Is Christianity worth serious consideration

[DerSchweik]

Show me this scientific proof you so casually claim exists. Show me that your statement above is true.

No. It wasn't a "casual" claim; it was a general statement - prefacing my point that such discussions merely end in endless argument.

Again, please demonstrate via reason that your God exists. Show me that this statement of yours is true.

Again, no, for the same reasons cited above and in my original statement, "...and so both sides argue..."

So what? It doesn’t alter the fact that the claim that your God exists remains unsubstantiated.

...as does your claim that God doesn't exist - it remains just as unsubstantiated, which was the crux of my point. Shifting the sole burden of proof onto Christians to demonstrate His existence, while assuming no such burden for the claim He does not exist is an unfair stipulation that can only hinder discovery.

And here you confirm that the claim that your God exists is currently—and will probably remain—unsubstantiated.

Perhaps, according to the impossible rigor of your demands for "proof" - "proof" which your claim that God does not exist cannot satisfy either. Again, my point.

So you personally believe your God exists. So what? That doesn’t make it true. None of this personal testimony about how your feelings changed when you started to believe your God exists is sound, objective evidence. The claim that your God exists remains unsubstantiated.

3sigma, neither does your belief that God does not exist qualify as credible, objective "proof." Does it? I acknowledge what I believe may sound foolish to some; but whose fool am I for holding such beliefs?

So your behaviour changed, but that isn’t credible evidence that your God exists.

It did change, as did many substantive things change; and no, according to the rigor of your definition of "proof" it likely never will be "credible proof" - but that isn't "proof contrary" either, is it?

You don’t seem incompetent, but it does seem that your belief that your God exists is the result of a previous anxiety coupled with a readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. In other words, it appears that your religious belief is the result of insecurity and credulity.

No offense taken. I do not doubt that it may appear that way; though I'm not certain what evidence or qualifications you have of such anxiety, insecurity, or credulity to make that diagnosis.

However, the existence of your God remains an unsubstantiated claim. Your entire post confirms that.

Again, this is according to the rigor of what you demand as "proof." And again, and just as important, your claim He does not exist cannot stand up under such rigor either - a fact that wasn't addressed once concerning my post.

That being the case, should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated? Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?

Well, I don't acknowledge any "case" having been made, at least successfully; unqualified assertions, yes, but certainly no "proof" that He does not exist. In point of fact, the burden of proof you demand of Christians to substantiate His existence, has not - cannot be met of non-Christians by way of substantiating His non-existence. Why then should anyone pay heed to those claims?

3sigma, this was the point of my answer to your OP - that the impossible burden you lay at Christian's feet to "prove" God's existence cannot be born either by those who claim He does not exist. Christians believe He exists. Non-Christians believe He does not. Both sides of this discussion have at least one thing in common - both are "believers" - possessing their own faith; but such faith is directed toward different entities. It is faith nevertheless; of that there can be no doubt - which is another way of answering your OP.

What you would demand we "prove" according to your definition of "credible substantiation," you cannot "disprove" under the same rigorous constraints. That's my point 3sigma. Some other criteria is needed. In response to your OP, I cited mine, even acknowledging they probably appear like foolishness to those who disagree. I fully understand that - been there, done that.

Conversely though, given that God's non-existence cannot be proven, one might ask, by what criteria do you hold to what you believe? What rigorous test did it pass?

 

[3sigma]

No. It wasn't a "casual" claim; it was a general statement - prefacing my point that such discussions merely end in endless argument.
…
Again, no, for the same reasons cited above and in my original statement, "...and so both sides argue..."

I see. So you refuse to show me that you are telling the truth. What am I to think of your arguments if you just going to make assertions you aren’t willing to back up?

...as does your claim that God doesn't exist - it remains just as unsubstantiated, which was the crux of my point. Shifting the sole burden of proof onto Christians to demonstrate His existence, while assuming no such burden for the claim He does not exist is an unfair stipulation that can only hinder discovery.
…
3sigma, neither does your belief that God does not exist qualify as credible, objective "proof." Does it? I acknowledge what I believe may sound foolish to some; but whose fool am I for holding such beliefs?
…
Again, this is according to the rigor of what you demand as "proof." And again, and just as important, your claim He does not exist cannot stand up under such rigor either - a fact that wasn't addressed once concerning my post.
…
Well, I don't acknowledge any "case" having been made, at least successfully; unqualified assertions, yes, but certainly no "proof" that He does not exist. In point of fact, the burden of proof you demand of Christians to substantiate His existence, has not - cannot be met of non-Christians by way of substantiating His non-existence. Why then should anyone pay heed to those claims?

3sigma, this was the point of my answer to your OP - that the impossible burden you lay at Christian's feet to "prove" God's existence cannot be born either by those who claim He does not exist. Christians believe He exists. Non-Christians believe He does not. Both sides of this discussion have at least one thing in common - both are "believers" - possessing their own faith; but such faith is directed toward different entities. It is faith nevertheless; of that there can be no doubt - which is another way of answering your OP.

What you would demand we "prove" according to your definition of "credible substantiation," you cannot "disprove" under the same rigorous constraints. That's my point 3sigma. Some other criteria is needed. In response to your OP, I cited mine, even acknowledging they probably appear like foolishness to those who disagree. I fully understand that - been there, done that.

Conversely though, given that God's non-existence cannot be proven, one might ask, by what criteria do you hold to what you believe? What rigorous test did it pass?

First, and please remember this in the future, I have not and do not claim that your God does not exist. However, given that there has never been a single shred of sound, objective evidence supporting your claim that your God exists, I think the probability of its existence is so vanishingly small as to be negligible. The most telling thing about this claim is that every time I make it, not one religious believer will provide any sound, objective evidence to refute it. Whenever I ask for such evidence they will ignore or evade the question or make some fallacious counter claim such as, “Oh yeah, well you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, so there.”

Second, the problem with this particular counter claim of yours is that it is irrelevant. It creates a false dichotomy where you imply that if I can’t prove your God doesn’t exist then you are justified in believing that it does despite the complete lack of any sound, objective evidence supporting that belief. If you cannot provide any sound, objective evidence supporting your belief then your claim is unsubstantiated and your belief is unfounded. Whether or not I can prove your God doesn’t exist is irrelevant. The only way you can show that the claim that your God exists is not unsubstantiated is to provide some sound, objective evidence to substantiate it.

Of course, I know you won’t provide any such evidence because you can’t. There just isn’t any. Blind Freddy can see that. As I said elsewhere, most people are insecure and credulous enough to believe religious teachings so religions exploit that insecurity and credulity by offering security, hope and simple answers as enticements to potential converts. Those credulous enough to believe religious teachings become part of that religion. That wouldn’t be so bad except that along with the security and hope come other beliefs that cause people to behave in ways that cause unnecessary harm to others.

 

[KCDAD]

I’m guessing that your argument is along the lines of, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” To which the answer is: no one knows for sure. In which case, any answer you may think you have is nothing more than a credulous assumption.

Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now? If so, please produce it. If not, then the claim that your God exists remains unsubstantiated. That being the case, should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated? Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?

You are unbelievable. Produce sound objective evidence here and now that you exist. Your constant repetition of the same rhetorical demand is very "programmed" and not very interesting.

You are just about the most closed minded skeptic I have yet encountered.

Let me address your questions again... one by one and then you address mine or go someplace else.

1)Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now? ANSWER: NO
2)... should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated?ANSWER: NO


I think all of that has been covered several times over and over in this thread.

Your turn:
1) Can you provide any sound objective evidence here and now that anything exists?
2) If not, does that preclude all empirical research, all inquiry into the nature of existence? (or does it just prove that existence is not an internet inquiry that can be addressed)
3) What is the difference between a credulous assumption and an axiom or a priori knowledge?
4) What are your credulous assumptions about the existence of energy and matter?

 

[KCDAD]

I see. So you refuse to show me that you are telling the truth. What am I to think of your arguments if you just going to make assertions you aren’t willing to back up?


First, and please remember this in the future, I have not and do not claim that your God does not exist. However, given that there has never been a single shred of sound, objective evidence supporting your claim that your God exists, I think the probability of its existence is so vanishingly small as to be negligible. The most telling thing about this claim is that every time I make it, not one religious believer will provide any sound, objective evidence to refute it. Whenever I ask for such evidence they will ignore or evade the question or make some fallacious counter claim such as, “Oh yeah, well you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, so there.”

You are having a good time, aren't you? Where did you learn your debating skills, in the bathroom?

What is truth? Can you provide one ounce of irrefutable proof that there is a single truth about anything?

How much is a shred? Is it measurable?

What is sound objective evidence? If 5 billion people assent to a certain belief, or credulous assumption and only some shred of the remaining 1.6 billion refuse to accept that same assumption... is that evidence? Even a shred?

 

[DerSchweik]

I see. So you refuse to show me that you are telling the truth. What am I to think of your arguments if you just going to make assertions you aren’t willing to back up?

You completely missed my point - my point was it wouldn't matter what "proof" I provided, there exists no such "proof" as would withstand the rigors of the "test" you demand it pass. But to assuage this portion of your response - the "proof" is all around you, the sky, the heavens, the stars, insects, mammals, the earth and it's oceans, mountains, rivers, lakes, and streams, trees, flowers, bees, birds... the "proof" He exists is His creation - in point of fact, YOU are proof He exists, that you exist at all, that we exist at all is proof of His existence.

So I've answered your question - but again my point was that this "proof" will not, does not, CANNOT pass the rigors of the test you demand it pass before you will believe. Moreover, that test is so rigorous as to ensure that not only can Christians "prove" God, but that atheists cannot "disprove" Him either. It's so good a test that no one can pass it.

First, and please remember this in the future, I have not and do not claim that your God does not exist.

Are you saying then that you are not an atheist, that perhaps you are instead an agnostic or a seeker, for those are options as well when registering. I assumed that since you selected atheist over agnostic or seeker that your selection implied you did not believe in God.

However, given that there has never been a single shred of sound, objective evidence supporting your claim that your God exists, I think the probability of its existence is so vanishingly small as to be negligible. The most telling thing about this claim is that every time I make it, not one religious believer will provide any sound, objective evidence to refute it. Whenever I ask for such evidence they will ignore or evade the question or make some fallacious counter claim such as, “Oh yeah, well you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, so there.”

Second, the problem with this particular counter claim of yours is that it is irrelevant. It creates a false dichotomy where you imply that if I can’t prove your God doesn’t exist then you are justified in believing that it does despite the complete lack of any sound, objective evidence supporting that belief. If you cannot provide any sound, objective evidence supporting your belief then your claim is unsubstantiated and your belief is unfounded. Whether or not I can prove your God doesn’t exist is irrelevant. The only way you can show that the claim that your God exists is not unsubstantiated is to provide some sound, objective evidence to substantiate it.

Its relevancy is not to prove God's existence but to point out, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that no such proof CAN exist according to the rigors of the test you require it to pass. Its relevancy is in pointing out the dichotomy of your own argument, a dichotomy of which you accuse me.

Of course, I know you won’t provide any such evidence because you can’t. There just isn’t any. Blind Freddy can see that. As I said elsewhere, most people are insecure and credulous enough to believe religious teachings so religions exploit that insecurity and credulity by offering security, hope and simple answers as enticements to potential converts. Those credulous enough to believe religious teachings become part of that religion. That wouldn’t be so bad except that along with the security and hope come other beliefs that cause people to behave in ways that cause unnecessary harm to others.

Again - no "proof" that you will ever accept, nor can you, given the rigors of the constraints involved.

Look, you've latched onto this construct of "credible substantiation" as a method for disproving the existence of God in demanding what cannot be provided and using that as "proof" God does not, cannot therefore exist. That was my only reason for responding in the first place, to point out the impossible rigor of your argument, a rigor not even your belief [in His non-existence] can support.

It is apparently a construct you have used many times in the past

("The most telling thing about this claim is that every time I make it, not one religious believer will provide any sound, objective evidence to refute it.").

I addressed the concept of values in my previous post, that it is what we value that motivates our behavior, our actions. When one puts forth an argument for which there is no possible answer (except the one for which the construct was designed), and does so repeatedly, the reason for such an argument cannot be its answer therefore and must instead be something of value in its posing - some value in arguing the point, some value in knowing the outcome ahead of time and relishing the flailings you know your argument will produce. But the reason is not an honest search for the answer - again, because the construct of the argument denies and prohibits an answer - except ostensibly the "obvious" one - that God does not exist, which irony I've already pointed out, that the rigor of the test cannot be met by that conclusion either. The rigor of the construct prohibits any other response and therefore would seem to be a perfect construct for one whose value in putting it forth is not honest inquiry, but some pleasure derived from seeing the flailings of those who do not recognize the true purpose of the question.

I HAVE answered your question - but I also acknowledge the answer will not pass your test.

My answer to your objective, credible substantiation for proof of God's existence is creation, the sun, the moon, the stars, the sky, the air we breathe, the animals, insects, birds, fish that occupy this planet with us, nature, snow, rain, mountains, rivers, volcanoes, hot, cold, color, darkness, light, you, me, and all that surrounds us. That is my objective answer to your question, my credible substantiation that He exists; in fact, it is His answer to your question as well:

...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse... (Romans 1:19f)

*IF* you are sincerely seeking to know more about Christianity, then I suggest a different tack for this is trending pretty much as I anticipated it might. The logical conclusion to this question is, unless there be sincere interest in the response, endless debate.

You have my answer. It is the only "objective proof" I, or any Christian can reasonably offer. You can disagree, or you can agree. If you disagree, then have my response to that now - "ok." - understanding I don't expect that to be sufficient "proof" - but it's all I can offer, Ok?

 

[3sigma]

Your turn:
1) Can you provide any sound objective evidence here and now that anything exists?
2) If not, does that preclude all empirical research, all inquiry into the nature of existence? (or does it just prove that existence is not an internet inquiry that can be addressed)
3) What is the difference between a credulous assumption and an axiom or a priori knowledge?
4) What are your credulous assumptions about the existence of energy and matter?

1. I see from your profile that you are married. Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your wife exists? The tone of your post suggests that you don’t think it is possible to provide any sound, objective evidence that anything exists, which is a retreat into solipsism and is another typical response from Christians when asked to produce evidence that their God exists. Go and find your wife and speak to her. Can you physically see your wife? Can you touch her to see that she is real? Can you physically hear what she is saying? Can other people around you also verify that she exists using the same methods? The combination of these things (and more, which I omit for the sake of brevity) provides sound, objective evidence that your wife actually exists and isn’t simply a product of your imagination. You have the evidence of your physical senses (among other things) and the objective confirmation of independent observers.
   
   Now, can you provide similar evidence that your God exists? Have you ever detected your God with your physical senses? Has anyone ever detected your God using any physical method at all? Has anyone ever independently confirmed such detection?
   
   
2. You have ample sound, objective evidence that everyday objects around you exist, yet you have no such evidence that your God is anything other than imaginary.
   
   
3. A credulous assumption is a conclusion based on slight or uncertain evidence. When I say ‘conclusion’, I don’t mean merely considering something as a possibility or for the sake of argument; I mean believing that it is actually true. For example, when 71% of the people in the U.S. state that they are absolutely certain that their God exists, despite a complete lack of sound, objective evidence to support that belief then that is a credulous assumption.
   
   
4. I don’t think I have made any credulous assumptions about the existence of matter and energy. That they exist is a matter of fact. How they came to exist is a matter of conjecture.

Let me address your questions again... one by one and then you address mine or go someplace else.

1)Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now? ANSWER: NO
2)... should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated?ANSWER: NO

Fair enough. I’ve answered your questions so I have a follow up question for you. Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your God ever existed?

What is truth? Can you provide one ounce of irrefutable proof that there is a single truth about anything?

Truth is the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. I think there are many things for which there is enough sound, objective evidence to put their truth beyond reasonable doubt.

How much is a shred? Is it measurable?

A shred is something more than zero, which is all the evidence there is for the existence of your God.

What is sound objective evidence? If 5 billion people assent to a certain belief, or credulous assumption and only some shred of the remaining 1.6 billion refuse to accept that same assumption... is that evidence? Even a shred?

It is certainly evidence that most people are credulous.

 

[3sigma]

YOU are proof He exists, that you exist at all, that we exist at all is proof of His existence.

No, that isn’t proof. That is an assumption on your part. Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact; the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. To claim that my existence is proof that your God exists, you need to provide actual, credible evidence that your God created me, not just assume it to be true on no evidence at all.

Moreover, that test is so rigorous as to ensure that not only can Christians "prove" God, but that atheists cannot "disprove" Him either.

I’m curious to know how much you would like the test relaxed. What evidence should be allowed to prove that your God exists? I ask for sound evidence—evidence that is free from error, fallacy or misapprehension—so should I accept unsound evidence instead? Should I accept evidence that is riddled with errors, fallacies and misapprehensions as proof that your God exists? I ask for objective evidence—evidence that is independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers—so should I accept subjective evidence instead? Should I accept personal thoughts and feelings that are indistinguishable from make-believe as proof that your God exists? Just what sort of evidence for the existence of your God do you think I should accept?

I assumed that since you selected atheist over agnostic or seeker that your selection implied you did not believe in God.

Yes, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe your God exists in much the same way and probably for the same reasons that you don’t believe that Santa Claus exists. Do you have any sound, objective evidence that Santa Claus exists? Can you prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? If you can’t, does that mean that others should believe that Santa Claus does exist?

Its relevancy is not to prove God's existence but to point out, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that no such proof CAN exist according to the rigors of the test you require it to pass.

Again I ask, what sort of evidence do you think I should accept as proof that your God exists?

My answer to your objective, credible substantiation for proof of God's existence is creation, the sun, the moon, the stars, the sky, the air we breathe, the animals, insects, birds, fish that occupy this planet with us, nature, snow, rain, mountains, rivers, volcanoes, hot, cold, color, darkness, light, you, me, and all that surrounds us. That is my objective answer to your question, my credible substantiation that He exists; in fact, it is His answer to your question as well:

I see. So, as a corollary, the existence of sleighs, reindeer, the North Pole, chimneys, stockings and Christmas presents is objective proof that Santa Claus exists? Can you not see that you are just making an assumption? Where is there any evidence linking your examples to your God other than the words in one ancient book of questionable veracity written by unknown authors? Do you not know that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the existence of all your examples that are eminently more plausible than your hitherto undetected God that is itself indistinguishable from make-believe? By the way, your answer is hardly objective. Objective means independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. While those example themselves may be perceptible by all observers, the notion that your God created them certainly is not. For a start, please explain the process by which your God created them and provide evidence to support your conclusion. Show me that your conclusion is valid. Show me that the conclusion that your God created everything is well founded and justifiable.

 

[KCDAD]

3sigma;

1. Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your wife exists?

Not according to your standards. Although I could tell you she is a short little hag that eats children and flies on a broomstick. Or maybe she is a tall clear eyed princess with flowers growing in every footstep she leaves. Was that particularly good evidence for you?

1. 
   

   Now, can you provide similar evidence that your God exists? Have you ever detected your God with your physical senses? Has anyone ever detected your God using any physical method at all? Has anyone ever independently confirmed such detection?

Absolutely.

1. You have ample sound, objective evidence that everyday objects around you exist, yet you have no such evidence that your God is anything other than imaginary.

You are quite dependent upon your senses, aren't you? I wonder what you must think of others who aren't.

1. A credulous assumption is a conclusion based on slight or uncertain evidence. When I say ‘conclusion’, I don’t mean merely considering something as a possibility or for the sake of argument; I mean believing that it is actually true. For example, when 71% of the people in the U.S. state that they are absolutely certain that their God exists, despite a complete lack of sound, objective evidence to support that belief then that is a credulous assumption.

An incredulous assumption would be... if I can't see it it doesn't exist?

1. I don’t think I have made any credulous assumptions about the existence of matter and energy. That they exist is a matter of fact. How they came to exist is a matter of conjecture.

What exists as a matter of fact? The Dodo? Cro-magnon man? Space travel? Love? Justice? Knowledge?

Fair enough. I’ve answered your questions so I have a follow up question for you. Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your God ever existed?

Well there you go. No answer for you is an answer. I see. You are a liar. You have not answered those questions.

Truth is the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. I think there are many things for which there is enough sound, objective evidence to put their truth beyond reasonable doubt.

So there is only one truth regarding anything for you, eh? Only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the existence of any fact or reality... is that it?

A shred is something more than zero, which is all the evidence there is for the existence of your God.

My God? Absolutely exists. Careful. You are losing your bearings. You meant there is no evidence for The God. Or Bible God or a Theistic God... stick with accuracy please.

It is certainly evidence that most people are credulous.

You are wrong again. Most people, over 5 billion, find it credible. Only a few find it credulous.

It sure would be nice to be as smart as you, as right as you and as so doggone superior to everyone else on the planet... as you are. The power of your brain is so GREAT. You see through thousands of years of religious nonsense and see truth. How is it that you can wallow in the pig sty of 5 billion credulous fools? As Dr Phil asks: How's that goin for you?

 

[KCDAD]

No, that isn’t proof. That is an assumption on your part. Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact; the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. To claim that my existence is proof that your God exists, you need to provide actual, credible evidence that your God created me, not just assume it to be true on no evidence at all.

Look. I know you are trying to make your philosophy teacher happy. But face it, you are arguing against a particular description of God: Christian God, not the concept or idea of God in general.

You need to realize that no description of God is adequate because we are using temporal, physical means to try and understand something outside of those "realities". If you want to say because of that God isn't "real" that would be a fine argument but disingenuous.... as would be consistent for you to be.

Der Schweik is right. "YOU are proof He exists, that you exist at all, that we exist at all is proof of His existence."
Not you personally and specifically, but everything and anything that exists and YOUR ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE AND UNDERSTAND THAT are proof that God exists.

We have already been through that and you are unable or unwilling to address that.

 

[3sigma]

Not according to your standards. Although I could tell you she is a short little hag that eats children and flies on a broomstick. Or maybe she is a tall clear eyed princess with flowers growing in every footstep she leaves. Was that particularly good evidence for you?

I wasn’t asking you to demonstrate to me that your wife exists. I was asking you to consider the evidence you have for the existence of your wife and compare that to the evidence you have for the existence of your God. Are they comparable? Do you have the same quantity and quality of evidence for the existence of your God as you do for the existence of your wife?

Absolutely.

Well then please tell me who has detected your God using physical methods, how they detected it and who confirmed it. Mind you, I’m speaking about directly detecting your God with the same certainty as you detect your wife. Though, I find this statement of yours odd when you have previously stated that there is no sound, objective evidence that your God exists here and now.

You are quite dependent upon your senses, aren't you? I wonder what you must think of others who aren't.

I certainly depend on my senses to discover the world around me. I think it would be rather difficult to discover the world around you without depending on your physical senses at all. I don’t know what you mean by others who aren’t dependent upon their physical senses. Do you mean people who come to conclusions about the world around them without depending on their senses at all? If so, then I think they would be credulous.

An incredulous assumption would be... if I can't see it it doesn't exist?

No, that would be a foolish and naÏve assumption. However, if one has no sound, objective evidence of any sort for something’s existence then it is reasonable not to believe that it exists. You see, this is where you and Der Schweik and many other religious believers go wrong. You seem to adopt a binary mode of thinking. Religious believers seem to be drawn to extremes. I think this is why we see so many straw-man arguments from religious believers and why we see 71% of the people in the U.S. being absolutely certain that their God exists despite having what can only charitably be described as slight or uncertain evidence to support that belief. Given the paucity of sound evidence supporting the existence of your God, the reasonable position is not to believe that it exists. It is not reasonable or justified to be certain that it exists. Likewise, it is not reasonable to be certain that it doesn’t. One should proportion one’s belief to the evidence, but religious believers seem to be incapable of that moderation. They seem ready or willing to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. In a word, they are credulous.

What exists as a matter of fact? The Dodo? Cro-magnon man? Space travel? Love? Justice? Knowledge?

No… energy and matter. You asked what were my credulous assumptions about the existence of energy and matter. I said I didn’t think I had made any. That energy and matter exist is a matter of fact. How they came to exist is a matter of conjecture. You don’t seem to be following the thread of the conversation.

Well there you go. No answer for you is an answer. I see. You are a liar. You have not answered those questions.

Again you don’t seem to be following the thread of the conversation. You asked four numbered questions and I gave four answers, numbering them so that you could correlate them. If you don’t understand my answers or cannot see how they relate to your questions then the reasonable response is to ask me for clarification, not to assume that I am making false statements with the intention of deceiving you. I wonder how many others here think I am lying to you. Perhaps it is the same number of people who think my posts are ambling self-flagellations of nonsense. How many others supported you on that question again…?

So there is only one truth regarding anything for you, eh? Only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the existence of any fact or reality... is that it?

You asked, “What is truth?”, and I gave you the meaning from the dictionary. If you have a problem with that meaning then take it up with the editors. I cannot answer your question about only one truth regarding anything because it is too vague and general. Could you be more specific, please? Could you give me a specific example that I can answer?

My God? Absolutely exists. Careful. You are losing your bearings. You meant there is no evidence for The God. Or Bible God or a Theistic God... stick with accuracy please.

No, I was asking specifically about your God; whatever it is you choose to call God (though the same observation does hold for all other gods as well). You previously [post=49333882]stated[/post] that your God is the “first cause” and you also [post=49484041]stated[/post] that there is no sound, objective evidence to show that your God exists here and now so I asked you if there is any to show that it ever existed. I recall that you responded to that question before with the two words, “Things exist”, but that isn’t a particularly satisfactory answer. I was hoping that you could give me a little more detail. How is the existence of “things” sound, objective evidence that your God existed at one point and not just a credulous assumption?

You are wrong again. Most people, over 5 billion, find it credible. Only a few find it credulous.

I don’t think you know what credulous means. It means ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. It describes the people not the evidence.

It sure would be nice to be as smart as you, as right as you and as so doggone superior to everyone else on the planet... as you are. The power of your brain is so GREAT. You see through thousands of years of religious nonsense and see truth. How is it that you can wallow in the pig sty of 5 billion credulous fools? As Dr Phil asks: How's that goin for you?

There are many people on this planet far more intelligent than me and some of them hold religious beliefs. As I [post=49404966]said[/post] to OldChurchGuy earlier, I don’t think credulity and intelligence are necessarily linked. I think credulity probably follows a normal distribution in the population and I just happen to be on the lower end of the range. There are times when I find that a little disheartening.

 

[KCDAD]

Well then please tell me who has detected your God using physical methods, how they detected it and who confirmed it. Mind you, I’m speaking about directly detecting your God with the same certainty as you detect your wife.

Physical senses? Is that what I am limited to? I have already conceded that that (I just wrote that that) is not possible because God is not a physical entity. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I dare say, may better explain this to you. "Every event must have a cause" cannot be proven by experience, but experience is impossible without it because it describes the way the mind must necessarily order its representations.
Kant argues in the Refutation of Material Idealism that "There are objects that exist in space and time outside of me," which cannot be proven by a priori or a posteriori methods, is a necessary condition of the possibility of being aware of one's own existence. It would not be possible to be aware of myself as existing, he says, without presupposing the existing of something permanent outside of me to distinguish myself from. I am aware of myself as existing. Therefore, there is something permanent outside of me.
[The endless confusion and conflict that still results from people trying to figure out whether or how science and religion should fit together is deftly avoided by Kant, who can say, for instance, that God and divine creation cannot be part of any truly scientific theory because both involve "unconditioned" realities, while science can only deal with conditioned realities. In the world, everything affects everything else, but the traditional view, found even in Spinoza, is that God is free of any external causal influences.]
http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm

I certainly depend on my senses to discover the world around me. I think it would be rather difficult to discover the world around you without depending on your physical senses at all. I don’t know what you mean by others who aren’t dependent upon their physical senses. Do you mean people who come to conclusions about the world around them without depending on their senses at all? If so, then I think they would be credulous.

Perhaps you rely too much on your senses and what your brain is sensing. I suppose you don't know any non-hearing, blind or other sensory disabled friends? Have any experience with brain damaged or diseased persons? They are absolutely sure of what they sense, too.

No, that would be a foolish and naÏve assumption. However, if one has no sound, objective evidence of any sort for something’s existence then it is reasonable not to believe that it exists

I have never said it was unreasonable NOT to believe. It is certainly reasonable. "Reasonable" is not a one sided sword. There is no exclusive direction in which reason must travel.
In case you have forgotten the argument in this thread is that people like you think it is unreasonable to believe in Christianity or God at all.

You see, this is where you and Der Schweik and many other religious believers go wrong.

Thank you for your opinion.

You seem to adopt a binary mode of thinking.

Let me see... you say: "I am reasonable, therefor anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable".... who is in a binary mode?

Religious believers seem to be drawn to extremes. ...
...It is not reasonable or justified to be certain that it exists.

Then don't be certain. No one says you have to. BTW...Your illogical claim that 71% are "absolutely certain" is as wobbly a strawman as I have ever seen.

Likewise, it is not reasonable to be certain that it doesn’t.

Fine.

No… energy and matter. You asked what were my credulous assumptions about the existence of energy and matter. I said I didn’t think I had made any. That energy and matter exist is a matter of fact. How they came to exist is a matter of conjecture. You don’t seem to be following the thread of the conversation.

Energy and matter exist as a matter of perception. Facts are derived from the senses. HOW they came to exist is conjecture... THAT they came to exist is a priori or axiomatic knowledge.

Your turn:
1) Can you provide any sound objective evidence here and now that anything exists?
2) If not, does that preclude all empirical research, all inquiry into the nature of existence? (or does it just prove that existence is not an internet inquiry that can be addressed)
3) What is the difference between a credulous assumption and an axiom or a priori knowledge?
4) What are your credulous assumptions about the existence of energy and matter?
​

1. I see from your profile that you are married. Do you have any sound, objective evidence that your wife exists? The tone of your post suggests that you don’t think it is possible to provide any sound, objective evidence that anything exists, which is a retreat into solipsism and is another typical response from Christians when asked to produce evidence that their God exists. Go and find your wife and speak to her. Can you physically see your wife? Can you touch her to see that she is real? Can you physically hear what she is saying? Can other people around you also verify that she exists using the same methods? The combination of these things (and more, which I omit for the sake of brevity) provides sound, objective evidence that your wife actually exists and isn’t simply a product of your imagination. You have the evidence of your physical senses (among other things) and the objective confirmation of independent observers.
   
   Now, can you provide similar evidence that your God exists? Have you ever detected your God with your physical senses? Has anyone ever detected your God using any physical method at all? Has anyone ever independently confirmed such detection?
   
   
2. You have ample sound, objective evidence that everyday objects around you exist, yet you have no such evidence that your God is anything other than imaginary.
   
   
3. A credulous assumption is a conclusion based on slight or uncertain evidence. When I say ‘conclusion’, I don’t mean merely considering something as a possibility or for the sake of argument; I mean believing that it is actually true. For example, when 71% of the people in the U.S. state that they are absolutely certain that their God exists, despite a complete lack of sound, objective evidence to support that belief then that is a credulous assumption.
   
   
4. I don’t think I have made any credulous assumptions about the existence of matter and energy. That they exist is a matter of fact. How they came to exist is a matter of conjecture.

Here are the questions I asked, and your 4 non-answers...
1) "Can you provide...?"------ "I see from your profile..."
2) "...does that preclude...?" -----"you have ample sound evidence"
3) "What is the difference...?" ---"...conclusion... when I say conclusion, I don't mean..." that statement is filled with assumptions of the credulous and of the incredulous.
4) What are YOUR credulous assumptions... "I don't think I have made any..."

You asked, “What is truth?”, and I gave you the meaning from the dictionary. If you have a problem with that meaning then take it up with the editors. I cannot answer your question about only one truth regarding anything because it is too vague and general. Could you be more specific, please? Could you give me a specific example that I can answer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Your definition is circular... truth is reality and reality is truth... both perceived and agreed upon by SOME people...

Take a look at the constructivist and consensus theories, for example.

No, I was asking specifically about your God; whatever it is you choose to call God (though the same observation does hold for all other gods as well). You previously [post=49333882]stated[/post] that your God is the “first cause” and you also [post=49484041]stated[/post] that there is no sound, objective evidence to show that your God exists here and now so I asked you if there is any to show that it ever existed. I recall that you responded to that question before with the two words, “Things exist”, but that isn’t a particularly satisfactory answer.

It is satisfactory to me.

I was hoping that you could give me a little more detail. How is the existence of “things” sound, objective evidence that your God existed at one point and not just a credulous assumption?

1) Things exist. (or we think they do, which for many reasons is the same thing)
2) Energy in a system may take on various forms (e.g. kinetic, potential, heat, light). The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant.
3) The law of conservation of mass or of matter, also known as the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law, states that the mass of substances in a closed system will remain constant, no matter what processes are acting inside the system. It is a different way of stating that though matter may change form, it can be neither created nor destroyed. The mass of the reactants must always equal the mass of the products.
4) How big can one imagine time and space to be? Where ever our imagination takes us, there will be either more time and space or a terminus. We know that time is conceptual, that is, an artificial or constructed measurement for change or movement.
5) If something is, we must presume that it could not not be.
6) Or if we presume what is could not be, then we must presume that there is a cause and effect to being or not being.
7) So... if energy and matter are and will always be... We must dismiss point 5... which effectively destroys empiricism.
8) Therefore... if energy and matter have a cause, it can not be within any empirical realm of discovery, so your demands for "evidence" are Sisyphean.

I don’t think you know what credulous means. It means ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence. It describes the people not the evidence.

I can't use it as an adjective to describe those things you consider unsupported by evidence that some people believe? Credulous people only, not credulous beliefs?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=credulous
–adjective 1. willing to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullible. 2. marked by or arising from credulity: a credulous rumor.

There are many people on this planet far more intelligent than me and some of them hold religious beliefs. As I [post=49404966]said[/post] to OldChurchGuy earlier, I don’t think credulity and intelligence are necessarily linked. I think credulity probably follows a normal distribution in the population and I just happen to be on the lower end of the range. There are times when I find that a little disheartening.

Sometimes, associations are easier to make in your brain when you have certain experiences other people don't. What you call credulous is really only that they reach a conclusion quicker on less information than you require. You require more so it is nonsense, irrational, or unreasonable... yet to those who are able to make the associations easily it is perfectly rational, reasonable and sensical.

 

[RobinRedbreast]

Mod Hat On

At this time, Staff have agreed to close this thread permanently.

Any questions about this closure are to be brought to Staff in a
private setting. The OP will receive a full explanation of this closure
in a PM to follow.

I do want to make a bit of a public reminder to all the participants of EC
who may view this: The purpose of the Exploring Christianity sub-forum
continues to be for sincere seekers who truly want to know about the
Christian faith to come and ask questions with us.

We understand that it is tempting to debate for the sole purpose of
arguing; however, Exploring Christianity is not the place for this. Please
search your intentions carefully when making threads here. You may find
that your question is better stated in a more appropriate part of CF,
geared toward a debate nature rather than a seeker's nature.

Remember: Ministry is a NO DEBATE AREA.


Regards,
Morning~Glory
Ministry Team Moderator




Mod Hat Off​