Determining Reality

[Ana the Ist]

Okay, then let's rephrase the question so that it is a clear dichotomy. Someone asks her doctor whether hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for arthritis, the doctor answers 'yes', and the patient accepts the doctor's answer as the truth. Has the patient done something illogical?

I don't this line of argument will prove to be as convincing as you hope. I would not accept my doctor's word if he said something crazy, but unless he says something crazy the point is moot. If I have a doctor who been extremely reliable for a long time, then I trust him. Perhaps you think it's significant that in order to define 'crazy' we need the old trio of logic, reason and evidence, but that's missing the point. The significant decisions in life are generally not between one sane and one obviously crazy option, but rather between two or more options that all have the appearance of plausibility.

I'm not sure that any amount of rephrasing will make the Dr example into a clear dichotomy about truth. The reason for that is I'm not sure the Dr's treatment rises above opinion to become fact. This is why going to another Dr for the same problem is called getting a second opinion. Could his treatment be effective? Sure. Could other treatments be just as or more effective? YEs. Could his treatment be rubbish? Yes.

The question is, "why did you decide the Dr's treatment of rubbing kitty food on the arthritis was crazy?" If this was a Dr you trust, and his authority on the matter is your reason for believing in his advice, then what made you think this particular treatment was crazy? The answer is obvious, isn't it? You heard the advice, it didn't logically fit with the reality you know, so it became "illogical" advice. My point is that whether you agree or disagree with information you receive has far less to do with who you receive that information from than you seem willing to admit. In the case of good advice, its not good because the Dr gave it to you, its good because even with your limited medical knowledge, it fit logically with your view of reality. I'm willing to give you a less extreme real-life example if you are still having trouble understanding it.

The whole reason that the "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy is because authority has no bearing on truth. Sure, it may seem that we blindly accept truth based on who we get it from, but the more you think about it, the less it makes sense (I hope lol). How would progress ever be made if we only accepted the ideas of others as true? Would Columbus have sailed to the Americas if he accepted the beliefs of so many flat-earthers? Would Galileo have written about a heliocentric galaxy if he accepted the church's view of an earth-centered universe? Human progress would be at a snail's pace if we viewed reality this way. Fortunately, we don't. EVery bit of information goes through a "filter" of logic, reason and evidence before we believe it.

Now certainly there are those who "turn off" that filter at times and blindly go forward believing what some authority tells them. Nazi Germany had a lot of that. Personally, I think Christians do it too, when it comes to Christianity. I just can't ever think of an example of this method for determining reality ever being a "good" thing. That is just my opinion of course.

 

[aiki]

He was trying to show that scientists and new disciples of Christ use the same faith. My response was to show, sentence by sentence, where the differences were and how they were fundamental to the methods used by scientists and disciples.

I don't know what you mean exactly by "the same faith," but scientists do begin science with an exercise of faith. They must, for instance, trust that their physical senses accurately perceive reality. They must believe that the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it. Science (and/or scientists) must assume some uniformity of nature to justify induction. It also must assume that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, and that language has meaning. THere are quite a few additional assumptions scientists must trust to be true in order to do science that I won't bother to mention. None of these assumptions may be proven by the empirical method; they must be taken on faith.

Here's an interesting quotation for you to consider:

"...the statement "only what can be known by science or quanitified and empirically tested is rational and true" is self-refuting. This statement itself is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science. How could the statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? And if it cannot, then by the statement's own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held.

Another way of putting this is to say that the aims, methodologies, and presuppostions of science cannot be validated by science. One cannot turn to science to justify science any more than one can pull oneself up by his own bootstraps. The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim." (J.P. Moreland - Scaling the Secular City, pg. 197)

I think, of course, that the arguments against apologetics are constructed better.

And I, of course, think the opposite is true.

Selah.

 

[AlexBP]

The whole reason that the "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy is because authority has no bearing on truth. Sure, it may seem that we blindly accept truth based on who we get it from, but the more you think about it, the less it makes sense (I hope lol). How would progress ever be made if we only accepted the ideas of others as true? Would Columbus have sailed to the Americas if he accepted the beliefs of so many flat-earthers? Would Galileo have written about a heliocentric galaxy if he accepted the church's view of an earth-centered universe? Human progress would be at a snail's pace if we viewed reality this way. Fortunately, we don't. EVery bit of information goes through a "filter" of logic, reason and evidence before we believe it.

You believe that Christopher Columbus lived at a time when there were many flat-earthers and that Galileo had to defy the church's view of an earth-centered universe when promoting the heliocentric theory. Why do you believe these things? I'd think it's because you got the ideas from some authority, presumably either a book or a teacher. I find it highly unlikely that you ever actually read texts dating from the times of those historical figures concerning those matters. And that makes sense. After all, no one has time to read every important historical document on the planet and create a view of history based on that. Instead, we let authority figures study those documents and other things and tell us their view of history.

In fact, the notion that anyone is Columbus's time believed that the earth was flat is entirely false. The Ancient Greeks and Romans knew that the earth was spherical, as did every educated person in European history through medieval and Renaissance times. The notion that Columbus had to argue with flat-earthers was made up by 19th-century skeptics who wanted to smear Christianity.

The Myth of the Flat Earth

The issue of Galileo and the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the universe is more complicated. Medieval Christian clergymen such as Jean Buridan, Nicole Orisme, Nicolas da Cusa, and Copernicus had written challenging the cosmology of Aristotle in the centuries before Galileo. Nonetheless in the early 1600's most scholars, Catholic or otherwise, still preferred the geocentric theory. This was not because of unwillingness to challenge old ideas, but because the observed evidence wasn't strong enough to confirm the heliocentric theory. It is true, as everyone knows, that Galileo was unfairly put on trial by the Roman Inquisition (different from the Spanish Inquisition) for heresy. However, it should be noted that at the time many scholars through Europe were teaching the heliocentric theory and there was no widespread attempt to stop them.

All of this is not an attempt to play gotcha' on minor pieces of history. It's just trying to prove a point. You clearly believe that all of your beliefs have been arrived at by pure reason without any interference from authority figures, but it is not true. It's a common misconception that many people hold for part of their lives, but eventually grow out of. The truth is that we arrive in this world knowing nothing except how to cry and suckle. Everything else that we know, we learn, and what we learn is determined by the circumstances of our existence and the sources of information that we come into contact with. You didn't come up with the idea the argument from authority is a logical fallacy by yourself; you got it from someone else. Your position that you've used logic, reason, and evidence to shape all your beliefs and been affected by authority is simply not tenable.

 

[AlexBP]

I would agree that if Jesus were the son of god then certainly we wouldn't apply the same logical perceptions to him as we would any regular human being. The obvious problem with that is how do we logically show Jesus was divine in nature? We can't use any aspects of that he claims to have because of his divine nature without getting into some very circular reasoning. For example:
Q. "How can we logically believe Jesus had performed miracles
A. "Because Jesus was the son of god"
Q. "How do we know that Jesus was the son of god?"
A. "Because Jesus could perform miracles no other man could"

But that's not what I'm doing. In post #60 you implied that I must be abandoning logic and reason because I believed that Jesus performed miracles which ordinary people can't perform. In #69 I responded that all Christians are obviously well aware of the fact that Jesus performed miracles which ordinary people can't perform, and gave my reason for why believing in that is not illogical, but I didn't claim the miracles of Jesus as proof that He was divine.

Your third paragraph falls short of a logical, reasonable argument for several reasons. The most obvious is that it isn't true. There are a great many historically important/influential figures who came from very humble beginnings and have had impacts on the world that have lasted to this day. I'll be glad to name some if you can't think of any. Some of these figures are central to other religions...and yet you don't value those religions as you do Christianity.

But my argument did not rest on Jesus having a humble beginning, but rather a humble ending. Jesus was arrested, given a brief show trial, and then executed between two thieves. His followers ran away. When a small band of followers sees their leader disposed of in humiliating circumstances, the band typically falls apart. This has happened in countless cases throughout human history up to the present day. Indeed, that's what started to happen when the disciples scattered after Jesus' arrest. Then something happened, and judging by every piece of evidence we have, the disciples and the other early Christians had absolute certainty that Jesus had returned to life and that following Him was a wise choice. This situation is quite different from that of, for instance, Mohammed, who by the end of his life was a powerful warlord who was killing people anyone disagreed with him. It's quite understandable why early followers of Mohammed would choose to follow him when the only alternative was death. In short, the events that happened at the end of Jesus' earthly life completely break with a pattern of what typically happens when a charismatic leader of a small band dies in humiliation and disgrace, and this demands an explanation.

 

[food4thought]

In any discussion attempting to be logical, I believe defining terms to be important, otherwise we could end up simply arguing semantics. I'll begin by giving a definition of "reality", as a quick skim of the thread did not reveal one to me:
from this website: reality - definition of reality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

re·al·i·ty(r

-

l

-t

)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact

reality [rɪˈælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties 1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. (Philosophy) Philosophy a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them See also conceptualism Compare appearance

Please indicate which of these many definitions you would consider primary in your usage, and try to indicate in your response when you chose to use another one. Thanks in advance. I believe that 4a in the second set of definitions most accurately depicts my common usage of the word.

When discussing truth, I use the correspondance theory of truth; which states "truth is that which corresponds to reality as it exists". As such, truth regarding reality may currently be out of our reach to discern by mankind without some form of revelation from a higher intelligence. An obvious example would be the nature of what lies outside of the observable universe... we can make plausable educated assumptions or guesses based on knowledge we can obtain (the nature of quantum fields, string theory), but these things fall short of being verifiable as true in reality. I hope this helps you understand what I mean when I use these terms... if I use a word in a way that seems different than yours, please ask me to define my usage of the word, and I will do the same as we continue.

One final thing: I'm not always here every day, and I take my time in composing my posts, so please have patience with me... I will do my best to keep up with the discussion.

God bless you, Ana

Mike

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know what you mean exactly by "the same faith," but scientists do begin science with an exercise of faith. They must, for instance, trust that their physical senses accurately perceive reality. They must believe that the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it. Science (and/or scientists) must assume some uniformity of nature to justify induction. It also must assume that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, and that language has meaning. THere are quite a few additional assumptions scientists must trust to be true in order to do science that I won't bother to mention. None of these assumptions may be proven by the empirical method; they must be taken on faith.

Here's an interesting quotation for you to consider:

"...the statement "only what can be known by science or quanitified and empirically tested is rational and true" is self-refuting. This statement itself is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science. How could the statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? And if it cannot, then by the statement's own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held.

Another way of putting this is to say that the aims, methodologies, and presuppostions of science cannot be validated by science. One cannot turn to science to justify science any more than one can pull oneself up by his own bootstraps. The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim." (J.P. Moreland - Scaling the Secular City, pg. 197)

And I, of course, think the opposite is true.

Selah.

FIrst of all, I didn't make the statement about faith, so I can't say exactly what it means. I don't really see scientists using faith by the modern usage of the term. You said,

" They must believe that the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it."

Why do they believe such a thing? Isn't it because its been proven demonstrably true, over and over again? If you believe, as I do, that it has...does that belief require what we would call "faith"? I've always felt that my lack of ability to believe things on faith was why I don't believe in god. It would actually take surprisingly little effort on god's part to make me a believer. If god were to simply appear before me and demonstrate his godliness in a satisfactory manner, I would instantly become a believer. HOwever, that's not really faith is it? I've always gone along with the definition of faith that states of belief in the absence of proof or evidence. Under that definition, I can't think of too many examples of scientists using faith.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You believe that Christopher Columbus lived at a time when there were many flat-earthers and that Galileo had to defy the church's view of an earth-centered universe when promoting the heliocentric theory. Why do you believe these things? I'd think it's because you got the ideas from some authority, presumably either a book or a teacher. I find it highly unlikely that you ever actually read texts dating from the times of those historical figures concerning those matters. And that makes sense. After all, no one has time to read every important historical document on the planet and create a view of history based on that. Instead, we let authority figures study those documents and other things and tell us their view of history.

In fact, the notion that anyone is Columbus's time believed that the earth was flat is entirely false. The Ancient Greeks and Romans knew that the earth was spherical, as did every educated person in European history through medieval and Renaissance times. The notion that Columbus had to argue with flat-earthers was made up by 19th-century skeptics who wanted to smear Christianity.

The Myth of the Flat Earth

The issue of Galileo and the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the universe is more complicated. Medieval Christian clergymen such as Jean Buridan, Nicole Orisme, Nicolas da Cusa, and Copernicus had written challenging the cosmology of Aristotle in the centuries before Galileo. Nonetheless in the early 1600's most scholars, Catholic or otherwise, still preferred the geocentric theory. This was not because of unwillingness to challenge old ideas, but because the observed evidence wasn't strong enough to confirm the heliocentric theory. It is true, as everyone knows, that Galileo was unfairly put on trial by the Roman Inquisition (different from the Spanish Inquisition) for heresy. However, it should be noted that at the time many scholars through Europe were teaching the heliocentric theory and there was no widespread attempt to stop them.

All of this is not an attempt to play gotcha' on minor pieces of history. It's just trying to prove a point. You clearly believe that all of your beliefs have been arrived at by pure reason without any interference from authority figures, but it is not true. It's a common misconception that many people hold for part of their lives, but eventually grow out of. The truth is that we arrive in this world knowing nothing except how to cry and suckle. Everything else that we know, we learn, and what we learn is determined by the circumstances of our existence and the sources of information that we come into contact with. You didn't come up with the idea the argument from authority is a logical fallacy by yourself; you got it from someone else. Your position that you've used logic, reason, and evidence to shape all your beliefs and been affected by authority is simply not tenable.

Well, I can see the point I made was ignored here to make your point. For the record, its entirely likely that the majority of the population of Columbus' time did believe in a flat-earth. While its true the educated scholars and writers of the time knew better, they would've only comprised maybe 20% of the population (and that's a high estimate). There are people to this day who argue for a flat earth (based on the bible) but I realize its a poor example. It's more of an argument from popularity than from authority. As for Galileo, I'm not sure what relevance other scholars have to do with it. The point I was making was that if authority is the only, or even primary, method for determining reality, then how would progress ever be made? Progress would occur at a snails pace since challenging the ideas of others would be the exception, not the norm.

What exactly was the point you were trying to make with the example of the "myth of the flat earth"? I'm not going argue, that in some cases, we don't use authorities when determining reality. I've already said we do. I just think that its an extremely poor method for determining reality (as demonstrated in the myth of the flat earth) and that even when we do accept reality based on an authority, its because it fits with our logically and reasonably constructed version of reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But that's not what I'm doing. In post #60 you implied that I must be abandoning logic and reason because I believed that Jesus performed miracles which ordinary people can't perform. In #69 I responded that all Christians are obviously well aware of the fact that Jesus performed miracles which ordinary people can't perform, and gave my reason for why believing in that is not illogical, but I didn't claim the miracles of Jesus as proof that He was divine.


But my argument did not rest on Jesus having a humble beginning, but rather a humble ending. Jesus was arrested, given a brief show trial, and then executed between two thieves. His followers ran away. When a small band of followers sees their leader disposed of in humiliating circumstances, the band typically falls apart. This has happened in countless cases throughout human history up to the present day. Indeed, that's what started to happen when the disciples scattered after Jesus' arrest. Then something happened, and judging by every piece of evidence we have, the disciples and the other early Christians had absolute certainty that Jesus had returned to life and that following Him was a wise choice. This situation is quite different from that of, for instance, Mohammed, who by the end of his life was a powerful warlord who was killing people anyone disagreed with him. It's quite understandable why early followers of Mohammed would choose to follow him when the only alternative was death. In short, the events that happened at the end of Jesus' earthly life completely break with a pattern of what typically happens when a charismatic leader of a small band dies in humiliation and disgrace, and this demands an explanation.

I do understand you believe Jesus is divine, and that is the reason that he came perform miracles. However, you didn't explain why you logically believe he is divine.

So, just to be clear, you're saying Jesus is unique for having a humble ending, not a humble beginning. The idea being that no one in history who died in a "humble" manner would go on to influence an extraordinary amount of people. If I give an example of someone who died a very "humble" death with basically no followers and then went on to influence people with his teachings and basically attain a almost "mythical" or legendary status, you aren't going to then claim that some other aspect of Jesus was the remarkable thing about him are you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In any discussion attempting to be logical, I believe defining terms to be important, otherwise we could end up simply arguing semantics. I'll begin by giving a definition of "reality", as a quick skim of the thread did not reveal one to me:
from this website: reality - definition of reality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

re·al·i·ty(r

-

l

-t

)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact

reality [rɪˈælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties 1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. (Philosophy) Philosophy a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them See also conceptualism Compare appearance

Please indicate which of these many definitions you would consider primary in your usage, and try to indicate in your response when you chose to use another one. Thanks in advance. I believe that 4a in the second set of definitions most accurately depicts my common usage of the word.

When discussing truth, I use the correspondance theory of truth; which states "truth is that which corresponds to reality as it exists". As such, truth regarding reality may currently be out of our reach to discern by mankind without some form of revelation from a higher intelligence. An obvious example would be the nature of what lies outside of the observable universe... we can make plausable educated assumptions or guesses based on knowledge we can obtain (the nature of quantum fields, string theory), but these things fall short of being verifiable as true in reality. I hope this helps you understand what I mean when I use these terms... if I use a word in a way that seems different than yours, please ask me to define my usage of the word, and I will do the same as we continue.

One final thing: I'm not always here every day, and I take my time in composing my posts, so please have patience with me... I will do my best to keep up with the discussion.

God bless you, Ana

Mike

I don't really see all those definitions as mutually exclusive of the others. Most of those definitions seem to be stating the same thing just in slightly different ways. I'm not as concerned for definitions as you are, but I appreciate your attempt at clarity. If it helps out, I'll agree to the use of the definition you chose in any discussion with you.

As for correspondence theory, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable method for determining reality. I believe another poster has said that is the method they prefer as well. THank-you for the reply.

 

[aiki]

FIrst of all, I didn't make the statement about faith, so I can't say exactly what it means. I don't really see scientists using faith by the modern usage of the term. You said,

" They must believe that the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it."

Why do they believe such a thing? Isn't it because its been proven demonstrably true, over and over again?

The statement cannot be proven through the empirical method. It may only be presumed, or taken on faith as true. That was my point. How do any of us know that what humans have defined as rational is objectively so? How would a scientist test for true rationality? How can one prove beyond all doubt that we aren't all in some sort of Matrix-like situation? The fact is, we can't; ultimately, we must simply assume that we aren't, which requires the exercise of faith.

I've always felt that my lack of ability to believe things on faith was why I don't believe in god.

I really doubt that you operate so separately from faith. Every time you sit on an unfamiliar chair, or use snail mail, or take public transit, or follow the advice of your doctor, or flick a light switch to turn on a light, or any of a myriad of other mundane acts, you exercise faith.

It would actually take surprisingly little effort on god's part to make me a believer. If god were to simply appear before me and demonstrate his godliness in a satisfactory manner, I would instantly become a believer.

In a "satisfactory manner"? You've got everything backwards! God must satisfy your demands of proof before you'll believe in Him? God must jump through your hoops before you'll take Him seriously? Since when does God take orders from you? He's God; you aren't. You must jump through His hoops! If you refuse, you will suffer the consequences. God, on the other hand, isn't diminished one iota by your unwillingness to believe in Him. He doesn't need you, but you most certainly need Him! Kinda' sticks in the craw, doesn't it? Our human hubris finds such humiliating truth repellant. We want to be our own boss, we want to call the shots. Where does God get off telling us what to do, eh?

I've always gone along with the definition of faith that states of belief in the absence of proof or evidence. Under that definition, I can't think of too many examples of scientists using faith.

As a Christian, I don't operate in a vacuum of evidence in my belief in God. In fact, I don't think I would be a Christian if God hadn't proved to me that "He is and that He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him." I am not alone in this as a Christian.

Selah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The statement cannot be proven through the empirical method. It may only be presumed, or taken on faith as true. That was my point. How do any of us know that what humans have defined as rational is objectively so? How would a scientist test for true rationality? How can one prove beyond all doubt that we aren't all in some sort of Matrix-like situation? The fact is, we can't; ultimately, we must simply assume that we aren't, which requires the exercise of faith.



I really doubt that you operate so separately from faith. Every time you sit on an unfamiliar chair, or use snail mail, or take public transit, or follow the advice of your doctor, or flick a light switch to turn on a light, or any of a myriad of other mundane acts, you exercise faith.



In a "satisfactory manner"? You've got everything backwards! God must satisfy your demands of proof before you'll believe in Him? God must jump through your hoops before you'll take Him seriously? Since when does God take orders from you? He's God; you aren't. You must jump through His hoops! If you refuse, you will suffer the consequences. God, on the other hand, isn't diminished one iota by your unwillingness to believe in Him. He doesn't need you, but you most certainly need Him! Kinda' sticks in the craw, doesn't it? Our human hubris finds such humiliating truth repellant. We want to be our own boss, we want to call the shots. Where does God get off telling us what to do, eh?



As a Christian, I don't operate in a vacuum of evidence in my belief in God. In fact, I don't think I would be a Christian if God hadn't proved to me that "He is and that He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him." I am not alone in this as a Christian.

Selah.

I don't think that simply because something cannot be proven using the empirical method, belief in that something must be taken on faith. I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow. I cannot prove that it will using the empirical method. What I do have are some facts about which I can draw reasonable conclusions. I know the Earth is rotating in the usual manner. I know nuclear war or any earth-bound asteroids are not an imminent danger likely to block out the sky. I have no reason to believe any celestial events capable of changing Earth's trajectory are imminent. It's a reasonable assumption that the sun will rise again, based on factual knowledge and logic. It doesn't require any faith.

Why would you think that turning on a light (or any of your other examples) requires faith? What definition of faith are you using?

Maybe you forgot that I don't believe in god. It would be really pointless to "obey" a god I don't believe in wouldn't it? I'm taking a wild guess but I'd wager that you don't go around obeying Allah just to see if he exists.

I'm sure you do believe you have evidence in your God. However, evidence isn't evidence simply because someone says so. Evidence, noun.- The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. A "body of facts or information" that would indicate that god is real. If your "evidence" fits this criteria, I'd love to hear it.

 

[food4thought]

I don't really see all those definitions as mutually exclusive of the others. Most of those definitions seem to be stating the same thing just in slightly different ways. I'm not as concerned for definitions as you are, but I appreciate your attempt at clarity. If it helps out, I'll agree to the use of the definition you chose in any discussion with you.

As for correspondence theory, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable method for determining reality. I believe another poster has said that is the method they prefer as well. THank-you for the reply.

Thank you for your response, Ana.

You seem to have moved from asking how we determine reality to asking for evidences for our faith, but I'll first give you an idea of how I determine reality anyways. As you can see from my first post, I believe that although there is much that I can know, reality transcends my ability to perceive it; and so the true state of all reality is beyond my limited capability to know. Would you agree with this assesment regarding yourself?

Regarding evidences, there are many different routes we could take: historical evidences, Biblical evidences, philosophical evidences, etc. Please indicate which path would best suite you.

Just for starters, I'll go with a philosophical evidence that starts with current scientific knowledge and proceeds to something LIKE a God, and then give Biblical evidences showing that the God of the Bible is consistent with that Something as well as current scientific understanding.

The universe had a beginning,
everything that has a beginning must have a cause,
The universe has a cause.

So we see from this logical construct that the universe had to have a cause, Something powerful enough to cause a universe! One of the attributes theologians often attribute to God is the term Omnipotent, commonly referred to as all powerful. From a human standpoint, at least, I think it is fair to say that the Something that caused the universe to come into being might rationally be called all powerful. There are certainly other logical causes besides a God we could conceive of to explain the origin of the universe, but God is one possible explanation.

Before I go any further, it should be noted that the singularity that began the Big Bang is the universe at it's first state, and thus still requires a cause. Also, physicists have discovered that an infinite number of expansions and contractions is incompatable with what we know... something to do with proton decay and some other factors if I remember correctly; so we can honestly say that the best current evidence strongly indicates that our universe DID have a beginning.

That said, on to the Biblical evidence. Of course you are familiar with Genesis 1:1, which states that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the one who created it, so I won't bother quoting that or the many other verses that state the same. Connected with this, though, are some passages that you may not be familiar with stating that God "stretched out" the heavens:

Isa_42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:


Jer_10:12 He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.


The word heavens is used in the Bible to describe the atmosphere, all space, and also of a higher heaven where God dwells. Given what we know of the Big Bang model of cosmology, and the nature of other ancient creation stories, don't you find this claim that God stretched out, or expanded, the heavens interesting? Of course by itself it is not enough to bring faith in the God of the Bible, but I think this is something good enough to call evidence, don't you?


So now I think we have a start... we have two distinct evidences: one that follows from philosophy, is substantiated by modern science, and is clearly stated as fact in a book written when NO ONE could have had this knowledge; and a second one that is taken from the same book and is substanciated by modern science.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thank you for your response, Ana.

You seem to have moved from asking how we determine reality to asking for evidences for our faith, but I'll first give you an idea of how I determine reality anyways. As you can see from my first post, I believe that although there is much that I can know, reality transcends my ability to perceive it; and so the true state of all reality is beyond my limited capability to know. Would you agree with this assesment regarding yourself?

Regarding evidences, there are many different routes we could take: historical evidences, Biblical evidences, philosophical evidences, etc. Please indicate which path would best suite you.

Just for starters, I'll go with a philosophical evidence that starts with current scientific knowledge and proceeds to something LIKE a God, and then give Biblical evidences showing that the God of the Bible is consistent with that Something as well as current scientific understanding.

The universe had a beginning,
everything that has a beginning must have a cause,
The universe has a cause.

So we see from this logical construct that the universe had to have a cause, Something powerful enough to cause a universe! One of the attributes theologians often attribute to God is the term Omnipotent, commonly referred to as all powerful. From a human standpoint, at least, I think it is fair to say that the Something that caused the universe to come into being might rationally be called all powerful. There are certainly other logical causes besides a God we could conceive of to explain the origin of the universe, but God is one possible explanation.

Before I go any further, it should be noted that the singularity that began the Big Bang is the universe at it's first state, and thus still requires a cause. Also, physicists have discovered that an infinite number of expansions and contractions is incompatable with what we know... something to do with proton decay and some other factors if I remember correctly; so we can honestly say that the best current evidence strongly indicates that our universe DID have a beginning.

That said, on to the Biblical evidence. Of course you are familiar with Genesis 1:1, which states that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the one who created it, so I won't bother quoting that or the many other verses that state the same. Connected with this, though, are some passages that you may not be familiar with stating that God "stretched out" the heavens:

Isa_42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:


Jer_10:12 He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.


The word heavens is used in the Bible to describe the atmosphere, all space, and also of a higher heaven where God dwells. Given what we know of the Big Bang model of cosmology, and the nature of other ancient creation stories, don't you find this claim that God stretched out, or expanded, the heavens interesting? Of course by itself it is not enough to bring faith in the God of the Bible, but I think this is something good enough to call evidence, don't you?


So now I think we have a start... we have two distinct evidences: one that follows from philosophy, is substantiated by modern science, and is clearly stated as fact in a book written when NO ONE could have had this knowledge; and a second one that is taken from the same book and is substanciated by modern science.

"You seem to have moved from asking how we determine reality to asking for evidences for our faith" Actually, another poster was saying something along the lines of "we use faith to determine reality" which I disagreed with of course. That began the discussion on faith.

"The universe had a beginning" I'm going to disagree right there. I do believe in the big bang, but I see no reason to believe that the singularity which the big bang came from had a "beginning". I don't see any reason to believe that it did not always exist. WHether or not you believe in infinite contractions and expansions is irrelevant to this point. Also, the obvious problem occurs when the "logic" you used to argue for a beginning to the universe is followed to its "logical" end. Obviously, under the same logic, god would have a beginning and therefore a cause, the cause would have a cause, etc. You have to defy the very logic you used to argue a "beginning" for the universe and say that something has always existed. If that is the case, why can't it simply be the universe? After all, there is no knowledge of what state the universe was in before the big bang.

"Of course by itself it is not enough to bring faith in the God of the Bible, but I think this is something good enough to call evidence, don't you?" No, I don't. What definition of evidence are you using? You are aware that bible passages also describe the Earth as being flat, aren't you?

" Job 38:13 13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" That's just my personal favorite, there are others. The idea of the heavens being stretched out hardly equates to a description of the big bang. Even the notion of "spreading forth" the Earth seems to describe a flat object, unless you can tell me how one spreads something into becoming a sphere.

 

[aiki]

I don't think that simply because something cannot be proven using the empirical method, belief in that something must be taken on faith. I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow. I cannot prove that it will using the empirical method. What I do have are some facts about which I can draw reasonable conclusions.

You have this kind of thinking in common with Christians. You believe the sun will rise tomorrow just as I believe God exists. Neither of us can absolutely guarantee our belief, which means both of us must rely on faith to some extent in holding our belief. There is always the possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow, however slim that possibility may seem to you, just as there is the possibility (albeit extremely unlikely IMO) that God does not exist. To prove now absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow, you would have to be able to witness the sun rising tomorrow today, which is impossible. To prove definitively that God exists, I would have to be able to get Him to make a personal appearance, which is also impossible (at this time). In the absence of absolute proof you may rely upon past experience and the record of history to support your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has always arisen therefore the likelihood of it rising again is very high. I may do the same. I rely upon my past daily experience of God and the record of millions of others who either do, or have had, a similar experience of Him to secure my belief in His existence. God has shown Himself real to me again and again thus the likelihood that He does exist is very high.

It's a reasonable assumption that the sun will rise again, based on factual knowledge and logic. It doesn't require any faith.

Ah, but it does. However slight the exercise of faith may be and no matter how confident you may feel about the sun's rising, you still have no perfect guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. As small and obscure as you may think its role to be in this instance, faith is nonetheless being employed.

Maybe you forgot that I don't believe in god. It would be really pointless to "obey" a god I don't believe in wouldn't it?

To you it would seem extremely pointless, yes. Many Christians felt the same way you do at one time. Things changed for them - and maybe at some point they will for you, too. God knows.

I'm sure you do believe you have evidence in your God. However, evidence isn't evidence simply because someone says so. Evidence, noun.- The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. A "body of facts or information" that would indicate that god is real. If your "evidence" fits this criteria, I'd love to hear it.

Okay.

1.) Philosophical Argument: - The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
- Liebniz's Argument from Contingency.
- The Teleological Argument(s).
- Argument from Morality.

2.) Historical Evidence for the Life and Resurrection of Christ.

3.) The Bible: - Historical Accuracy.
- Thematic Unity.
- Fulfilled Prophecy.
- Correspondence to Reality.

4.) Personal Experience (myself and millions of others).

Selah.

 

[AlexBP]

I do understand you believe Jesus is divine, and that is the reason that he came perform miracles. However, you didn't explain why you logically believe he is divine.

So, just to be clear, you're saying Jesus is unique for having a humble ending, not a humble beginning. The idea being that no one in history who died in a "humble" manner would go on to influence an extraordinary amount of people. If I give an example of someone who died a very "humble" death with basically no followers and then went on to influence people with his teachings and basically attain a almost "mythical" or legendary status, you aren't going to then claim that some other aspect of Jesus was the remarkable thing about him are you?

I did not intend to say that Jesus was unique because of his humble ending and his large number of followers, though I can see how you might have interpreted my posts that way. Here's what I meant to say.

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ told His followers that He was God and the Messiah. In other words, Jesus claimed to be the most important figure in all of history. Not one among a small group of important figures, but the most important one. Jesus also said that His message would be taken to every nation, that He would have followers in every nation, that His message would persist forever, and that all of this would happen despite government attempts to wipe it out. All of this has come true, and it is remarkable that anyone could predict that a lowly carpenter and itinerant preacher who died in disgrace would be able to make such predictions and then have them come true. But it is particularly remarkable that Jesus is the most important figure in human history.

All of human history pivots around the life of Jesus Christ. He left behind a small group of followers, yet within a short time the movement known as Christianity became large enough to influence all life in the Roman Empire, and then to form a new civilization that was radically different from any that had come before. The Christian civilization that formed after the collapse of Roman civilization was the first to have a concept of human rights, to be against slavery, to hold freedom as an ideal, to put legal constraints on governing bodies. You have talked a lot about progress. The concept of progress didn't exist in civilizations prior to Christian civilization. Most languages don't even have a word for progress, or a word for freedom either.

By contrast, if we look at human history before Christ, we don't see any signs of progress. There was only the tiniest amount of new science and technology, much of it short-lived. There was no social progress at all. Rome in the year 1 had no more leaning towards human freedom and dignity than civilizations had two millenia earlier.

So the idea that I've been trying to get across is that I believe Jesus to be divine because, among other things, His life is absolutely unique in the role that it played in human history. There is no other person like him anywhere at any time, as far as the size of the role he played. He did not just cause a certain amount of progress to occur, but ushered in the sort of civilization where progress can occur.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I did not intend to say that Jesus was unique because of his humble ending and his large number of followers, though I can see how you might have interpreted my posts that way. Here's what I meant to say.

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ told His followers that He was God and the Messiah. In other words, Jesus claimed to be the most important figure in all of history. Not one among a small group of important figures, but the most important one. Jesus also said that His message would be taken to every nation, that He would have followers in every nation, that His message would persist forever, and that all of this would happen despite government attempts to wipe it out. All of this has come true, and it is remarkable that anyone could predict that a lowly carpenter and itinerant preacher who died in disgrace would be able to make such predictions and then have them come true. But it is particularly remarkable that Jesus is the most important figure in human history.

All of human history pivots around the life of Jesus Christ. He left behind a small group of followers, yet within a short time the movement known as Christianity became large enough to influence all life in the Roman Empire, and then to form a new civilization that was radically different from any that had come before. The Christian civilization that formed after the collapse of Roman civilization was the first to have a concept of human rights, to be against slavery, to hold freedom as an ideal, to put legal constraints on governing bodies. You have talked a lot about progress. The concept of progress didn't exist in civilizations prior to Christian civilization. Most languages don't even have a word for progress, or a word for freedom either.

By contrast, if we look at human history before Christ, we don't see any signs of progress. There was only the tiniest amount of new science and technology, much of it short-lived. There was no social progress at all. Rome in the year 1 had no more leaning towards human freedom and dignity than civilizations had two millenia earlier.

So the idea that I've been trying to get across is that I believe Jesus to be divine because, among other things, His life is absolutely unique in the role that it played in human history. There is no other person like him anywhere at any time, as far as the size of the role he played. He did not just cause a certain amount of progress to occur, but ushered in the sort of civilization where progress can occur.

Wow. THis is a big departure from your previous responses where you made a point, then tried to validate it through examples. THis response is almost entirely either opinion or outright falsehoods. I'll separate the two so we can discuss them further if you like.
Opinions:
But it is particularly remarkable that Jesus is the most important figure in human history.
So the idea that I've been trying to get across is that I believe Jesus to be divine because, among other things, His life is absolutely unique in the role that it played in human history.
There is no other person like him anywhere at any time, as far as the size of the role he played.
Falsehoods:
All of this has come true, and it is remarkable that anyone could predict that a lowly carpenter and itinerant preacher who died in disgrace would be able to make such predictions and then have them come true.
All of human history pivots around the life of Jesus Christ.
He left behind a small group of followers, yet within a short time the movement known as Christianity became large enough to influence all life in the Roman Empire, and then to form a new civilization that was radically different from any that had come before. (THis one might be considered more opinion than falsehood)
The Christian civilization that formed after the collapse of Roman civilization was the first to have a concept of human rights, to be against slavery, to hold freedom as an ideal, to put legal constraints on governing bodies.
The concept of progress didn't exist in civilizations prior to Christian civilization.
Most languages don't even have a word for progress, or a word for freedom either.
By contrast, if we look at human history before Christ, we don't see any signs of progress.
There was only the tiniest amount of new science and technology, much of it short-lived.
There was no social progress at all. Rome in the year 1 had no more leaning towards human freedom and dignity than civilizations had two millenia earlier.
He did not just cause a certain amount of progress to occur, but ushered in the sort of civilization where progress can occur.

SUre, its true Jesus had a unique life, but I don't think its unique in a way that's any different from how every life is unique. I'm hoping that this preachy type of a response isn't a sign you're about to drop out of the conversation, that seems to be the norm when I get a response like this. I am curious, what is your highest completed level of education? How much history have you studied? Those would be pertinent questions before I would explain why so many of your statements are false.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have this kind of thinking in common with Christians. You believe the sun will rise tomorrow just as I believe God exists. Neither of us can absolutely guarantee our belief, which means both of us must rely on faith to some extent in holding our belief. There is always the possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow, however slim that possibility may seem to you, just as there is the possibility (albeit extremely unlikely IMO) that God does not exist. To prove now absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow, you would have to be able to witness the sun rising tomorrow today, which is impossible. To prove definitively that God exists, I would have to be able to get Him to make a personal appearance, which is also impossible (at this time). In the absence of absolute proof you may rely upon past experience and the record of history to support your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has always arisen therefore the likelihood of it rising again is very high. I may do the same. I rely upon my past daily experience of God and the record of millions of others who either do, or have had, a similar experience of Him to secure my belief in His existence. God has shown Himself real to me again and again thus the likelihood that He does exist is very high.



Ah, but it does. However slight the exercise of faith may be and no matter how confident you may feel about the sun's rising, you still have no perfect guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. As small and obscure as you may think its role to be in this instance, faith is nonetheless being employed.



To you it would seem extremely pointless, yes. Many Christians felt the same way you do at one time. Things changed for them - and maybe at some point they will for you, too. God knows.



Okay.

1.) Philosophical Argument: - The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
- Liebniz's Argument from Contingency.
- The Teleological Argument(s).
- Argument from Morality.

2.) Historical Evidence for the Life and Resurrection of Christ.

3.) The Bible: - Historical Accuracy.
- Thematic Unity.
- Fulfilled Prophecy.
- Correspondence to Reality.

4.) Personal Experience (myself and millions of others).

Selah.

There are huge differences between my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow and your belief that the Christian god exists. You are correct though, in stating that these two beliefs have something in common, a lack of absolute certainty. If you think that is all there is to faith, a lack of absolute certainty, then you are correct. Under such a definition, nearly every belief becomes a matter of faith, and the word "faith" itself begins to lose meaning and relevance. However, that is not the meaning that I (or most people) go by.

I would wager most people accept the dictionary definition of faith. In this context, It is belief in spite of a lack of evidence. While there is an abundance of evidence for the sun rising tomorrow, there is a lack of evidence for any god...let alone a specific god.

1.) Philosophical Argument: - The Kalam Cosmological Argument. - Liebniz's Argument from Contingency. - The Teleological Argument(s). - Argument from Morality.
These are arguments, not evidence. They don't actually prove anything. Each is founded on presumptions that are either unproven, or cannot be proven. I'd be happy to explain each in PM.

2.) Historical Evidence for the Life and Resurrection of Christ.
This would be something...but I haven't found any. Can you be a bit more specific? Please keep in mind proving Jesus was alive doesn't automatically prove his claims true.

3.) The Bible: - Historical Accuracy. - Thematic Unity. - Fulfilled Prophecy. - Correspondence to Reality. The bible isn't 100 percent historically accurate, nor would this prove It's claims, neither does thematic unity. I'm unaware of any fulfilled prophecy in the bible. Snakes don't talk. People don't walk on water. The Earth isn't flat. Correspondence with reality isn't a strong point of the bible.

4.) Personal Experience (myself and millions of others). I certainly can't speak of your personal experience (you haven't shared it). My personal experience leads me to believe there is no god, and we cannot both be right. Also, you cannot speak to anyone else's personal experience, because it isn't yours. How can you know they actually experienced god? How can you know it was the same god as yours? How do you discount all those who claim to have personal experiences with gods other than your own? I'm afraid mere personal experience will never in itself amount to evidence.

 

[AlexBP]

I am curious, what is your highest completed level of education?

I have an M.S. from one of America's top 25 universities.

How much history have you studied?

A decent amount. Besides the usual load of high school and college courses that an American student would expect to take, I've read scores of history books covering a wide range of topics. My parents were both history professors and as you might expect, I learned a great deal from them growing up. They dragged me around to many museums and important historical locations on several continents.

Those would be pertinent questions before I would explain why so many of your statements are false.

I await your explanations.

 

[AlexBP]

For the record, its entirely likely that the majority of the population of Columbus' time did believe in a flat-earth.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

There are people to this day who argue for a flat earth (based on the bible) but I realize its a poor example.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

The point I was making was that if authority is the only, or even primary, method for determining reality, then how would progress ever be made?

Well, I've never said that authority should be the only, or even primary, method for determining reality. I've merely said that it's a method for determing reality, and you've agreed.

What exactly was the point you were trying to make with the example of the "myth of the flat earth"?

The point was that despite your obvious belief that you know a whole lot more than all of ignorant Christians, the truth is that you're not as smart as you think you are. You've obviously picked up a lot of "knowledge" that isn't actually true. I'm trying to gently suggest that it might be a good idea for you to check some whether the things you believe are actually true.

I'm not going argue, that in some cases, we don't use authorities when determining reality. I've already said we do. I just think that its an extremely poor method for determining reality...and that even when we do accept reality based on an authority, its because it fits with our logically and reasonably constructed version of reality.

Okay, so you and I both agree that you and I and everyone else accepts statements from authorities when determining reality. You just say that it's "an extremely poor method for determining reality". But you agree that we all use this method, even if it is an extremely poor method. So then what's your complaint? I believe the claims that Jesus Christ made. I have already laid out my reasons for believing the claims that Jesus Christ made. You feel that this is an extremely poor method, but you admit that in some cases you use the same extremely poor method and so does everyone else. What's your complaint? (If it's that events such as the Resurrection and Jesus walking on water are things that ordinary humans can't do, I've already responded to that.)

 

[AlexBP]

"Even skeptical scholars almost all agree on this". <--do you have any way of backing this statement up?

Your comments about "high precision" in the bible seem to be more opinion that fact. I know of many biblical scholars who deal specifically with inaccurate stories in the bible. For example the accounts of Jesus after the resurrection have him in two places at once. That's just one of many flaws present. Have you read the works of any biblical scholars who study inaccuracies in the bible?

First of all, your statement that "the accounts of Jesus after the resurrection have him in two places at once" is flat wrong. The Gospel of Matthew records an appearance of Jesus on a mountaintop in Galilee while Luke records Him appearing in Jerusalem and John does not name the location where Jesus first appeared to the disciples, but there's nothing to indicate that the two appearances in Matthew and Luke were at the same time. That's another example of why you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

As has already been stated in this thread, we've got enough to discuss without opening up the whole can of worms about supposed gospel contradictions. I refer you to this post on my blog if you want to see my thoughts on the issue.

As for whether I've read any works of scholars who study inaccuracies in the Bible, I've read quite a few. I've read several books by Bart Ehrman, copious articles by Richard Carrier (who actually doesn't have any credentials as a Bible scholar, but atheists often treat him as if he did), and so many others that I don't even remember them all. Generally, reading them has left me more convinced of the trustworthiness of the gospels, not less. First, it begs the question of why any scholars would spend whole careers trying to find errors in the Bible. If they truly believed that the Bible was nothing more than mythology, then what would be the point. No one spends a career trying to find errors in the myths of the Norsemen. Second, the errors that they find are few in number and so trivial in their content. Thats tends rather to suggest that bulk of the gospels are correct, if there's so little erroneous material to be found. Third, most of the "errors" that these people claim to find in the gospels are not errors at all. You've already given one example of this phenomenon above, and the blog post I linked to gives others. So it forces me to ask the question, if the nay-sayers have truth on their side, then why are they constantly resorting to this sort of dishonesty.

The fourth reason is simply the fact that those seeking to debunk the bible never tackle many important arguments in favor of gospel reliability. I gave some arguments in post #29, which you did not respond to, and I've never seen any other atheist respond to them either. If anyone claims to have a solid case against gospel reliability, they should be willing to acknowledge and address the arguments that the other side is making.