Meeting with Bishop: Faith is a Choice

[_Hoops]

Hoops, you either misunderstand the nature of evidence or are just stuck in an elementary school state of argumentation.

Of course. If only, if only.

You've admitted evidence has been presented (the blue - wavelength matters ARE evidence of something) even if you argue there is a problem with this evidence. It's not sufficient to claim that just because someone perceives blue or measures a wave that it's not evidence of some real event.

Which I have not done.

You can claim the person is being deceived by the evidence into seeing/measuring something that is in fact not real.

I'm not even going that far. As a Christian, that would not be my position.

Or you can claim some other reality exists that is missed by this evidence.

Not my position either.

But to claim there is "no evidence" presented is just plain ignorant.

Of course.

You don't have to agree with the evidence. But to ignore it is dishonest. Is this the reality we should be more aware of? That you are dishonest? Hmmm.

The evidence has to support one's position on the question. I suppose you could give me evidence that Kentucky is the best basketball team in the country, and that still has nothing to do with the question on the table. Yes, it's evidence of something, it's just evidence that addresses the question. I understand your problem. Were you to admit that there is no evidence (which there is not), then you're really left with nothing. But that's not my problem.

So if you are sincere in what you said above you need to demonstrate your better way of accessing reality.

Actually, no I don't. My only question, and the only thing to which I have to address, is your contention that your five senses tell you anything at all about reality. You have no evidence that it does.

[_Hoops]

Hoops, you either misunderstand the nature of evidence or are just stuck in an elementary school state of argumentation.

Of course. If only, if only.

You've admitted evidence has been presented (the blue - wavelength matters ARE evidence of something) even if you argue there is a problem with this evidence. It's not sufficient to claim that just because someone perceives blue or measures a wave that it's not evidence of some real event.

Which I have not done.

You can claim the person is being deceived by the evidence into seeing/measuring something that is in fact not real.

I'm not even going that far. As a Christian, that would not be my position.

Or you can claim some other reality exists that is missed by this evidence.

Not my position either.

But to claim there is "no evidence" presented is just plain ignorant.

Of course.

You don't have to agree with the evidence. But to ignore it is dishonest. Is this the reality we should be more aware of? That you are dishonest? Hmmm.

The evidence has to support one's position on the question. I suppose you could give me evidence that Kentucky is the best basketball team in the country, and that still has nothing to do with the question on the table. Yes, it's evidence of something, it's just not evidence that addresses the question. I understand your problem. Were you to admit that there is no evidence (which there is not), then you're really left with nothing. But that's not my problem.

So if you are sincere in what you said above you need to demonstrate your better way of accessing reality.

Actually, no I don't. My only question, and the only thing to which I have to address, is your contention that your five senses tell you anything at all about reality. You have no evidence that it does.

[_honorentheos]

Fair enough.

So let's say your wife decides she'd rather spend time with a man who is less concerned about denying that one's senses tell them anything of value about reality and begins an affair.

Since you have no access into her state of being or mind, as far as you know everything that happened between her and this other man involved touching, seeing, smelling, tasting, and hearing.

Does it matter?

[_Hoops]

Fair enough.

So let's say your wife decides she'd rather spend time with a man who is less concerned about denying that one's senses tell them anything of value about reality and begins an affair.

Since you have no access into her state of being or mind, as far as you know everything that happened between her and this other man involved touching, seeing, smelling, tasting, and hearing.

Does it matter?

Of course if my spouse did this it would have consequences. But your hypothetical has little to do with the question at hand. Actually, it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

The end result of this discussion is this: it is illogical for one to appeal to their experience in order to claim there is no evidence for a god.

I'm not making the case for god.

I'm not saying experientialism is invalid as it may indeed be an accurate representation of reality. But it is illogical to claim so without evidence.

[_honorentheos]

The end result of this discussion is this: it is illogical for one to appeal to their experience in order to claim there is no evidence for a god.

Let me suggest another thought: So far as we have discussed in this thread, the tools we have with which we interact and take in input from the world around us are limited to the senses and their interpretation center - the brain.

I don't think anyone has made the case that the senses or one's brain is infallible. In fact, the central purpose of the scientific method is to "shore up" against the most common ways these fallible systems fail us. If you merely wish to argue that there are problems with this system, then you are in good company.

The challenge is that this does not resolve the question of alternative means of understanding reality. If we were to spread out before us all the information that religion used to claim priority over that has been effectively refuted or cast into considerable doubt by observation and advances in our secular understanding of the world, then it seems that whatever this alternative method might be it is losing the battle.

I know you don't wish to muddy the water here by bringing up your own alternative, but the fact is - even if sensory experience is fallible, if your alternative methods are so shameful you won't even present them for examination then all I can say is you're welcome to them.

[_Drifting]

it is illogical for one to appeal to their experience in order to claim there is no evidence for a god.

Hmmm...

Wouldn't a more accurate statement be:

"it is illogical to appeal to ones experience in order to claim there is evidence for a God"

Because logic and God don't mix.
To believe in God you have to discount the logical, the reasonable etc in favour of the miraculous and the supernatural.

[_Hoops]

Hmmm...

Wouldn't a more accurate statement be:

"it is illogical to appeal to ones experience in order to claim there is evidence for a God"

No, it wouldn't. I've shown that either claim is on equal footing.

Because logic and God don't mix.

Simply false. And I would counter that logic falls on the side of deism.

To believe in God you have to discount the logical, the reasonable etc in favour of the miraculous and the supernatural.

False. show me where you logically arrive to your conclusion, while considering what we've established in this thread.

I'll grant you that Christianity (and all the other formal religions, though I can't speak from any position of authority on those) requires God's intervention that you would call miracles and supernatural. But I don't see how deism requires that.

[Guest]

it is illogical for one to appeal to their experience in order to claim there is no evidence for a god.

Hmmm...

Wouldn't a more accurate statement be:

"it is illogical to appeal to ones experience in order to claim there is evidence for a God"

While your change to hoops statement would help hoops to maintain consistency, I do not agree that it does not constitute evidence at least to some degree. I find it inconsistent that hoops wants to not accept anything as evidence to external reality(at least he has not volunteered any, and I doubt he ever will) but yet write the above statement which he cannot logical accept as true if he also does not accept anything as evidence of external reality, since God would represent a reality external to himself.

Because logic and God don't mix.
To believe in God you have to discount the logical, the reasonable etc in favour of the miraculous and the supernatural.

Could you explain how it is illogical. I know many religious claims can be illogical, but God in the most general sense is an unfalsifiable claim. It also not verifiable either. This to me makes it not very compelling and no reason to believe it anymore then any other unfalsifiable claim made by other religions.

[_Drifting]

il·log·i·cal/iˈläjikəl/
Adjective:
Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning: "an illogical fear".
Synonyms:
inconsequent - irrational - illegitimate - unreasonable

It is illogical to believe in a worldwide flood that wiped out the entire human race except for 8 people and any animals they managed to stuff into a wooden boat.

However that is what God tells us literally happened.

It is illogical to believe that God cursed people with a dark skin because they were less valiant in the pre-existence.

However that is was God's one true Church tells us literally happened.

It is illogical to believe that God is both merciful as he tells us he is, and at the same time believe that he tricked Abraham into believing that he needed to sacrificially murder his son.

However that is what God tells us literally happened.

It is illogical to believe that the Bible is the word of God and that the things in it literally happened.

However the Bible is what God tells us is literally His word.

It is illogical to believe in God when millions of his children suffer abuse at the hands of adults.

However that is what God literally allows to happen.

[_Hoops]

While your change to hoops statement would help hoops to maintain consistency,

Balogna.

I do not agree that it does not constitute evidence at least to some degree. I find it inconsistent that hoops wants to not accept anything as evidence to external reality(at least he has not volunteered any, and I doubt he ever will) but yet write the above statement which he cannot logical accept as true if he also does not accept anything as evidence of external reality,

You'll have to explain this. Or are you banking on the fact that most people will accept your statement at face value simply because you wrote it.

since God would represent a reality external to himself.

Oh? I don't think so. God doesn't represent anything. God is the reality. Just as God is justice and mercy.