Faith necessarily irrational and unjustified?

pauldla · 12-04-2014 08:22AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Spoken like an Empiricist.

Empiricism might be true. But so might what I'm suggesting.

The trouble with Empiricism is that it presumes what it cannot detect cannot be. Or isn't even likely to be. As my old maths teacher used to say: "show me your work"

Your maths teacher spoke well. Show me your god.

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 08:33AM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, that is not the case.

To accept that it could happen in principle is a hypothetical position based on my lack of certainty that it could not happen.

But whatever you or I believe about it, in reality it is either the case that (a) it could happen in fact or (b) it could not happen in fact.

Whether (a) or (b) is true is an independent fact, that does not follow from whether or not I accept in principle that it could happen.

If there is no god, then it could not happen in fact, regardless of whether I accept that it could happen in principle.

Might well have happened for all you know. If it has then it would be fact despite you not knowing it has happened. Is what I meant to communicate

Again, that is not the case.

Whether a person's belief is rational and justified depends on the thought processes of the person, not on whether they happen to be correct.

IF God is in fact the Creator AND he turns up to your empirical satisfaction THEN the 'processes' you rely on to conclude God exists would be now known by you to have been God-designed. That is to say, all the certainly you obtain feel by having used these processes would have occurred because God has assigned the processes those characteristics / designed us that way.

We can not conclude God exists independently of a creator God. And if God can demonstrate himself one way and that way be rational and justified (on account of his assigning those qualities to the process) then he can demonstrate himself other ways and assign those same qualities to it.

Indeed, he could well assign greater confidence giving to a non-empirical method.

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 08:35AM

pauldla wrote: »

Your maths teacher spoke well. Show me your god.

The only work on show here is related to the OP. The only work required by me here is that supporting an argument contra the OP/supporting nozz's position

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 08:38AM

SW wrote: »

yes, I'm making that assumption. And I'm asking you to explain why I'm wrong. Put another way, can we currently interact with an intelligence that isn't empirically detectable?

I'll refer to the OP. nozz is making a positive statement about belief (in the sense of making factual claims). In order for him to do that he needs to close off possibilities.

Which would be your task too. Assuming God need leave empirical mark is an assumption. An assumption doesn't close possibilities.

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 08:45AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, spoken like a rationalist. I am not infallible, I can be mistaken. If I cannot convince anyone else of something I supposedly experienced why shouldn't I doubt it?

Suppose that experience and subsequent investigation gave you reasons why others couldn't be convinced.

The rest of your post is a transparent false equivalence and an obnoxious ignorance of the sum of human endeavour.

Hail mighty mankind (he say's looking out his window and taking a good, long look at what mankind get's up to in the world). I can't say I'm unequivocally impressed.

Delirium · 12-04-2014 08:45AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll refer to the OP. nozz is making a positive statement about belief (in the sense of making factual claims). In order for him to do that he needs to close off possibilities.

Which would be your task too. Assuming God need leave empirical mark is an assumption. An assumption doesn't close possibilities.

but it does show that belief in God with current understanding of reality is irrational. How can someone believe in an entity that has no evidence for it?

pauldla · 12-04-2014 08:46AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only work on show here is related to the OP. The only work required by me here is that supporting an argument contra the OP/supporting nozz's position

I'll read that as "I can't", then.

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 08:51AM

pauldla wrote: »

I'll read that as "I can't", then.

Is the problem that I can't show or that you can't see?

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 08:59AM

SW wrote: »

but it does show that belief in God with current understanding of reality is irrational. How can someone believe in an entity that has no evidence for it?

That there is no empirical (or at least the empirical indications are read in a way which precludes conclusion "God") evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence/ non-empirical means for God to demonstrate himself and communicate with people.

See also my post to Michael Nugent above re: the comparative worth of empiricism (vs. any other method God might use) when it has to deal with it's creators existence.

pauldla · 12-04-2014 09:09AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is the problem that I can't show or that you can't see?

If a person wants to believe that they can see a blue spacemonkey that others can't see (note to self: poss TV comedy), I don't see how there is any problem at all, as it is none of my business. I hope it can continue to be none of my business. But how seriously should I take the person who sees things that cannot be shown to others?

12-04-2014 10:09AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That there is no empirical (or at least the empirical indications are read in a way which precludes conclusion "God") evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence/ non-empirical means for God to demonstrate himself and communicate with people.

How can you tell the difference between those non-empirical means and total fiction or delusion? (Either for yourself or for others.)

How can you tell that those non-empirical means are accurate?

Either you can't do either of these things and non-empirical means are not very useful, or you can but only through empirical means.

What else can you show or know to be true using non empirical means, or is God a special case?

robindch · 12-04-2014 10:24AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming God need leave empirical mark is an assumption.

And assuming that the deity is there when there's no evidence is a much larger assumption. Particularly when the deity concerned is supposed to be a deity willing to intervene at the drop of a prayer, but who seems curiously unwilling to intervene.

The non-interactive and the non-existing look very much alike.

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 10:34AM

robindch wrote: »

And assuming that the deity is there when there's no evidence is a much larger assumption.

I'm not sure how you manage to arrive at relative size of assumption.

Joe1919 · 12-04-2014 11:26AM

'Faith' and 'Belief' are not the same.

I think much confusion comes about by interchanging these terms. e.g.
https://www.google.ie/#q=difference+between+faith+and+belief

I remember reading a very good book about this. (Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith).
http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Faith-Perennial-Classics-Tillich/dp/0060937130

Polarix · 12-04-2014 01:13PM

I would agree with your statement - clearly a person

Would you accept that God, (if he existed and was Creator) would be in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified.

Would you accept that equally the person could be self deluded and that no one, including the person themselves could tell the difference ?

Brian Shanahan · 12-04-2014 02:00PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be relying on Leaving Cert Physics (lower level) for your argumentation here.

And as I've pointed out you don't understand scientific concepts I've no problem explaining to my five year old cousin. So you disparaging others' knowledge is kind of laughable don't you think?

Mark Hamill · 12-04-2014 02:03PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose that experience and subsequent investigation gave you reasons why others couldn't be convinced.

So what? Again, if I cannot convince anyone else of something I supposedly experienced why shouldn't I doubt it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hail mighty mankind (he say's looking out his window and taking a good, long look at what mankind get's up to in the world). I can't say I'm unequivocally impressed.

He says on his computer on the internet.

sopretty · 12-04-2014 02:06PM

Nozzferathoo does believe there is something out there.

sopretty · 12-04-2014 02:08PM

And here's the proof.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course there is "something". If there was not, then we would not be here. I believe there is "something" too. We exist, we are in a universe, and there is an explanation for that. We do not know what that explanation is, but that is the "something" whatever it may be.

Polarix · 12-04-2014 02:21PM

Believer types forget there is no evidence for alien life either, the possibility of alien life does not evidence make.

sopretty · 12-04-2014 02:21PM

I think you're all getting bogged down by the Christian notion that God is a person. That's not how I perceive the thing or entity that is 'God'. I believe that the concept of 'God' is beyond our scope of understanding, so we put some sort of a comprehensible conceptualisation on it i.e. a person. We cannot comprehend 'God' in human terms. No matter how many brain cells we employ.

That said, I do believe that there is a force which we call 'God' operating out there.

Brian Shanahan · 12-04-2014 02:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only work on show here is related to the OP. The only work required by me here is that supporting an argument contra the OP/supporting nozz's position

You're the one here making the assertion requiring evidence. In the context of the reality we live in, the null hypothesis is "god doesn't exist" i.e that it is the status quo, therefore it is the assertion we can accept when there is no evidence either way. You are making the hypothesis that changes the status quo so you have to show the evidence for your claim. All we have to do is to show that your evidence is wrong, if ever you come up with any (I'd bet on Havant & Waterlooville winning the EPL quicker than you getting evidence myself).

Michael Nugent · 12-04-2014 02:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll have to elaborate. You're envisaging a situation where God exists and decides to demonstrate himself to a person but that they need further evidence?

As God, I know that you have seen that I then elaborated as you requested.

So again, based on My demonstration of Myself to you, do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

pauldla · 12-04-2014 02:26PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As God, I know that you have seen that I then elaborated as you requested.

So again, based on My demonstration of Myself to you, do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

Good enough for me, I'm sold. Henceforth I shall identify as a Nugentile.

Polarix · 12-04-2014 02:33PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As God, I know that you have seen that I then elaborated as you requested.

So again, based on My demonstration of Myself to you, do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

The question is what kind of evidence, even if you could create stars and galaxies for me on my demand in order to try and prove it to me, that would still not be evidence, maybe evidence that you were perhaps some form of superior alien lifeform, but nothing more.

Michael Nugent · 12-04-2014 02:53PM

Polarix wrote: »

The question is what kind of evidence, even if you could create stars and galaxies for me on my demand in order to try and prove it to me, that would still not be evidence, maybe evidence that you were perhaps some form of superior alien lifeform, but nothing more.

I am using antiskeptic's criteria, which is that I as God determine the validity of the means by which I demonstrate Myself.

I have decided to demonstrate Myself to you now, by telling you that I am God on this internet forum, without using a computer to make My comment appear here. I just willed this comment to appear on this forum, and it did, as My demonstration to you that I am God.

I am waiting to see if this demonstration, based on antiskeptic's own criteria, has caused him or her to accept that I am God, or whether he or she needs further evidence.

Polarix · 12-04-2014 03:01PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I am using antiskeptic's criteria, which is that I as God determine the validity of the means by which I demonstrate Myself.

I have decided to demonstrate Myself to you now, by telling you that I am God on this internet forum, without using a computer to make My comment appear here. I just willed this comment to appear on this forum, and it did, as My demonstration to you that I am God.

I am waiting to see if this demonstration, based on antiskeptic's own criteria, has caused him or her to accept that I am God, or whether he or she needs further evidence.

Creating a planet just for me, on my demand here and now, would not be evidence you were God, just a rather advanced alien perhaps, but nothing more, so I hardly think the above is evidence.

Michael Nugent · 12-04-2014 03:27PM

Polarix wrote: »

Creating a planet just for me, on my demand here and now, would not be evidence you were God, just a rather advanced alien perhaps, but nothing more, so I hardly think the above is evidence.

Look, you’re just using reason and logic to evaluate the evidence. I am using the far more powerful Antiskeptic’s Law, which is that I as God get to evaluate what counts as evidence.

So I’ve just created a planet just for you, on your demand here and now, and that is also evidence that I am God, because it is Me and not you that gets to evaluate what counts as evidence.

According to Antiskeptic’s Law, if that is possible in principle, then it could be true in fact, therefore you should live your life based on what I tell you to do because I am God.

Also, I am using capital letters at the start of any pronouns that refer to Me, which I have also done in some of My books which are very popular. So that is even more evidence.

Polarix · 12-04-2014 03:34PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Look, you’re just using reason and logic to evaluate the evidence. I am using the far more powerful Antiskeptic’s Law, which is that I as God get to evaluate what counts as evidence.

So I’ve just created a planet just for you, on your demand here and now, and that is also evidence that I am God, because it is Me and not you that gets to evaluate what counts as evidence.

According to Antiskeptic’s Law, if that is possible in principle, then it could be true in fact, therefore you should live your life based on what I tell you to do because I am God.

Also, I am using capital letters at the start of any pronouns that refer to Me, which I have also done in some of My books which are very popular. So that is even more evidence.

Added to the fact that there isn't any evidence of alien life anywhere, the possibility of alien life is not evidence there is any, a point often missed by believers of anything. That's the example that works best for me. A belief is just that, it's a belief not an established fact of any type, no matter how big the universe / multiverse / infinity / whatever is.

antiskeptic · 12-04-2014 06:04PM

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Yes.

Here is such a situation.

I am God, and I have decided to demonstrate Myself to you now, by telling you that I am God on this internet forum, without using a computer to make My comment appear here. I just willed this comment to appear on this forum, and it did, as My demonstration to you that I am God.

Do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

You haven't evidenced yourself as God. You give all the evidence of being an atheist who doesn't like addressing the point.

If I say "God has evidenced himself" then I'm merely reporting to you, something that God has done. That you don't believe it is neither here nor there. What matters is whether I've been convinced or not - something which depends on an act of God (whatever means he uses to demonstrate himself). There is no need for me to look for further evidence if already convinced.

To which system, other than a (you must now suspect) system designed by Me as God should you turn to to further evidence? Which system, to put it another way, stands outside Me, such as to be able to satisfactorily demonstrate Me, independently of Me being necessarily involved in assigning value to the system of demonstration of Me willing this comment to appear on this forum without the aid of a computer?

Now that you know I've not been convinced your God by you, perhaps you could go back and actually address the point?

Faith necessarily irrational and unjustified?

Comments