Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

1356789

Comments

  • #62
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that this poster has the mentality of a chair? :confused:

    No. It was an example of something not configured to be convinced by evidence. If you're convinced of Gods existence (or state yourself open to being convinced empirically) then you must also be convinced that you were configured (or would be, in the case of God demonstrating himself empirically) to be convinced by empirical evidence.
    And here you seem to suggest that those of us who don't believe don't do so because of God's choices - which actually makes sense. So why did he create us to punish us?

    That's not what I was suggesting.

    I was suggesting that any method whereby God evidences himself would be designed by God. And so the empirical is as good a method for God to use as any other he might use.

    And so Sarky might as well state himself as happy to have God turn up before him unempirically as empirically. Neither method can prove God to Sarky any better than the other unless God makes it so.

    Which means Sarky's preferred method wouldn't hold anymore water for him than God turning up before him unempirically


  • #63
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    I'll write up an on-topic post, but it may not be great as I'm very busy today.

    I personally, am not an Atheist, rather an Agnostic. I accept the possibility of a 'higher power' of some form, but do not recognise it as a God or Gods.

    I accept logic and facts, not hearsay and ancient writings as proof.
    To me, the Bible (and all other Holy Books) are nothing more than texts showing a belief system used by a particular group of people, and is no more valid than the Torah, Quran, Greek Mythology, Buddhism or Aztec.
    With that said, I do accept the likely existence of the man we now know as Jesus Christ, as this is documented by sources outside the Bible.

    I do not accept his (or any other prophet type) miracles, as the only source for these are accounts given by the Bible, but not referenced anywhere else.

    Proof of a God's existence would be something as simple as the appearance of God(s), actually impacts they can make on the world.
    In the Old Testament, God likes to drop in now and then and wipe out some nice evil societies, but inexplicably does not do so now.

    Religions speak of Gods love, but allows hundreds of millions of children (who are supposed to be innocent) die slow and painful deaths from disease and starvation.
    Surely a loving God would not want this to happen, and would possibly send at least some rainfall to these draught stricken areas and let them grow crops.

    Should Hell be real, and I end up there for the simple reason I dared question their existence with the free will they gave me, and despite living a good life, treating people equally and helping society in any way I can. Then it will only serve to prove that (whichever) God(s) is real, is actually a complete arse.


  • #64
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    pauldla wrote: »
    I am but a poor benighted atheist, and not accustomed to such long words. What does this sentence mean?

    What the argument in total means is the atheist* who places his uber-trust in the empirical method for evidencing God's existence is forgetting who would have created the empirical method of evidencing.


    *in this instance Sarky. But lot's of atheists do the same thing. They act as if the empirical method of evaluation can place the Creator under the same microscope as the created. N'est ce pas!


  • #65
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,172 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    So circular reasoning as "evidence" for God in short.


  • #66
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not sure what that would achieve tbh

    Say any or all of the above occurs. And that you are now convinced that God exists. You would now also know that he created you and in knowing that, you would realise that he has made it such that you arrive in a state of being 'convinced of things' by means of 'the empirical method'. If he didn't wire you so that you would be convinced so then convinced you wouldn't be. Irrespective of the evidence.

    Seriously: What the hell? You're not making any sense here. I also suspect you think "evidence" means "Me hearing god's voice in my head." I'd need something that couldn't be written off as too many drugs or a stroke. There's a nice list of things above that would certainly go a long way to convincing anyone. You know. Evidence. If God shows up and convinces me he's real, and that this is all part of some big plan, then groovy, God exists, and I'll accept that. After the "Why did you have to make it so much bloody hassle?" argument. He'll have to really show me this plan to convince me it's working though, because from down here it looks like a bloody mess. No worship unless he can really justify all the horrific stuff he allows to happen in his name. He went ballistic all the time for way less back in the Old Testament. Did having a kid mellow him out?
    Do you think a chair would be convinced by evidence?
    Oh hey, that's charming. Liken me to furniture, that'll endear yourself to everyone. I eagerly await your support for the notion that chairs are sentient. I mean I saw a children's show about an alien who came to Earth disguised as a chair years ago, but I imagine that doesn't count. Otherwise, that part is not a little insulting, and a complete non-starter.
    Since you are ultimately reliant on his not only providing you evidence for his existence but also on his configuring you in such a way that the evidence can be considered by you as much, any way he evidences/configures you is as good as the next.

    It all relies on him in the end - not on some method of evaluation you suppose is detached from him.

    What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

    That's a pretty convoluted way of saying "It doesn't matter because I believe god exists anyway!" That's a powerfully lame argument. You have said evidence doesn't matter to you in the past though, so I suppose it's natural to assume the same for everyone else.

    Come on, was one Doubting Thomas really that much of a strain on the creator of the universe and more besides? Perhaps if he concentrated more on convincing people than all this furniture you seem to think is Christian (it's the carpenter's son link, isn't it? Any excuse, eh?), there'd be time to convince a few more people?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    What the argument in total means is the atheist* who places his uber-trust in the empirical method for evidencing God's existence is forgetting who would have created the empirical method of evidencing.

    In the case of God's existence being evidenced by it.

    Sorry, I cannot read that as anything but nonsensical wordplay. Excuse my bluntness, I don't know how else to put it.


  • #68
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was suggesting that any method whereby God evidences himself would be designed by God. And so the empirical is as good a method for God to use as any other he might use.
    So why didn't he make me in such a way that I accept a lower standard of proof, or provide that empirical evidence? It's totally in his hands - he created me, my character, and the environment I grew up in

    He shouldn't feel slighted as I don't believe in many other gods for the exact same reason.


  • #69
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Since you are ultimately reliant on his not only providing you evidence for his existence but also on his configuring you in such a way that the evidence can be considered by you as much, any way he evidences/configures you is as good as the next.
    ...
    What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.
    No, it doesn't. By your own logic, If God 'configured' humans to only accept/believe a subset of evidence types, then he could only ever reveal himself through that subset. If he revealed himself in any other way, then there's no human in existence that would believe in him.

    In Sarky's case, it seems he only believes in empirical evidence. If God will only ever provide non empirical evidence, this leads to one obvious conclusion, either:

    1. Sarky's design is flawed in that he'll never believe the evidence God presents. This means God made a mistake.

    2. God is patently unfair in condemning Sarky for not believing, despite never giving poor Sarky any evidence that God know's he will accept. This means God is cruel.


  • #70
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Empirical evidence has worked pretty well for me so far. I'd settle for a good logical argument, or something not-terribly-empirical but heavily supported by statistics. If everyone in the world for example suddenly believed, and broke into a hymn to one particular god, well, I'd have to seriously consider the possibility that I wasn't just after taking too much acid, wouldn't I?

    As it is, his miracle rate is low enough to be lost in the background of spontaneous remission of certain diseases, and appearing on tacos in South America. Powerful stuff indeed. Your argument boils down to "Hooray for low standards!". I have a miraculous peanut that looks like Admiral Ackbar. Are you going to become a Jedi now?


  • #71
    liveya
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 74 ✭✭liveya


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    This completely contradicts the very first Commandment though, and it completely goes against the teachings of Christianity.

    It really looks more like an addendum added on later by someone in the religion (any religion) when someone pointed out this flaw.

    Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

    I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Stark wrote: »
    So circular reasoning as "evidence" for God in short.

    In a word or two..


  • #73
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    liveya wrote: »
    Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

    I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.

    Well, there is plenty of historical precedent for the Church disregarding commandments.


  • #74
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    liveya wrote: »
    Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

    I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.
    So do you count as atheists the Christians who disagree with your 'Anonymous Christian' theory that you can be saved without even ever hearing of Jesus?

    Or are you saying that these Christians don't exist?


  • #75
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    pauldla wrote: »
    Sorry, I cannot read that as anything but nonsensical wordplay. Excuse my bluntness, I don't know how else to put it.

    Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?


  • #76
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    liveya wrote: »
    Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

    I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.
    So do you count as atheists the Christians who disagree with your 'Anonymous Christian' theory that you can be saved without even ever hearing of Jesus?


  • #77
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?

    It has crossed my mind, yes. Through out a few cogent ones there and let's see how I do.


  • #78
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?
    To be fair, that was awful gobbledigook - perhaps not helped by a typo.


  • #79
    liveya
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 74 ✭✭liveya


    shizz wrote: »
    This statement baffles me. How choosing to believe something without any evidence is something to be proud of and commended as "strength" truly astounds me.

    There is good reason to have faith in Christ, as already pointed out. If it's reasonable, and it holds strong subjective value, then it's sound faith. It takes strength to maintain a faith in Christ, trust me.


  • #80
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    liveya wrote: »
    There is good reason to have faith in Christ, as already pointed out. If it's reasonable, and it holds strong subjective value, then it's sound faith. It takes strength to maintain a faith in Christ, trust me.

    No it doesn't take strength, it takes ignorance. As others have pointed out, it takes strength to repeatedly question your beliefs to make sure they are actually worth believing in.

    It doesn't take strength to block everything out and blindly follow a belief.


  • #81
    liveya
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 74 ✭✭liveya


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    So do you count as atheists the Christians who disagree with your 'Anonymous Christian' theory that you can be saved without even ever hearing of Jesus?

    Very tricky, most athiests have read the gospels and rejected them, Which isn't a good sign. If they loved truth, and were loving, and just, they would recognize it and accept it, maybe not right away, but eventually. C.S. Lewis one of the great theologians and Christian apologetics of the 20th century was an Athiest for years, in the end he just had to accept 'God is God',


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Sarky wrote: »
    Empirical evidence has worked pretty well for me so far. I'd settle for a good logical argument, or something not-terribly-empirical but heavily supported by statistics. If everyone in the world for example suddenly believed, and broke into a hymn to one particular god, well, I'd have to seriously consider the possibility that I wasn't just after taking too much acid, wouldn't I?

    So far so good. Supposing that God has just demonstrated himself to you to your satisfaction, what the argument now asks you to ask yourself is:

    "Who configured me such that I'd be convinced of His existence by empirical evidence?" (Hint: God)

    "What if he hadn't configured me so?" (Hint: evidence or no, you wouldn't have been convinced of his existence)

    "Doesn't that mean my having been convinced empirically relied on a system developed by God (evidence + configuring me in this way)?" (Hint: Yes)

    "Doesn't that then mean that any other system he could have used could be as good as (or better than) this one - if he so decided it should be?" (Hint: Yes)

    "So why did I suppose me The Decider of which method is best for God to demonstrate his existence when the whole thing depended on God from start to finish?" (Hint: read up on the Fall)

    "Why doesn't this same argument stand from my current position where God hasn't actually demonstrated himself empirically to me?" (Hint: it does)


  • #83
    liveya
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 74 ✭✭liveya


    shizz wrote: »
    No it doesn't take strength, it takes ignorance. As others have pointed out, it takes strength to repeatedly question your beliefs to make sure they are actually worth believing in.

    It doesn't take strength to block everything out and blindly follow a belief.

    Your assuming all Christians block everything out and believe anything, well you're wrong. I question everything, also, to your surprise. If you want to get serious, be honest and stop playing dumb.

    This is why I have given up on many of these discussions, the ignorance and hidden implications are just embarrasing.


  • #84
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    liveya wrote: »
    Very tricky, most athiests have read the gospels and rejected them, Which isn't a good sign. If they loved truth, and were loving, and just, they would recognize it and accept it, maybe not right away, but eventually. C.S. Lewis one of the great theologians and Christian apologetics of the 20th century was an Athiest for years, in the end he just had to accept 'God is God',
    Right. But you trotted out the 'anonymous Christian' stuff as a refutation of the notion that saintly people would go to hell if they had been born in the wrong place/time.

    Yet many of your own faith think that the notion of the 'anonymous Christian' is ridiculous. If this is a matter of fact, then how can believers of the same religion have opposite views on the issue?


  • #85
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So far so good. What the argument now asks you to ask yourself is:

    "Who configured me such that I'd be convinced by empirical evidence?" (Hint: God)

    "What if he hadn't configured me so?" (Hint: evidence or no, you wouldn't be convinced of his existence)

    "So is God is to blame for creating me like this and then not providing the evidence he knew I would need? (Hint: yes)

    "So I was created solely to spend eternity in hell?" (Hint: so it would seem)


  • #86
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    liveya wrote: »
    Your assuming all Christians block everything out and believe anything, well you're wrong. I question everything, also, to your surprise. If you want to get serious, be honest and stop playing dumb.

    This is why I have given up on many of these discussions, the ignorance and hidden implications are just embarrasing.

    I was addressing the notion of faith being a characteristic of having "strength".
    The very meaning of faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

    You say you question everything, that doesn't mean you do. I very much doubt you have really questioned your belief in its entirety.


  • #87
    liveya
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 74 ✭✭liveya


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Right. But you trotted out the 'anonymous Christian' stuff as a refutation of the notion that saintly people would go to hell if they had been born in the wrong place/time.

    Yet many of your own faith think that the notion of the 'anonymous Christian' is ridiculous. If this is a matter of fact, then how can believers of the same religion have opposite views on the issue?

    It's possible people diagree within the church because some hold more truth than others, I recognize the fairness of the anonymous Christian, and how it simultaneously does not reduce Christ to an option. It makes sense, so I accept it. So does the church and the pope. If a fellow Christian finds it ridiculous that God is just and Christ is the only way to the father, then what kind of a Christian are they, a Fred Phelps, that's what,

    Also it was Karl Rahner who proposed the theory to the church, not me.


  • #88
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Please, antiskeptic, you're not making any sense.


  • #89
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Blowfish wrote: »
    No, it doesn't. By your own logic, If God 'configured' humans to only accept/believe a subset of evidence types, then he could only ever reveal himself through that subset. If he revealed himself in any other way, then there's no human in existence that would believe in him.

    True. If that's what he did.

    If not then not true.



    In Sarky's case, it seems he only believes in empirical evidence. If God will only ever provide non empirical evidence, this leads to one obvious conclusion, either

    If God exists then Sarky is subject to God demonstrating his existence any way God choses. If God decides to convince Sarky and assigns a greater conviction quotient to a non-empirical method then Sarky will be more convinced of God's existence than he could be via the empirical one.

    Point is: it makes no sense to demand God demonstrate this, that or the other way. Which is what atheists do.


  • #90
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    "Doesn't that then mean that any other system he could have used could be as good as (or better than) this one - if he so decided it should be?" (Hint: Yes)
    Did you skip my previous post? God could only ever use a non empirical system to reveal himself to Sarky if he has actually 'configured' Sarky to believe non empirical 'evidence'. I think it's pretty obvious that he hasn't and Sarky is only ever going to believe empirical evidence, hence as I pointed out, using your logic, God either made a mistake in his 'Sarky configuration' and/or is incredibly cruel for expecting Sarky to do the impossible and believe despite being 'configured' not to be able to.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If God exists then Sarky is subject to God demonstrating his existence any way God choses.
    No, Sarky is subject to being demonstrated to in a way that God 'configured' him to accept.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If God decides to convince Sarky and assigns a greater conviction quotient to a non-empirical method then Sarky will be more convinced of God's existence than he could be via the empirical one.
    God would be pretty stupid to present Sarky non-empirical evidence, given that he'll only accept empirical.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Sarky wrote: »
    Please, antiskeptic, you're not making any sense.

    That strikes me as rather lazy. It's be better if you started at the first sentence and indicated where things break down for you. I've even given you strong hints :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement