Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2010, 10:25 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(13-11-2010 03:59 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Why is it inapplicable?
If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are committing the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

No. Either there can be evidence for God, in which case the scientific method is applicable, or there cannot, in which case he does not exist.

Quote:The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

And "X exists" is a non-empirical claim?

Quote:Apologies if I misunderstood. According to some, we take everything in our experience on faith... but I think it's fair to say that most people think of knowledge as being assured of something. They know a chair exists because they have touched and seen a chair.

Exactly.

Quote:Christian Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, from the Christian view.

In which case you either say that you know (assensus), or you are believing with no cause to believe, and therefore believing irrationally.

Quote:Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap.

No, it doesn't. See above. You either believe that you have evidence - in which case you know rather than believing - or you don't, in which case it is merely a blind leap.

Quote:
(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It simply is. Unless you claim that all Christians are Biblical literalists, that is, in which case I have a bridge in San Fran to sell you.
Literalists and non literalists agree absolutely on the creed posted above.

Which is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the creed. We're talking about Biblical interpretations.

Quote:Yes I would accept that literalism and non literalism could reasonably be called 'disperate'... but that's irrelevant to the discussion here.

No, it isn't.

Quote:where we're discussing identical fundamental beliefs of the mainstream Christian church... some 30,000 sects.

No, we're not. We're discussing whether or not those thirty thousand sects possess different interpretations of Biblical writings.

Quote:
(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, but it's not the core tenets of the belief that are being discussed here.
What is it we're discussing then?

See above.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 04:19 AM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2010 04:43 AM by fr0d0.)
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
No J

I was speaking there of Godless' interpretation which seems to be that all faith is blind faith, which is incorrect (see my explanation of Xtian faith above in post #104). People have to interpret all the time - it's how you make things relevant to yourself.

The meaning of faith from the Xtian view is fixed, as explained.
Unbeliever

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-11-2010 03:59 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Why is it inapplicable?
If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are committing the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.
No. Either there can be evidence for God, in which case the scientific method is applicable, or there cannot, in which case he does not exist.
You're ignoring the point. You need to demonstrate how testing God is applicable to the scientific method. He clearly is not by definition - so you must be using some other definition of God, rather than the Christian one to make such a claim.

If you're going to make up your own God that's not God then we have no common ground to discuss.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.
And "X exists" is a non-empirical claim?
If God = X, then "X exists" is a non empirical claim.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Apologies if I misunderstood. According to some, we take everything in our experience on faith... but I think it's fair to say that most people think of knowledge as being assured of something. They know a chair exists because they have touched and seen a chair.
Exactly.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Christian Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, from the Christian view.
In which case you either say that you know (assensus), or you are believing with no cause to believe, and therefore believing irrationally.
Assensus (intellectual assent) does not equate to knowledge as defined above with the chair example. We know intellectually and not empirically. I am believing with cause.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap.
No, it doesn't. See above. You either believe that you have evidence - in which case you know rather than believing - or you don't, in which case it is merely a blind leap.
I have non empirical evidence, which is evidence.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It simply is. Unless you claim that all Christians are Biblical literalists, that is, in which case I have a bridge in San Fran to sell you.
Literalists and non literalists agree absolutely on the creed posted above.
Which is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the creed. We're talking about Biblical interpretations.
The creed is a universally accepted interpretation by Mainstream Christians.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Yes I would accept that literalism and non literalism could reasonably be called 'disperate'... but that's irrelevant to the discussion here.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. Because as I said, Mainstream Christians have the same interpretation of the things that really matter.

(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:where we're discussing identical fundamental beliefs of the mainstream Christian church... some 30,000 sects.
No, we're not. We're discussing whether or not those thirty thousand sects possess different interpretations of Biblical writings.
Absolutely. See above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 11:11 AM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(14-11-2010 04:19 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. Either there can be evidence for God, in which case the scientific method is applicable, or there cannot, in which case he does not exist.
You're ignoring the point. You need to demonstrate how testing God is applicable to the scientific method.

If he exists, there is evidence of his existence. If there is evidence of his existence, we can find that evidence and prove that he exists. That's all the scientific method is. Science is nothing more than the study of the universe around us. We may not be able to explain how he does things, but if he does anything, then we can show that he does.

Quote:He clearly is not by definition

Then he does not exist.

Quote:so you must be using some other definition of God, rather than the Christian one to make such a claim.

No. You are using some definition of "science" other than what it actually means.

Quote:
(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.
And "X exists" is a non-empirical claim?
If God = X, then "X exists" is a non empirical claim.

Why?

Quote:
(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In which case you either say that you know (assensus), or you are believing with no cause to believe, and therefore believing irrationally.
Assensus (intellectual assent) does not equate to knowledge as defined above with the chair example. We know intellectually and not empirically. I am believing with cause.

If you aren't believing empirically, then what is your cause? What do you mean by "intellectually and not empirically"? What makes you believe?

Quote:
(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it doesn't. See above. You either believe that you have evidence - in which case you know rather than believing - or you don't, in which case it is merely a blind leap.
I have non empirical evidence, which is evidence.

And that evidence is...?

Quote:
(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the creed. We're talking about Biblical interpretations.
The creed is a universally accepted interpretation by Mainstream Christians.

Agreed, but it is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the creed. We're talking about Biblical interpretations.

Quote:
(13-11-2010 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Yes I would accept that literalism and non literalism could reasonably be called 'disperate'... but that's irrelevant to the discussion here.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. Because as I said, Mainstream Christians have the same interpretation of the things that really matter.

But we are not discussing the contents of the creed. The creed has no bearing on the current discussion. We are discussing Biblical interpretations. The creed does not contain any information on Biblical interpretations except in that it states that Christians all believe that Jesus is God, et cetera. It does not have any bearing on the rest of the Bible. It does not show that all Christians have identical Biblical interpretations.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 01:11 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Hi Unbeliever

So we can dismiss you first few questions if you understand that we're talking about non empirical evidence which is outside the remit of science.

The evidence is primarily in the biblical text, and then in personal experience. The creed is the direct interpretation of scripture that Mainstream Christians all agree upon - it's exactly what we're talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 02:32 PM
 
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Sorry to but into this wonderful, engaging, and civil discourse Tongue

BUT

What exactly does non-empirical evidence mean? Sounds like a bullshit term for "Well we don't have real evidence for the existence of God so we're going to make up a new type of evidence that doesn't need empirical verification (nullifying the concept of evidence) so we can sleep well at night"

Empiricism is a "philosophy" if you will, that is based upon the fact that true knowledge may be gained from evidence gained from sensory experience. So, non-empirical evidence is evidence not gained from sensory experience. But if evidence can be gained from sensory experience, then even subjective evidence can be empirical, can it not? So where does non-empirical evidence fit in? If it isn't derived from experience than it just must be made up.
Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 02:56 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Hi Truth Addict

Non empirical evidence is reliant upon the observer. Assuming God: everything extant is evidence of his handiwork, for example. Giving intellectual assention to such claims constitutes non empirically obtained evidence. That's no to say that any absurd statement would constitute non empirical evidence from a Christian perspective. Taken as a whole, examples of Christian NE evidence are consistent with each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 04:21 PM
 
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Evidence dependent on the observer is still empirical, since empirical evidence is derived from sensory experience (whether that be human or non-human) and observation. What you seem to be doing is interpreting that evidence.

There is evidence for everything in the universe that exists. However, you attribute this evidence to God, and say that because the universe exists, so does God. Is that your stance?
Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 04:48 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2010 04:52 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Evidence dependant on the observer can still be empirical. There is non sensory experience too. (Thanks for that definition BTW (sensory) - I hadn't heard that before & now it's appearing everywhere. That's going to help with thinking about this problem I think.)

Yes that's my philosophical stance, and I defend your right to have an opposing stance. I also agree with physicists and evolutionists on their empirical observations (I don't see how I couldn't agree with them, but some religious people falacially (in my opinion) conflate philosophy and science).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 07:12 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(14-11-2010 01:11 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  So we can dismiss you first few questions if you understand that we're talking about non empirical evidence which is outside the remit of science.

Ah, but here's the twenty-dollar question: is this non-empirical evidence valid?

Quote:The evidence is primarily in the biblical text, and then in personal experience.

And the answer appears to be a "no".

The Bible cannot be evidence for God's existence. That is circular logic. The Bible is the source of the claims. It isn't evidence for them.

As for personal experience... that is notoriously unreliable. Not only are people subject to confirmation bias, they are incredibly bad at realizing when they are suffering from it. Memory is also incredibly faulty on a surprisingly regular basis, especially when confirmation bias is brought into it. And even our senses are incredibly unreliable. You can't trust your own eyes. Your eyes are incredibly easy to fool.

Quote:The creed is the direct interpretation of scripture that Mainstream Christians all agree upon - it's exactly what we're talking about.

No. It's not. We aren't talking about what Christians agree upon. We're talking about what they disagree upon.

At this point, though, I'm pretty sure that you are not going to admit your mistake. You're wrong, but harping on it isn't going to get the point through, so I'll let it drop.

(14-11-2010 02:56 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Non empirical evidence is reliant upon the observer. Assuming God: everything extant is evidence of his handiwork, for example.

That's not evidence, but not because it's not empirical. It's simply circular.

Quote:Giving intellectual assention to such claims constitutes non empirically obtained evidence.

No, it doesn't. It constitutes incredibly obvious flawed logic.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 07:37 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Wow. 12 pages, and where do we end up? A whole lotta circular logic. Am I suprised? No. Disappointed? I suppose so, but couldn't really expect anything better.

Sorry fr0d0, but so far I haven't seen one piece of sound explaination for your beliefs. Nothing I haven't heard a hundred times before, and unfortunately not a single original thought. As usual, it seems everything you know has been told to you, reasoned out for you, or otherwise provided to you by the church/bible/religious leader or whatnot. You are simply just not thinking for yourself.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: