Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

We know medicine works though, we confirm the effectiveness of medicine through thorough testing, double blind studies, and a number of other methods. We have nothing of the sort with your situation.

All you have is the belief that god has forgiven you, that's it. There's no way to confirm it, even if you're feeling super happy.

Believing god has forgiven you is enough to make you feel guilt free, it doesn't matter if god has actually forgiven you, or if god actually exists. Your belief is all that matters. Of course you're going to feel better if you believe you've been forgiven.

Hence, this is not evidence. You need to be able to demonstrate you've actually been forgiven by the god in question for it to count.

Everything that has happened to me as a result of being born again, is evidence for me, not you.

You asked me how I know God exists and that Jesus is the Messiah, and I told you.

In addition, Jesus said that the world would know people were His disciples by the love they have for one another. He no where stated that this would serve as some sort of argument for God's existence, or for the validity of the central tenets of the faith.

Just because I know something to be true, does not mean that I will be able to show you it is true. You would have to be open to the notion that God exists, that Jesus has shown us what He is like, and most importantly, God would have to do a work in you before you can accept these things.

Don't think this is simply an intellectual issue. There are numerous factors that play a part in a person's being open to divine things. Existential and emotional factors, psychological factors, presuppositions and biases about reality, and many other things other than just one's intellect play a role here.

 

[anonymous person]

How about you actually attempt to show what you've claimed you know to be true, and we can either critique or accept what you have to say? Your argument should stand or fall on its own merit.

Julius Caesar has nothing to do with what you claimed. History is history, many aspects we don't know with 100% certainty. Many we know with a high degree of confidence, it depends on the available evidence and the veracity of the evidence.

You claimed your decisions will have eternal ramifications, and you know your view is right and mine is wrong. That's not talking history, that's talking future. Eternal future to be exact. How do you know your decisions will have eternal ramifications? Show your evidence and quit evading.

Ok well would you consider it a fact that he died at the hands of the Roman Senate?

I consider that a fact.

 

[bhsmte]

If only it were that simple when it came to such issues.

Tell me, why is it that 12 jurors on a trial jury can all look at the same evidence and yet come to different conclusions about what it means?

Bias, ignorance and or the evidence is not very clear.

I can provide clear evidence the impact a medication has physiologically and chemically on the human body. You can not provide clear evidence of the claims you are making here, only personal opinion. And, this seems to be something, you can not accept.

 

[anonymous person]

Bias, ignorance and or the evidence is not very clear.

I can provide clear evidence the impact a medication has physiologically and chemically on the human body. You can not provide clear evidence of the claims you are making here, only personal opinion. And, this seems to be something, you can not accept.

You can't provide clear evidence of the impact a medication has physiologically and chemically on the human body to one who is biased against the existence of such evidence. For such a person as has a bias against that which you wish to present to them, whatever the reason for the bias, no evidence you furnish will be accepted, because they assume before being presented said evidence, that such evidence cannot exist.

Such is the case with some who ask for evidence of things like God's existence, or of Jesus' resurrection. They assume beforehand that such evidence cannot exist.

So all of this demonstrates that one's presuppositions and assumptions about reality must be held tentatively with an openness to change them if there is reason to do so. I personally don't think you are open to having your assumptions and presuppositions about reality questioned. I personally don't think you are willing to change your mind about Christianity, at least not at the moment. I think you are closed minded and it is my prayer that you may honestly examine yourself and your motives and see whether or not you are serious about discovering the truth.

You were right when you mentioned bias. Bias for or against something entails a wide range of factors.

You can show people all day long that there is evidence for global warming and climate change or that the earth is round, if these people assume that global warming is just something someone has made up, or that the earth is flat, their bias is going to prevent them from looking at the arguments and evidence objectively. Same thing with jurors on a jury trial. If you have people on the jury who are prejudiced, or already have an opinion formed on the guilt or innocence of the one on trial, they are not going to be able to examine the evidence objectively.

 

[bhsmte]

You can't provide clear evidence of the impact a medication has physiologically and chemically on the human body to one who is biased against the existence of such evidence. For such a person as has a bias against that which you wish to present to them, whatever the reason for the bias, no evidence you furnish will be accepted, because they assume before being presented said evidence, that such evidence cannot exist.

Such is the case with some who ask for evidence of things like God's existence, or of Jesus' resurrection. They assume beforehand that such evidence cannot exist.

So all of this demonstrates that one's presuppositions and assumptions about reality must be held tentatively with an openness to change them if there is reason to do so. I personally don't think you are open to having your assumptions and presuppositions about reality questioned. I personally don't think you are willing to change your mind about Christianity, at least not at the moment. I think you are closed minded and it is my prayer that you may honestly examine yourself and your motives and see whether or not you are serious about discovering the truth.

If one is bias towards empirical evidence, and can't accept it because it goes against personal bias, they have bigger problems to deal with.

What is your empirical evidence about God?

 

[anonymous person]

If one is bias towards empirical evidence, and can't accept it because it goes against personal bias, they have bigger problems to deal with.

What is your empirical evidence about God?

If you only believed in that which can be empirically evidenced, then I would answer this, but since you hold many beliefs which are not, I won't.

 

[bhsmte]

If you only believed in that which can be empirically evidenced, then I would answer this, but since you hold many beliefs which are not, I won't.

If I believe something that I can not provide evidence to support, I have no problem freely admitting I can not support the belief with evidence.

It seems, there are a group of certain Christians, which have no problem admitting; they don't have objective evidence that shows their personal beliefs to be true, but they believe on faith and they are fine with that. I believe these are the types who are actually more internally secure with their beliefs. For those who have to convince themselves, their personal belief is loaded with logic, and they have objective evidence to support the same, are likely the folks that actually have more internal turmoil and doubt about their beliefs and need to constantly tell themselves; I have objective evidence.

 

[anonymous person]

If I believe something that I can not provide evidence to support, I have no problem freely admitting I can not support the belief with evidence.

Cool.

It seems, there are a group of certain Christians, which have no problem admitting; they don't have objective evidence that shows their personal beliefs to be true, but they believe on faith and they are fine with that. I believe these are the types who are actually more internally secure with their beliefs. For those who have to convince themselves, their personal belief is loaded with logic, and they have objective evidence to support the same, are likely the folks that actually have more internal turmoil and doubt about their beliefs and need to constantly tell themselves; I have objective evidence.

Ok, that's great.

Why are you asking for empirical evidence when you don't require it for other beliefs ypu hold?

 

[quatona]

Just declaring them false doesn't prove they are.

I didn´t declare them false. You declared them to be correct, and I declared them pre-suppositional (meaning that they lacked support and substantiation).

 

[bhsmte]

Cool.



Ok, that's great.

Why are you asking for empirical evidence when you don't require it for other beliefs ypu hold?

I am asking why I should believe your personal beliefs should be valid to others, without this evidence?

 

[quatona]

Why are you asking for empirical evidence when you don't require it for other beliefs ypu hold?

The subject of discussion weren´t beliefs, but your knowledge claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, it just flat out isn't on two counts.

1) The evidence suggests that the mind is a product of your physical brain

Not all of the mind, as I have shown. Some of the lower mind activities may be but not the higher mind activities, such as abstract thinking.

2) Even if you could show that the mind was somehow non-material, there's nothing to link that to proving the christian god.

It is one more confirmation of the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview teaches that one important part of our essence is non-material.

de: You should view the last part of your argument another way... you're attempting to use irrational arguments to prove a rational viewpoint. Non Sequiturs don't lead to a rational worldview. Come up with better arguments if you actually want to support your worldview, because this isn't doing it at all.

Provide an example of where I used an irrational argument and then prove it is irrational.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You're shifting the burden of proof here.

The fact they haven't refuted it is irrelevant. The fact there's no evidence to back it, when we have evidence that supports an alternate explanation is what matters.

No I am not, the links show that chemical reactions produce products that are determined by the ratio of their reagents, ie the first one, the second link shows that Naturalists believe that the mind operates by brain chemistry. It is plain as the nose on your face.

 

[anonymous person]

I am asking why I should believe your personal beliefs should be valid to others, without this evidence?

Yes I know that is what you're asking.

Why does the evidence have to be empirical evidence? What does that mean to you, and why are you asking for it to be empirical when you don't require empirical evidence for other things?

This is what I am talking about. When it comes to God, Christianity, and such things, you demand that the evidence be empirically verifiable when you don't require empirical evidence for other things you hold to be true.

What would empirical evidence for God's existence or empirical evidence for the central truths of the Christian religion even look like?

 

[anonymous person]

The subject of discussion weren´t beliefs, but your knowledge claim.

Knowledge is justified beliefs which are true, so yes, we are discussing beliefs if we are discussing knowledge claims.

And why demand that I provide empirical evidence for my claim, when there are beliefs you hold in the absence of such evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I know that is what you're asking.

Why does the evidence have to be empirical evidence? What does that mean to you, and why are you asking for it to be empirical when you don't require empirical evidence for other things?

This is what I am talking about. When it comes to God, Christianity, and such things, you demand that the evidence be empirically verifiable when you don't require empirical evidence for other things you hold to be true.

What would empirical evidence for God's existence or empirical evidence for the central truths of the Christian religion even look like?

It would meet the definition of empirical evidence.

If you have none, you belief on faith, not objective evidence.

 

[anonymous person]

It would meet the definition of empirical evidence.

If you have none, you belief on faith, not objective evidence.

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

You have no misgivings exercising faith until it comes to having faith in Christ. All of a sudden when He presents Himself as the object of our trust and our affection and our hope, you want to set it aside and claim you can't wxercise faith because you need empirical evidence.

This is the duplicity one necessarily is guilty of when they attempt to attack the Christian conception of faith.

God has built this world and us in such a way as to make faith an integral part of our lives. That means you can't use as an excuse for not following Him, the fact that He requires faith on your part.

 

[StTruth]

If you only believed in that which can be empirically evidenced, then I would answer this, but since you hold many beliefs which are not, I won't.

Hi anonymous person,

I hope you don't mind my saying this. But this is the kind of answer that is all too common among my fellow Christians. The reluctance to answer a simple question. As I see more and more instances of such 'reluctance', I'm beginning to realise that it's inability and not merely reluctance.

This is disheartening for a Christian who is seeing where his faith really stands, as I am doing. But I don't blame you. When we have no answers, it's more respectable to say we refuse to answer.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[anonymous person]

Hi anonymous person,

I hope you don't mind my saying this. But this is the kind of answer that is all too common among my fellow Christians. The reluctance to answer a simple question. As I see more and more instances of such 'reluctance', I'm beginning to realise that it's inability and not merely reluctance.

This is disheartening for a Christian who is seeing where his faith really stands, as I am doing. But I don't blame you. When we have no answers, it's more respectable to say we refuse to answer.

Cheers,

St Truth

I simply pointed out that the question was disingenuous. Nor do I feel compelled to answer every question I am asked. Many times Jesus answered a question with a question to prove that those who were challenging Him had wrong motives. Sometimes He didn't answer at all.

 

[quatona]

Knowledge is justified beliefs which are true, so yes, we are discussing beliefs if we are discussing knowledge claims.

No, we are discussing knowledge claims, and your definition makes it clear how knowledge claims are different from mere beliefs.

And why demand that I provide empirical evidence for my claim,

The other option would be to simply ignore your claims as unsupported and unsubstantiated.

when there are beliefs you hold in the absence of such evidence?

Holding a belief is one thing, making a knowledge claim is another.