Ask God for Me

[muichimotsu]

By real individuality I am saying that we are separate beings. Most scientific theories are based on abductive reasoning.

Abductive in the sense of the rough inferences, but not merely concluding they are true because of abductive reasoning, deductive also plays a key point in falsifiability, etc

I am not saying that even though we are individuals that we dont need each other relationally or even for basic survival. As personal beings, having personal relationships is part of our nature.

Then our individuality is a benign fact at best

Yes, one of the evidences that is potentially falsifiable deals with Jesus' death and resurrection. The other deals with the origin of the universe having a definite beginning. If it was ever discovered that the universe was eternal then that would pretty much falsify Christianity. The evidence for the authors of the gospels is more than just external tradition there is also internal evidence.

By all means explain how you can falsify someone's death and resurrection when we don't have capacity to even test the claims in any real manner that would meet falsifiability in the natural sciences, or even historical analysis

You cannot claim that absolutely in regards to the universe having a definite beginning, we don't have a detached perspective of the universe, we are within it, so we have not and likely cannot without significant advancements, look beyond the universe as we understand it to have begun (not the same as it having actually begun in itself) to investigate further

Internal evidence assumes we have remote basis beyond oral tradition that was written down decades after the fact. You have to substantiate this, rather than just claiming it as if it's self evident

Believe me, as a professional biologist, I know what survival of the fittest means and you are right it is not based on superiority, it is just based on survivability. But that was not the point I was making, my point was that sometimes circular reasoning is correct.

Circular reasoning is faulty reasoning: even if the conclusion is true, circular reasoning cannot logically be a reason to consider that conclusion true without other factors to support it, not sure you understand the problem of circular reasoning

If there is no God then there is no such thing as "helping humanity". If there is a God then there is objective meaning to life.

No, there is helping humanity, it merely doesn't have a deity telling you to do so, which is far more fulfilling and genuine in pursuing it rather than mere obedience slavishly to the commands of a creator, which is authoritarian. Objective meaning to life is almost oxymoronic, because it means we function like automatons or constructs that have to conform to expectations or we are "broken" and "bad". Or do you not see the problem in foisting a purpose onto someone versus a purpose that is discerned by someone by reasoning that isn't imposed from outside?

I didn't say that atheists have to be nihilists, in fact to do so goes against their nature so that the ones that are, are not going to live happy lives. As humans it is our nature to believe that our lives do have real objective meaning, because we reflect the fact that such meaning does exist because of our personal origin. Only if God exists, can there be real objective meaning to life.

We have to qualify what kind of nihilism we mean, since it's not cut and dry

You assume that because we live as though there is objective meaning that there must be, that doesn't remotely follow, because we are necessarily fallible and our perceiving something as such is not the same as it actually being so, especially not in an objective manner, because we cannot truly assess things in an absolutely objective fashion

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's 2 words, first off. Also, that notion seems to skirt awfully close to Objectivism in some respects and just brings up more problems than what it purports to solve in terms of epistemology and the sciences

You think it skirts close to Objectivism, ay? And how, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion? Did you consider it in connection with Philosophical Hermeneutics?

The problem is whether you can be absolutely sure of even the hermeneutical basis itself or if you have to open yourself up to genuine critical examination of those principles and whether they are rational given the nature of what is being investigated (hermeneutics still has an association in general with the more specific analysis of the bible rather than more esoteric ideas that generally go over the layperson's head)

Of course you CAN'T be absolutely sure! DUH! That's WHY, as in science, the hermeneutical action and analysis is to be 'cyclical' and 'provisional.' And no, this is not 'esoteric' stuff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't get mad very easy but this really hacks me off. I have done nothing here but explain why I don't think the evidence is convincing to believe Christianity is true. And you just say I must have had a bad experience or something so I just won't believe, calling me a liar.

I did not have a bad experience, I don't believe because I am unconvinced by the evidence, period.

I am sure that it wasn't 2PhiloVoid's intention to call you a liar. You have to understand that there are people who come here and claim things and then later you find their motivation wasn't as they say it is. This brings with it a certain amount of poking around to determine motives and true feelings. People when conversing just need to get a feeling for where you are coming from because sometimes someone claims they are doing one thing when in fact it is another motivation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And there it is. You asked what sources supported the Bible and then when you are given them you start moving the goalposts. These are outside sources that support the Biblical points I presented. Do you equally discount other historical documentations? I doubt you hold anything to the standard that you have set for the Bible and the other historical documentation as support of it. You make claims that you are open to the truth but I am sensing a completely different motivation in your answers.

So I cannot question your evidence? You provided evidence that I think is insufficient and I gave my reasons for why I think it is insufficient. So instead of engaging with my objections you assume motivations for me. Why are my objections not valid?

And yes, I want better evidence for a book that you are claiming has supernatural events and inspired by a God than for other historical documents.

Copies of copies? Explain.

We do not have an original writing of the gospels. We only have copies of copies of the originals. We do not know what the original writings said and we know they have been modified and added to such the ending of Mark that was added later. We don't even know who wrote them. Now having said that I know studies have been done that find a 90% reliability of the copied texts but this is comparing known copies and none before 180 AD or so.

Now you can time travel? Now you can determine mindset of those who lived 2,000 years ago? The gospels were written in a time where there were still people around that could have discounted what they were claiming. Instead, Christianity took off with people being killed due to it.

People die because they believe things all the time. Just because they died for a belief does not mean the belief is true.

I believe your standards are based solely on your confirmation biases and you dismiss everything according to the Bible. That is just my humble opinion of course.

Have you been a christian your entire life?

I have demonstrated in my life that I will change my mind of worldview changing ideas. I was not a christian growing up I became convinced Christianity was true in my 20's and became a christian, believed in young earth, creationism and heaven and hell etc. 16 years or so into my christian life I became convinced that evolution was true based on the evidence I studied. That was a worldview changing belief change that was not easy and was against most of what my christian wife, family friends and pastors believed. Then a couple years later I became unconvinced that god existed which was really hard because everyone in my life was a christian. My wife and friends still are, coming out with this in that environment is difficult. So I have demonstrated that evidence will change my mind on fundamental worldview ideas.

You accuse me of dismissing your evidence except that I gave reasons why I don't think your evidence is sufficient and you refused to engage my objections. You are the one dismissing my objection without any reason whatsoever.

Do you recognize intelligence?

Why won't you answer my question?

If you find an unknown object what criteria do you use to determine if it is designed or has a natural cause? If you are going to claim that we can detect design then we need to know how you do that.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Honestly, it wasn't my intention to imply that you're a liar. I'm glad you haven't had any bad experiences that drove you away from Christ. That's always good to hear. And as long as you're not some anarchic, satanic style atheist who has just come to CF to raise Cain, I have no good reason to think you're lying about the epistemological conundrums you're wrestling with in relation to Christianity.

Ok,I believe you.

However, with that said, it would be good to know what you'd like to accomplish in your persistent presence here, especially if it seems that NO ONE is going to be able to magically give you the answers or the evidence you'd like to have, especially if that evidence has to be conveyed according to some particular subjective requirements you hold to be non-negotiable.

First you don't have to engage with me, that is your choice. Second, everyone has a subjective standard of evidence. No one else gets to decide for anyone else that there is sufficient reasons for belief for something.

I wish I could provide more for you in the way of explanation than I've been able to, but there are some things that ONLY God, Himself, can give you; but if He's said in His Word that even He's not willing to provide that kind of evidence to most people, then I don't know what else to tell you. On the other hand, I could suggest that you 're-check' your epistemological logistics and telemetry and see if you actually have all of your epistemic ducks-in-a-row.

If God will not give evidence to people then what is the point? Isn't that His fault then? The idea that a God would have requirements on us and not relay them in a logical or evidential way points to a God that does not care or is immoral.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok,I believe you.

First you don't have to engage with me, that is your choice. Second, everyone has a subjective standard of evidence. No one else gets to decide for anyone else that there is sufficient reasons for belief for something.

If God will not give evidence to people then what is the point? Isn't that His fault then? The idea that a God would have requirements on us and not relay them in a logical or evidential way points to a God that does not care or is immoral.

Is your axiological evaluation that God is "immoral" a purely objective one? Because if it isn't, then it is only your opinion and not an absolute aspect of reality that anyone else need fully engage or consider. Same goes with your epistemological assumptions (which, by the way, is something you never seem to come clean on ... when asked. And I'm kind of tired of asking for a bilateral exchange with you). So, until you want to tell us your sources which gird your epistemological conceptions, then we don't have much more to talk about.

Still, I do wish you and your family well! May you all have health, life, and prosperity.

 

[muichimotsu]

You think it skirts close to Objectivism, ay? And how, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion? Did you consider it in connection with Philosophical Hermeneutics?

It doesn't appear to be connected to that in a way that is as clear, maybe you could elucidate that, it's kind of a dense subject

Of course you CAN'T be absolutely sure! DUH! That's WHY, as in science, the hermeneutical action and analysis is to be 'cyclical' and 'provisional.' And no, this is not 'esoteric' stuff.

Seems to me hermeneutics in relation to existential thought gets into the solipsistic problem where you're taking primarily your experiences/induction/etc as the basis instead of looking outward as if there is a world out there with other people that you can engage with in terms of it. It's hard to express precisely, but call me a skeptic on that (which I find odd that CF has that as a specific faith group, but then...the 6 ones they have are not really faith groups in utilizing faith in the religious/epistemological sense anyway)

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Is your axiological evaluation that God is "immoral" a purely objective one? Because if it isn't, then it is only your opinion and not an absolute aspect of reality that anyone else need fully engage or consider.

It is objective based on the standard of well being which is subjective. I can objectively say with the evidence I have that god is acting immorally in regards to the well being of some people.

Same goes with your epistemological assumptions (which, by the way, is something you never seem to come clean on ... when asked. And I'm kind of tired of asking for a bilateral exchange with you). So, until you want to tell us your sources which gird your epistemological conceptions, then we don't have much more to talk about.

So I have two presuppositions:
1.) The reality I live in is real as I perceive it. Hard solipsism is false.
2.) The laws of logic are immutable and absolute.

With these presuppositions I can go from there to determine truth. I can demonstrate that reason is a good way to determine truth, what standards of evidence should be etc.

Still, I do wish you and your family well! May you all have health, life, and prosperity.

Thanks, your family as well.

 

[Ed1wolf]

There may be more going on there than you suppose. That Spark of Life of which we are all a part of came from the very energy that supposedly is not alive. Makes one wonder.

Maybe, but most of the evidence points to our origin not coming from impersonal energy, but rather a living personal Creator. We know from all of human experience that only persons can produce the personal.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So I cannot question your evidence? You provided evidence that I think is insufficient and I gave my reasons for why I think it is insufficient. So instead of engaging with my objections you assume motivations for me. Why are my objections not valid?

Yes, of course you can.

And yes, I want better evidence for a book that you are claiming has supernatural events and inspired by a God than for other historical documents.

Fair enough, but to discount due to the "supernatural" isn't giving something open minded contemplation. Which I will remind you, is really searching for truth.

We do not have an original writing of the gospels. We only have copies of copies of the originals. We do not know what the original writings said and we know they have been modified and added to such the ending of Mark that was added later. We don't even know who wrote them. Now having said that I know studies have been done that find a 90% reliability of the copied texts but this is comparing known copies and none before 180 AD or so.

1. Copies of the originals which number in the thousands that are all reliable as you just stated.
2. Mark's earliest writings could have been added to, as they were written in his life (I add to some of my writings later on and that is a natural way to include things of import.)
3. There is a good consensus on the authors and the time of the original writings.
4. There are copies found that date the earliest 125 AD.

People die because they believe things all the time. Just because they died for a belief does not mean the belief is true.

They won't die for things they KNOW are not true.

Have you been a christian your entire life?

No, my dad was an atheist and my mom was agnostic.

I have demonstrated in my life that I will change my mind of worldview changing ideas. I was not a christian growing up I became convinced Christianity was true in my 20's and became a christian, believed in young earth, creationism and heaven and hell etc. 16 years or so into my christian life I became convinced that evolution was true based on the evidence I studied.

You do know that evolution doesn't preclude Creationism don't you? So evolution was the reason for your doubt about God?

That was a worldview changing belief change that was not easy and was against most of what my christian wife, family friends and pastors believed. Then a couple years later I became unconvinced that god existed which was really hard because everyone in my life was a christian. My wife and friends still are, coming out with this in that environment is difficult. So I have demonstrated that evidence will change my mind on fundamental worldview ideas.

I imagine that would be very hard. What made you decide God didn't exist?

You accuse me of dismissing your evidence except that I gave reasons why I don't think your evidence is sufficient and you refused to engage my objections. You are the one dismissing my objection without any reason whatsoever.

Yet, I find your objections not to be sufficient.

Why won't you answer my question?

If you find an unknown object what criteria do you use to determine if it is designed or has a natural cause? If you are going to claim that we can detect design then we need to know how you do that.

I did. We know what intelligence looks like, we see purpose with a goal, we send out patterned sound into the universe and expect if there is intelligent life we receive some back. Which may be happening according to some accounts lately.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Fair enough, but to discount due to the "supernatural" isn't giving something open minded contemplation. Which I will remind you, is really searching for truth.

Where did I ever say I do not believe the accounts because they are supernatural? I don't believe because the evidence does not support the supernatural claims in the bible.

1. Copies of the originals which number in the thousands that are all reliable as you just stated.
2. Mark's earliest writings could have been added to, as they were written in his life (I add to some of my writings later on and that is a natural way to include things of import.)

These verses are not found in anything prior to late second century references. No evidence these were added during the authors lifetime.

3. There is a good consensus on the authors and the time of the original writings.
4. There are copies found that date the earliest 125 AD.

Only fragments not a full gospel.

In the end, even if we have the original documents from the authors that does not say anything about the truth of the claims in the bible. How would you know they are true?

They won't die for things they KNOW are not true.

Ok, Why did the people believe and how can we know what that evidence is?

You do know that evolution doesn't preclude Creationism don't you? So evolution was the reason for your doubt about God?

I never said evolution was the reason fr my doubt. That is you reading into my text. I gave examples of how I changed my mind on worldview changing beliefs many times in my life where it was not beneficial for me to do so. I look at the evidence and try to reduce all bias to a minimum.

I imagine that would be very hard. What made you decide God didn't exist?

That is a long discussion but the short answer is I came to believe that the evidence I believed by was insufficient for belief.

Yet, I find your objections not to be sufficient.

Great, that is your right.

I did. We know what intelligence looks like,

Describe what intelligence looks like. How do we know an object was designed with an intelligence?

we see purpose with a goal,

How did you determine there is a goal? What is the criteria?

we send out patterned sound into the universe and expect if there is intelligent life we receive some back. Which may be happening according to some accounts lately.

Ok

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did I ever say I do not believe the accounts because they are supernatural? I don't believe because the evidence does not support the supernatural claims in the bible.

This is what you said: And yes, I want better evidence for a book you are claiming has supernatural events and inspired by a god than other historical documents.

These verses are not found in anything prior to late second century references. No evidence these were added during the authors lifetime.
Only fragments not a full gospel.

No evidence he didn't write it in his lifetime.

In the end, even if we have the original documents from the authors that does not say anything about the truth of the claims in the bible. How would you know they are true?

I know they are true by knowing God exists and that prophecies have been fulfilled. I believe the events are true due to outside sources claiming during the events of the Bible they saw the same darkness and quakes that are described in the Bible.

Ok, Why did the people believe and how can we know what that evidence is?

Evidence no, reason yes. If you were a follower of someone that was claiming all Jesus claimed and then was killed in a horrible way; you and other followers hide and claim you don't know Him and then after they claim they saw Jesus after His death they go out and proclaim the gospel and many died for it. If they didn't see Him, know it was true I don't believe they would have done that.

I never said evolution was the reason fr my doubt. That is you reading into my text. I gave examples of how I changed my mind on worldview changing beliefs many times in my life where it was not beneficial for me to do so. I look at the evidence and try to reduce all bias to a minimum.

I stand corrected. Yet, there is a gap here. What caused you to doubt?

That is a long discussion but the short answer is I came to believe that the evidence I believed by was insufficient for belief.

That short answer is the problem, how do you arrive at your determination?

Great, that is your right.

Describe what intelligence looks like. How do we know an object was designed with an intelligence?

How did you determine there is a goal? What is the criteria?

Ok

Why are you ignoring what I wrote?

 

[dlamberth]

Maybe, but most of the evidence points to our origin not coming from impersonal energy, but rather a living personal Creator. We know from all of human experience that only persons can produce the personal.

Looking beyond it's source, there's something more going than just this physical world. There seems to be a life force running within and through this physical world. Where does it begin and where does it end, if indeed it does end. Your argument stems from a personal Creator. Where does the life force of that Creator fade away and ends in this physical world, if indeed it does end.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is objective based on the standard of well being which is subjective. I can objectively say with the evidence I have that god is acting immorally in regards to the well being of some people.

So I have two presuppositions:
1.) The reality I live in is real as I perceive it. Hard solipsism is false.
2.) The laws of logic are immutable and absolute.

With these presuppositions I can go from there to determine truth. I can demonstrate that reason is a good way to determine truth, what standards of evidence should be etc.

I hate to say this, but I find your presuppositions, and your implied definitions of subjectivity and objectivity, to be rather paltry and insufficient. So, start demonstrating for us just how it is that you can determine truth and what, exactly, all of the standards of evidence 'should' be.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This is what you said: And yes, I want better evidence for a book you are claiming has supernatural events and inspired by a god than other historical documents.

It is not the supernatural claim that is the reason I disregard, it is the insufficient evidence to support a supernatural claim.

No evidence he didn't write it in his lifetime.

There are no references to this passage in his lifetime.

I know they are true by knowing God exists and that prophecies have been fulfilled. I believe the events are true due to outside sources claiming during the events of the Bible they saw the same darkness and quakes that are described in the Bible.

Ok.

I stand corrected. Yet, there is a gap here. What caused you to doubt?

That short answer is the problem, how do you arrive at your determination?

Ok, if you really want to know I will write how I became unconvinced. I cannot do it now. There isn't just one thing it was a process of learning and reevaluated evidence based on better epistemology.

Why are you ignoring what I wrote?

I am not. You say you see intelligence and purpose. These are assertions, I want to know how you determine purpose or intelligence?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn't appear to be connected to that in a way that is as clear, maybe you could elucidate that, it's kind of a dense subject

No, the only thing here that is dense is your incongruent response. You're the one who said that Critical Realism skirts awfully close to ..... X. You've made the implication that it 'comes closed' to X, not me, so as far as I'm concerned, it's you who needs to do the explaining ............... of whatever it is you're really trying to say. Because, if anything, it's your affirmations that aren't ...................................."clear."

You've said that you know you have autism, and you've gone on record to say this on CF. So, if you know that is the case, then you should also realize that if doctors have diagnosed you as such, then it is likely YOU who needs to chill and reanalyze your precepts, such as you think you understand them.

Seems to me hermeneutics in relation to existential thought gets into the solipsistic problem where you're taking primarily your experiences/induction/etc as the basis instead of looking outward as if there is a world out there with other people that you can engage with in terms of it. It's hard to express precisely, but call me a skeptic on that (which I find odd that CF has that as a specific faith group, but then...the 6 ones they have are not really faith groups in utilizing faith in the religious/epistemological sense anyway)

No, I won't call you a skeptic. I'll call you instead a "double-talker," and you do that ALL the time. Just stop it for once. Get some more help.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I hate to say this, but I find your presuppositions, and your implied definitions of subjectivity and objectivity, to be rather paltry and insufficient. So, start demonstrating for us just how it is that you can determine truth and what, exactly, all of the standards of evidence 'should' be.

Ok. You seem to want me to explain how I come to truth in one internet post while you ask me to spend years studying your material.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. You seem to want me to explain how I come to truth in one internet post while you ask me to spend years studying your material.

Isn't that what you've wanted me to do?----explain everything in one syllogism in one single post? And no, you don't have to study for years, but you may have to study for a few hours. I guess that's just too damned much to ask of anyone these days, especially for all you atheists who just clammer up and down and down and up, over and over and over again (for years, even) that you're not getting "the answers that you all want in just the way that you want them."

Y'know, I've known a young guy who was just like that. He griped about everything that people and God should have done because life is just so hard and unfair. But it was me who got to change his diapers .................

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Isn't that what you've wanted me to do?----explain everything in one syllogism in one single post? And no, you don't have to study for years, but you may have to study for a few hours. I guess that's just too damned much to ask of anyone these days, especially for all you atheists who just clammer up and down and down and up, over and over and over again (for years, even) that you're not getting "the answers that you all want in just the way that you want them."

Y'know, I've known a yound guy who was just like that. He griped about everything that people and God should have done because life is just so hard and unfair. But it was me who got to change his diapers .................

Ok.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is not the supernatural claim that is the reason I disregard, it is the insufficient evidence to support a supernatural claim.

There are no references to this passage in his lifetime.

Ok.

Ok, if you really want to know I will write how I became unconvinced. I cannot do it now. There isn't just one thing it was a process of learning and reevaluated evidence based on better epistemology.

I am not. You say you see intelligence and purpose. These are assertions, I want to know how you determine purpose or intelligence?

I look forward to it.