidence to back up their claim.

I happen to agree with him. Talking with skeptics only helps me realize that my beliefs are grounded on good reasons and evidence because my beliefs time and time again withstand the scrutiny to which I willingly subject them.

 

[Chriliman]

I love the presumption that you're somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. What happened to that humility that Jesus taught his followers?

I'm not sure you're in a position to preach to me about what Jesus taught. If your serious about following Jesus' teachings Anonymous Person and myself are here to help and I'm being very serious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I love the presumption that you're somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. What happened to that humility that Jesus taught his followers?

No need for epistemic humility when you're preaching the Truth with a capital T.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not presumptuous to claim that one knows something to be true when they have good reasons and evidence to back up their claim.

I happen to agree with him. Talking with skeptics only helps me realize that my beliefs are grounded on good reasons and evidence because my beliefs time and time again withstand the scrutiny to which I willingly subject them.

Dude, it wouldn't matter if you didn't have evidence, would it? You already conceded that nothing could prompt you to reconsider your beliefs. So don't pretend that your beliefs are subjected to scrutiny; they are protected from scrutiny.

 

[anonymous person]

No, it's controversial because the answer is unknown.

The answer is known. It is proven that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion could not have been past infinite.

I have provided sources for this.

Except those eternal models that get past that.

What models are you referencing?

 

[anonymous person]

No need for epistemic humility when you're preaching the Truth with a capital T.

Besides, whether or not one is humble when presenting their arguments is simply immaterial to the soundness of the argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The answer is known. It is proven that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion could not have been past infinite.

I have provided sources for this.

What models are you referencing?

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Besides, whether or not one is humble when presenting their arguments is simply immaterial to the soundness of the argument.

That's true. But it does tell us something about the character of the person presenting the argument; namely, whether they are willing to acknowledge that they could be wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

Dude, it wouldn't matter if you didn't have evidence, would it? You already conceded that nothing could prompt you to reconsider your beliefs. So don't pretend that your beliefs are subjected to scrutiny; they are protected from scrutiny.

If there were not evidence for my beliefs, they would not be my beliefs. All of my beliefs are evidenced and supported in sundry ways.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure you're in a position to preach to me about what Jesus taught. If your serious about following Jesus' teachings Anonymous Person and myself are here to help and I'm being very serious.

Again with the assumption that your understanding is somehow automatically superior to everyone else. Get down off your high horse - you liable to fall and hurt yourself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If there were not evidence for my beliefs, they would not be my beliefs. All of my beliefs are evidenced and supported in sundry ways.

Really? So if the evidence turned against your position, you would reconsider it?

 

[anonymous person]

That's true. But it does tell us something about the character of the person presenting the argument; namely, whether they are willing to acknowledge that they could be wrong.

That is great. But once again whether or not someone is willing to acknowledge they are right or wrong is immaterial to the soundness of their arguments.

 

[anonymous person]

Really? So if the evidence turned against your position, you would reconsider it?

Sure.

 

[Chriliman]

False. Words have meanings, no matter how must apologists wish they could simply make up whatever meaning is convenient at the moment.

So explain to me how meaningful truth is if its restricted to finite space and finite time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is great. But once again whether or not someone is willing to acknowledge they are right or wrong is immaterial to the soundness of their arguments.

A point I already conceded, so why are you repeating it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure.

So you don't regard your "inner witness" as incontrovertible, like Craig does?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? So if the evidence turned against your position, you would reconsider it?

Sure.

I'm sensing some inconsistency here:

Hey @anonymous person, I'm still waiting for you to address these posts:

We are open to be convinced.

Convince us.

Go.

Shoot.

Have at it.

Why is Jesus not God incarnate?

Why are we wrong about the universe being created by God?

Why should we adopt your beliefs and abandon ours.

We are all ears.

Hang on, are you open to be convinced? As I recall, you indicated that you know your beliefs to be true primarily because of the "inner witness of the holy spirit." If you are like Craig, then you regard this "inner witness" as incontrovertible, in which case nothing I could say would ever be enough to prompt you to reconsider your religious beliefs.

Pretend I didn't say that.

Pretend you didn't say that? But you did say that. To pretend otherwise would be disingenuous. Don't tell me that you are open to be convinced when you are really hiding an "intrinsic defeater-defeater" up your sleeve. You're essentially asking me to pretend that you're not going to cheat by playing your "inner witness" card.

When should atheists change their beliefs...

The subject of the OP ties into the question above.

Each person determines what it would take to change their own beliefs.

I think that's the answer.

It's interesting how you worded the question to exclude theists. When should theists change their beliefs?

Personally I think people should change their beliefs when they realize that holding them would make them irrational, i.e. change on pain of irrationality.

That answers the second question mostly, but what about the first?

It is true. You will not convince me that Christ does not abide in me and I in Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So explain to me how meaningful truth is if its restricted to finite space and finite time.

You realise your question makes no sense?

 

[Chriliman]

Again with the assumption that your understanding is somehow automatically superior to everyone else. Get down off your high horse - you liable to fall and hurt yourself.

If you can explain to me how meaningful truth is if its restricted to finite space and finite time in a way that actually makes sense and does not contradict what is understood to be true then I'll consider your understanding to be superior to mine.

 

[Chriliman]

You realise your question makes no sense?

Why don't you think it makes sense?