About that atheism thing…

[MrDeets]

And you can forget it MrDeets, a whip is all that is waiting for you, brutha

:banana:

 

[Evoken]

Why should "modern scholars" be believed, and why believe one over another?

Well, why should the historical claims in the bible be believed when the evidence seems to be lacking?

What qualifies as evidence?

Historical or archaeological confirmation of the Exodus. Actual mention of the event and it’s circumstances in the Egyptian records. Archaeological artifacts that could be definitely linked to the event and that confirm that the Israelites, 2 million of them (a number that seems problematic in itself), were slaves in Egypt for about 400 years and then migrated and wandered for 40 years. The most likely reason why we have been unable to find such evidence after searching for so long is that it either didn’t happen the way the bible says it did or it didn’t happen at all.

If I took you to an alleged site of the Red Sea crossing, then we traveled the alleged route of the Israelites and found a bitter spring of water, then traveled further and found twelve springs and seventy palms, would that be enough evidence for you? Would you just say it was coincidence? What if we traveled further and I showed you a mountain that was darkened as if it had been burned, and then I showed you in that same place a split rock where it looked like water flowed out? Would that be sufficient evidence?

Such could just indicate that the author was familiar with the local geography or trade routes, it wouldn't really be evidence for an exodus. There is also the danger with this line of evidence of fudging with the data and cherry picking things in order to make them fit a model (as they seem to do in this and this documentary). This is why the kind of evidence that is sought is something more direct and concrete (as they do in this documentary). Speaking about a split rock such as the one at Horeb without first establishing that there were ten plagues, the slavery, the exodus and a wandering for 40 years or before even establishing that Moses actually existed and did the things he is said to have done, doesn’t seems very meaningful.

Compared to the law of Moses, you believe those are burdensome religions? I don't. Were any of those religions based on eye-witness events and genealogies of multiple witnesses (with descendants living to this day)? I don't believe so.

Some religions have more burdensome precepts than others, like Islam when compared to Mormonism (which as far as I know is not as burdensome). Yet the principle is the same, in that people were willing to subject themselves to those precepts due to their beliefs in deities. They also passed on the tradition through generations. Judaism/Christianity is not unique in this regard. Whether or not the law of Moses is more burdensome than others doesn’t makes the religion any more true.

Do you believe Moses was a real person? You claim you believe Jesus was a real person, and he seemed to believe Moses was a real person.

Hmmm, I am not sure to be honest, there is probably some historical basis to what we have in the bible. From what I gather, no sources outside the Bible confirm his existence and he doesn’t seems to have written the whole Pentateuch either. As far as Jesus thinking Moses was real goes, it would make sense since he grew up in that tradition. But like I said in my previous post, tradition can transmit on equal manner both true and false beliefs; so just because it is passed down it doesn't means it is true.

:e4e:


Evo

 

[Evoken]

You're an encouragement. Thanks for posting this.

Sure thing

 

[Evoken]

The idea is that there are some beliefs that are not demonstrable. Rationality does not push us to believe or disbelieve such things, and yet we must inevitably make a decision; neutrality is impossible. Given the fact that rationality is unable to settle the matter, we (rationally) turn to the criterion of happiness.

Supposing that reason is unable to settle this matter (I think it isn’t), on what basis is it assumed that hope and happiness will fare any better? They would not help in determining what is actually true and both are very much in the eye of the beholder. Making a decision on this criterion would amount to “it gives me hope and happiness, therefore I believe God exists”.

Granted, there are some things that we cannot prove such as the idea that the future will resemble the past. Yet that doesn’t means that the assumption we make that it will is rationally unjustifiable. We make that assumption based on past experience and the lack of any evidence that indicates otherwise. We do not turn to a criterion of happiness in order to make this assumption. Likewise, when two competing hypotheses equally explain the data, we turn to the criterion of parsimony to decide on one over the other, the criterion of happiness doesn’t enters the picture.

I think happiness isn't relevant when it comes to this question and it is a rather unreliable criterion for deciding on it. As far as neutrality being impossible goes, I think the agnostic would disagree on that point. Also when it comes to some questions, saying “I don’t know” can be a perfectly acceptable position to take.

The heart of it is the idea that your assignment of truth values to this question is rationally unjustifiable.

Considering the null hypothesis and that the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (the theist in this case), for a person who finds no convincing or demonstrable evidence for the existence of gods and the supernatural, lack of belief is a rationally justified position.

It is very much the same way that one is rationally justified in lacking belief in the existence of invisible unicorns, leprechaun, bigfoot, the loch ness monster or any sort of deity the theist, depending on which religion he holds, also feels rationally justified lacking belief in.

It should also be noted to avoid confusion that, as I said in the OP, weak atheism (as opposed to strong atheism) doesn’t makes a positive claim but is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not a truth claim but more a rejection of theistic truth claims due to finding such claims unconvincing.

Take care, :cheers:


Evo

 

[Town Heretic]

Whether or not you think that your context gives hope and meaning has no bearing on whether it is true.

Without question.

So it is a red herring to focus the discussion on evaluating the hope and meaning this context is said to provide without first determining it’s truthfulness in light of the evidence. You can only affirm that there is no rational way to determine this if, as you do, you refuse to clearly flesh out and define this context (like not defining things beyond the finite vs the infinite) thus leaving this context ambiguous and untestable/unfalsifiable in principle.

Given the inability to formulate an objective criteria that would, if met, satisfy the question of God, speaking to the testable/falsifiable is a rather empty sleeve to wave, don't you think?

So how should we act? In accord with that which best serves us and our nature absent a reason not to (and what could that be given the empirical truth cannot be established on the point). And why should we act? Any number of reasons, beginning with the common urges/desires of men and the understanding that how we act and the context we choose impacts how satisfying the lives that follow will be in relation to them. Because, one way or the other, we must act and choose and our actions and choices set out both our context and our mission statement in the world.

But the Christian faith involves more than what you are presenting.

Inarguably. But before we haggle over the color of the paint don't you think we should lay a foundation for the house those drapes will hang in?

It has at it’s core an interventionist God with a set of attributes that entail certain testable and empirical things about the world. It makes claims and teaches certain things that can be verified. It has a book which is said to be divinely inspired and which makes claims about the world that can be verified as well. So, contrary to what you are saying, an empirical test for the Christian faith can be set out and such I have done in some posts in this thread.

I'm set on the intervensionalist God, having tasted that particular myself, but I'm unaware of a failure of the Biblical claims, outside of creative exegesis and/or contextual approaches that are, at best, hardly empirically sound.

You can only ask me why if you ignore what I expressed in the OP and in some of my subsequent posts. You can only suggest what you did if you ignore how it is that people come to hold or discard beliefs.

Rather, I'm making a straight forward challenge on the rational necessity of your capitulation on the point of particular faith.

You compared any other course as being tantamount to your sacrificing personal integrity and honesty. I don't think that should be or even can be an empirical necessity, given the failure of empiricism to inform on it.

It doesn’t seems to matter to you whether this context which you are proposing is true or not.

I'm sorry you thought that. I can't imagine anything more important.

You are essentially telling me that if I see reason, science and my own personal experience pointing one way, that I should ignore that and go the other way because I somehow own it to myself to “hope” for more.

No. I'm saying science isn't actually doing that and your own personal experience is mixed, given your past and present...though what was missing from it, reading you, is a point that should give both of us hope and you pause.

I think I own it to myself to embrace what judging by those methods I mentioned I can conclude to be true beliefs.

Except you can't come to true beliefs, only a want of particular.

What you are proposing relies on an epistemology which is not truth finding.

I think you have it backwards.

It is a method which leads to the relativism with regards to truth and the embracing of an untestable and unfalsifiable position that you seem to be expressing here.

Belief in an absolute will not lead to relativism, though your current contextual framework can do little else.

I know you object to the word fideism

No. I think the word has meaning and can be applied to some thinking. But that meaning isn't appropriate as a description of my position. I lean on Stanford for my gleaning of the particular and find in my approach nothing like the proposition that faith is antagonistic to or independent of reason.

so we may call it pure faith, but that is very much what it amounts to. Suffice it to say I don’t accept such an epistemology.

It doesn't, unless you squint at what I'm saying. Or all you're noting is my line on the trust that should follow our declaration of faith, love and reliance.

In fact, I've consistently argued that faith is the most rational approach to establishing a meaningful, productive and enjoyable context for life. I reject Pascal's short sightedness and set out our observable historic natures and how theism in general and Christ in particular can meet them in a way no alternative will. That's a far cry from asserting a disconnect between logic and faith, let alone a hostility.

You are assuming that they are all experiencing one particular thing, God, specifically the Christian God.

No, I think those whom God indwells experience God. Else, I side with Lewis and Tolkien and ascribe the larger response to a common urge toward the good and echoes of the "true Christian myth" resonating through the history of man.

But that doesn’t follows from the evidence but is rather something imposed upon it. The object of these personal experiences are as varied as the experiences themselves. From angels, to animals, to aliens, to the self, to gods, to dead relatives, to some fundamental fact of reality, to nothingness, etc; the object of these experiences and what people take them to mean do not converge on anything when considered as a whole.

I think you're mistaken. I think having inflicted upon yourself a nihilistic, materialistic world view you come to that part, but I don't accept that it's verifiably or reasonably so.

Rather they are contradictory and basically cancel each other out. So saying that they are all experiencing a God and in particular the Christian God doesn’t follows from the evidence and is quite arbitrary.

I don't think you can demonstrate that, but I think you'll accept it anyway and that it won't ultimately provide you with the happiness that should be yours. Else, supra.

Absent an objective method for verifying these experiences, this line of evidence remains very poor and unreliable.

Then you've tricked yourself by demanding what we've already seen isn't possible, regardless of the underlying truth or falsity. It's like suggesting you won't believe in boiled pasta until I produce some using a tennis racket.

It is essentially no different than the claim made by many theists that they believe God is real because they feel his presence in them.

I absolutely believe that to experience God in relation is a necessary part of a Christian walk and that anyone missing that is missing the only sort of proof that either can or will suffice for a man within the frame of his life. And that to miss that is to invite failure.

Rather, we are back to a lack of unambiguous demonstrable evidence for the existence of God

And the standard you can't cobble, that no one can, to establish what that would or should be.

and the supernatural in general and the Christian God in particular. One of the main reasons why I am an atheist.

Where I'd say every single thing you use now as a case against faith was present in the world when you declared a more hopeful contextual choice and that the reason you suffered dissonance then and not the more (to my mind) inescapable dissonance now?

:cheers:

 

[Repentance]

Hello Evo..

One more question: Have you read the Quran and if so what did you think about it?

Alas, I think what you find wrong in Christianity - is wrong with all religion and creeds.

 

[Repentance]

What if in your own calculations you forgot something and Allah is the true God? Or ...

Evo

Just saying

Allah is the same God: the God of Abraham :S

Its just a different name for the same God.

 

[freelight]

spiraling towards the Heart.....

spiraling towards the Heart.....

As some friends and fellow TOLers have noticed, some of whom have sent me messages asking about it (thanks! ), and for others who have yet to notice but who knew what I previously believed: I no longer consider myself a Catholic nor a theist.

As to what lead to this change, it had been some time in the making, reaching a tipping point about a year and a half ago. But the short of it is that I don’t see the hand of an all loving, knowing and powerful God at work in the world or what is said to be his Church; rather, I see a God who does his hardest to remain hidden and everything unfolding in a way that one would expect if such a God was not active in the world or simply didn’t exist. I find myself in an universe in which no process attests to God's activity within it.

As my faith in God, the supernatural and the Catholic Church waned, I came to a point where I realised that I was not being honest with myself if I continued on that path. The lack of evidence for God and for the supernatural reality entailed by the beliefs I was holding by faith lead to an internal conflict that kept piling up and by the end I came to realise that I was holding on to the faith due to an emotional attachment to it and not because I still believed in it. But there was no integrity to be found in that setup and I got nothing but cognitive dissonance out of it; so I let go.

While I am an atheist now, I do not consider myself a strong/militant atheist, that is, I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Nor do I have a penchant for bashing God or religion. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence and this lack of evidence leads me to think the existence of God or the supernatural is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists. But as new evidence can always emerge which can change one’s mind, I do not adopt the strong/militant stance as some atheists do.

I wasn’t sure at first what to write for this OP, my original idea was to write a longer post detailing everything but I opted instead for not writing an essay and for leaving things a bit less formal and open, letting the thread unfold by itself and then ride along with it.

The above is condensed for the sake of brevity but I’d be willing to expand on it. So, yeah, I’d be open to discuss things and answer any questions you may have about this change. Hopefully it can be done in a friendly, conversational and respectful manner :cheers:


Evo

Hello Evo,

Thanks for sharing in honesty your current situation and perspective, as one courageous enough to confront and respond to whatever 'cognitive dissonance' you were experiencing, thus remaining 'true to yourself', as far as you can ascertain, determine and conclude with what information or knowledge you currently have to work with. To some it might be seen as a giving up on 'God', losing 'faith'. To others,....an act of intelligence or intellectual independence.

I myself am more flexible these days, while at heart a spiritualist of the more liberal Eclectic School, I still share certain skeptical, agnostic and even 'atheistic' tendencies (overtones) in some sharings, more in exploratory, objective inquiry-fashion as a 'creative-dialogue' venture since I can remain quite apart from such propositions recognizing it as pure speculation. So while in some places I seem to be a true devoted spiritualist (panentheist/mystic/neo-gnostic) as far as metaphysics, religious interest or worship is concerned( honoring the cosmic as a whole, the OverSoul of creation),....I can roll with the more cutting edge non-theist views, which hold to some concept of a primordial energy or 'Spirit-Consciousness'...although different terms may be used, its the same universal 'reality' at HEART. In this context, the heart of all reality/existence/consciousness...is ever what is 'be-ing' (actual) and 'be-coming'(potential). - Reality is what IS (in its stillness and movement), whether we contextualize, define or refer to it within a 'theist' or non-theistic' language. There is still Only Consciousness, which perceives or knows anything,....or nothing

I would assume that being intellectually honest in the venture of life, may bring us upon many different paths, and naturally so, if we are open and willing to allow Life to carry us along towards the reality of itself, wherever it may lead us. Being 'true' must include such honesty, and a willingness to change our point of view, at the dawning of new discoveries, accepting that truth will ultimately reveal itself in whatever life-circumstance or situation.

In the journey of space-time, where the illusion of movement continues,....the reality that is unchanging in its primal essence which remains in the midst of all changes....ever abides (call it what you will). Only the forms, images, sensations and perceptions continually change, as a play of creation, and this is apparently what life is about beyond whatever esoteric meaning we give it. The potential and joy of being, is intrinsic.

~*~*~

Have you given any eastern/esoteric philosophies or traditions any thought, or have they any attraction for you? (Hinduism/Buddhism/Taoism/Jainism/Sikhism, etc.) Or more liberal New Thought/New Age, Holistic, Consciousness-expanding paths? I recall your earlier interest in Gnosticism, which is an area we've had in common, before you joined the Catholic-orthodox ranks as one of its devoted expositors.

We recognize there are non-theistic ('theistic' here meant in the traditional-orthodox sense) spiritual paths, that do not necessarily hold to an anthropomorphic god-concept, but a more impersonal Deity-presence or Spirit-energy, so dispense within any 'trappings' in that direction. I gather you would admit that no matter what belief or non-belief one has, the reality of 'life' and 'consciousness' is 'self-evident', as 'being' (whatever it is,......it is). In this sense I usually recommend for seekers the Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) path and its modern varieties as a basic inquiry into ones own true nature, as a most fundamental starting point See here and other previous posts of mine, if interested,...even if you've heard it all before :angel:





pj

 

[zippy2006]

Supposing that reason is unable to settle this matter (I think it isn’t),

I agree. I was just trying to clear up a point of confusion. I agree with most of what you say here, except a few lines:

As far as neutrality being impossible goes, I think the agnostic would disagree on that point. Also when it comes to some questions, saying “I don’t know” can be a perfectly acceptable position to take.

It is very much the same way that one is rationally justified in lacking belief in the existence of invisible unicorns, leprechaun, bigfoot, the loch ness monster or any sort of deity the theist, depending on which religion he holds, also feels rationally justified lacking belief in.

It should also be noted to avoid confusion that, as I said in the OP, weak atheism (as opposed to strong atheism) doesn’t makes a positive claim but is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not a truth claim but more a rejection of theistic truth claims due to finding such claims unconvincing.

The problem is that, in a certain way, suspension of belief and neutrality isn't possible with respect to God. This is because God is not an object in the world. He just isn't like unicorns, leprechauns, etc. He is something incomprehensible, encompassing, and largely known by the via negativa. Belief in God does not map to propositional belief in the way you claim. Belief or non-belief influence our entire outlook on life. There is perhaps no belief more foundational to one's worldview, no belief more pervasive. It goes without saying that there may be some self-proclaimed atheists who believe in God more than some self-proclaimed theists.

The importance of the simple proposition "I believe God exists" is limited, and this is precisely because of our limited understanding of "God" and the entailments and ripples such a belief creates. Along the same lines, the significance and meaning of belief is very different for the 16 year-old convert and the 80 year-old Rabbi.

:e4e:

 

[OCTOBER23]

GOD works behind the scenes using HUMANS to do His bidding

just like SATAN does too.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times

the things that are not yet done, saying,

My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[OCTOBER23]

Repentance said,


Allah is the same God: the God of Abraham

Its just a different name for the same God.
-----------------------------------------------------

YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG.
--------------------------------

JESUS WAS THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

THEREFORE JESUS IS THE GOD THAT YOU MUST BELIEVE IN AND MUST FOLLOW NOW.
-----------------------------------------------=======================-------

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,

I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:

and he saw it, and was glad.

 

[freelight]

dressing 'God'.......

dressing 'God'.......

Repentance said,


Allah is the same God: the God of Abraham

Its just a different name for the same God.
-----------------------------------------------------

YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG.
--------------------------------

JESUS WAS THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

THEREFORE JESUS IS THE GOD THAT YOU MUST BELIEVE IN AND MUST FOLLOW NOW.
-----------------------------------------------=======================-------

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,

I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:

and he saw it, and was glad.

Well, we're back to the ole schoolyard contest of "my god is better or more 'real' than your god"...when in reality, there is only One 'God' by true definition, being the One Universal Creator . By 'Creator' we mean the Creative Intelligence or Life-Principle (the Mind or Oversoul of the cosmos) that permeates The Creation (no matter what you 'name' or 'label' it). All there is, is THAT. 'That' is absolute reality, while all else are but permutations, modifications, configurations of that One Light Source. That same indivisible essence is the reality of what we are, in nature....as pure consciousness.

While religionists can quibble all day over whether the 'God' goes by the name of 'Yahweh' or 'Allah' (and many other names we could add), 'God' is an already existing eternal/infinite Being, whose essence is beyond conception,...which is what the true definition of 'God' is anyways, before we 'personalize' Him/Her or objectify the Deity somehow. So 'God' as absolute reality, is already always Being...no matter how you arrange the 'alphabet' soup, since He is the 'Creative Intelligence' behind all language and relationships. The 'heart' and 'soul' of 'God' remain as a universal reality, no matter how you ad-dress it.

Protest if you will, for even the claim that 'Jesus is God', is but 'figurative', but we've addressed that elsewhere





pj

 

[Zeke]

As some friends and fellow TOLers have noticed, some of whom have sent me messages asking about it (thanks! ), and for others who have yet to notice but who knew what I previously believed: I no longer consider myself a Catholic nor a theist.

As to what lead to this change, it had been some time in the making, reaching a tipping point about a year and a half ago. But the short of it is that I don’t see the hand of an all loving, knowing and powerful God at work in the world or what is said to be his Church; rather, I see a God who does his hardest to remain hidden and everything unfolding in a way that one would expect if such a God was not active in the world or simply didn’t exist. I find myself in an universe in which no process attests to God's activity within it.

As my faith in God, the supernatural and the Catholic Church waned, I came to a point where I realised that I was not being honest with myself if I continued on that path. The lack of evidence for God and for the supernatural reality entailed by the beliefs I was holding by faith lead to an internal conflict that kept piling up and by the end I came to realise that I was holding on to the faith due to an emotional attachment to it and not because I still believed in it. But there was no integrity to be found in that setup and I got nothing but cognitive dissonance out of it; so I let go.

While I am an atheist now, I do not consider myself a strong/militant atheist, that is, I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Nor do I have a penchant for bashing God or religion. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence and this lack of evidence leads me to think the existence of God or the supernatural is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists. But as new evidence can always emerge which can change one’s mind, I do not adopt the strong/militant stance as some atheists do.

I wasn’t sure at first what to write for this OP, my original idea was to write a longer post detailing everything but I opted instead for not writing an essay and for leaving things a bit less formal and open, letting the thread unfold by itself and then ride along with it.

The above is condensed for the sake of brevity but I’d be willing to expand on it. So, yeah, I’d be open to discuss things and answer any questions you may have about this change. Hopefully it can be done in a friendly, conversational and respectful manner :cheers:


Evo

Just another window in the house of the Matrix to gaze out from, plus the intellectual path you took was just as egocentric has the blow hard at the local bar, neither can free the soul from the system of paper gods and label prone clicks. Atheist, Theist, Creationist, Evolutionist etc............are part of the same duality game that keeps the ego proud and strong. One fact that you won't have to ponder if it is real or not, is that you're legal name is the key that imprisoned you're soul, and just try to not exist in this system without it, and you will realize you do have faith after all.

 

[zippy2006]

This is a good, clear post, Evo. I agree with very much of what you say with respect to TH's understanding. :up:

It doesn’t seems to matter to you whether this context which you are proposing is true or not. I'm sorry you thought that. I can't imagine anything more important. Having lived more of my life as an atheist than as a member of the Body I'll say without any reservation that if I'm wrong, if the relation I believe I experience is the byproduct of delusion and I wink out into nothingness then I haven't lost a thing.

I know you object to the word fideism... No. I think the word has meaning and can be applied to some thinking. But that meaning isn't appropriate as a description of my position. I lean on Stanford for my gleaning of the particular and find in my approach nothing like the proposition that faith is antagonistic to or independent of reason. There's no real reason that can rise to the empirical level of proof, no objective way to decide the issue. Why make the worse choice when it's no more objectively true?

Here is something that I think TH has right:

I absolutely believe that to experience God in relation is a necessary part of a Christian walk... And that to miss that is to invite failure.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is a good, clear post, Evo. I agree with very much of what you say with respect to TH's understanding. :up:

Here is something that I think TH has right:

You literally can't help yourself, can you...

Okay, for people watching zip dredge up. I can say that I think the reality of God is of the utmost importance, while still holding that if I'm mistaken my life loses nothing of value. There's literally no contradiction in it.

Zip is positioning these quotes as though to rebut one thing with another that really doesn't.

As to the next bit, there is a vast difference between the impossibility of empiricism to settle the question and saying that faith is hostile to or independent of reason.

He's right on the last bit though. I am right there, as well.

 

[zippy2006]

Clarifications

Clarifications

I can say that I think the reality of God is of the utmost importance, while still holding that if I'm mistaken my life loses nothing of value. There's literally no contradiction in it.

Those are interesting claims in themselves, but to make my point even clearer, you seem to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints:

1. I can't imagine anything more important than whether my context (i.e. belief in God's existence) is true or false. 2. If I am mistaken and my context is false then I haven't lost a thing. My life loses nothing of value.

As to the next bit, there is a vast difference between the impossibility of empiricism to settle the question and saying that faith is hostile to or independent of reason.

Empiricism was an accidental part of it. Again:

3. My approach is nothing like the proposition that faith is independent of reason. (fideism) 4. There is no objective way to decide whether God exists. The atheist's position is no more (or less) objectively true than the theist's.

(Of course, specific quotes were provided here.)

It's just not clear that the problems Evo has pointed out can be so readily dismissed.

By the way, a particularly interesting point Evo made is this:

You can only affirm that there is no rational way to determine this if, as you do, you refuse to clearly flesh out and define this context (like not defining things beyond the finite vs the infinite) thus leaving this context ambiguous and untestable/unfalsifiable in principle.

The claim that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God is remarkably strong. It would seem to require some hefty arguments at the least.

 

[Town Heretic]

1. I can't imagine anything more important than whether my context (i.e. belief in God's existence) is true or false.
2. If I am mistaken and my context is false then I haven't lost a thing. My life loses nothing of value.

Those are interesting claims in themselves, but to make my point even clearer, you seem to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints:

And there's still nothing contradictory in those two remarks. I don't think anything is more important. I'm also settled on the issue. The second posit goes to the potential for anyone to be wrong. And if I'm wrong I literally lose nothing of value in the experience of my faith, what it demands of me and what I gain from it.


1. My approach is nothing like the proposition that faith is independent of reason. (fideism)
2. There is no objective way to decide whether God exists.

Same answer. There's no contradiction between those two statements. I believe causality infers creation and a creator. I believe there are strong logical arguments in support of faith. I believe you can make a strong argument within the framework of faith for the superiority and uniqueness of the Christian framework. But there is neither standard nor means of objectively settling the fundamental question. It would be irrational and dishonest to declare the contrary.

And Evo tends to make interesting points after a reasonable and amiable fashion. It's one reason discussing and arguing a point with him is worthwhile, even if neither of us budges.

The claim that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God is remarkably strong. It would seem to require some hefty arguments at the least.

I think the strongest argument is found in a straight forward proposition that I've leveled at many an anti theist without ever having an answer given: what standard, if met, would objectively settle the question. It's the natural response to anyone demanding proof. The rest is a lot of verbiage about scale and limitations and how one demonstrates any number of things we can infer but fail to grasp outside of the general declaration on their points.

 

[zippy2006]

And there's still nothing contradictory in those two remarks.

Instead of trying to pin down the equivocation, I will just note the issue. Basically you are saying that in losing the thing that is most important to you, you lose nothing. Is that not a strange thing to say? Qualifying "nothing" after the fact with "nothing experientially" is still quite strange, since you still lose the thing you think most important.

1. My approach is nothing like the proposition that faith is independent of reason. (fideism)
2. There is no objective way to decide whether God exists.

Same answer. There's no contradiction between those two statements.

I will just note the contradictory: if faith isn't independent of reason, then it must be dependent on or related to reason. Or: if reason does not play no role in determining the existence of God, then it must play some role. So what role do you think it plays? And how does the existence of this role square with the lack of objective truth in the matter?

The claim that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God is remarkably strong. It would seem to require some hefty arguments at the least.

I think the strongest argument is found in a straight forward proposition that I've leveled at many an anti theist without ever having an answer given: what standard, if met, would objectively settle the question. It's the natural response to anyone demanding proof. The rest is a lot of verbiage about scale and limitations and how one demonstrates any number of things we can infer but fail to grasp outside of the general declaration on their points.

That's how you answered Evo, but your answer doesn't speak to the point at issue. The fact that some atheists can't meet your challenge doesn't entail the idea that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God. As a matter of fact lots of--if not most--theists and atheists agree that there is a rational way to determine the existence of God.

As Evo noted, if your argument is more than merely negative, it would seek to define "God," and the "rational way" alluded to, and then explain why God isn't accessible to this rational way.

...anyway, take the last word. I altered a shorter reply and don't want to change the nature of Evo's thread.

 

[journey]

Psalms 19:1-6 KJV The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

 

[Town Heretic]

Instead of trying to pin down the equivocation, I will just note the issue. Basically you are saying that in losing the thing that is most important to you, you lose nothing.

No, I'm saying that I'm settled on the point of its truth, but were it false I'd lose nothing for going to my grave certain but mistaken.

if faith isn't independent of reason, then it must be dependent on or related to reason.

Faith isn't dependent on reason, but it is reasonable. It is not at any point unreasonable or at odds with reason. More, it is supportable as a proposition, by that very faculty. But there is nothing in reason that can settle the point. Again, no contradiction is present in my two statements.

Or: if reason does not play no role in determining the existence of God,

It has to. We're thinking beings. Even confronted with the presence of God a man must still recognize and respond to that. But that experience and response cannot be demonstrated to be more than a subjective experience and subjective response.

That's how you answered Evo, but your answer doesn't speak to the point at issue. The fact that some atheists can't meet your challenge doesn't entail the idea that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God.

I've used it for years and to a variety of very intelligent atheists and, more importantly, anti theists without getting an answer. Now that's anecdotal, but I think powerfully so with so much investment on the other side of it, especially among anti theists. And it's not a thing I've ever been able to cobble, which is how I came to it in the first place. So nothing in my experience, in my challenge or in my consideration moves me to another point.

As a matter of fact lots of--if not most--theists and atheists agree that there is a rational way to determine the existence of God.

So that's why it's settled then. lain: Or, that's (their belief/agreement, assuming that's the case) neither here nor there unless it can be set out as a standard to be met.

...anyway, take the last word. I altered a shorter reply and don't want to change the nature of Evo's thread.

I think that's admirable enough.

:e4e: