Guide on the Theistic argument

[JesuitArtiste]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."

I largely agree with you. But I think that the above should be re-phrased ,'I believe in this, this is the evidence that leads me to believe/supports what I believe, I have faith that what I believe is true.'

Personally I don't believe that you can say that there is no evidence or proof only that you do not accept that as evidence of proof for a certain idea. To say that person has no evidence of what they believe when they clearly believe that they have evidence of what they believe is absurd.

I agree though, it all comes down to faith.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by JesuitArtiste

To say that person has no evidence of what they believe when they clearly believe that they have evidence of what they believe is absurd.

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

[JesuitArtiste]

Originally Posted by Rust

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

Maybe I'm using the word evidence wrongly, but I'd always assumed that evidence was something that supported a conclusion. That's right isn't it? So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it? The conclusion that God created things is supported by the 'design' of the banana. Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.

In your court of law example there are two sides, both sides, if honest, will believe that they have the evidence that supports the conclusion that they are aiming for. What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion.

To be fair, reading back that might not be so clear.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by JesuitArtiste

So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it?

He would need to show:

1. That the banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating.

2. That the banana being perfectly shaped for the hand and eating supports the conclusion of a god existing.

----

Given the following function, f(x) = 3x + 5, is the fact that the y-intercept is odd evidence that f(x) is a linear function?

Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.

Yes. Believe. Claim. Have faith in. Neither of which show evidence, but merely belief.

What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion.

"They believe X. They believe they have evidence supporting X. They don't believe they have evidence for X." Am getting what you were trying to say correctly?

If so, I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting that wasn't absurd. BP said that people should say "I don't have evidence for X, but I have faith X is true". That doesn't mean the other people can't believe they have evidence.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.

Well operating under your definition of evidence (i.e. "evidence [is] something that support[s] a conclusion") then not necessarily.

If, to continue the mathematical example I'm using above, you can show that "having an odd y-intercept" is a necessary component of a linear function, you would arguably be supporting the conclusion that f(x) (as defined above) is a linear function. However, "having an odd y-intercept" is not a necessary component of a linear function.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by kurdt318

So, the true atheist would declare no position at all, on any such matter, until evidence is produced in favor of it. Then would this not make any claims of death being nothingness, God not existing, and the soul imaginary, unatheistic?

The only way a person can be unatheistic, it to be a theist.

Death could be any number of things, but until I see evidence of ANYTHING beyond death, I will have to assume death to be exactly what it appears to be:

Cessation.

It appears that when you die, the electrical impulses in your brain, stop. These impulses are what your brain uses to determine everything about you and everything around you. When this is gone, there appears to be nothing left of what makes you you, except a non-functioning sack of meat with eyes.

Saying death is nothingness, is then just a simplified concept based on the evidence we do have.

--------------------

As far as a God and a Soul go............

I don't flinch when walking down the road, thinking I might hit an invisible wall at any moment. I don't fear spontantous human combustion, and douse myself with water hourly. I don't fear a monster under my bed that might eat my feet when I get out of bed.

I don't see any reason to believe that any of these things exist, until I am presented with evidence to suggest otherwise. You don't either with the exception of God and Soul.

Which you believe in without any evidence.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by redzed

BP your argument hinges on a duality, a supernatural God.

There is no valid evidence for God, soul, or afterlife.

This is stone cold fact, and hinges on nothing except science, logic, reason, rationality, and fact.

----------

What you presented was not valid evidence for any of these three.

Showing we are all interconected on some level, is not evidence for a soul, god or afterlife. It is evidence we are all connected on some level, nothing more.

I am not sure why you present Parmenides. He presents no evidence for these things. If nothingness cannot exist, that doesnt mean a god, soul, or afterlife has to.

If every bit of matter changes forms, that does not mean the big three are real.

You read into evidence for something else, what you want to see, when you suggest otherwise. It simply is not there.

[redzed]

BP you've missed my point. I've already conceded on the whole proving god/soul etc, if that's not enough for you well ... whatever. Thing is you are dissing others on this basis even though you do not know what they have experienced, nor could you know. It's intensely personal and often applicable only to the one having the experience. This is where tolerance comes in.
This from The Secular Web:

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html

[Rust]

Yes. Compelling to that person who supposedly experience it. Not compelling to anyone else, thus not real evidence.

BP's point is that it's not evidence. If he could not possibly know what they experience, as you say, then that's an amazing argument for why it shouldn't be considered as evidence in the first place!

[redzed]

Stating the obvious or what Rust? The apparent intent behind the thread is to belittle believers faith? What do you and BP get out of this? Two possible reasons: It's an ego trip to win an argument, or; are you here trying to help and believe in the tough love approach? Other?

Edit: Thought of another. Insecurity or dissatisfaction with your own state of mind driving a search for meaning?

Edit 2: This from BP in AM's thread "Be Still"

It is a natural part of being a human, to want to be heard, to listen to others, to debate, make propostitions, toss an idea someones way and get some feedback, etc.

Is as good a reason as any! What I do not understand is the scorn, where's that coming from?

Edit 3: After reflection, it's like ..... you blokes are trying to add it all up until it makes sense. Some of your efforts are truly impressive, but how do you add up to infinity?

[Rust]

What scorn? You're reading to much to into my statement. You said BP missed the point and I merely showed you how he did not. The point wasn't missed simply because he cannot know what others have experience; that merely means that the experience of others isn't actual evidence, which was precisely his point!


I don't analyze your reasons for posting, so please spare me the third-rate internet psychology. You should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.