Three Powerful Books

[_mentalgymnast]

What evidence is permissible?

Regards,
MG

Either of us ought to be free to present anything we view as evidence for our holding the view of probability regarding the justification for the statement being discussed. The point being to discuss it.

I’m at a distinct disadvantage. All except for one involve/invoke ‘God’. I don’t see where that gap can be bridged through empirical evidence. It’s a non-starter. And the scriptures are a non-starter also. All of the purples are insurmountable at the outset from my end.

I'd like you to pick one of the statements where we disagreed by at least two steps or more for discussion.

If we were discussing politics or a number of other topics I’d give it a go. I think ‘God’ is going to get in the way.

Sorry God.

I’m starting off with a very sizable handicap. I’d go as far as to say that you’ve set me up for a fall.

Physical vs. Metaphysical? Secular vs. Spiritual? I doubt you’d want to be on the receiving end where everything you have to use as evidence is pretty much intangible.

Plus, you’re smarter than me.

I’ll let you take them ‘win’ here, but that doesn’t mean I think you have the better arguments. It’s that my arguments would invoke God. And He’s sort of, what shall we say, invisible.

I'll also say your answer to 10 is the one that surprised me.

I’ve read enough Ehrman and Jesus Seminar to read the New Testament with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

I have no doubt that you remember much of what I’ve said during our discussions. That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that I know very little about you and what really makes you tick. Except for the fact that you don’t believe in Mormonism. Beyond that, you could be a gangster as far as I know.

Same with others here. I know very little about their personal beliefs or sense of morality, etc. Hopefully there aren’t any gangsters here wiling away their time talking about Mormonism.

But how would I really know?

You know I’m not a gangster. I’ve shared too much. But are you? Who knows?

By the way, lest Lemmie come in and project the idea that I’m calling everyone a gangster, let me be clear, I’m speaking tongue in cheek.

She seems to be a bit humor deprived now and then.

Regards,
Mg

I suspect you don't think that since you have seen myself and others argue against behaviors like manipulating people to get them to have sex with you. I doubt gangsters would have a problem with that.

[_honorentheos]

Hi MG

All except for one involve/invoke ‘God’. I don’t see where that gap can be bridged through empirical evidence. It’s a non-starter. And the scriptures are a non-starter also. All of the purples are insurmountable at the outset from my end.

If we were discussing politics or a number of other topics I’d give it a go. I think ‘God’ is going to get in the way.
...

I’m starting off with a very sizable handicap. I’d go as far as to say that you’ve set me up for a fall.

Physical vs. Metaphysical? Secular vs. Spiritual? I doubt you’d want to be on the receiving end where everything you have to use as evidence is pretty much intangible.

I don't think it was trying to set you up for a fall. If your subjective experiences or spiritual experiences are the evidence, I think you should put that forward.

The point was to explore how evidence might serve to influence a person's understanding of truth. I won't limit that to evidence of a particular kind for the sake of discussion. That would be wrong. We all are influenced a great deal by subjective feelings, strongly held but vaguely supported beliefs, etc. I'm not trying to win anything here. Just explore for the sake of learning.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG

All except for one involve/invoke ‘God’. I don’t see where that gap can be bridged through empirical evidence. It’s a non-starter. And the scriptures are a non-starter also. All of the purples are insurmountable at the outset from my end.

If we were discussing politics or a number of other topics I’d give it a go. I think ‘God’ is going to get in the way.
...

I’m starting off with a very sizable handicap. I’d go as far as to say that you’ve set me up for a fall.

Physical vs. Metaphysical? Secular vs. Spiritual? I doubt you’d want to be on the receiving end where everything you have to use as evidence is pretty much intangible.

I don't think it was trying to set you up for a fall. If your subjective experiences or spiritual experiences are the evidence, I think you should put that forward.

That gave me a bit of a chuckle when I read it.

The point was to explore how evidence might serve to influence a person's understanding of truth.

Refer to my previous post.

I won't limit that to evidence of a particular kind for the sake of discussion.

The limitation IS the evidence for those things which by their very nature are ‘spiritual’. Many folks realize, including me, that so called spiritual experiences/learning can be seen from many different perspectives. We wouldn’t get past square one. Our perspectives don’t align. We would simply be talking past each other. I think I can understand where you’re coming from and the evidence you would provide, but I don’t think it goes both ways. You and I both know that we can’t prove the existence of a creator God through strictly empirical means. If the Goldilocks Effect proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the theory of Intelligent Design we would all be believers, right? At least in some kind of variation of a control mechanism/being.

We all are influenced a great deal by subjective feelings, strongly held but vaguely supported beliefs, etc. I'm not trying to win anything here. Just explore for the sake of learning.

I think it would lead nowhere. And by ‘spiritual’ I’m not actually referring to subjective feelings, per se. If we were to do that, well, you know where that would go. Subjectiveville. There’s not a whole lot that can be accomplished going there. It’s too diverse. We’d never be able to settle there.

If we can’t agree on a creator God at the outset there is really nowhere in purple to go.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

And by ‘spiritual’ I’m not actually referring to subjective feelings, per se. If we were to do that, well, you know where that would go. Subjectiveville. There’s not a whole lot that can be accomplished going there. It’s too diverse. We’d never be able to settle there.

So let's step back and figure out why we ended up here if you believe it's not due to already being established in Subjectiveville?

How is the issue of assuming there is a creator god different from debating an issue based on subjective experience or a priori belief while acknowledging they both land us in the same place?

[Guest]

If we can’t agree on a creator God at the outset there is really nowhere in purple to go.

I would be open to there being a creator god if the evidence warranted that belief. And I'm open to examining that evidence. We've had one round of that in this thread related to the fine tuning argument.

While we would agree it is evidence in support of God belief, the other explanations also account well for the evidence. If the results we observe are conditions required for there to be an observer, that in no way demands that the conditions be set up to favor observers. Only that observers such as conscious human beings can only exist in universes where conditions occur that allow for their existence. One has to assert people are special, and the cosmos favors people to try and form a compulsory argument out of fine tuning. Yet there's no way to do so without first demanding we accept that condition. I get that it speaks to people uncomfortable with their own insignificance and the indifference we observed is otherwise exhibited by the universe towards humankind. But that's just feeding a subjective response to ones existence being temporary.

Based on all of that, I see no reason to weigh the existence of God as probable. I leave it at possible, and am quite agnostic about that, if the definition of God is left broad enough. But it's not probable.

And this is where I think the issue lies. It's not with the type of evidence but the weight it's given. There are multiple purple statements that you assigned a 90 or 100 where the evidence is...I'd say it doesn't justify that degree of certitude at a minimum. I don't know how a person could argue otherwise.

[_honorentheos]

I doubt you’d want to be on the receiving end where everything you have to use as evidence is pretty much intangible.

If you'd like to propose a statement you believe I'd assign a high probability to that fits this criteria I'll give it a shot.

I mean, part of this discussion is regarding how to use evidence to discover truth in light of the fact we all carry biases, right? It's only fair of me to examine this condition in myself where it occurs.

[_Morley]

If we can’t agree on a creator God at the outset there is really nowhere in purple to go.

This ironic, because this God, as you define him, doesn't seem to be a creator God as much as he is a limited, bound, created God.

[_Themis]

I don't think it was trying to set you up for a fall. If your subjective experiences or spiritual experiences are the evidence, I think you should put that forward.

MG is just looking to retreat again. It's an admission of lack of good evidence to support Joseph's claims as true, while also avoiding great evidence against. It's the same story different day. He likes to link what he thinks are good sources of information, but shows he lacks understanding when pressed to articulate the arguments himself.

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't think it was trying to set you up for a fall. If your subjective experiences or spiritual experiences are the evidence, I think you should put that forward.

MG is just looking to retreat again. It's an admission of lack of good evidence to support Joseph's claims as true, while also avoiding great evidence against. It's the same story different day. He likes to link what he thinks are good sources of information, but shows he lacks understanding when pressed to articulate the arguments himself.

Hi Themis, you really don’t get it and yet you’re positive that you do. Not sure where to tango with you from here. I was up front and as honest as I could be with Honor and explained the position/predicament I see ourselves to be in...and now you’re calling me ‘chicken’. Further discussion on the ‘purple’ items in Honor’s questionnaire, by default, would not go anywhere. We’d end up pretty much where we started.

Arguments for a creator God can only go so far. Don’t you get that? You’re asking a believer/believers to do the impossible. Especially where it is rather obvious that God is not going to reveal Himself on Fox News or CNN.

You’re taking a cheap shot. I’m not giving up. It’s simply that there’s nowhere to go. We’re in a cul-de-sac of sorts.

And you don’t have a damn thing to offer besides criticism. Which I believe to be unwarranted.

Nuff’ said.

Regards,
MG