I wasn't discussing the Bible or theism; I was discussing my disagreement with the claim that what we believe is the result of evaluating evidence.
Ken
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I wasn't discussing the Bible or theism; I was discussing my disagreement with the claim that what we believe is the result of evaluating evidence.The difference with the bible is there's contradictory evidence with far more weight than what Bronze and Roman Age men knew. We know a lot more about Paul, than we know about Christ. All we know about him is he lived, the rest comes from biased sources preaching a message.
We are all sinners equally because nobody can follow the law. It is impossible.So those who sinned the most, are top of the list?
You make no sense.
Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?No. Premise one is still incomplete. People come to believe because of all that stuff, and a whole bunch of other stuff. For instance, emotional response. Also, don't misinterpret an assertion with evidence for that assertion.
Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?
I can, if I may.Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?
Can you give me an example where someone has come to believe something because of an emotional response?
So you actually agreed with the original p1...that a person comes to believe something only through evidence. Interesting, and thanks for your response.
Sure. And by that same standard, it is true that my children have evidence to support their belief in Santa.I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:
1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).
Some responders jumped ahead of me, but I wanted to get the basic structure of the argument down first before we get into the details. Now I'd like to talk about what is meant by "evidence". I cited before a Wikipedia definition (the link was given previously if you want to read the whole article):
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "
"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."
"In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter."
"Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. Although this term is most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually include any media by which information can be preserved. Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails are all forms of documentary evidence."
"Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, that plays some actual role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics."
So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?
By the same standard, virtually every religion possesses evidence supporting its major claims.So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?
I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:
1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).
Some responders jumped ahead of me, but I wanted to get the basic structure of the argument down first before we get into the details. Now I'd like to talk about what is meant by "evidence". I cited before a Wikipedia definition (the link was given previously if you want to read the whole article):
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. "
"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence."
"In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter."
"Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. Although this term is most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually include any media by which information can be preserved. Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails are all forms of documentary evidence."
"Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, that plays some actual role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics."
So given the Wikipedia definition above, isn't it true that Christians have evidence (such as testimonies and other documentation) to support their belief in Christianity?
By the same standard, virtually every religion possesses evidence supporting its major claims.
That's hardly the Bible's fault.
"The Law" is a reference to the Decalogue, and all of it has a place in today's society.
Unless you have the Shakers in mind--and they have less than a dozen members at last report--I don't know of any Christian who thinks sex is a sin.
A lot of it takes no time at all to check, this site is proof of a lot of science along with the devices we're using to post.The thing about the word of a scientist is; you can check his word with the available objective evidence. It may take some work and education to understand the evidence, but there it is for all to see.
I wasn't discussing the Bible or theism; I was discussing my disagreement with the claim that what we believe is the result of evaluating evidence.
Ken
We are all sinners equally because nobody can follow the law. It is impossible.
What about children abused by clergy, monks or nuns who go onto be clergy, monks or nuns?I think children who are abused by their father, whom they closely identify with God, and their emotional response to that abuse, come to believe God is either abusive or doesn't exist at all because God claims to be love. If a child does not experience love, believing in a God of love can be a challenge as an adult.
I'm inclined to agree. I don't think anyone denies that the religious are capable of articulating various reasons for why they believe the claims of their religion. The question is whether those reasons are sufficient to warrant the high, often extreme, level of confidence the religious have in those claims.I would say that it counts as evidence; it is just not necessarily good evidence, evidence we should accept if we are honestly trying to discover which propositions carry any epistemic weight and which do not.
I think the "emotion" suggestion was a good one and it rounds out the syllogism quite nicely. Thanks to all for the suggestion. So here's the modified version:
1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).
Importantly, this revision leaves open the question of whether those reasons are good or not.Premise 1 Is still incomplete. In fact, it will pretty much always be incomplete. There are all kinds of reasons we accept information. I was giving "emotions" as an example not a definitive answer. Premise 1 is a question researchers are studying constantly. If I were writing it, the progression would look like:
1. People come to believe something for various reasons.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by various methods.
Is that acceptable?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?