Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

A lot of stuff but never answered the question sufficiently.

Why do you believe your version of God exists?

In short, I think the following general reasons are "sufficient" [but only for me]

1) Jesus predicted the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It happened.
2) I think the New Testament Documents are generally reliable as basic documents on a human level.
3) I prayed to meet my wife and to have a healthy child. I did.
4) I think the prophetic patterns, in Jewish type idiom, are recognizable in the world around us, even though with some difficultly, and they have been for about 2,000 years.
5) The Skeptical and Atheistic arguments I've vetted seem to me to run afoul of epistemological and evidential problems.​

In a nutshell, the five points above are IT (plus all of the Existential philosophy, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Biblical Hermeneutics, Church History and History of Christian Theology, Studies in Apocaplyptic Genre, Comparative studies in Biblical Literature, Apologetics, Comparative World Religion studies, World History, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, Epistemology, Metaphysics and Axiology that I've studied which contribute to the structure of the mental model/web of understanding that I have in my head).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, the nature of belief is that no one can choose what they are convince of by the evidence. If a god exists then there must be evidence out there that would convince me and god should know what that evidence is for me.

Speaking from experience, God gives us a little here and there and then gives us the choice to determine whether or not it is God or not. As we grow and mature in our faith, more is given and evidence becomes greater and greater.

The claims of Jesus, the claims of the biblical writers, other people that claim to know god exists, feelings, experiences etc.

Is this evidence you accept?

Have you then solved the problem of hard solipsism? If we both agree that this reality is real and we are both living in this same reality then yes, we can know things 100%.

Are you saying you don't agree we have the same reality or we do? If you believe your mind is the only certainty in reality does it matter what I or anyone else really believes or thinks?

That is not a good basis for belief. The best answer also needs to be supported by evidence. Bloodletting to cure diseases to balance our humors was the best answer for 2000 years or so to heal the sick until we actually found good evidence based treatments for diseases through science

.

What makes you think those things are not supported by evidence?

Nope. I prefer not knowing rather than believing something without sufficient evidence. That is the most honest answer. If the god of the bible exists I want to know.

I would think you would want to know. I did. However, not knowing and dismissing something out of hand that does explain things well is not not having sufficient evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In short, I think the following general reasons are "sufficient" [but only for me]

1) Jesus predicted the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It happened.
2) I think the New Testament Documents are generally reliable as basic documents on a human level.
3) I prayed to meet my wife and to have a healthy child. I did.
4) I think the prophetic patterns, in Jewish type idiom, are recognizable in the world around us, even though with some difficultly, and they have been for about 2,000 years.
5) The Skeptical and Atheistic arguments I've vetted seem to me to run afoul of epistemological and evidential problems.
​

In a nutshell, the five points above are IT

Fair enough, these are not sufficient evidence for belief in my opinion.

(plus all of the Existential philosophy, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Biblical Hermeneutics, Church History and History of Christian Theology, Studies in Apocaplyptic Genre, Comparative studies in Biblical Literature, Apologetics, Comparative World Religion studies, World History, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, Epistemology, Metaphysics and Axiology that I've studied which contribute to the structure of the mental model/web of understanding that I have in my head).

Is the plus required for your belief? How can you say the 5 points are IT then say plus?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Speaking from experience, God gives us a little here and there and then gives us the choice to determine whether or not it is God or not. As we grow and mature in our faith, more is given and evidence becomes greater and greater.

Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence.

Is this evidence you accept?

I accept it as evidence. But it is insufficient for belief.

Are you saying you don't agree we have the same reality or we do? If you believe your mind is the only certainty in reality does it matter what I or anyone else really believes or thinks?

No. The reason we cannot know anything with 100% certainty is that we have no solution for hard solipsism. We could be the only mind that exists. I think this is very unlikely but logically no one has solved this problem. I agree we probably live in the same reality with a high confidence of belief. Almost certain..

What makes you think those things are not supported by evidence?

What things? A best answer approach is not a good path to truth. I want to know the best answer supported by good evidence.

I would think you would want to know. I did. However, not knowing and dismissing something out of hand that does explain things well is not not having sufficient evidence.

How is not being convinced of the evidence dismissing the claims out of hand? I ahve looked at the evidence for gods existence and I remain unconvinced. That is different than just dismissing it out of hand.

Also, just because something explains something has nothing to do with truth. I could come up with many explanations as to how my computer was made such as by elves, spontaneous generation, chance, aliens etc. etc. These can fully explain how my computer was made but it says nothing about the truth.

 

[Ed1wolf]

We cannot have infinite value to finite beings: infinity is not a quantifiable thing, I don't think you remotely read my qualification in regards to that term and just speak as if it's common sense, when it's demonstrably not

Not everyone agrees it is a metaphor. From Wikipedia: The mathematical concept of infinity and the manipulation of infinite sets are used everywhere in mathematics, even in areas such as combinatorics that may seem to have nothing to do with them. For example, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem implicitly relies on the existence of very large infinite sets[7] for solving a long-standing problem that is stated in terms of elementary arithmetic. Though in the case of my use it was a partial metaphor for humans having ultimate value because we are a reflection of ultimate reality.

mm: My being raised in a Christian society is immaterial to whether I see a justification in that story at all because I'm not beholden absolutely to my background in terms of how I understand the world at present having long apostasized. You're speaking as if this is just an immutable fact, but we are not fatalistic entities, there are influences and we can weed them out, including indoctrination or a lack of critical thinking or knowledge about the world.

I agree that influences can certainly be weeded out especially if they are specifically worked on to be weeded out and opposite actions are fully acted upon to repress those inclinations. But human morality is generally strongly influenced by the culture and society in which the person is raised.

mm: I don't regard myself as a steward of the world either, you don't get to dictate what I think based on limited conversation

Do you believe that you should care for the earth and the environment? If you do, the concept is basically the same.

mm:You don't get to question beg a creator into the discussion, you have to demonstrate that with evidence, which is not merely that something seems to be that way from your perspective, that's purely subjective

In addition to the BB theory, there are purposes in the universe, only persons can create purposes.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not everyone agrees it is a metaphor. From Wikipedia: The mathematical concept of infinity and the manipulation of infinite sets are used everywhere in mathematics, even in areas such as combinatorics that may seem to have nothing to do with them. For example, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem implicitly relies on the existence of very large infinite sets[7] for solving a long-standing problem that is stated in terms of elementary arithmetic. Though in the case of my use it was a partial metaphor for humans having ultimate value because we are a reflection of ultimate reality.

Infinite is not an actual quantity, it's a hypothetical quantity at best. Metaphor may have been the wrong term, but overly literal is not really what's used for infinity as a quantity even in mathematics.

If you just rephrase it in a way that is even less qualifiable in any objective manner, you haven't remotely done anything to support the argument better, you've just shifted the goalposts so you can just appeal to ultimacy and subjective mystical notions instead of considering that idealistic concepts are not helpful for a discussion when one is making claims of absolute truth or such

I agree that influences can certainly be weeded out especially if they are specifically worked on to be weeded out and opposite actions are fully acted upon to repress those inclinations. But human morality is generally strongly influenced by the culture and society in which the person is raised.

Strongly influenced, but not immutable, you just dismissed my qualification out of hand because it basically brings your borderline fatalistic behaviorist notions into question with any kind of critical examination. Inclination assumes we are not in charge of our decisions and choices we make, why bring up something that effectively renders free will an illusion?

Do you believe that you should care for the earth and the environment? If you do, the concept is basically the same.

No, they really aren't unless you conflate and equivocate to avoid nuance in language: steward suggests you are given that as some proclamation rather than as a responsibility we discern as beings WITHIN earth and the environment, we aren't absolutely separate from it, it's still required for our existence in being able to properly grow food, gather resources, etc. Stewardship entails supervision, as if this is something on the level of a business rather than something that's not possessing of a mind in itself, so the anthropocentric bias is pretty explicit in the use of stewardship versus responsibility for demonstrable concerns of the environment being something that will not, in the general Christian worldview, be effectively razed to the ground and reconfigured as God entails. Kind of like the whole difference between valuing life because it will not continue on in an afterlife, but will only subsist here as individual consciousness rather than caring about life as a mere stepping stone to immortality

In addition to the BB theory, there are purposes in the universe, only persons can create purposes.

The universe only has purpose insofar as we assess it, you still are making the leap from perceived purpose to actual purpose and the conclusion of some agency behind the universe, you haven't even enumerated these purposes. Big Bang theory isn't a purpose, btw, it's an explanatory descriptive model, it says nothing about intent for the singularity and expansion, just that it is the best way with the evidence to explain how the universe as we observe it came to be (but not the universe as a whole)

 

[muichimotsu]

In short, I think the following general reasons are "sufficient" [but only for me]

1) Jesus predicted the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It happened.
2) I think the New Testament Documents are generally reliable as basic documents on a human level.
3) I prayed to meet my wife and to have a healthy child. I did.
4) I think the prophetic patterns, in Jewish type idiom, are recognizable in the world around us, even though with some difficultly, and they have been for about 2,000 years.
5) The Skeptical and Atheistic arguments I've vetted seem to me to run afoul of epistemological and evidential problems.​

If they're only convincing for you, then why should anyone take them seriously at all? Seems like you just rendered any kind of knowledge or belief claims both as effectively relative and needing no basis beyond individual conviction

But as for the reasons

1)I could predict there will be an earthquake this year and it could happen, does that mean I have special powers? Jesus getting something right is not the same as him actually predicting to the year, unless you can substantiate such a claim

2) The New Testament documents being reliable in the sense that we can conclude the authors aren't lying, is not the same as reliable in the truth of the claims they make being what actually happened objectively. I can disagree with claims and it doesn't mean I'm saying someone is lying, but that they are, instead, mistaken.

3)Your prayers and the resultant effects are honestly as subjective and unreliable a standard as prophecy in general, because your assessment proceeds FROM your preconception that God will answer, but that preconception does NOT mean God's answer will always be yes, I learned this when I was 12 in Sunday School, I don't think that's some controversial thing in Christianity, because God's "plan" is mysterious and thus someone praying for a job, a spouse, etc, doesn't mean it will happen and just because it might happen is not a reason to attribute agency to the events being effectively set up that way, because it not only suggests your choices don't really matter (including your prayers), but that the events themselves are inconsequential in contrast to the infinite rewards you get in heaven (which don't include being married and such, so...why should that matter?)

4) Just because people can make vague predictions or we can interpret them in a way that would seem to fit doesn't make those predictions and texts that they emerge from, as reflective of reality. Or is Nostradamus just as reliable then? It's like you haven't even considered the problem of self fulfilling prophecies or even just that they don't make precise predictions in any falsifiable manner because that very idea is foreign to ancient people?


5)And Christian apologetics are perfect and without any epistemological or evidential problems? Seems to me you're projecting a great deal, to say nothing of being disingenuous with the capitalization of atheist and skeptic when neither really warrants it in the general context (at best skeptic might be capitalized if referring to the original school back in ancient Greece, but even that's pushing it in terms of the idea that it was or is comparable to Christianity, because skepticism is no more a worldview than atheism, only pieces of something broader that has various names and manifestations)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough, these are not sufficient evidence for belief in my opinion.

Is the plus required for your belief? How can you say the 5 points are IT then say plus?

As in science, I have my handful of 'facts,' and around those few facts is the THEORY [i.e. 'the PLUS'] that (for me) draws them all together into a coherent, meaningful set of truths. I'm sorry if you don't find that what 'works' for me in my existential religious outlook to 'work' for you. But as you already know, I didn't expect it too.

I suppose I should also add the 'fact' that I didn't grow up in a fundamentally religious household, so I wasn't 'programmed' to assume that Christianity could only be epistemologically what the local church pastor says it should be ...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

As in science, I have my handful of 'facts,' and around those few facts is the THEORY [i.e. 'the PLUS'] that (for me) draws them all together into a coherent, meaningful set of truths. I'm sorry if you don't find that what 'works' for me in my existential religious outlook to 'work' for you. But as you already know, I didn't expect it too.

So are you saying is that you need the plus to believe the 5 truths?

I suppose I should also add the 'fact' that I didn't grow up in a fundamentally religious household, so I wasn't 'programmed' to assume that Christianity could only be epistemologically what the local church pastor says it should be ...

I did not grow up in a religious home either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence.

Experience is evidence in many ways.

I accept it as evidence. But it is insufficient for belief.

The fact that Jesus lived and was crucified and the event has historical documentation is not sufficient for belief? The way He died was foretold even before crucifixion was even known of as a way of death, this is insufficient evidence?

No. The reason we cannot know anything with 100% certainty is that we have no solution for hard solipsism. We could be the only mind that exists. I think this is very unlikely but logically no one has solved this problem. I agree we probably live in the same reality with a high confidence of belief. Almost certain..

Well like I said, it wouldn't matter if solipsism is reality, it makes all knowledge insignificant.

What things? A best answer approach is not a good path to truth. I want to know the best answer supported by good evidence.

The things I cited. Design in the universe and living things and such. You are not aware of Occam's razor?

How is not being convinced of the evidence dismissing the claims out of hand? I ahve looked at the evidence for gods existence and I remain unconvinced. That is different than just dismissing it out of hand.

I'm not convinced. I imagine should we get into a very specific conversation you would dismiss the possibility of God as an explanation.

Also, just because something explains something has nothing to do with truth. I could come up with many explanations as to how my computer was made such as by elves, spontaneous generation, chance, aliens etc. etc. These can fully explain how my computer was made but it says nothing about the truth.

I readily agree. However, usually what transpires with explanations, is that worldview takes over and truth then gets projected in its perception.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Double post again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So are you saying is that you need the plus to believe the 5 truths?

No. What I'm saying is that the 'plus' aids in bringing these 'facts' (as I see them) together ... I'm not saying that it's some kind of formula, especially NOT one that is going to assume, nor comport with, the fragility of a Foundationalist epistemology, tethered to a view of the Correpondence Theory of Truth.

I did not grow up in a religious home either.

Ok. Then, you don't have to be tethered to a hyper-fundamentalistic style set of assumptions about the Bible or about how it should be read, then, do you?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Experience is evidence in many ways.

Maybe sometimes but not all the time. But that experience cannot be good evidence for anyone else.

The fact that Jesus lived and was crucified and the event has historical documentation is not sufficient for belief?

No. You are assuming that there is reliable evidence for this claim. Even if a man named Jesus was crucified that in no way validates that God exists or that he was resurrected.

The way He died was foretold even before crucifixion was even known of as a way of death, this is insufficient evidence?

Where was it foretold Jesus would be crucified? Isaiah 53?

The things I cited. Design in the universe and living things and such. You are not aware of Occam's razor?

I am aware. Do you know the principles behind it?

How have you determined design in the universe? What is your criteria?
How are living things evidence that a God exists?

I'm not convinced. I imagine should we get into a very specific conversation you would dismiss the possibility of God as an explanation.

I don't dismiss God as an explanation but I don't think it has sufficient evidence to believe it is the explanation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No. What I'm saying is that the 'plus' aids in bringing these 'facts' (as I see them) together ... I'm not saying that it's some kind of formula, especially NOT one that is going to assume, nor comport with, the fragility of a Foundationalist epistemology, tethered to a view of the Correpondence Theory of Truth.

I never said it was a formula. But you seem to want it both ways. You only need those five things to believe in God but you need the plus things for support?

Ok. Then, you don't have to be tethered to a hyper-fundamentalistic style set of assumptions about the Bible or about how it should be read, then, do you?

I'm not. I am tethered to the bible since that is the only way to know about the christian God without personal revelation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never said it was a formula. But you seem to want it both ways. You only need those five things to believe in God but you need the plus things for support?

I didn't say you did want a formula specifically. But, those who rely on Strong Foundationalistic assumptions and use the Correspondence Theory of Truth alone to make up their overall epistemology are ... in a way... being formulaic.

And yes, just like in asserting the Theory of Evolution, with theory bringing and tying together 'the facts,' I partially arrive at my Christian belief.

I'm not. I am tethered to the bible since that is the only way to know about the christian God without personal revelation.

That's great! Then you have room to add in, as a supplement, Philosophical Hermenuetics, as well as other applications of hermeneutics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe sometimes but not all the time. But that experience cannot be good evidence for anyone else.

I agree. I wasn't claiming it was.

No. You are assuming that there is reliable evidence for this claim. Even if a man named Jesus was crucified that in no way validates that God exists or that he was resurrected.

There is reliable evidence for this claim. It validates the claims that Jesus lived, was crucified, that there was an earthquake and the sun turned dark at the time. It doesn't prove God exists but it sure presents important information outside of the Bible that concurs with what is written there.

Where was it foretold Jesus would be crucified? Isaiah 53?

Psalm 22:16-18 16Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. 17All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. 18They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
Zechariah 12:10 10"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

And Isaiah as well.

I am aware. Do you know the principles behind it?

Yes.

How have you determined design in the universe? What is your criteria?
How are living things evidence that a God exists?

We recognize design, Archaeology is based on it.

I don't dismiss God as an explanation but I don't think it has sufficient evidence to believe it is the explanation.

Yes, you have made that point abundanty clear.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There is reliable evidence for this claim. It validates the claims that Jesus lived, was crucified, that there was an earthquake and the sun turned dark at the time. It doesn't prove God exists but it sure presents important information outside of the Bible that concurs with what is written there.

I disagree. This is just written down in a book (bible) by people we don't know the authors for, were written decades after the events, we don't have any confidence the gospels existed prior to 145, written in a different language than Jesus used, the history conflicts or is not corroborated by any other sources, they don't even agree on when Jesus was born.

What sources outside the bible confirm Jesus resurrection?

Psalm 22:16-18 16Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. 17All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. 18They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
Zechariah 12:10 10"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

And Isaiah as well.

All these sources say his hands and feet were pierced. Nowhere does it say crucified, that is reading into the text not reading out of it.

We recognize design, Archaeology is based on it.

What is your criteria for recognizing design?

Yes, you have made that point abundanty clear.

Then please stop saying that I reject evidence out of hand.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I didn't say you did want a formula specifically. But, those who rely on Strong Foundationalistic assumptions and use the Correspondence Theory of Truth alone to make up their overall epistemology are ... in a way... being formulaic.

And yes, just like in asserting the Theory of Evolution, with theory bringing and tying together 'the facts,' I partially arrive at my Christian belief.

Ok.

That's great! Then you have room to add in, as a supplement, Philosophical Hermenuetics, as well as other applications of hermeneutics.

Why do I need supplemental man made application to understand a book inspired by a God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree. This is just written down in a book (bible) by people we don't know the authors for, were written decades after the events, we don't have any confidence the gospels existed prior to 145, written in a different language than Jesus used, the history conflicts or is not corroborated by any other sources, they don't even agree on when Jesus was born.

Did you miss that I said documents outside of the Bible? There are other sources, non-Christian ones that verify and corroborate the points I was making.

What sources outside the bible confirm Jesus resurrection?

I didn't claim any confirmed the resurrection.

All these sources say his hands and feet were pierced. Nowhere does it say crucified, that is reading into the text not reading out of it.

Your confirmation bias is showing. The old testament doesn't say crucified but uses the same description as the New Testament for what happened to Jesus.

What is your criteria for recognizing design?

Intelligence for one.

Then please stop saying that I reject evidence out of hand.

I'll wait and see.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do I need supplemental man made application to understand a book inspired by a God?

You don't necessarily 'need' it. I didn't say you need it. I said, if you're paying attention, that it is supplemental (which means it's not necessary but it can be a big help).

Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Is the bible written in human language or some kind of special "Holy Spirit" language that needs a special decoder pen to see the invisible ink? I think you know the answer. So, if it's the former (which we both KNOW it is), then it IS subject to human communication analysis (i.e. hermeneutics) just as ANY humanly written or spoken form of communication is open to the same analysis.

But here's an additional consideration: If Virtue Epistemology has any bearing upon how we read or listen or understand texts or communication from and with other people, then on some level, we should consider ourselves accountable for learning and applying hermeneutics to all human communication, as best as we each can, respectively. And if we don't, we may very well be morally at fault--at least partially--for failing to do so.