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

[anonymous person]

I'm sensing some inconsistency here:

I have been given no good reason to think that The Holy Spirit is not incontrovertible. Until I have a good reason to change my views on the matter, my views shall remain the same.

 

[anonymous person]

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

Aguirre-Gratton?

Is that what you are referencing?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have been given no good reason to think that The Holy Spirit is not incontrovertible. Until I have a good reason to change my views on the matter, my views shall remain the same.

How would that even work? Any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded in favour of your "inner witness," which you regard as incontrovertible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Aguirre-Gratton?

Is that what you are referencing?

No, I'm referencing Sean Carroll, who actually works in this field.

 

[nomadictheist]

This atheist doesn't. This is a conclusion, not a premise.

I know many believers start with the conclusion and work backwards, manufacturing whatever facts and reasons they need to keep that belief intact. But don't project that failing onto everyone else.

It may have been a conclusion at some point, but at this point it's a premise.

As I said, I have my reasons for believing that God is real. It's a premise for me at this point, but I know that you have a different interpretation of the same facts that led me to believe that in the first place. I believe God exists because I believe that God is a better explanation for all the order and structure in the universe and in earth's ecosystem than random chance. You have a differing opinion.

Perhaps I should restructure the premise slightly: the premise that most believers work from is that God creating order and structure from chaos makes more sense than the alternative - random chance creating order out of Chaos. Atheists work from the premise that random chance creating order out of chaos makes more sense than God creating order out of chaos. So regardless of your conclusion, there's still a premise that you accept before drawing your final conclusions about God. But once you've drawn your conclusion, it becomes part of your premise for approaching any evidence pointing to God's existence.

For example, you staunchly deny the witness of the thousands who saw Jesus after His resurrection, and those who watched His ascension to heaven, which would certainly be strong evidence. Your denial has no merit except for your predetermined idea (premise) that God is, in fact, not real and the Bible is just a story written to try to convince people that He is. Your view (that God does not exist) determines your analysis of the evidence.

The same is true of science. Where a creationist (which I would call anybody who believes that God created the world) looks at the universe, the earth, and all the order and structure in it and sees this as evidence of God's handiwork, an atheist looks at the same structure and order and sees it as evidence of the amazing effects of random chance. The analysis of the evidence is predetermined by a premise (perhaps once a conclusion) that it makes more sense to believe that random chance resulted in all this order and structure than that God exists and created it.

 

[Chriliman]

How would that even work? Any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded in favour of your "inner witness," which you regard as incontrovertible.

When you say "your "inner witness"" as if we're fabricating some unfounded truth based on our imaginations, this is not the case.

Its not that we regard our inner witness as incontrovertible its that we regard truth as incontrovertible. Our inner witness simply confirms what is true.

Also, I don't appreciate you and KCfromNC ignoring my questions about truth being based on finite space and finite time. Please explain how this could give truth any meaning.

 

[anonymous person]

How would that even work? Any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded in favour of your "inner witness," which you regard as incontrovertible.

That is your problem not mine. You are the one trying to convince me that I could be wrong.

Maybe if I explain to you what it means to be born-again you will understand.

I have a living Being abiding inside of me. This Being is the Holy Spirit. He is a Person. His continual presence is the evidence that bears witness with my spirit that He exists. He leads and guides me into all truth. He takes from the Father and gives to me knowledge, wisdom and understanding. I came to God as a child confessing my ignorance and wretchedness and emptiness and asked to be filled with wisdom, light and most importantly, God Himself.

So until you give me a good reason to think that the person living inside of me is not living inside of me, teaching me and guiding me, then I will not change my views otherwise.

What you and so many others like you think you can do is get me to be doubtful about my relationship with God. It would be like me and Chriliman trying to get you to doubt that your wife, who you live with and talk with and have an intimate relationship on a day to day basis is not real.

You would not agree with us unless we gave you some pretty good reasons, right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It may have been a conclusion at some point, but at this point it's a premise.

As I said, I have my reasons for believing that God is real. It's a premise for me at this point, but I know that you have a different interpretation of the same facts that led me to believe that in the first place. I believe God exists because I believe that God is a better explanation for all the order and structure in the universe and in earth's ecosystem than random chance. You have a differing opinion.

Perhaps I should restructure the premise slightly: the premise that most believers work from is that God creating order and structure from chaos makes more sense than the alternative - random chance creating order out of Chaos.

What makes you think that those are the only two options?

Atheists work from the premise that random chance creating order out of chaos makes more sense than God creating order out of chaos.

You haven't interacted with many atheists, have you? It's obvious given that (1) you misunderstood the definition of atheism, and (2) you are claiming that atheists are committed to this particular view.

For example, you staunchly deny the witness of the thousands who saw Jesus after His resurrection, and those who watched His ascension to heaven, which would certainly be strong evidence. Your denial has no merit except for your predetermined idea (premise) that God is, in fact, not real and the Bible is just a story written to try to convince people that He is. Your view (that God does not exist) determines your analysis of the evidence.

You "staunchly deny," to borrow your words, the witness of those who claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is your problem not mine. You are the one trying to convince me that I could be wrong.

It is disingenuous for you to claim that you are open to questioning your religious beliefs when, in reality, you clearly aren't. You even admitted as much. If and when evidence against your belief is presented, you will simply dismiss it in favour of your personal religious intuitions, which you perceive to be incontrovertible, infallible even. So there is nothing that I or anyone else could say that would be enough to convince you that you could be wrong. You don't even allow for the possibility that you could be wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When you say "your "inner witness"" as if we're fabricating some unfounded truth based on our imaginations, this is not the case.

Its not that we regard our inner witness as incontrovertible its that we regard truth as incontrovertible. Our inner witness simply confirms what is true.

Also, I don't appreciate you and KCfromNC ignoring my questions about truth being based on finite space and finite time. Please explain how this could give truth any meaning.

Your questions don't make sense. Your posts don't make sense. I have no interest in pursuing them any further.

 

[nomadictheist]

What makes you think that those are the only two options?

Because I have yet to encounter a third that's truly a third (pantheism doesn't count... it's just a weak attempt at a copout from the issue). Sure, people talk about aliens, etc., but that's not a real answer because there's still the question of where they came from...

You haven't interacted with many atheists, have you? It's obvious given that (1) you misunderstood the definition of atheism, and (2) you are claiming that atheists are committed to this particular view.

Actually, I've talked to a lot of atheists. When pressed, they all fall back on either random chance or pantheism, which isn't atheism at all. [/Quote]

You "staunchly deny," to borrow your words, the witness of those who claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Absolutely. Because Joseph Smith's writings and message disagree with God's revealed word and all of His former prophets (as well as Jesus). God tells us that anybody who teaches anything contrary to what is revealed to us in scripture is a false prophet. So, having chosen to believe in God, I accept that to be the truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because I have yet to encounter a third that's truly a third (pantheism doesn't count... it's just a weak attempt at a copout from the issue). Sure, people talk about aliens, etc., but that's not a real answer because there's still the question of where they came from...

Actually, I've talked to a lot of atheists. When pressed, they all fall back on either random chance or pantheism, which isn't atheism at all.

You're evidently new to this sort of discussion.

Absolutely. Because Joseph Smith's writings and message disagree with God's revealed word and all of His former prophets (as well as Jesus). God tells us that anybody who teaches anything contrary to what is revealed to us in scripture is a false prophet. So, having chosen to believe in God, I accept that to be the truth.

If only you exercised the same level of skepticism toward your own religion as you do toward others.

 

[nomadictheist]

You're evidently new to this sort of discussion.

I've discussed this with hundreds of people... granted I haven't had as much time to get into the online debate in the past 5-6 years as previously, but that hardly makes it new. You haven't presented a 3rd option. If you can show me a 3rd option (once again, not pantheism), then I'll concede that there's a third option.

If only you exercised the same level of skepticism toward your own religion as you do toward others.

I've found the people most skeptical about God are those who don't want to believe in Him. I explored atheism/pantheism/agnosticism in high school and college, but what it comes down to for me is that it makes more sense to believe that God created all of this than that it all came to be as a result of either eternally existing matter once compressed into the tiny space no larger than a period on a piece of paper and random chance or quantum fluctuations in a vacuum producing post-gamma radiation (matter/antimatter particles) that eventually became all the matter in the universe and random chance.

 

[anonymous person]

If only you exercised the same level of skepticism toward your own religion as you do toward others.

One cannot be a skeptical about everything..

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton

There is a point in life where you have to stop investigating and start trusting God because everyday that you spend investigating and searching is a day you lose and will not get back.

 

[asherahSamaria]

If I may butt in here on a couple of points...

It may have been a conclusion at some point, but at this point it's a premise.

As I said, I have my reasons for believing that God is real. It's a premise for me at this point, but I know that you have a different interpretation of the same facts that led me to believe that in the first place. I believe God exists because I believe that God is a better explanation for all the order and structure in the universe and in earth's ecosystem than random chance. You have a differing opinion. How did you decide your particular god did this? How did you rule out Odin, Thor etc etc. How did you rule out interdimentional universe constructing aliens?

Perhaps I should restructure the premise slightly: the premise that most believers work from is that God creating order and structure from chaos makes more sense than the alternative - random chance creating order out of Chaos. Atheists work from the premise that random chance creating order out of chaos makes more sense than God creating order out of chaos. Two points here. How did the god character get into play at all - without resorting to special pleading? Was it random chance or did an even godlier god create it? Can you define order? The universe is orderly in some sense but chaotic in others. Would you call radioactive decay orderly? Would you call the predisposition of some people to get cancer orderly? So regardless of your conclusion, there's still a premise that you accept before drawing your final conclusions about God. But once you've drawn your conclusion, it becomes part of your premise for approaching any evidence pointing to God's existence.

For example, you staunchly deny the witness of the thousands who saw Jesus after His resurrection, (no such witnesses exist - there is one account written by one unknown person who wasn't an eyewitness) and those who watched His ascension to heaven, which would certainly be strong evidence. Your denial (this is not a denial, this is a reasoned view of the facts) has no merit except for your predetermined idea (premise) that God is, in fact, not real and the Bible is just a story written to try to convince people that He is. Your view (that God does not exist) determines your analysis of the evidence. (no other view is reasonable since no good evidence supports the claim)

The same is true of science. Where a creationist (which I would call anybody who believes that God created the world) looks at the universe, the earth, and all the order and structure in it and sees this as evidence of God's handiwork, an atheist looks at the same structure and order and sees it as evidence of the amazing effects of random chance. (I've always considered this to be a rather disingenuous statement - as though everything just popped into being by pure random collision of atoms. That's a distortion of reality where that just doesn't happen. What exactly are the random elements? The nature of the universe at the point of expansion - quite possibly - but after that - not really so much randomness at all - yet all still natural) The analysis of the evidence is predetermined by a premise (perhaps once a conclusion) that it makes more sense to believe that random chance resulted in all this order and structure than that God exists and created it.

It would be rather fun if there was a god and we could all live for ever - fantastic even though probably a bit boring after a while - but the evidence rules against it

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've discussed this with hundreds of people...

And yet you're still making basic mistakes about what atheists believe.

granted I haven't had as much time to get into the online debate in the past 5-6 years as previously, but that hardly makes it new. You haven't presented a 3rd option. If you can show me a 3rd option (once again, not pantheism), then I'll concede that there's a third option.

Who said that natural processes must all be random?

I've found the people most skeptical about God are those who don't want to believe in Him. I explored atheism/pantheism/agnosticism in high school and college, but what it comes down to for me is that it makes more sense to believe that God created all of this than that it all came to be as a result of either eternally existing matter once compressed into the tiny space no larger than a period on a piece of paper and random chance or quantum fluctuations in a vacuum producing post-gamma radiation (matter/antimatter particles) that eventually became all the matter in the universe and random chance.

In what way does it make "more sense"? What does it "make sense" of?

 

[Chriliman]

Your questions don't make sense. Your posts don't make sense. I have no interest in pursuing them any further.

The reason the question "Explain how truth could have any meaning if its restricted to finite space and finite time?" does not make sense is because truth that is restricted to finite space and finite time would be meaningless, therefore, in order for truth to have meaning it must be infinite and timeless as I've been saying this whole time. It just seems like its very difficult for you to actually agree with me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One cannot be a skeptical about everything..

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton

There is a point in life where you have to stop investigating and start trusting God because everyday that you spend investigating and searching is a day you lose and will not get back.

This is also known as closing your mind. So you've found an idea that is palatable to you and you've decided that here the inquiry must stop. There's no particular reason it must come to a halt at that point but you no longer care; you assume you already know it all - the Truth with a capital T. The possibility that you could be wrong is vanquished as a demon called "doubt."

 

[Chriliman]

This is also known as closing your mind. So you've found an idea that is palatable to you and you've decided that here the inquiry must stop. There's no particular reason it must come to a halt at that point but you no longer care; you assume you already know it all - the Truth with a capital T. The possibility that you could be wrong is vanquished as a demon called "doubt."

On the contrary, doubt is actually very important in finding truth. Right now I hope your doubting that you are actually correct. I also hope your doubting that we are actually wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On the contrary, doubt is actually very important in finding truth. Right now I hope your doubting that you are actually correct. I also hope your doubting that we are actually wrong.

Given that you have yet to articulate a coherent position, I'm not sure what you are even claiming to be right about. At the moment, I'm doubting that you are in this to have a serious discussion.