On the futility of evidence-based apologetics

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My response was in direct reference to that post of yours. You seem to contradict yourself.

You say you don't think you know what's in a nonbeliever's mind better than they do.
But scripture makes specific claims about what is in a nonbeliever's mind.
And you believe scripture.
Therefore, you believe what scripture says about what's in a nonbeliever's mind.

Nonbelievers disagree with scripture about what is in their mind.
You disagree with nonbelievers about what is in their mind.
Therefore, you believe you are right about what's in a nonbeliever's mind and the nonbeliever is wrong.

If you believe you are right and someone else is wrong, you believe you know better.
Therefore, you believe you know what's in a nonbeliever's mind better than they do.

Please show me where I make a logical mistake. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
My response was in direct reference to that post of yours. You seem to contradict yourself.

You say you don't think you know what's in a nonbeliever's mind better than they do.
But scripture makes specific claims about what is in a nonbeliever's mind.
And you believe scripture.
Therefore, you believe what scripture says about what's in a nonbeliever's mind.

Nonbelievers disagree with scripture about what is in their mind.
You disagree with nonbelievers about what is in their mind.
Therefore, you believe you are right about what's in a nonbeliever's mind and the nonbeliever is wrong.

If you believe you are right and someone else is wrong, you believe you know better.
Therefore, you believe you know what's in a nonbeliever's mind better than they do.

Please show me where I make a logical mistake. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.
Okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Can you say more about what you mean by “conscience?”

That "voice inside" all minds that, when unheeded or rejected, leads to feelings of guilt and remorse.

*
"knowledge within oneself, sense of right and wrong, a moral sense," abstract noun from conscientem (nominative consciens), present participle of conscire "be (mutually) aware; be conscious of wrong," in Late Latin "to know well," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave").

The Latin word is probably a loan-translation of Greek syneidesis, literally "with-knowledge." The sense development is perhaps via "to know along with others" (what is right or wrong) to "to know right or wrong within oneself, know in one's own mind" (conscire sibi). Sometimes it was nativized in Old English/early Middle English as inwit. Russian also uses a loan-translation, so-vest, "conscience," literally "with-knowledge."
conscience | Origin and meaning of conscience by Online Etymology Dictionary

**
"The Hebrew term for "conscience", matzpun, is a relative newcomer in Jewish literature. There is no expression for "conscience" in the Biblical or Rabbinic texts. Matzpun occurs in the medieval philosophical literature, but with a vague meaning. Serious discussions of conscience, together with related concepts like autonomy, natural law, absolute and relative moral values, ethical empowerment and the like, have really come into their own only in the post-Enlightenment period.

This does not mean, however, that moral mechanisms similar to "conscience" cannot be identified in Torah. One writer has referred in this context to a morally challenging episode in the story of Joseph. When Potiphar"s wife invites Joseph to lie with her, Torah tells us he refused. He said to his master"s wife, "Look, with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house; he has withheld nothing from me except yourself, since you are his wife. How then could I do this wicked thing and sin before God (ve-chata"ti le"lohim)?"

The Torah published by the Conservative Movement, Eitz Chayim, notes that Joseph puts forward three arguments to counter Potiphar"s wife"s advances. The first regards Joseph"s position of responsibility in the house; it is prudent for him to act uprightly. The second refers to the legal culture of Egyptian aristocracy; wives are property of their husbands, and Potiphar"s wife has been reserved for her husband. It is the third argument that approaches our notion of conscience: Joseph seems to have an inner sense that this would be a "sin before God". Nowhere prior to Joseph"s tale is this designated a sin; the Torah itself had not yet been revealed to the world, and we have no evidence that Joseph had learned it as an ethical norm from any other source. Where has Joseph"s recognition that his act would be a "sin before God" come from? Presumably it is the result of an inner ethical realisation."
Conscience: A Jewish Perspective

***
"The most pressing issues about conscience in relation to Torah have been caused by the post-Enlightenment emphasis on autonomy and the moral independence of the individual. Following much post-Enlightenment thought, there is a dichotomy or absolute distinction between conscience and Torah. Conscience is the human ability to make moral decisions based on reason. As a result, it is available to all persons, a function of our individual autonomy. It is part of our nature as human beings, hard-wired into our personalities, so to speak. It is universal, not restricted to any particular group within society."
Conscience: A Jewish Perspective

****
"While conscience is generally taken to represent the inner voice, Torah represents the external voice. To use the powerful image associated with the story of the prophet Elijah: the conscience is "the still, small voice" within us, while Torah is the thunderous voice outside of us.

We may favour the "still, small voice" because we prefer thinking of ourselves as autonomous and free rather than "servants", even servants to the divine. The idea that conscience emerges from within us gives us a sense of empowerment and reinforces our feeling that we act freely and without compulsion.

But it is possible, taking a more mystical approach, to assume that both voices are manifestations of the same thing, ultimately synchronised in the soul that is whole and at one with itself. That is to say, when my inner, or self, will comes to be one with the transcendent, or divine, will – when conscience and Torah are one – then true moral justice may ultimately be achieved."
Conscience: A Jewish Perspective

*****
"There is no Hebrew term in the Old Testament that is a linguistic equivalent for the classical Greek term suneidesis [suneivdhsi"]. The Hebrew term for "heart, " however, is a prominent term of self-awareness in the Old Testament. The lack of a developed concept of conscience in the Old Testament, as we see later in Paul, may be due to the worldview of the Hebrew person. Consciousness of life was of a relationship between God and a covenant community rather than an autonomous self-awareness between a person and his or her world. The only usage of suneidesis [suneivdhsi"] in the canonical section of the Septuagint is in Ecclesiastes 10:20, "Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, " where it is clearly used as self-reflection in secret (cf. the only verbal variations in Job 27:6 ; and Lev 5:1 ). Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls are consistent with the Old Testament in their lack of a vocabulary of conscience.

There are thirty occurrences of suneidesis [suneivdhsi"] in the New Testament (one more possible usage in a variant on John 8:9 ). The verb form (suneidon [suneivdw], sunoida) occurs only four times. The thirty occurrences are almost exclusively Pauline (22, with an additional 5 in Hebrews and 3 in 1 Peter), and eleven of them are in the Corinthian correspondence. The classical use of this word-group for simple knowledge occurs in ac 5:2, 12:12, and 14:6. The Pauline development of conscience as a monitor of actions and attitudes is particularly noted in the Pastoral Epistles, where adjectives like "good" ( 1 Timothy 1:5 1 Timothy 1:19 ; cf. Acts 23:1 ) and "clear" ( 1 Tim 3:9 ; 2 Tim 1:3 ; cf. Acts 24:16 ) are used to depict the conscience as affirming right action. This action, however, is not determined by conscience but by other criteria to which conscience bears witness. Paul's reference to the conscience being "seared" and "corrupted" ( 1 Tim 4:2 ; Titus 1:15 ) indicates that the function of conscience as a capacity for sound inward critique has been thwarted by resistance to God's revealed values. The writer of Hebrews views conscience as bearing a witness of being "clear" or "guilty" ( 9:9 9:14 ; 10:2 10:22 ; 13:18 ). First Peter reflects both the classical use of "awareness" ( 2:19 ) and the Pauline "clear" ( 3:16 ) and "good" ( 3:21 ) pattern."
Conscience Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

******
"Conclusion. Conscience is an aspect of self-awareness that produces the pain and/or pleasure we "feel" as we reflect on the norms and values we recognize and apply. Conscience is not an outside voice. It is a inward capacity humans possess to critique themselves because the Creator provided this process as a means of moral restraint for his creation. The critique conscience exercises related to the value system which a person develops. Romans 12:1-2 makes the point that God desires that his creation conform to divine values by a process of rational renewal. The Scriptures provide the content for this renewal."
Conscience Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

(Emphases mine)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That "voice inside" all minds that, when unheeded or rejected, leads to feelings of guilt and remorse.

*
"knowledge within oneself, sense of right and wrong, a moral sense," abstract noun from conscientem (nominative consciens), present participle of conscire "be (mutually) aware; be conscious of wrong," in Late Latin "to know well," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave").

The Latin word is probably a loan-translation of Greek syneidesis, literally "with-knowledge." The sense development is perhaps via "to know along with others" (what is right or wrong) to "to know right or wrong within oneself, know in one's own mind" (conscire sibi). Sometimes it was nativized in Old English/early Middle English as inwit. Russian also uses a loan-translation, so-vest, "conscience," literally "with-knowledge."
conscience | Origin and meaning of conscience by Online Etymology Dictionary

**
"The Hebrew term for "conscience", matzpun, is a relative newcomer in Jewish literature. There is no expression for "conscience" in the Biblical or Rabbinic texts. Matzpun occurs in the medieval philosophical literature, but with a vague meaning. Serious discussions of conscience, together with related concepts like autonomy, natural law, absolute and relative moral values, ethical empowerment and the like, have really come into their own only in the post-Enlightenment period.

This does not mean, however, that moral mechanisms similar to "conscience" cannot be identified in Torah. One writer has referred in this context to a morally challenging episode in the story of Joseph. When Potiphar"s wife invites Joseph to lie with her, Torah tells us he refused. He said to his master"s wife, "Look, with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house; he has withheld nothing from me except yourself, since you are his wife. How then could I do this wicked thing and sin before God (ve-chata"ti le"lohim)?"

The Torah published by the Conservative Movement, Eitz Chayim, notes that Joseph puts forward three arguments to counter Potiphar"s wife"s advances. The first regards Joseph"s position of responsibility in the house; it is prudent for him to act uprightly. The second refers to the legal culture of Egyptian aristocracy; wives are property of their husbands, and Potiphar"s wife has been reserved for her husband. It is the third argument that approaches our notion of conscience: Joseph seems to have an inner sense that this would be a "sin before God". Nowhere prior to Joseph"s tale is this designated a sin; the Torah itself had not yet been revealed to the world, and we have no evidence that Joseph had learned it as an ethical norm from any other source. Where has Joseph"s recognition that his act would be a "sin before God" come from? Presumably it is the result of an inner ethical realisation."
Conscience: A Jewish Perspective

***
"The most pressing issues about conscience in relation to Torah have been caused by the post-Enlightenment emphasis on autonomy and the moral independence of the individual. Following much post-Enlightenment thought, there is a dichotomy or absolute distinction between conscience and Torah. Conscience is the human ability to make moral decisions based on reason. As a result, it is available to all persons, a function of our individual autonomy. It is part of our nature as human beings, hard-wired into our personalities, so to speak. It is universal, not restricted to any particular group within society."
Conscience: A Jewish Perspective

****
"While conscience is generally taken to represent the inner voice, Torah represents the external voice. To use the powerful image associated with the story of the prophet Elijah: the conscience is "the still, small voice" within us, while Torah is the thunderous voice outside of us.

We may favour the "still, small voice" because we prefer thinking of ourselves as autonomous and free rather than "servants", even servants to the divine. The idea that conscience emerges from within us gives us a sense of empowerment and reinforces our feeling that we act freely and without compulsion.

But it is possible, taking a more mystical approach, to assume that both voices are manifestations of the same thing, ultimately synchronised in the soul that is whole and at one with itself. That is to say, when my inner, or self, will comes to be one with the transcendent, or divine, will – when conscience and Torah are one – then true moral justice may ultimately be achieved."
Conscience: A Jewish Perspective

*****
"There is no Hebrew term in the Old Testament that is a linguistic equivalent for the classical Greek term suneidesis [suneivdhsi"]. The Hebrew term for "heart, " however, is a prominent term of self-awareness in the Old Testament. The lack of a developed concept of conscience in the Old Testament, as we see later in Paul, may be due to the worldview of the Hebrew person. Consciousness of life was of a relationship between God and a covenant community rather than an autonomous self-awareness between a person and his or her world. The only usage of suneidesis [suneivdhsi"] in the canonical section of the Septuagint is in Ecclesiastes 10:20, "Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, " where it is clearly used as self-reflection in secret (cf. the only verbal variations in Job 27:6 ; and Lev 5:1 ). Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls are consistent with the Old Testament in their lack of a vocabulary of conscience.

There are thirty occurrences of suneidesis [suneivdhsi"] in the New Testament (one more possible usage in a variant on John 8:9 ). The verb form (suneidon [suneivdw], sunoida) occurs only four times. The thirty occurrences are almost exclusively Pauline (22, with an additional 5 in Hebrews and 3 in 1 Peter), and eleven of them are in the Corinthian correspondence. The classical use of this word-group for simple knowledge occurs in ac 5:2, 12:12, and 14:6. The Pauline development of conscience as a monitor of actions and attitudes is particularly noted in the Pastoral Epistles, where adjectives like "good" ( 1 Timothy 1:5 1 Timothy 1:19 ; cf. Acts 23:1 ) and "clear" ( 1 Tim 3:9 ; 2 Tim 1:3 ; cf. Acts 24:16 ) are used to depict the conscience as affirming right action. This action, however, is not determined by conscience but by other criteria to which conscience bears witness. Paul's reference to the conscience being "seared" and "corrupted" ( 1 Tim 4:2 ; Titus 1:15 ) indicates that the function of conscience as a capacity for sound inward critique has been thwarted by resistance to God's revealed values. The writer of Hebrews views conscience as bearing a witness of being "clear" or "guilty" ( 9:9 9:14 ; 10:2 10:22 ; 13:18 ). First Peter reflects both the classical use of "awareness" ( 2:19 ) and the Pauline "clear" ( 3:16 ) and "good" ( 3:21 ) pattern."
Conscience Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

******
"Conclusion. Conscience is an aspect of self-awareness that produces the pain and/or pleasure we "feel" as we reflect on the norms and values we recognize and apply. Conscience is not an outside voice. It is a inward capacity humans possess to critique themselves because the Creator provided this process as a means of moral restraint for his creation. The critique conscience exercises related to the value system which a person develops. Romans 12:1-2 makes the point that God desires that his creation conform to divine values by a process of rational renewal. The Scriptures provide the content for this renewal."
Conscience Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

(Emphases mine)
Thank you, that was much more than I needed. I do not believe everyone has a conscience. There are people with psychopathy/sociopathy and theirs is either not present or not effective.
 
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Thank you, that was much more than I needed. I do not believe everyone has a conscience. There are people with psychopathy/sociopathy and theirs is either not present or not effective.

Your welcome! Yeah, scripture speaks of that as well (1 timothy 4:2). This is also why the whole idea of artificial intelligence is kinda scary...these "scientists" cant' give to robots, what only the Creator can impart. But, we, as a species, may have to learn this lesson the hard way. That would be some apologetic there...when we can observe what is lacking and the consequences thereof...the evidence of robo-apologetics.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evidence itself is huge delusion. When you said that you had a big meal on a Christmas day, do you need evidence to back that up? You have 3 meals a day and by the age of 31 you already had more than 30,000 meals none of which can be evidenced.

In a nutshell, humans don't rely on evidence to approach a truth of any kind. It's so because in reality evidence comes scarcely and it's never efficient. Humans rely on credibility and reliability of human eyewitnesses accounts to approach a truth. That's how you and everyone gather facts from TV channels instead of digging evidence by going on site.

This delusion is actually introduced by Satan through our secular education system by leveraging science which is a specific kind of truth can be evidenced to extend the falsehood implying all kinds of truth thus shall be evidenced like science does.

However not all kind of truth is a science. Science is a very specific kind of truth relating to a phenomenon which is repeatable.


======

Science relies on its predictability to confirm a truth. Satan is trying hard to twist this to re-define the term "science" in order to deceive even the most intelligent human scientists.

We can confirm that the earth is a sphere by the orbital behavior of stars inside our solar system. This behavior is 1) repeatable, 2) predictable. We can thus repeatedly and infallibly predict how each star moving following its orbital behavior. We can tell with no mistake its position today but next year.

The true nature of science is relying on the fact that humans don't have the capability to tell a future. If however a theory at hand can tell exactly what a future is, we thus can conclude with certainty that this theory holds the truth. So if our theory about the stars' orbital behavior has the power to predict how it repeats, and to predict without a single mistake, we can thus conclude that the theory we are having at hand can confirm a scientific truth (that our earth is a sphere).

This however is not without assumptions. The primary assumption is that our earth is a sphere as viewed inside our 3D environment. It's still possible to be "flat" when viewed from a high concept of multiple dimensions. "Viewing from our own space" is actually a paradigm within which our theory works.

======
Science is about how a phenomenon repeats itself from now to the future predictably. Science doesn't retain the same accuracy when one applies it to the past, including the Big Bang Theory. BBT is just to provide the best we can conclude based on what we can reach. It's not equivalent to a confirmable (and repeatable) scientific truth. That's actually there are other theories co-exist with the BBT.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Evidence itself is huge delusion. When you said that you had a big meal on a Christmas day, do you need evidence to back that up? You have 3 meals a day and by the age of 31 you already had more than 30,000 meals none of which can be evidenced.

Your life force is the evidence of all your meals...in conjunction with the body I would see before me, if we were in each other's presence. For now, the black words I see on the screen are enough evidence of your meals.

*you are what you eat...you become what you feed...

In a nutshell, humans don't rely on evidence to approach a truth of any kind. It's so because in reality evidence comes scarcely and it's never efficient. Humans rely on credibility and reliability of human eyewitnesses accounts to approach a truth. That's how you and everyone gather facts from TV channels instead of digging evidence by going on site.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

Evidence is everywhere...it permeates existence itself...everything you see.

This delusion is actually introduced by Satan through our secular education system by leveraging science which is a specific kind of truth can be evidenced to extend the falsehood implying all kinds of truth thus shall be evidenced like science does.

There is a twisting of the "natural things of creation", I agree, but we do not discount what remains true, because it is the order that He established.

However not all kind of truth is a science. Science is a very specific kind of truth relating to a phenomenon which is repeatable.

True.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your life force is the evidence of all your meals...in conjunction with the body I would see before me, if we were in each other's presence. For now, the black words I see on the screen are enough evidence of your meals.

That's a equivocation. Meal contents is the point. You life force can never backup which of your meals have chicken eggs in it.

If you have to start with an equivocation then none can help!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
That's a equivocation. Meal contents is the point. You life force can never backup which of your meals have chicken eggs in it.

If you have to start with an equivocation then none can help!

There are many ways to get more specific...forensics...nutrition...records...etc...
 
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It’s common in discussions between theists and atheists for the subject of “evidence” to come up. Atheists will often state that the evidence for God is not sufficient to warrant belief, and the theist will either agree and appeal to faith, or they will disagree and provide what they think to be good evidence. The problem is, either way the theist chooses to defend their belief in God, the two parties hardly ever end up talking about the same thing, as it’s rare to see them take the time to agree on definitions for evidence, faith, and God. It’s hard to blame them for this, because trying to tie down a strict definition for either one of these words could send them plunging into a philosophical rabbit hole where it’s very easy to lose your way.
Because of this, when we see theists and atheists locking horns, the discussion often devolves one of two ways: A) into a frustrating, repetitive bout of talking past each other that escalates into lost tempers and name-calling or B) into an in-depth examination of the epistemic tools being used by both parties, in which case the more experienced/educated interlocutor wins by mentally exhausting the other and the subject matter at hand doesn’t even get discussed.
That’s not to say it always goes those ways, but I’d go so far as to say it happens more often than not, at least in the threads in which I tend to participate. While not entirely pointless, these discussions rarely ever end up being about the question that’s asked originally.

I think the fundamental difference between theists and non-theists here isn’t in the arguments they’ve heard, the experiences they’ve had, or the facts they’re aware of. Rather, it is their approach to belief itself: what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something? Is it important for a belief to comport with reality? What beliefs must we take as self-evident before forming the rest? These are the issues that have to be settled up-front or else our discussions will end up devolving in the ways described above. And yet if we were actually able to accomplish that we would probably end up all on the same side anyway.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is none of the discussions we have here are likely to sway anyone from one side to the other. Instead these discussions serve to display how different people justify their views based on their own idiosyncratic epistemologies. The best we can do is point out each other’s inconsistencies.

Just something to keep in mind when you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over and the bonehead on the other side isn’t “getting” it.

Maybe there's a corollary consideration here: what does one do when interlocuting with a bonehead? ^_^
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you find a good answer for that let me know!

I've looked high and low, and there isn't one to be found due to epistemological complications that remain unrecognized by many Christians and ... others. ;)
 
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

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As a general rule, people will be much more liberal in how they define legit evidence, if they have a strong psychological need to believe something.

IMO, the exercise many go through, to justify their personal faith beliefs, by citing this evidence or that, is more an exercise to keep themselves convinced, than anyone else.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Hi Tone-

By epistemological complications, I refer to the conceptual limitations I've many times talked about here on CF that play into our individual attempts to fully and truly justify the claims we make about religion and/or the Christian Faith. Unfortunately, ideas about the essence of Christianity or as to how we think it all 'should' work are not borne out by any one epistemological plan -- at least not comprehensively so-- and thus our human deliberations on either side (+/-) of the belief spectrum always remain incomplete on their own.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As a general rule, people will be much more liberal in how they define legit evidence, if they have a strong psychological need to believe something.

IMO, the exercise many go through, to justify their personal faith beliefs, by citing this evidence or that, is more an exercise to keep themselves convinced, than anyone else.

The converse of this can also be true ... ;)
 
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

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Hi Tone-

By epistemological complications, I refer to the conceptual limitations I've many time talked about here on CF that play into our individual attempts to fully and truly justify the claims we make about religion and/or the Christian Faith. Unfortunately, ideas about the essence of Christianity or as to how we think it all 'should' work are not borne out by any one epistemological plan -- at least not comprehensively so-- and thus our human deliberations on either side (+/-) of the belief spectrum always remain incomplete on their own.

I added the below to my question mark:

*Oh, you probably mean choice of weapon...

I don't know if it fits in, I have to read your response slowly, and attempt to grasp it...ha ha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0