Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

Why? What is it best for? Determining truth?

Personally, I believe when someone is attempting to convince you of a their beliefs....particularly religious beliefs....It's best to consider their stories with a generous dose of scepticism.

Why?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why?

Because religious claims have a poor track record.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why?

I'll gladly answer this....once you let us all know your idea of what constitutes "good evidence".

 

[anonymous person]

I'll gladly answer this....once you let us all know your idea of what constitutes "good evidence".

It seems that it would depend on the claim made. IOW, it would vary.

 

[anonymous person]

Because religious claims have a poor track record.

But according to him, I should approach your statement with a generous dose of skepticism and any belief for that matter.

I just don't see the justification for such a view.

Skeptics I have found, are in general, reluctant to approach with skepticism, the belief that beliefs should be approached with skepticism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems that it would depend on the claim made. IOW, it would vary.

Let's go with the story I gave you that you made the claim about evidence on. Pretend it's the summary of a larger story that surfaced.

 

[bhsmte]

Is this effectively saying that you will make no effort to objectively verify the truth of statements found in the bible, because they are found in the bible? If so, can you see how this might look like disconfirmation bias?

You haven't been paying attention and you have a habit of putting words in my mouth.

If you have followed my posts, you will see, I have made a serious attempt to determine the reliability of the claims made in the NT specifically. I have explained many times how I went about this and I do not find scripture to be a credible source of reality.

 

[Chriliman]

God based religious claims are solely based on the belief that God created us personally and our observable reality.

Claims that are not based on a belief in God, such as atheistic scientific claims, are completely based on observations of our observable reality and completely ignore the personal aspects of humanity. (to me personally, it seems odd to ignore a significant part of our reality(ourselves) in order to determine the truth about our reality)

If we take a step back and look at this, then we'd realize that if God created us and our observable reality and all we're considering is the observable reality itself and not considering ourselves or God at all, then it stands to reason that we'll miss God entirely because of our lack of open mindedness to the possibility that God created us and our observable reality for a reason. Does this seem like a reasonable observation about reality?

Thankfully, the fact of the matter is that one can't observe our reality without considering God at some point in one's personal life(this includes all human scientists), but one can observe our reality and ignore the idea that God created everything we observe. Their justification for ignoring the idea that God created everything is that it seems like an extraordinary claim that should be backed by extraordinary evidence, while being fully willing to accept any other explanation about origins and give it the skepticism that it rightfully deserves. One cannot objectively consider the idea that God created everything, while not being openminded to this possibility.

What I think might be missing is the acknowledgement of the extraordinary evidence for the existence of God that is right in front of all us. This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God.

On the other hand, the extraordinary evidence of ourselves existing in the way that we do, is disregarded as soon as you take God out of the possibility. "Ourselves" mediately becomes a fluke of nature, as if we should never really exist in this way because it's too extraordinary. Well, what if there's a specific reason for why our existence is so extraordinary? Of course this points to God, which just isn't possible, right?

One question I have is: At what point does a human being reject all evidence that points to God, no matter how extraordinary? Are some people at this point in their personal life? How sad for them, if God turns out to be true. The realization that one has been deceived for so long, must be devastating, or liberating depending how you look at it.

I know all atheist look at everything I've said in a reverse way. They think that I am the one being deceived and when I finally come to realize God does not exist, I will be liberated from all religious deception. I will finally come to realize that the fact that I exist is not extraordinary at all, but rather just a fluke of nature that really never should have happened. The extraordinariness of my existence is simply deceiving me into thinking it's extraordinary. All the sudden we have a new question: What purpose does my existence have in deceiving me into believing my existence isn't extraordinary?

Again, it all come back to truth and deception, which consequently is what Jesus is all about straightening out for us.

 

[HitchSlap]

God based religious claims are solely based on the belief that God created us personally and our observable reality.

Claims that are not based on a belief in God, such as atheistic scientific claims, are completely based on observations of our observable reality and completely ignore the personal aspects of humanity. (to me personally, it seems odd to ignore a significant part of our reality(ourselves) in order to determine the truth about our reality)

If we take a step back and look at this, then we'd realize that if God created us and our observable reality and all we're considering is the observable reality itself and not considering ourselves or God at all, then it stands to reason that we'll miss God entirely because of our lack of open mindedness to the possibility that God created us and our observable reality for a reason. Does this seem like a reasonable observation about reality?

Thankfully, the fact of the matter is that one can't observe our reality without considering God at some point in one's personal life(this includes all human scientists), but one can observe our reality and ignore the idea that God created everything we observe. Their justification for ignoring the idea that God created everything is that it seems like an extraordinary claim that should be backed by extraordinary evidence, while being fully willing to accept any other explanation about origins and give it the skepticism that it rightfully deserves. One cannot objectively consider the idea that God created everything, while not being openminded to this possibility.

What I think might be missing is the acknowledgement of the extraordinary evidence for the existence of God that is right in front of all us. This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God.

On the other hand, the extraordinary evidence of ourselves existing in the way that we do, is disregarded as soon as you take God out of the possibility. "Ourselves" mediately becomes a fluke of nature, as if we should never really exist in this way because it's too extraordinary. Well, what if there's a specific reason for why our existence is so extraordinary? Of course this points to God, which just isn't possible, right?

One question I have is: At what point does a human being reject all evidence that points to God, no matter how extraordinary? Are some people at this point in their personal life? How sad for them, if God turns out to be true. The realization that one has been deceived for so long, must be devastating, or liberating depending how you look at it.

I know all atheist look at everything I've said in a reverse way. They think that I am the one being deceived and when I finally come to realize God does not exist, I will be liberated from all religious deception. I will finally come to realize that the fact that I exist is not extraordinary at all, but rather just a fluke of nature that really never should have happened. The extraordinariness of my existence is simply deceiving me into thinking it's extraordinary. All the sudden we have a new question: What purpose does my existence have in deceiving me into believing my existence isn't extraordinary?

Again, it all come back to truth and deception, which consequently is what Jesus is all about straightening out for us.

Son, I am disappoint. After all the time we've spent together here on CF, and this is your current opinion?

I feel like such a failure.

 

[Chriliman]

Son, I am disappoint. After all the time we've spent together here on CF, and this is your current opinion?

I feel like such a failure.

Sorry, but this very comment is a contradiction. Your position as an atheist is "claimed" to not be a truth claim, yet you feel like a failure as if you've been trying to convince me of some "truth" and have failed.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, but this very comment is a contradiction. Your position as an atheist is "claimed" to not be a truth claim, yet you feel like a failure as if you've been trying to convince me of some "truth" and have failed.

The only thing I've "tried to convince" you of, is how to soundly reason. I have failed.

 

[Chriliman]

The only thing I've "tried to convince" you of, is how to soundly reason. I have failed.

You can't convince me about sound reason. You can show me how you reason and I can either agree or reason in a different way.

The fundament difference between our reasoning is that you base your reasoning on assumptions, I base my reasoning on what I believe to be true.

We've been over this

 

[bhsmte]

The only thing I've "tried to convince" you of, is how to soundly reason. I have failed.

The chips were stacked against you.

 

[HitchSlap]

You can't convince me about sound reason. You can show me how you reason and I can either agree or reason in a different way.

The fundament difference between our reasoning is that you base your reasoning on assumptions, I base my reasoning on what I believe to be true.

We've been over this

And I've repeatedly pointed out why that is a foolish way to reason, and you've ignored me every time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God."

You said this...and unsurprisingly, you failed to mention what you meant by "the fact that we exist in the way we do". So...what did you mean by that? What is the "way that we exist" that is so extraordinary to you?

I've seen a lot of atheists discuss human anatomy and all of its myriad flaws in conversations with christians who believe in intelligent design....so it's certainly not as if "atheists" or "scientists" haven't considered mankind and the possibility that a god has created us. The evidence would seem to favor the view that we evolved and weren't miraculously created by something "intelligent". Somehow though, I don't think this is what you were referring to when you wrote about "the fact that we exist in the way we do".

So what do you mean?

 

[HitchSlap]

The chips were stacked against you.

Are they still considered chips, if only imagined?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can't convince me about sound reason.

This statement is one of those oddly true moment of clarity type statements where you said something absolutely true but meant it in a different way.

 

[Chriliman]

And I've repeatedly pointed out why that is a foolish way to reason, and you've ignored me every time.

And I've repeatedly stated that we do not become self aware and immediately assume reality is real, we are not capable of making assumptions when we become self aware. Instead, when we become self-aware we subconsciously accept the truth that reality is real and begin making assumptions from there. Therefore, all reasoning is based on an accepted truth, not on assumptions.

 

[HitchSlap]

And I've repeatedly stated that we do not become self aware and immediately assume reality is real, we are not capable of making assumptions when we become self aware. Instead, when we become self-aware we subconsciously accept the truth that reality is real and begin making assumptions from there. Therefore, all reasoning is based on an accepted truth, not on assumptions.

An "accepted truth" is nothing more than an assumption, plain and simple.

Here, try this on for size:

We all accept the truth that reality exists.
We all accept the truth that we can learn some things about reality.
We all accept the truth falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

Does this make you feel better about your "accepted truths?"

 

[Chriliman]

An "accepted truth" is nothing more than an assumption, plain and simple.

I don't view belief and assumptions as the same thing. I view belief as the acceptance that something is true. Whereas I view an assumption as the acceptance that something may or may not be true.

Take the two instances as an example:

"I believe reality is real and I believe I can rely on it to figure out what is true"

"I assume reality is real, therefore, I may or may not be able to rely on it to figure out what is true."

Does that make sense?

Here, try this on for size:

We all accept the truth that reality exists.
We all accept the truth that we can learn some things about reality.
We all accept the truth falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

Does this make you feel better about your "accepted truths?"

Agreed!