What do you believe and why?

[Davian]

Well, truth is the characteristic of a statement, that it comports with reality.

That does rule out religion, for the most part.

If you are not looking for truth, then what "accuracy" are you seeking?

Accuracy in descriptions of reality.

Nonsense.

Divine revelation would be a revelation, regardless of who has received it: it either meets the definition or does not, and either stands the same justification process as other revelation or it does not.

Unless that 'divine revelation' was simply imagined.

Well, by your own words you are not concerned with knowing truth, so I guess for you that would be true. (no pun intended)

Not if by "truth", in this context, you mean "religion".

Not unless you know something about them we do not.

but for that to be a justified belief one would have to believe the claimant had fulfilled their espistmic responsibilities in order to lend appropriate authority to their claim. I do not.

And you haven't for your claims. Does that slow you down?

Then you might want to do a little critical thinking regarding that statement.

What do you not like about it?

 

[hankroberts]

[Well, truth is the characteristic of a statement, that it comports with reality."

That does rule out religion, for the most part

.

Only if it is false; untrue.

"If you are not looking for truth, then what "accuracy" are you seeking?"

Accuracy in descriptions of reality.

Which, of course, is exactly equal to the definition of truth.

"Divine revelation would be a revelation, regardless of who has received it: it either meets the definition or does not, and either stands the same justification process as other revelation or it does not."

Unless that 'divine revelation' was simply imagined.

And of course, if someone had a claim of divine revelation, and you had any actual evidence it was 'simply imagined' then that would provoke an investigation to determine if your evidence was valid.


"Well, by your own words you are not concerned with knowing truth, so I guess for you that would be true. (no pun intended)"

Not if by "truth", in this context, you mean "religion".

What I meant is simply truth, as defined, wherever it is found.

And you haven't for your claims. Does that slow you down?

Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify.

"Then you might want to do a little critical thinking regarding that statement."

What do you not like about it?

Oh, goodness: where to start?

Abandoning "critical thinking" that allows for belief in things imaginary

The unwarranted presumptions and Strawman misrepresentation of my statement;

"epistemic duties" that boil down to confirmation bias and self-deception

The unwarranted conclusion and unsubstantiated assertion; just for a start...

 

[Davian]

[Well, truth is the characteristic of a statement, that it comports with reality."

.

Only if it is false; untrue.

Indeed, which is why I said "for the most part." There may be some religions that claim water is wet, for instance. That claim would comport with reality.

"If you are not looking for truth, then what "accuracy" are you seeking?"


Which, of course, is exactly equal to the definition of truth.

While related, they are not synomonous, and it is certainly not how others in this thread have used the word.

"Divine revelation would be a revelation, regardless of who has received it: it either meets the definition or does not, and either stands the same justification process as other revelation or it does not."


And of course, if someone had a claim of divine revelation, and you had any actual evidence it was 'simply imagined' then that would provoke an investigation to determine if your evidence was valid.

The burden of evidence is not on me, but I would say that the absence of evidence to show that they are not simply products of the imagination *is* the evidence for them being just that. These forums are filled with that evidence.

"Well, by your own words you are not concerned with knowing truth, so I guess for you that would be true. (no pun intended)"


What I meant is simply truth, as defined, wherever it is found.

Are you asserting your religion as truth? Or is it not true?

Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify.

lol. "Justify" is not "substantiate".

"Then you might want to do a little critical thinking regarding that statement."


Oh, goodness: where to start?
The unwarranted presumptions

What would those be?

and Strawman misrepresentation of my statement;

How so?

The unwarranted conclusion

Tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that gods like those in the bible were more than simply characters in books, I will change my position accordingly.

and unsubstantiated assertion; just for a start...

What did I assert that was unsubstantiated?

 

[Jesse2014]

Simple.

I have experienced God. He has revealed himself to me. I don't just believe the Bible just because mommy and daddy told me. I have had experience that proof to me that God is the source of reality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Simple.

I have experienced God. He has revealed himself to me. I don't just believe the Bible just because mommy and daddy told me. I have had experience that proof to me that God is the source of reality.

How did he do so, and how did you verify it was actually a god?

 

[hankroberts]

Indeed, which is why I said "for the most part." There may be some religions that claim water is wet, for instance. That claim would comport with reality.


While related, they are not synomonous, and it is certainly not how others in this thread have used the word.

The burden of evidence is not on me, but I would say that the absence of evidence to show that they are not simply products of the imagination *is* the evidence for them being just that. These forums are filled with that evidence.


Are you asserting your religion as truth? Or is it not true?


lol. "Justify" is not "substantiate".


What would those be?


How so?


Tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that gods like those in the bible were more than simply characters in books, I will change my position accordingly.


What did I assert that was unsubstantiated?

While related, they are not synomonous, and it is certainly not how others in this thread have used the word

I'm using the word the way it is used in most professional literature: how do others use it? Truth is the characteristic of a statement that it comports with reality. If it states what actually is, then it is true.

The burden of evidence is not on me, but I would say that the absence of evidence to show that they are not simply products of the imagination *is* the evidence for them being just that.

Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.

Are you asserting your religion as truth?

Well, while I do indeed assert that the teachings of Christianity are true, what has that to do with our topic?

"Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify."

lol. "Justify" is not "substantiate".

But to properly warrant a claim to knowledge, I merely have to properly warrant the belief. Knowledge is justified true belief.

 

[hankroberts]

What epistemic duty are you are talking about here specifically?

If an expression (an assertion, a truth claim) is properly formed (comports with proper epistemic responsibilities); and if that belief is not contradicted by other evidence or in conflict with known facts, then it is intellectually appropriate to accept the expression as true, even if tentatively. To refuse to accept a justified assertion, with no justification for rejecting it, is intellectually irresponsible. Since your only reason for rejecting the assertion that divine revelation is a reality seems to be circular reasoning, then you've failed your intellectual duty to be objective.

Plantinga discusses this in some detail, if you can stand to wade through his rhetoric. I like him, but he's not 'light reading'.

 

[bhsmte]

If an expression (an assertion, a truth claim) is properly formed (comports with proper epistemic responsibilities); and if that belief is not contradicted by other evidence or in conflict with known facts, then it is intellectually appropriate to accept the expression as true, even if tentatively. To refuse to accept a justified assertion, with no justification for rejecting it, is intellectually irresponsible. Since your only reason for rejecting the assertion that divine revelation is a reality seems to be circular reasoning, then you've failed your intellectual duty to be objective.

Plantinga discusses this in some detail, if you can stand to wade through his rhetoric. I like him, but he's not 'light reading'.

We all know it is quite difficult to prove a negative and the burden is on the person making a claim to produce a justification for their position, correct?

Now, lets say I told you I had a personal experience and I was abducted by aliens last night, brought onboard their space ship and then returned to my home. If my belief is not contradicted by other evidence that it is true, would it be incumbent on you to accept what I say indeed happened?

I could tell you of how real the experience was, give great detail of what the alien creatures looked like and details on the inside of their spacecraft etc. and you would be unable to produce any evidence, to show my claim was wrong.

 

[hankroberts]

We all know it is quite difficult to prove a negative and the burden is on the person making a claim to produce a justification for their position, correct?

Now, lets say I told you I had a personal experience and I was abducted by aliens last night, brought onboard their space ship and then returned to my home. If my belief is not contradicted by other evidence that it is true, would it be incumbent on you to accept what I say indeed happened?

I could tell you of how real the experience was, give great detail of what the alien creatures looked like and details on the inside of their spacecraft etc. and you would be unable to produce any evidence, to show my claim was wrong.

(sigh...) Please read what I said.
An assertion must be properly justified, must be consistent with other known facts, and must be internally and externally coherent. Also, since we're talking about an essentially unsubstantiated claim (which I presume we are), then in order to be appropriately warranted, the authority and veracity of the provider must be considered before acceptance is appropriate.

You might want to look into the idea of knowledge, proper knowledge, and epistemic (or intellectual) responsibility (or duty). And you might want to acknowledge the distinction between totally unjustified and unproven. They are not the same.

 

[bhsmte]

(sigh...) Please read what I said.
An assertion must be properly justified, must be consistent with other known facts, and must be internally and externally coherent. Also, since we're talking about an essentially unsubstantiated claim (which I presume we are), then in order to be appropriately warranted, the authority and veracity of the provider must be considered before acceptance is appropriate.

You might want to look into the idea of knowledge, proper knowledge, and epistemic (or intellectual) responsibility (or duty). And you might want to acknowledge the distinction between totally unjustified and unproven. They are not the same.

I was using an extreme example, which I believe many Christians do when they make their claims, which are just as un evidenced.

 

[hankroberts]

I was using an extreme example, which I believe many Christians do when they make their claims, which are just as un evidenced.

Well, since we've been talking about the general notion of a claim to divine revelation, I'd say your extreme use is both irrelevant and unwarranted.

The issue was whether a claim of divine revelation meets the same criteria (and of course requires the same justification) as any other claim to revelation. It does.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, since we've been talking about the general notion of a claim to divine revelation, I'd say your extreme use is both irrelevant and unwarranted.

The issue was whether a claim of divine revelation meets the same criteria (and of course requires the same justification) as any other claim to revelation. It does.

You know, I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:

What do you think is more likely to be a possibility; an alien space craft abducting a human, or a human rising from the dead after three days?

 

[hankroberts]

You know, I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:

What do you think is more likely to be a possibility; an alien space craft abducting a human, or a human rising from the dead after three days?

I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:

And of course, the obvious question would be why you would care what the consensus on that would be?

What do you think is more likely to be a possibility ...

Not being a statistician (and not even good at math) I wouldn't have a clue. And of course, none of this has to do with the actual premise, does it?

 

[bhsmte]

And of course, the obvious question would be why you would care what the consensus on that would be?

My interest in the human psyche, which is also the main reason I frequent these boards.

 

[hankroberts]

My interest in the human psyche, which is also the main reason I frequent these boards.

Ah, well, perfectly legitimate.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, well, perfectly legitimate.

I think it is and it can be wildly entertaining.

 

[TillICollapse]

You know, I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:

What do you think is more likely to be a possibility; an alien space craft abducting a human, or a human rising from the dead after three days?

No need to poll the world, I'd be interested in responses to those questions in poll format here on these forums if you posted it

 

[madera23]

What do you believe to be the source of the universe and why? If you respond that you do not know, please provide an intelligent reason as to why you do not know.

Thank you.

I believe that God is the creator of the universe.
anyone with any intelligence can see that.
Madera

 

[Davian]

I'm using the word the way it is used in most professional literature: how do others use it?

In the context that they use it, it would seem that they consider "truth" synonymous with their religion, or their opinion, such as at the bottom of post #56 of this thread, where the poster has a "truth" that does not appear to comport with reality.

Truth is the characteristic of a statement that it comports with reality. If it states what actually is, then it is true.

Noted.

Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.

Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that "divine revelation" was more than simply a product of the imagination, I will change my position accordingly.

Well, while I do indeed assert that the teachings of Christianity are true, what has that to do with our topic?

In what way do the teachings of Christianity comport with realty?

"Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify."
But to properly warrant a claim to knowledge, I merely have to properly warrant the belief.

Who gets to decide what is meant by "properly warrant"? You?

Knowledge is justified true belief.

I have no idea what you mean by "justified" true belief. If it is true what would it need to be justified?

Need I justify that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? Need I justify that the Earth is not flat?

 

[Davian]

I believe that God is the creator of the universe.
anyone with any intelligence can see that.
Madera

Only stupid people disbelieve.

Nice.