What do you believe and why?

[Archaeopteryx]

"You didn't ask for an argument. "

Hogwash.
#185: "Why, stop gesturing son, and trot them out if you think they are worthy. Let's take a look at them. I've no desire to wander again through the plethora of notions trying to find the one you like."

#201 "If you think any of those (proposed explanations) is a viable explanation then present it and we'll take a look."

#206 (you)"there are more than two to consider"
(my response) "If you think so then present it and let's see."

So I've invited you at least three times to actually make the case rather than merely assert that a case exists. And I'm still waiting for that to happen. If you decide you want to justify your assertions, let me know.

I'm sorry, but I have delivered on what you asked for. Recall that you were unaware (or claimed to be unaware) of any more than two proposals. As I noted in #204: "the purpose of presenting [these proposals] was to show you that there are more than two to consider," not to argue for any one in particular.

 

[hankroberts]

You did, multiple times. Do you find your eyes to be unreliable?

Then we can consider the possibility of your "Divine Revelation" as simply being a product of your imagination.

By what methodology did you determine this "reliability", in regards to your religious experiences?

"Do you find your eyes to be unreliable?"

Imperfect: yes. Unreliable: no.

"Then we can consider the possibility of your "Divine Revelation" ..."

"MY Divine Revelation" ?? I don't recall making any mention of a personal Divine Revelation. As I recall the discussion had to do with the definition of revelation as one of the means of attaining knowledge, and whether a proposed "Divine Revelation" would fit that definition and be justifiable in the same manner as any other revelation. It would.

"Divine Revelation" as simply being a product of your imagination."

Well of course that is always a possibility for any revelation, not merely a Divine revelation. I don't think that was ever in question.

 

[hankroberts]

I'm sorry, but I have delivered on what you asked for. Recall that you were unaware (or claimed to be unaware) of any more than two proposals. As I noted in #204: "the purpose of presenting [these proposals] was to show you that there are more than two to consider," not to argue for any one in particular.

Yes, you keep repeating over and over that there are other legitimate theories out there. Unfortunately, you also repeatedly fail to actually produce one for review and consideration.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, you keep repeating over and over that there are other legitimate theories out there. Unfortunately, you also repeatedly fail to actually produce one for review and consideration.

What are you talking about? I listed a few for your consideration in a previous post. Whether you actually consider them or not is up to you. The point is that there are more than the two you initially mentioned.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Well, there's a lot of evidence to support the big bang model of the universe's origins.

As for how the big bang happened, I don't know.

Why? Because nobody has figured out that answer yet, and it would be arrogant of me to presume an answer without evidence.

 

[TillICollapse]

It was actually a year, and cherry-picked from hundreds of failed predictions.

Meh I'm not familiar with it, haven't Googled it, but it sounds too vague to even consider as a serious example for discussion.

On closer inspection, the ground upon which religion rests appears to be more rabbit holes than dirt.

You sure it's rabbit holes and not rabbit droppings ?

All things aside, religion and a revelation are two different things (if we consider that "supernatural" is often applied to ideas apart from religions).

 

[Davian]

"Do you find your eyes to be unreliable?"

Imperfect: yes. Unreliable: no.

If you know they are not perfect, how then can you rely on them?

"Then we can consider the possibility of your "Divine Revelation" ..."

"MY Divine Revelation" ?? I don't recall making any mention of a personal Divine Revelation.

What other kinds might there be?

As I recall the discussion had to do with the definition of revelation as one of the means of attaining knowledge, and whether a proposed "Divine Revelation" would fit that definition and be justifiable in the same manner as any other revelation. It would.

By that standard, the "Magic 8 Ball" could be considered justified as a "means of attaining knowledge".

"Divine Revelation" as simply being a product of your imagination."

Well of course that is always a possibility for any revelation, not merely a Divine revelation. I don't think that was ever in question.

Then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be dismissed as being a product of the imagination.

 

[Davian]

Meh I'm not familiar with it, haven't Googled it, but it sounds too vague to even consider as a serious example for discussion.

It was buried in a Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, but I lost the reference.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe | Weekly science podcast produced by the SGU Productions llc. Also provides blogs, forums, videos and resources.

You sure it's rabbit holes and not rabbit droppings ?

Where there are rabbits, there are sure to be droppings.

All things aside, religion and a revelation are two different things (if we consider that "supernatural" is often applied to ideas apart from religions).

I do not see them as different things. Religious claims to psychic readings, water divining, and alien abductions, I lump them in the same sceptical bag.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I believe in one God. The Father almighty.
Maker of Heaven and Earth.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ.
The only begotten Son of God.
Born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light.
Begotten, not made.
Consubstantial with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us men, and for our salvation,
He came down from Heaven,
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
He was incarnate of the virgin, Mary, and became man.
For our sake, He was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
He suffered death and was buried.
He rose again on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures.
He ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory, to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit.
The Lord, the giver of life.
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Who with the Father and Son is adored and glorified.
Was has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one Holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,
I profess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and life in the world to come.

-----------------------------------
I believe this through faith and reason after a search which began when I was about 10 years old, and didn't circle in on a solid faith for life until I was nearly 50. During this journey I tried on a massive variety of shoes. Different courses. Read hundreds of books. Participated in thousands of deep conversations. Prayed, read, prayed, read, talked, questioned, worshipped with people of various faiths and religions. Studied philosophers. Watched debates. Prayed, meditated, read, prayed, meditated, read, until I found at every level of my heart and being that Jesus Christ was real. He was who He said He was. He had apostles that kept His Church alive upon His death. That Church still exists. And Christ offers His body, blood, soul and divinity to me in REAL presence in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist which can be found in the Catholic mass, and the Eastern Divine liturgy. That this is the food from heaven which gives sanctifying grace for our lives until we either die into our personal judgement, or Christ comes again for general judgement, and to establish the new heavens and the new earth. I have not discovered the fullness of truth in any other path I've walked or had explained to me by anyone else. Jesus Christ is THE truth, THE way, and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through Him.

 

[TillICollapse]

It was buried in a Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, but I lost the reference.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe | Weekly science podcast produced by the SGU Productions llc. Also provides blogs, forums, videos and resources.

Oh okay.

Where there are rabbits, there are sure to be droppings.

Indeed

I do not see them as different things. Religious claims to psychic readings, water divining, and alien abductions, I lump them in the same sceptical bag.

While obviously many religions claim all manner of things ... there are those who adhere to no religions yet still believe in the paranormal, etc (atheists included). So perhaps it depends on one's definition of "religion" (I don't want to have to look up yet another definition).

 

[keith99]

I believe:

Every person is a mix of good and bad.

That painting all the members of a group with a broad brush is a good way to miss either the good or the bad in a person. Usually to my own detriment.

That if I manage to become half the man Wheatley (my deceased canine friend) thought I was I'll be far better than most people. Which speaks far more to his charitable nature than anything about me.

 

[hankroberts]

What are you talking about? I listed a few for your consideration in a previous post. Whether you actually consider them or not is up to you. The point is that there are more than the two you initially mentioned.

And you keep making the unwarranted presumption that the fact I have rejected other theoretical alternatives as unpersuasive equals my not having considered them.

And you keep thinking that simply saying good alternatives exist makes it true.

So I guess we're done here.

 

[hankroberts]

If you know they are not perfect, how then can you rely on them?


What other kinds might there be?


By that standard, the "Magic 8 Ball" could be considered justified as a "means of attaining knowledge".

Then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be dismissed as being a product of the imagination.

"If you know they are not perfect, how then can you rely on them? "

I presume that is some kind of joke. You really think any of the things you rely on to determine truth are perfect? Really?

"What other kinds might there be?"

Other kinds of what? 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.

"By that standard, the "Magic 8 Ball" could be considered justified as a "means of attaining knowledge"."

Not unless you know something about them we do not.

"Then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be dismissed as being a product of the imagination."

And as long as you're willing to abandon critical thinking and your epistemic duties you are free to do that. Nothing but reason and sound principles prevent it.

 

[TillICollapse]

"By that standard, the "Magic 8 Ball" could be considered justified as a "means of attaining knowledge"."

Not unless you know something about them we do not.

Did the original 11 out of 12 apostles know something about casting lots that would differ from a Magic 8 Ball type method ?

 

[hankroberts]

Did the original 11 out of 12 apostles know something about casting lots that would differ from a Magic 8 Ball type method ?

I'm sorry, you must be referring to the single instance in the NT, where Matthias was selected. And yes, if one had reason to believe that God used the (typically random) process of casting lots to indicate which of two people should be included, that would indeed, to them, be considerably different. That is, they would have justification to believe that process distinct.

That does not prove it is, objectively, but it does justify their belief.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And you keep making the unwarranted presumption that the fact I have rejected other theoretical alternatives as unpersuasive equals my not having considered them.

And you keep thinking that simply saying good alternatives exist makes it true.

So I guess we're done here.

The fact that you have rejected them does not mean that they do not exist. Whether you consider them persuasive or not is completely beside the point, which is that there are more than two alternatives. So there are two in particular that you consider persuasive? So what? What does that have to do with anything? I don't find your preferred proposal to be particularly persuasive, yet I don't deny that it is a proposal nevertheless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And as long as you're willing to abandon critical thinking and your epistemic duties you are free to do that. Nothing but reason and sound principles prevent it.

What epistemic duty are you are talking about here specifically?

 

[AlephBet]

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.

Scripture makes it clear we do not know the Father. God is invisible.

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

We can know the son through the Father. I have one clue for who the Father is. The riddle of scripture shows him, but you must get past the Son to know the Father. No one comes to the Father but by the Son. As I said, it's a riddle. Since you asked, I can answer.

Aleph Bet is the word Father in Hebrew. Abba, or AB as the root, which is what Hebrew is. Roots make branches. How do you know the Father from the Word (Christ / Son)?

What do you make words with? Links and chains of letters. What is the Father's name again?

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Enough with the first riddle. Now we need to know the next part. Jesus is called the Bread of life. Again, we are looking at how to get past the Son to see the Father. To do this, you need to define the word written with letters. Of course, DNA is a good clue as the shadow of the process, but we need to look at the Words and Letters as they speak to the symbolism.

Aleph Mem is Mother. She is the Ruach (Spirit) hovering over the waters in Genesis 1. Elohim is the Father. Adam is the Son, or the product of Father and Mother.

She is the Strong water (Cup). If you mix seed (letters) and water in a cup, what do you get if you bake it in an oven? Flat bread. What if you add yeast (Sin) to the seed? Bread that rises. Apart from the adversary to overcome, you would not fight to rise. You also have an accuser (conscience). To silence the conscience, overcome the adversary (law and need for rule). If you add DNA to a mother's womb, you get seed of the Father producing a Son. He is the ruler / Lord.

Son in Hebrew is Bet Nun, or House of Seed.

On a level much more complicated than mere words alone, I have shown you something that can only be described as proof of what I believe. Undeniable proof. But wait, there's more.

Babel is the confounding of language. Letters (Father) carry to the other languages. Let me demonstrate.

Ear is a seed, much like the seed I just showed you making bread. We say ear of corn, but an ear is also something that must open to hear. In Hebrew, what I will show you in English is the same meaning.

If you add a Hebrew Hey to Ear, you get...

HEAR. Behold the seed. For a seed to open, it must swell and open in soil. Where is the soil?

Add a Tav to Hear and get...

Heart. The soil for the seed entering your ear is the Heart. Ears must open.

What happens if you move the Hey in Heart to the end of the word.

EartH. The soil 'where' you behold.

But wait, there's more.

Read my signature links to know why the Lord of the Old Testament shed blood, proclaimed himself God, divided Adam, made Satan and tempted Eve.

There is a reason. Once you know, you have the entire puzzle. The sWord of truth has two edges. Good and Evil. We must overcome the adversary and accuser. To do this, we need to define who and what they are. The flaming sWord protects the tree of life. To get to the Aleph Bet, you must first know the Word. From there, the letters carry the meaning you need to overcome the babel. Once you read the symbolism, you know the true word of God. Get past the word to see the Letters. The Father is there, hidden.

God Bless.

 

[Davian]

"If you know they are not perfect, how then can you rely on them? "

I presume that is some kind of joke. You really think any of the things you rely on to determine truth are perfect? Really?

I do not try to determine truth, so I do not need perfection. I am only looking for a high degree of accuracy.

If you are making claims of truth, you will need perfection.

"What other kinds might there be?"

Other kinds of what? 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.

Exactly. It is of no use to others around you that do not claim to believe as you do.

"By that standard, the "Magic 8 Ball" could be considered justified as a "means of attaining knowledge"."

Not unless you know something about them we do not.

Why not? As wiki says, "the functional component was invented by Albert C. Carter, who was inspired by a spirit writing device that was used by his mother, Mary, a Cincinnati clairvoyant." wiki

Do you not believe in spirits?

"Then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be dismissed as being a product of the imagination."

And as long as you're willing to abandon critical thinking and your epistemic duties you are free to do that. Nothing but reason and sound principles prevent it.

Abandoning "critical thinking" that allows for belief in things imaginary and "epistemic duties" that boil down to confirmation bias and self-deception would be in accordance to what I consider to be reason and sound principles. YMMV.

 

[hankroberts]

I do not try to determine truth, so I do not need perfection. I am only looking for a high degree of accuracy.

If you are making claims of truth, you will need perfection.

Exactly. It is of no use to others around you that do not claim to believe as you do.

Why not? As wiki says, "the functional component was invented by Albert C. Carter, who was inspired by a spirit writing device that was used by his mother, Mary, a Cincinnati clairvoyant." wiki

Do you not believe in spirits?

Abandoning "critical thinking" that allows for belief in things imaginary and "epistemic duties" that boil down to confirmation bias and self-deception would be in accordance to what I consider to be reason and sound principles. YMMV.

I do not try to determine truth, so I do not need perfection. I am only looking for a high degree of accuracy.

Well, truth is the characteristic of a statement, that it comports with reality. If you are not looking for truth, then what "accuracy" are you seeking?

If you are making claims of truth, you will need perfection.

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.

Exactly. It is of no use to others around you that do not claim to believe as you do.

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 unless you know something about them we do not.

Why not? As wiki says, ...

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.

Abandoning "critical thinking" that allows for belief in things imaginary and "epistemic duties" that boil down to confirmation bias and self-deception would be in accordance to what I consider to be reason and sound principles.

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