Evidence

[kristina411]

It's not intended to be offensive; rather, it's usually to make a point through an analogy.



I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't seen anyone attack you, but I have seen plenty of people commenting on your posts and discussing your views. Not agreeing with those views, or dissecting them ("nitpicking" if you prefer), is not the same as an attack on you.



I'm not sure what the demographic makeup of the Philosophy subforum is. That's an interesting question. Perhaps we should do a poll?



I never said that you weren't rational or intelligent. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be taking any and all criticism of your views as a personal attack. It's not.



Sadly there is no longer a section for apologetics. For some reason the topic is forbidden.



If someone doesn't like the answer then surely that could form the starting point for a potentially edifying conversation? For example: why don't they like the answer? Could you provide a better answer? And so on...

I will edit and respond when I get home. If you could also read my above post as some of it addresses this topic. I'm getting all mixed up in who I am responding to and I apologize for this.
But if someone doesn't like the answer, an appropriate response would be your questions and it begins that way but I have seen any evidence provided is typically ignored or stretched to impossible degrees (aliens, Santa, Easter bunny)

That posting is ineffective and if that is what Christian Apologetics is about I'm pleased it is banned. If it is honest search for answers, with an open mind, that is more appropriate. I can tell you what I believe and why, but if I am not saying you are wrong, I appreciate the same decency. If I answer questions, I expect my questions to be answered as well and not danced around.

As a collective whole I see this happen. When it does not happen I end with a very productive conversation where both parties gain new understanding.

Maybe other Christians are like this and as a previous poster pointed out-perhaps repeatedly asking the same questions has caused one to turn to mockery but if that is the case, the mockery needs to be controlled. Each person that posts has not responded repeatedly to said questions, and we often have different answers. Some are better at speaking (I am not one of those), some get confused a lot. But their belief is no cause for mockery when they are just trying to answer questions-and I am speaking to the general board here and not just this post.

Reverting back to my original post and question... My evidence may not be sufficient for you but if that is so, let it be and look elsewhere for an answer instead of (not speaking to you directly) being condescending. Instead of ignoring the persons questions by saying "I'm not the one on trial", on trial for what? We have to go on trial for simply believing in God?
When the evidence "isn't enough", what is given is completely ignored and not even addressed. If we were on trial the evidence would be submissible in court, here it is apparently not. So I ask if the same standards are applied to the rest of life. Not how you know you are married, but how you know love us real. How you know your spouse loves you. To think radically i could wonder if my husband married me for ulterior motives but the evidence that I saw was sufficient for me. I saw him treat me like he loved me, he made the appropriate steps. I did not have his brain scanned to see if his emotions aligned with what was on the screen before marrying him but instead i put M faith in him.
So I wonder, if the "scanner" must be placed on religion with such scrutiny, why not the rest of life?

I understand the need for evidence. I have no issue with answering questions. I do take issue with disrespect, mockery, and false accusations. I do not ask that anyone lessen their standards of evidence but that it is respected that our standards may be different. Not more or less but different.

 

[kristina411]

If it is zero cost or effort involved, then why haven't you been living this way your whole life? Something's not adding up here.

Because of temptation to do bad. This is simple Christian knowledge. I have reasoning behind it, and it is biblical. If this can not be accepted by you, so be it. It however makes perfect sense to myself and millions of others.

This is the only flaw within my post, darkness being lost. I find this interesting that the conversation continues repeating itself.
It is clear that greed, envy, lust, etc can be horribly destructive. To lose them is no great cost no matter how it is spun.

 

[kristina411]

I sincerely apologize if I ever offended or attacked you. I ensure you that if it happened, it was unintentional.

I noticed that you didn't react to the main part of my last response, instead you focused on the (in my view very minor) point of the potential attacks against your person.

So I have to ask: are you still interested in talking about the question of evidence and how it relates to our conversation, or do you want to focus on the mean behaviour of radical atheists on this forum?

I am still very interested in hearing your thoughts on the first topic - especially your thoughts on my example, now that I (hopefully) made my intention with it clear.

So what do you say?

I am in the grocery store parking lot (have been the last 30 minutes lol) waiting to go in. I do not wish to derail this topic more than it is but I will reread your post sometime today (I have to get going) and will respond hopefully today. If it is a topic that will derail I will start a new thread for it. I dont mind questions so long as both sides can be respectful. I apologize for not answering your initial questions, I am reading multiple posts before responding which causes me to forget and mix up. I will go more in detail when I get a chance.y phone battery just alerted me as well.

I will be back within 24 hours to respond.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because of temptation to do bad. This is simple Christian knowledge. I have reasoning behind it, and it is biblical. If this can not be accepted by you, so be it. It however makes perfect sense to myself and millions of others.

This is the only flaw within my post, darkness being lost. I find this interesting that the conversation continues repeating itself.
It is clear that greed, envy, lust, etc can be horribly destructive. To lose them is no great cost no matter how it is spun.

Again, goes back to my point that there's a lot more cost and effort involved in following Christianity than you claimed earlier. And nice attempt at an emotional appeal by listing a bunch of "destructive" behaviors as the only thing one has to change, but there are also lots of positive things one would have to give up as well. And that's conceding that, for example, lust is bad - an opinion I find to be incorrect and potentially harmful. Look at all the threads where people beat themselves up over having perfectly normal feelings to see that there is a very real downside associated with that belief.

Put all that together, and you can see it isn't as simplistic as no cost versus infinite gain choice between Christianity and not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Reverting back to my original post and question... My evidence may not be sufficient for you but if that is so, let it be and look elsewhere for an answer instead of (not speaking to you directly) being condescending.

There is no issue for me unless the individual insists that I am intellectually obligated to share their theology.

Instead of ignoring the persons questions by saying "I'm not the one on trial", on trial for what? We have to go on trial for simply believing in God?
When the evidence "isn't enough", what is given is completely ignored and not even addressed. If we were on trial the evidence would be submissible in court, here it is apparently not. So I ask if the same standards are applied to the rest of life. Not how you know you are married, but how you know love us real. How you know your spouse loves you. To think radically i could wonder if my husband married me for ulterior motives but the evidence that I saw was sufficient for me. I saw him treat me like he loved me, he made the appropriate steps. I did not have his brain scanned to see if his emotions aligned with what was on the screen before marrying him but instead i put M faith in him.

A brain scan wouldn't show you that. Just a quick comment on the seductive allure of brain imaging: In recent years, many people have come under the impression that an MRI scan is the "gold standard" for psychological assessment. This has led many to over-interpret the psychological significance of certain brain imaging data, leading to some highly sensationalistic news headlines and many unfounded marketing claims. Your husband's behaviour toward you remains the best test of his marital motivations, not an MRI scan. (I do wonder what one would even expect to see on MRI to indicate his motivations regarding marriage?)

So I wonder, if the "scanner" must be placed on religion with such scrutiny, why not the rest of life?

Because the religious frequently insist that we must believe as they do and, sometimes, they demand special privileges for themselves. People who practice their religion privately, and who don't pretend that others are being unreasonable for not sharing in their theology, rarely attract much scrutiny. As an example, consider my recent conversation with cedric.

I understand the need for evidence. I have no issue with answering questions. I do take issue with disrespect, mockery, and false accusations. I do not ask that anyone lessen their standards of evidence but that it is respected that our standards may be different. Not more or less but different.

I think recognising that would mean that you shouldn't consider it unreasonable for people to not share your religious beliefs.

 

[kristina411]

Again, goes back to my point that there's a lot more cost and effort involved in following Christianity than you claimed earlier. And nice attempt at an emotional appeal by listing a bunch of "destructive" behaviors as the only thing one has to change, but there are also lots of positive things one would have to give up as well. And that's conceding that, for example, lust is bad - an opinion I find to be incorrect and potentially harmful. Look at all the threads where people beat themselves up over having perfectly normal feelings to see that there is a very real downside associated with that belief.

Put all that together, and you can see it isn't as simplistic as no cost versus infinite gain choice between Christianity and not.

We can start a new thread to debunk the myths of sin if you would like but to quickly, without going off topic, touch on your assertion... Jesus spoke on lust, toward married men and women who should not lust after another that is not their spouse, or cover a neighbors wife. There is a difference between lust and noticing attraction (daaaang she's sexy vs that woman is attractive). Lust is very much possible to abstain from when it is sinful. I have never had issue with this, even before my Christian awakening.
Christians beating themselves up either know they did wrong or are misinformed of the Christian concept of law vs sin

 

[Colter]

If that is the only real evidence you have then you don't have much at all.

It's certainly enough for those who know God.

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB​

 

[Freodin]

It's certainly enough for those who know God.

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB​

Just considering usual standards for "evidence": if something can be equally used as evidence for two conflicting claims, it isn't useful at all... and certainly not "enough".

As the quote from your book does equally apply to an imaginary deity (and even atheistic concepts), is fits perfectly under the above statement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's certainly enough for those who know God.

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB​

Is it really enough for believers? Then why isn't the "personal evidence" of someone with a different theology enough to convince you that his theology is better than yours? What if someone said to you that they had "personal evidence" that the Urantia Book was a deceptive concoction of Satan? Would that be enough for you?

 

[kristina411]

Is it really enough for believers? Then why isn't the "personal evidence" of someone with a different theology enough to convince you that his theology is better than yours? What if someone said to you that they had "personal evidence" that the Urantia Book was a deceptive concoction of Satan? Would that be enough for you?

Just chiming in, if another made a claim that seemed too far fetched I would ask at least what their personal evidence was. I would take it, for what it was, personal evidence. I won't necessarily agree but it would at least be considered.

Perception is individual. One can not convince me to perceive things a certain way, unless I allow it. I make the decision based on my own experience and experience of trustworthy sources. Everyone should do this.

I will be back later to continue our discussion from earlier

 

[Colter]

Is it really enough for believers? Then why isn't the "personal evidence" of someone with a different theology enough to convince you that his theology is better than yours? What if someone said to you that they had "personal evidence" that the Urantia Book was a deceptive concoction of Satan? Would that be enough for you?

If that is the only real evidence you have then you don't have much at all.

The evidence of what I have found in God, after my spiritual awakening, is enough for me, though my explanation of it may never be enough for you. You would need to seek a personal relationship with God yourself and not rely either way on the inadequacy of my explanations about my ongoing experience. Once again you are defaulting to the inability of others to describe realities beyond words as an excuse not to seek the same and find the same.

People do tell me that the UB is demonically inspired, religious people said that to Jesus, and they killed him for his claims. Those are people of the religions of authority expressing an opinion about me theology. As we progress in enlightenment there will be less of that and more positive affirmation of what they do agree with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The evidence of what I have found in God, after my spiritual awakening, is enough for me, though my explanation of it may never be enough for you. You would need to seek a personal relationship with God yourself and not rely either way on the inadequacy of my explanations about my ongoing experience. Once again you are defaulting to the inability of others to describe realities beyond words as an excuse not to seek the same and find the same.

I've already addressed this in our previous exchange on the topic (beginning here).

 

[Colter]

Just considering usual standards for "evidence": if something can be equally used as evidence for two conflicting claims, it isn't useful at all... and certainly not "enough".

As the quote from your book does equally apply to an imaginary deity (and even atheistic concepts), is fits perfectly under the above statement.

But this legalistic quibbling doesn't discount the God experience, just that it could apply to the true God or an imagined God.

 

[Colter]

I've already addressed this in our previous exchange on the topic (beginning here).

Yes, I remember that, you are a critic of the game rather than a player. And the UB doesn't claim to be the last revelation of truth, in fact it concedes that revelation is relative to the age and the audience. Science changes as well, It would be like saying that because science grows and evolves we shouldn't have it or participate in it.

(1008.2) 92:4.9 5. The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.​

 

[Freodin]

But this legalistic quibbling doesn't discount the God experience, just that it could apply to the true God or an imagined God.

So this "legalistic quibbling" cannot discount any of these experiences as imagined... and thus any such experience is useless as a means to find out the truth behind it.

That's all I was saying.

Perhaps it is an experience of "the true God". Perhaps it is not. The sole existince of "an experience I had" is not enough to make an objective statement.

It shouldn't be enough to make a subjective statement either... but most people sadly have rather low standards. (And I don't exclude myself from that completely. I just try to do better.)

 

[Colter]

So this "legalistic quibbling" cannot discount any of these experiences as imagined... and thus any such experience is useless as a means to find out the truth behind it.

That's all I was saying.

Perhaps it is an experience of "the true God". Perhaps it is not. The sole existince of "an experience I had" is not enough to make an objective statement.

It shouldn't be enough to make a subjective statement either... but most people sadly have rather low standards. (And I don't exclude myself from that completely. I just try to do better.)

If you had a relationship with God you would understand this much better, uncommon sense becomes common sense. But you would still find yourself just as unable to express in worlds the consciousness of the spirit to other Atheists who would pepper you with the same demands for proof in the lab.

One minute I was one way, the next minute as was a new person.

 

[Freodin]

If you had a relationship with God you would understand this much better, uncommon sense becomes common sense. But you would still find yourself just as unable to express in worlds the consciousness of the spirit to other Atheists who would pepper you with the same demands for proof in the lab.

One minute I was one way, the next minute as was a new person.

This may be the case. If you could provide evidence for that (and I mean generally, not specifically to me right now), it would be an interesting point for this discussion.

But considering that this new person that you claim to be comes over as paranoid, insulting, inconsiderate of your opposite's view and has literally told me " I don't believe you at all."... can you give me any reason why I should believe you?

 

[bhsmte]

This may be the case. If you could provide evidence for that (and I mean generally, not specifically to me right now), it would be an interesting point for this discussion.

But considering that this new person that you claim to be comes over as paranoid, insulting, inconsiderate of your opposite's view and has literally told me " I don't believe you at all."... can you give me any reason why I should believe you?

Because you should just ignore the evidences of his behavior on this thread and just trust what he says?

 

[variant]

Because you should just ignore the evidences of his behavior on this thread and just trust what he says?

This new person he says he is seems to poison wells pretty well.

 

[Freodin]

If you had a relationship with God you would understand this much better, uncommon sense becomes common sense. But you would still find yourself just as unable to express in worlds the consciousness of the spirit to other Atheists who would pepper you with the same demands for proof in the lab.

One minute I was one way, the next minute as was a new person.

Let's try something else...

See, I don't like the way you act here. I only have these interactions with you here to make an assessment of your character, and while I may be wrong in this, it is all the "relationship" that I have to "understand" you.

But it is not required that we become friends. We can still try to have a reasonable conversation.

So...

You say that, if I had a relationship with God, I would understand. Well, I do not have a relationship with God.

How do I get one?