Are Morals Relevant?

[dmmesdale]

The same can be said about any one else's morality; they can be applied to all persons everywhere.

Objective morals can exist only if God exists. That is the point.

Have I moaned and groaned about slavery in the Bible or alleged rape?

Don't know, have you? Have you told all your atheist pals they should not assume moral absolutes since that is a Judeo/ Christian Theist concept? How can any rational atheist argue against slavery in the Bible with a straight face? How can any other rational atheist sit by and say nothing?

Subjective morality has lead to those things because subjective morality is the only morality that exists.

That sounds like an objective truth claim.

You appear to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

Was that in regards to the Hittites and their horses? There were two different laws from two different cultures regarding bestiality and your position being they were neither right nor wrong. Sex with horses was fine for the Hittites and throwing helpless women and children into the gas chambers was not objectively wrong for the Nazi's. All the Nazi's who escaped human justice for the killing of innocent women and children will never see justice. There will be no justice for victims many of whom were helpless children who did not one thing wrong. No justice for them since life life is unequal and the strong dominate the weak. That seems to be the implications of your position. It does not resonate.

The men who wrote the scriptures didn't have a problem with human sacrifice for religious purposes;

Actually they did.

If they did it wouldn’t have been made such a major part of the religion.

You are saying human sacrifice is a major part of Christianity? Never occurred to you, part of it has to do with an object lesson for unbelievers? A warning perhaps?

Then you should have no problem providing a list of facts that cannot be proven as true! Would you mind?

Thou shall not murder is true. It is true whether you accept it or not and is not conditioned in any way on human minds. The reason it is true is because it is by the finger of God. The standards are elevated for humans because we are image of God, not image of ape. Reducing man to the level of animal brings all sort of things into play we all intuitively know are wrong. Bestiality, rape, including child rape, the murder of women and chlidren. We intuitively know things exist in the abstract. Triangles, squares, math equations and we can include laws. They exist independent of human minds and are discovered, not invented. These are all objectively wrong and God will judge the offender if they escape human justice. There is ultimate justice for victims of crime. Not one person will escape the judgment of God. How is that for starters?

So you claim morality from mankind is not based on fact,

It would not apply to all persons.

but morality from God is?

Yup. It can only be objective if it comes from God.

Do you have anything to back up this claim other than your word? Or is this just another unsupported claim?

You can always do a compare analysis between the two models and tell us why throwing helpless women and children into the gas chambers and we are talking about frightened little children here is only subjectively wrong. And see which resonates with people, including atheists. That is about the best i can do on my end under these conditions.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

 

[cvanwey]

That was the opinion of 19th century skeptics based on no historical evidence. The external evidence shows Matthew as the author as the very earliest church fathers quoted Matthew and attributed the gospel to him. Do we believe historians from the same period or wait 18 more centuries to try to figure it out?

You are funny. You are making a very bold assertion, as if it is 'just plain fact' all legitimate historians now recognize that Matthew wrote Matthew. I would really love for you to make such assertions to the many well renowned historians whom disagree profusely, with their sighted reasons. However, rather than squabbling over natural based claims, lets instead get to the heart of matter. The resurrection, and all associated and related supernatural claims.

You avoided my main point from this paragraph; the comment you failed to address. Which is, 'seeing people return from their graves for many to see would be a huge phenomenon, in which, I would assume, would be written about by more than one passage from the Bible. Otherwise, what would be the point to display such an occurrence to prove to others the supernatural, initiated from Jesus, took place?'

So please explain why only one passage from Matthew mentions such an event? This would be very miraculous for the 'many' who saw as such... Where's the reports?

The agnostic 19th century skeptics tried to recreate the Bible without regard to 18 centuries of history. Their claim was we could not trust the early church to give an accurate report. That seems to be your position as well, which ignores history.

At this point, I'll just concede every single natural based event as 100% fact. Why not.... However, supernatural claims are going to need a little more 'evidence.'

That wasn't my point. Can you provide evidence Alexander even existed outside of Greek culture and history? I've yet to see evidence of this provided.

You are missing my point. So I'll state it again... I have no problem 'believing' a man lived, fought, and died. However, any supernatural claims require more. I do not accept any supernatural claims, from competing claimed holy text, or even alien sightings, or anywhere else history. Why? Because the evidence is always lacking. The Bible is NO exception.

I challenged back based on what Matthew wrote and how he received the information. Is it implausible that Matthew sat down with eyewitnesses to the event in question and recorded the event? Is it implausible Matthew was an actual eyewitness to the account?

Your conformation bias is showing my friend. The facts are... NO written accounts, or individuals go on record to confirm such sightings. This would at least be something to address.... But instead, we have one verse. One can speculate any number of reasons. My 'guess' is he wrote it, and there is no evidence to support it. One can only speculate the actual reason. Maybe it happened, but did not care to provide any actual evidence. Maybe he lied. Maybe he was partially crazy. Maybe other....? This gets one nowhere. However, there just is no evidence to support such a claim, period. Therefore, I do not accept such a claim, period.

It does differ as in the Bible the very words are confirmed by God's Power. Concluding that the supernatural does not happen therefore we cannot examine the supernatural in Holy Scriptures is a circular argument.

Your statement is NOT falsifiable. Just the same as the past Muslims I have been in contact with, whom state exactly the same thing. No evidence has been demonstrated to confirm the supernatural. Otherwise, one would not use the various tactics in an attempt to prove God.

The Christian claim is God has revealed Himself in Holy Scriptures and they are available to examine the evidence.

That is the Christian's burden of proof, not mine for not believing. How might one examine that authors received contact from God?.?.?

A higher standard? Sure you can do that but must be consistent. If you believe Julius Caesar is everything our history books says he was, then you should not impeach the source of the Bible books and at least examine their claims.

I'm sorry, but you are attempting to straw man the s**t out of me right now... For sake of ease, let's move forward simply...

Everything ever written to paper, inside, or outside the Bible, which makes no claim of a supernatural event, lets just assume it's ALL true.

So now, all you need to do, is demonstrate the supernatural. And like I stated, from the get-go, I'm asking for evidence supporting Matthew 27:52 and 1 Corinthians 15:6

If you dismiss the claims based on "the supernatural does not exist" then the burden of proof is on you to eliminate the plausibility of an uncreated Creator acting on His own creation.

You have overtly violated a few fallacies in such a statement. Where do I even begin?

Rather than chase you away from the main points, I rather choose to remain on point. I need evidence supporting 1 Corinthians 15:6 and Matthew 27:52.

I said Paul was a witness to the risen and glorified Christ as he says that He appeared to him. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:8

Paul is the one and only claimed first person witness, as attested in 15 of the 27 NT books, yes. I already said that. He had a vision in dessert. Yes, I already said that.

Rome fell and Christendom succeeded it. The entire history of the Western world was in the hands of Christians by the 5th century AD.

This would certainly explain the Christian bias, when later manuscripts were produced in later centuries...

Which Resurrection claim?

That's a great question, since 4 gospels exist, all claiming they received their divine information from the same God, and yet, God seemed to give differing details of the same events to each author differently?.?.?...

The reason? Most of the people were still alive. The original witnesses to the ministry and work of Christ and the early church. You keep ignoring this fact.

I have ignored nothing you have stated. Your response warranted no direct resply. But since you keep saying it, I will now put it to bed...

If they were alive, why did NONE of them attest witnessing this event? >500 are claimed to witness, and yet, no corroboration?.?.?.?. I can speculate reasons until the cows come home. But at the end of the day, none of them 'validate' seeing a resurrection.

Your responses are of the kind of someone who has not examined the works discussed and relying on an apologetics site for canned answers.

Rather than me returning the ad hominem attack, let's stick to the issues, shall we? Please address Mathew 27:52 and 1 Corinthians 15:6, by providing evidence to support these supernatural claims. Otherwise, this is all getting no one nowhere...

The Christians here on CF for the most part have been students of the Bible and the history surrounding the Bible for many years. Some for over 40 years. It's kind of difficult to Buffalo us. Meaning there is nothing new under the sun.

Then stop trying to 'buffalo' me, with blank assertions and assuming you think you know me, and what I know. I have not even attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of the Bible. I'm asking you to demonstrate justification for the supernatural events in question. Instead, you are redirecting....

 

[Ken-1122]

As I said before, the Christian worldview entail BOTH objective and subjective ethics. It is true society and culture had a role in the response to the interpretations of the Pentateuch in the New Testament period.

I wasn’t refuting your claim that the Christian worldview entails both objective and subjective ethics, I was refuting the claim that Christian ethics never changed.

And what kind of proof are you seeking? Logical proof should be more than sufficient. Or the logic of "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you", yeah Biblical logic is more than sufficient. Rocket science is not required to understand the sick and twisted nature of such an abominable sin.

Logic is not proof. My point is, to label actions as sick and disgusting is a subjective judgment; not something that can be proven as fact.

And how would you describe those "principals" what is the nature of them?

As I said before; what I see as helpful, I describe it as good. What I see as harmful, I describe it as bad.

Mathematics are not material either, so here you pick and choose which you profess to be "objective".

No; I've provided a definition of objective and subjective, and I've shown why math fits the description of objective; material has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Since God is the only moral intelligent being, He is the one who defines morality. Man does not define morality, clearly shown in that man's morality is in constant change, so man is not the standard.

That is theistic belief; I was responding in the context of what I believe. I am not a theist so my point stands.

The Atheistic worldview has no source of empathy if life is just survival of the fittest.

I do not have an Atheist world view (whatever that is) so unless you do, I see no reason to invite such folly into this conversation.

Not according to Darwinian Evolution.

If that is true, then “Darwinian Evolution” is wrong.

Why are you sorry? You have no basis for feelings for me, either good or bad, without stealing from the Christian worldview.

Empathy has been around long before Christianity. So if my empathy is a result of stealing, I definitely didn't steal it from Christianity.

You are not a good person, no one is. If you believe you are, you are calling God a liar.

I am a good person and if I called someone a liar, it isn’t God but those who claim to speak for God. History has a long list of liars who claimed to speak for God

 

[Ken-1122]

Now that you have answered subjectively in the negative as being against it, you must answer how it would be subjectively applied as acceptable.

And what would that prove?

 

[Ken-1122]

Don't know, have you? Have you told all your atheist pals they should not assume moral absolutes since that is a Judeo/ Christian Theist concept?

If you are trying to make the claim that moral absolutes originated with Christianity, I can assure you; you couldn’t be further from the truth.

That sounds like an objective truth claim.

It is!

Was that in regards to the Hittites and their horses?

No it was in regards to your attitude that objective morality is superior to subjective morality

Actually they did. You are saying human sacrifice is a major part of Christianity? Never occurred to you, part of it has to do with an object lesson for unbelievers? A warning perhaps?

No; what occurred to me is according to Bible scripture, the plan was for Jesus to be a living sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

Thou shall not murder is true. It is true whether you accept it or not

Thou shalt not murder is a commandment; not a factual claim. Care to try again?

Yup. It can only be objective if it comes from God.

I could just as easily say it can only be objective if it comes from me! If I did, how would you prove me wrong and you right?

You can always do a compare analysis between the two models and tell us why throwing helpless women and children into the gas chambers and we are talking about frightened little children here is only subjectively wrong. And see which resonates with people, including atheists. That is about the best i can do on my end under these conditions.

So you have nothing to back up your claims. Got it!

 

[the iconoclast]

Do I always succeed in that? Probably not. And when I fail, I welcome people pointing it out, so that I may alter my views and bring them in line with reason

Hey hey you.

That answer is very honest.

What are some examples when u did not succeed?

For a certain subset of christians, mainstream biology would be one.
Physics and chemistry another.

So these two sciences. Interesting.

I don't have a "belief" system in that sense.
I just follow the evidence. The word "belief", much like the word "faith", is kind of hijacked by theists in discussions like this. There is a LOT of baggage attached to it, to the point that when *I* use the words, I likely mean something very different as opposed to when theists use them.

Lawrence Krauss once said it very well imo, using these words in the "religious" sense:
"I don't believe anything. Instead, I consider things likely or unlikely. And the degree of certainty that comes with that, is directly proportional to the evidence in support of it, or the lack thereof".

I think im seeing a pattern. Chemistry and physics. A physician named Lawrence. Degrees of certainty.

What is the likelihood or the degree of certainty that God exists?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey you.
That answer is very honest.
What are some examples when u did not succeed?

When I was a teenager, I thought there was really something to this Atlantis story.
In a more general sense, sometimes one is simply wrong because of bad intel. Sources are important and not always double checked. Like reading something on some random internet blog and accepting it at face value because it kind of makes sense, without double checking it elsewhere, from more credible sources.

Bias, irrationality, emotions, false positives,... the human mind is extremely prone to faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human.

The question is, how does one deal with that reality and what measures does one take to protect oneself against it?

I do the best I can, but at times I too will let my "guard" down and step in the trap of human psychology. Everyone does. None of us are Vulcans (in case you know star trek), we are all humans.

So these two sciences. Interesting.

I'm sure you are aware that a considerable subset of abrahamic theists, are kind of big on the whole literal 6-day creation story. These people are also the folks that call mainstream biology a "satanic conspiracy" or whatever.

I think im seeing a pattern. Chemistry and physics. A physician named Lawrence. Degrees of certainty.

Krauss is a physicist.
Not sure what your point is though.

What is the likelihood or the degree of certainty that God exists?

Considering the total lack of evidence and the history of claims concerning gods and supernatural things, I'ld say: extremely low.

 

[dmmesdale]

If you are trying to make the claim that moral absolutes originated with Christianity, I can assure you; you couldn’t be further from the truth.

It is!

No it was in regards to your attitude that objective morality is superior to subjective morality


No; what occurred to me is according to Bible scripture, the plan was for Jesus to be a living sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

Thou shalt not murder is a commandment; not a factual claim. Care to try again?

I could just as easily say it can only be objective if it comes from me! If I did, how would you prove me wrong and you right?

So you have nothing to back up your claims. Got it!

FYI

Hittites law code.

Excerpts from the law code of the Hittites | History Resources at Mott Community College

199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment. But he shall not approach the king, and shall not become a priest. If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man, and they shall kill it. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.

---------------------------------
Subjective morals at it's finest. Makes one wonder if Hittite women saw horses as their competition for men or if the husband had sex with the mule, did she consider it cheating?

All your atheist pals moan and groan about Mosiac law. What a joke.

 

[redleghunter]

199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment.

One might wonder why they had levels of acceptable bestiality but won't go there....

 

[the iconoclast]

The question is, how does one deal with that reality and what measures does one take to protect oneself against it?

Hey hey friend.

The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human - dogmahunter, 2018.

You - dogmahunter - are extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes?

Does this mean it is extremely unlikely you are right about most things my dear?

What measures do you recommend to us - that you use - that protect you from your erroneous mind?

I'm sure you are aware that a considerable subset of abrahamic theists, are kind of big on the whole literal 6-day creation story. These people are also the folks that call mainstream biology a "satanic conspiracy" or whatever.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Krauss is a physicist.

Not sure what your point is though.

Thank you for the correction.

When you discover something is likely or unlikely how do you prove it to yourself? (,eg God is unlikely to exist)?

Considering the total lack of evidence and the history of claims concerning gods and supernatural things, I'ld say: extremely low.

I'm very interested now. How did you calculate the probability of the existence of God? What methods did you use to reach this extremely low figure that's in your head?

How is this decision not biased by your emotions?

Cheers big ears.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey friend.

The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human - dogmahunter, 2018.

You - dogmahunter - are extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes?

As I said, all humans are. And I am a human.

Does this mean it is extremely unlikely you are right about most things my dear?

No. It means that one needs to guard himself against the traps of human psychology.
How likely it is that one is correct or wrong about something, is proportional to the evidence in support of whatever claim is being discussed. If all the evidence is unverifiable and just "personal" (anecdotal, eye witness testimony,...) then that is pretty much weak evidence - since that kind of evidence finds itself in the danger zone, since it is dependend on a person's psych / observation and by extension his state of mind, a priori beliefs and assumptions, etc.

This is why science puts so much importance on peer review, repeatability of results, testability of models, objectivity of evidence and data,...

What measures do you recommend to us - that you use - that protect you from your erroneous mind?

Value independend evidence.

And in the case of some hardcore fundamentalists, some of which participate on this site.... when the evidence of reality contradicts your a priori beliefs... then that means that your beliefs are wrong. Fundamentalists oftenly go the opposite direction: they'll say that reality is wrong and their beliefs are correct.

AV is probably the most blatant example of this.

When you discover something is likely or unlikely how do you prove it to yourself? (,eg God is unlikely to exist)?

Proving something brings about certainty. Not likelyness.

How likely / unlikely something is, is directly proportional to the evidence that supports it.

I'm very interested now. How did you calculate the probability of the existence of God? What methods did you use to reach this extremely low figure that's in your head?

As said, how likely something is, is directly proportional to the evidence that supports it.

There is zero evidence that supports claims of the supernatural.
Hence, it is ridiculously unlikely.

It doesn't get much more unlikely then claims that have NO supporting evidence AT ALL.

How is this decision not biased by your emotions?

Because it's based on evidence and not on emotion.

 

[the iconoclast]

No. It means that one needs to guard himself against the traps of human psychology.

You need to guard yourself against the traps of your erroneous mind.

How likely it is that one is correct or wrong about something, is proportional to the evidence in support of whatever claim is being discussed. If all the evidence is unverifiable and just "personal" (anecdotal, eye witness testimony,...) then that is pretty much weak evidence - since that kind of evidence finds itself in the danger zone, since it is dependend on a person's psych / observation and by extension his state of mind, a priori beliefs and assumptions, etc.

Say you and i were out and about enjoying each others company - that would be cool! I like you!!

Say if I saw someone approaching you with a gun and told you to duck - I could be pranking or tell the truth. What evidence would you need from me to duck?

This is why science puts so much importance on peer review, repeatability of results, testability of models, objectivity of evidence and data,..

Science hey. Science is not a belief because it deals with facts.

Science is your certainty?

If you do not have trust in science then how would you describe your - can not think of a better word - belief system? What label do you fit into?

Value independend evidence.

Thank you kind sir.


Let's say I'm a scientist - hahaha , yeah right I'm just a construction worker, not smart enough for that,


Im Christian. How smart can I be!


Anyways, I have been charged to do research on the Christian God by the top brass.


How would I apply value independent evidence to God?


Say if I saw a comet in the sky and you did not. How would you apply value independent evidence to that?

Proving something brings about certainty. Not likelyness.


How likely / unlikely something is, is directly proportional to the evidence that supports it.

Billions of people immerse themselves with water and get wet. Everyone through out history has eventually ended up dead.

What degree of certainty do you award these two examples?

There is zero evidence that supports claims of the supernatural.

Hence, it is ridiculously unlikely.


It doesn't get much more unlikely then claims that have NO supporting evidence AT ALL.

Scientific evidence varies between the fields.

For example
From wiki

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. For example, the Earth's apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology. However, after sufficient evidence is presented for heliocentric cosmology and the apparent lack of motion is explained, the initial observation is strongly discounted as evidence.


So science is about facts. It is the mind that discerns the material and produces a conclusion. All humans are extremely prone to error.

Evidence are facts. Conclusions are human.

We have evidence (.eg facts). How can you trust the individual to discern these facts and come to the correct conclusion?

Because it's based on evidence and not on emotion

As said before evidence and facts are one and the same. If not emotions, what do you use to discern the facts?

You are extremely prone to error and have limited chance of getting it right.

You have opinions and beliefs.

You believe them therefore these are your opinions and beliefs.

You do not hold onto false beliefs, therefore you are correct. These are your opinions therefore they are correct or you would not have them.

Do you have complete trust in your mind to discern facts?

Cheers

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

You will "rot in hell" according to the devil's interpretation of scripture. However, the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in torment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Say if I saw someone approaching you with a gun and told you to duck - I could be pranking or tell the truth. What evidence would you need from me to duck?

Humans exist.
Guns exist.
Humans use guns to rob / hurt / ... people.

My instinctive reaction would likely be to duck while trying to spot the thing you are referring to. Much would also depend on the intensity by which you call it out.

If you say it with the body language and tone that you would use while saying something trivial like "you know what? I like cake!", then I'ld probably not react as that would make it unbelievable.

If however you turn white in the face, show pannic in your eyes and if you are ducking away yourself, then I'll think you're sincere and take appropriate action.

However, this is a false analogy. Because that is not an extra-ordinary claim like supernatural things.

A more proper analogy (in terms of "believability" or extra-ordinary nature of the claim), would be that you tell me to duck, because an extra terrestial is appeared out of nowhere while holding a Jedi light saber. I'ld just look at you funny. I might turn around to look at what you are talking about, but I wouldn't exactly be worried.

So this example is not comparable.

Science hey. Science is not a belief because it deals with facts.

It's not a belief, that is true. It is a method that helps you answer questions about reality.

Science is your certainty?

No. It is a tool to gather knowledge about the world.

If you do not have trust in science then how would you describe your - can not think of a better word - belief system? What label do you fit into?

Why would you not trust in the scientific method?
It's impeccable track record of finding out how things work and how they can be manipulated into technology, seems pretty solid enough to trust that it is a great method to find out how stuff works, wouldn't you say?

So, I don't know how to answer this question.
Best I can say, is that if we pretend for a second that this track record of success does not exist and instead it is a track record of failure upon failure with no success at all...
Then I simply wouldn't trust it. And we'ld still be living in caves fighting over fire, btw.

Anyways, I have been charged to do research on the Christian God by the top brass.
How would I apply value independent evidence to God?

Very good question.
I don't know the answer to that one.
Which is exactly the problem with God claims.
It's the same problem that every unfalsifiable claim has to deal with.

Indeed.... how does one even start?

Here's one way to look at it: things that don't exist, don't have any supportive evidence either.

Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence - true.
However, if the model is "it doesn't exist", then the prediction is "you won't find a single shred of supportive evidence".

I'ld also point out, that if you are the one that claims a God exists, then it's upto you to come up with evidence for that.... You shouldn't be asking me how to go about supporting your own claims. Burden of proof, and all that jazz....

Say if I saw a comet in the sky and you did not. How would you apply value independent evidence to that?

Find it with a telescope or satellite and share the coordinates and trajectory.

Billions of people immerse themselves with water and get wet. Everyone through out history has eventually ended up dead.

What degree of certainty do you award these two examples?

Ridiculously likely.
So likely that we might as well call it a certainty.

If you try X a billion times and every single time, you get result Y.
Does that prove that you'll get result Y for the following billion times?

Not really.
However, the consistency of results so far, predict that it is extremely likely that it will indeed result in Y every single time.
We can call that "certain", purely due to the extremely likelyness we can infer from available data.

However it is not absolutely certain.
Science doesn't deal in absolute certainty.

Scientific evidence varies between the fields.

For example
From wiki

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. For example, the Earth's apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology. However, after sufficient evidence is presented for heliocentric cosmology and the apparent lack of motion is explained, the initial observation is strongly discounted as evidence.

Yes, it's called learning.

So science is about facts. It is the mind that discerns the material and produces a conclusion. All humans are extremely prone to error.

The scientific method is set up in such a way to explicitly avoid human bias.
This is why models need to be testable and why a single scientist is never taken on his word.

Evidence are facts. Conclusions are human.

And conclusions make testable predictions that can be tested by other humans, to check the accuracy of said conclusion.

We have evidence (.eg facts). How can you trust the individual to discern these facts and come to the correct conclusion?

The point exactly. We do NOT trust the individual to come to the correct conclusion.
Hence peer review, reproduction of experiments, further testing of predictions flowing from the conclusion, strict rules on how to set up experiments (like double blind studies), etc....

ALL done to avoid human error, bias, assumption,...

As said before evidence and facts are one and the same. If not emotions, what do you use to discern the facts?

Rational reasoning, producing testable conclusions.

You are extremely prone to error and have limited chance of getting it right.

Which is why conclusions are tested instead of simply believed.

You have opinions and beliefs.
You believe them therefore these are your opinions and beliefs.

I wouldn't use that terminology, but sure - why not.
The point is that these opinions and beliefs aren't trusted. They are double, tripple, quadruple,... checked by peers. They are tested to hell and back.

You do not hold onto false beliefs, therefore you are correct. These are your opinions therefore they are correct or you would not have them.

Do you have complete trust in your mind to discern facts?

Wauw, how many times must it be repeated.....

NO! This is why the scientific method exists.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey he who hunts dogma and he who does not have a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Shhhhh guys (. dont mention the scientific method)

Humans exist.

Guns exist.

Humans use guns to rob / hurt / ... people.


My instinctive reaction would likely be to duck while trying to spot the thing you are referring to. Much would also depend on the intensity by which you call it out.


If you say it with the body language and tone that you would use while saying something trivial like "you know what? I like cake!", then I'ld probably not react as that would make it unbelievable.


If however you turn white in the face, show pannic in your eyes and if you are ducking away yourself, then I'll think you're sincere and take appropriate action.


However, this is a false analogy. Because that is not an extra-ordinary claim like supernatural things.




A more proper analogy (in terms of "believability" or extra-ordinary nature of the claim), would be that you tell me to duck, because an extra terrestial is appeared out of nowhere while holding a Jedi light saber. I'ld just look at you funny. I might turn around to look at what you are talking about, but I wouldn't exactly be worried.


So this example is not comparable.

This seems familiar. Have you been reading my exchange with kylie?

I bet you read everything that I post. I'm flattered my dear.

Please forgive me for my substandard analogy. I shall retract it if it is indeed flawed.

Let's use the one that you think is more adequate.


Iconoclast and dogmahunter were enjoying each others company when suddenly iconoclast went pale white."watch out there is an alien with a technologically superior weapon behind you!-" Dogmahunter stopped dead still. There was something different about the body language of iconoclast. And in the way of being human, he did feel something and knew they were no longer alone. A great hush had fallen over the two; but it was a malefic hush. Shadows, urged by the wind, twisted languorously around them. What fate would befall on dogma hunter?

He turns around and to encounter this unknown.

Why did you turn around?

It's not a belief, that is true. It is a method that helps you answer questions about reality

As in;

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So science deals with the physical world. Science does not deal the supernatural. So there is no point applying the scientific method to God?

No. It is a tool to gather knowledge about the world.
Why would you not trust in the scientific method?

The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human - dogmahunter, 2018.

Your bff bugeyedcreepy said this about humans.

human beings can be influenced by said fallible humans to serve their personal worldly desires and goals - bugs 2018.

How do I trust a human that is extremely like to make mistakes and only to serve their personal desires/goals with this systemic study?

It's impeccable track record of finding out how things work and how they can be manipulated into technology, seems pretty solid enough to trust that it is a great method to find out how stuff works, wouldn't you say?

I'd liken it to sudoku. Placing a number here and there till it adds up. Trial and error is also part of it my dear.

Impeccable hey. in accordance with the highest standards; faultless.

Faultless hey. This wording seems to contradict your dogma - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Impeccable!

The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human - dogmahunter, 2018.

Impeccable is 100%. I thought the only absolute certainty you agreed on is there are no absolute certainties?

Which is it?

So, I don't know how to answer this question.

I wouldn't use that terminology, but sure - why not.
The point is that these opinions and beliefs aren't trusted. They are double, tripple, quadruple,... checked by peers. They are tested to hell and back.

You dont know what you believe?!?

You seemed confused. How can you have an opinion if you do not know what you believe?

Are you an atheist who has accepted appeals to authority because your mind is prone to mistakes and you are bound by existential re tape?

Best I can say, is that if we pretend for a second that this track record of success does not exist and instead it is a track record of failure upon failure with no success at all...

Then I simply wouldn't trust it. And we'ld still be living in caves fighting over fire, btw

That's right. Past technological advancements go hand in hand with the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

If anyone disagrees with this they are wrong. Why? Because I said so.

Very good question.

I don't know the answer to that one.

Which is exactly the problem with God claims.

It's the same problem that every unfalsifiable claim has to deal with.


Indeed.... how does one even start?


Here's one way to look at it: things that don't exist, don't have any supportive evidence either.


Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence - true.

However, if the model is "it doesn't exist", then the prediction is "you won't find a single shred of supportive evidence".


I'ld also point out, that if you are the one that claims a God exists, then it's upto you to come up with evidence for that.... You shouldn't be asking me how to go about supporting your own claims. Burden of proof, and all that jazz....

But if we use the model "it doesn't exist", will that not bias the study. If the presumed prediction is "you won't find a single shred of supportive evidence", is that not a form of confirmation bias and it will yield inaccurate results?

My dear dogmahunter. I know God exists. I have a relation ship with Him. Through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

We are having a conversation. You seem like a smart fella and you seem to be on this site to set us Christian's straight. You are here to help us to true knowledge and leave us not in primitive darkness, are you not?

We must know how your methods and 'certainty' system. We must be able to test them accurately as well as ask questions?




Why can you not apply value independent evidence re God?

 

[the iconoclast]

Find it with a telescope or satellite and share the coordinates and trajectory.

Dogma and icon are out together in coastal areas enjoying each others company - in my fantasies we are both good friends and hang out heaps.

There were fine sunsets with low flat beaches, with its pools of water and dry patches, changed into long bars of silver and gold in various states of burnishing, and there were fine views - on fine days."

It was the year of Our Lord two thousand and eighteen. Dogmahunter, less favoured on the whole as to matters of the spiritual than his favourite friend iconoclast, rolled with exceeding discomfort as he was tested by the rugged terrain where he slept

Under an enchanting sea of bright lights, iconoclast glanced into the night and held onto fond memories of the day he had with his favourite friend dogmahunter. He turned to dogmahunter.

"But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east and my dear dogmahunter is the sun!
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief"

At that moment a comet shot through like a mouse and disappeared just as quickly.

Iconoclast sat there and toke in the wonders of Creation for a second and tried again to wake dogmahunter with this news.

Dogmahunter awakes and chooses to grab a telescope to see this past event. Feeling let down he is too late to view it. He then suggests the two get a satellite to find it.

How does dogmahunter find this past icy small Solar System body with a satellite?

Ridiculously likely.

So likely that we might as well call it a certainty

So certain as to cause surprise or disbelief if it were not to happen?

So certain the opposite would invite mockery or derision?

If you try X a billion times and every single time, you get result Y.

Does that prove that you'll get result Y for the following billion times?

Ok. According to estimates by demographic researchers at the Population Reference Bureau(PRB), as of 2015, there have been 108.2 billion who have ever been born. Taking away the roughly 7.4 billion who are alive today, we get 100.8 billion who have died before us.

We have 99 sets of a billion so far with no stop in sight.

Since the death of 117-year-old Nabi Tajima of Japan on 21 April 2018, 117-year-old Chiyo Miyako of Japan, born 2 May 1901 became the oldest living person.

When it comes to death there has been systematic observation. Death has happened to all so far. Not one has escaped.

measurement or a degree of death. You are either dead or you are alive. We can ascertain the degree of based on rigor mortis.

We can perform a scientific procedure to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. The only answer is he does not remain alive.

You are either dead or you are alive. All systems decay. Why do you hold onto this belief that death is not an absolute certainty?

The scientific method is set up in such a way to explicitly avoid human bias.

This is why models need to be testable and why a single scientist is never taken on his word.

Yes, it's called learning.

An acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.

Testable - able to be tested or tried. By whom?

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis WILL affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence.

The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human.

It means that one needs to guard himself against the traps of human psychology.

How likely it is that one is correct or wrong about something, is proportional to the evidence in support of whatever claim is being discussed.

To have a close similarity; match or agree almost exactly. In support to whatever claim is being disucced.

human beings can be influenced by said fallible humans to serve their personal worldly desires and goals - bugs 2018.

When presented with facts a judgement or decision is reached by reasoning, (. Eg the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way must be applied by a human)

The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human - dogmahunter 2018.

The point exactly. We do NOT trust the individual to come to the correct conclusion.

Hence peer review, reproduction of experiments, further testing of predictions flowing from the conclusion, strict rules on how to set up experiments (like double blind studies), etc....


ALL done to avoid human error, bias, assumption,...

We have humans extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning - and making mistakes - testing other humans, who are extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes.


We all suffer from that as we are all human. Right?

Rational reasoning, producing testable conclusions.

Done by humans extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning.

Which is why conclusions are tested instead of simply believed.

Done by humans extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning who's personal assumptions and beliefs affect the result.

Learning - what was taught to them by others.

Get where I'm going my illustrious friend? I'm excited!!!

Wauw, how many times must it be repeated.....


NO! This is why the scientific method exists.

Sorted. You cannot trust yourself.

You are divided against yourself.

You trust the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

But you dont have absolute trust in it. Things are extremely or ridiculously certain. This is because humans are extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning who's personal assumptions and beliefs affect the result.

Results you agree with.






An appeal to authority!!!!!!!





You cant prove the counter to x resulting in y. It is like a magical jar of gum balls that has no lid. No one can never know truly what is happening or has happened.

How likely it is that one is correct or wrong about something, is proportional to the evidence in support of whatever claim is being discussed.

Is your existence absolute? How do you prove to yourself you exist?

Cheers you diamond

 

[maty55]

the moral facts are as important as are the beliefs of the people towards a certain cult

 

[Holoman]

Hi cvanwey

In answer to your question, I don't necessarily believe, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that one goes to hell simply for not believing in Jesus' resurrection. There are plenty of people who have never even heard the name Jesus. God is a fair judge and will do so based on what the person knows or has access to.

If you are interested, there is a good book which weighs the evidence for and against the resurrection. It's called The Jesus Inquest. I found it quite a fair representation of the arguments on both sides. You aren't going to get the true depths of the evidence on a forum like this. Better to read some real books on it.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

Are you wanting Science to show you why Christian morals and ethics are a good idea ?