(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote: Let's question the assumptions you make here then. You assume that:

• there is no evidence for God or the afterlife
  
• hypotheses not supported by evidence should be modified or discarded
  

Why should I grant these assumptions?

If you don't share these assumptions, how come? Can you present evidence for the former? Do you really believe we should hold onto unsupported hypotheses?

(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote: (It would be helpful if you could explain exactly what you mean by 'evidence' according to your epistemology for the sake of clarity.)

I will admit right here that I am much more scientifically-minded than philosophically-minded. Contemplating ideas and issues has its own merit, but when questioning whether something actually objectively exists or not, I look for observable scientific evidence that can theoretically be tested by anyone, if they went out and did the research and collected data.

Things like intuition, or a personal feeling or sense of meaning, or one's personal interpretation of a holy book, I would not consider evidence. It is easy enough for a person to convince themselves that something exists based on these things, but much harder to convince anyone else.

(February 6, 2011 at 7:59 pm)OnlyNatural Wrote:

(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote: You assume that:

• there is no evidence for God or the afterlife
  
• hypotheses not supported by evidence should be modified or discarded
  

Why should I grant these assumptions?

If you don't share these assumptions, how come? Can you present evidence for the former? Do you really believe we should hold onto unsupported hypotheses?

Regarding the first assumption, I would have to know what you consider constitutes "evidence" before I could answer that. Depending on your definition, I may or may not be able to present evidence.

Regarding the second, I am challenging your assumption that evidence is necessary in order to hold onto a hypothesis.

Quote:

(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote: (It would be helpful if you could explain exactly what you mean by 'evidence' according to your epistemology for the sake of clarity.)

I will admit right here that I am much more scientifically-minded than philosophically-minded. Contemplating ideas and issues has its own merit, but when questioning whether something actually objectively exists or not, I look for observable scientific evidence that can theoretically be tested by anyone, if they went out and did the research and collected data.

Things like intuition, or a personal feeling or sense of meaning, or one's personal interpretation of a holy book, I would not consider evidence. It is easy enough for a person to convince themselves that something exists based on these things, but much harder to convince anyone else.

If it is observable scientific evidence you are looking for, then I'm afraid you rule out the possibility of evidence for God, since God is not a part of the physical world and thus can not be subject to the scientific method by definition. If you only allow for observable scientific evidence full stop, and you require such evidence for any truth claim, then your position becomes self-defeating (since it is impossible to provide observable scientific evidence for all the non-scientific claims you have made - including those regarding the necessity of such evidence!).

(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote:

(February 5, 2011 at 9:32 pm)annatar Wrote: Let me help you then.. If there is a god and he did send a book written 2000 years ago, by fallible man as I recall, and that book has lots of funny verses, stories like fairytales and lots of contradictions, and there is no evidence to prove god in the bible exists, no more than Zeus.

That is the conclusion that your thinking has led you to, but I see no reason to take your thinking as normative based on the understanding of interpretation you have thus far demonstrated. You disagree with my interpretation of the verses which you claimed could only imply conscious eternal torment, so exhibit some critical thinking by showing that your interpretation is the correct one.

Because I see no reason to take bible as illiteral. And only reason you do that is because it clearly contradicts with logic. You see the same verses that makes me not to believe and you don't like them either. But, instead of rejecting the bible you are making excuses for them. Is there a passage in bible which says "thou shall not take bible literal!" ?
So if you think properly, you will conclude that there is nothing to make you believe in the god of the bible is real and all that shit is created by man to control people.. Thus, you can't believe in god of the bible if you think...
And for the hell thing:
Facts:
Matthew 25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life
What does it say? Eternal punishment.
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom
everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
What does it say? He will throw us into some place hot and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..

Conclusion:
We are going to be punished eternally and this punishment will be in a hot place...

(February 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm)Matthew Wrote: for the former? Do you really believe we should hold onto unsupported hypotheses
Regarding the first assumption, I would have to know what you consider constitutes "evidence" before I could answer that. Depending on your definition, I may or may not be able to present evidence.
Regarding the second, I am challenging your assumption that evidence is necessary in order to hold onto a hypothesis.

(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote: If it is observable scientific evidence you are looking for, then I'm afraid you rule out the possibility of evidence for God, since God is not a part of the physical world and thus can not be subject to thescientific method by definition. If you only allow for observable scientific evidence full stop, and you require such evidence for any truth claim, then your position becomes self-defeating (since it is impossible to provide observable scientific evidence for all the non-scientific claims you have made - including those regarding the necessity of such evidence!).

Come on lets stop tip-toeing around the issue. When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence. I think any dictionary will give a reasonable definition of evidence, it hardly needs defining. Failing that we have deductive logic, which unfortunatley isn't very reliable, as it relies on each premise being sound, which is often a source of debate.

The problem with this god argument is that whilst theists have constructed this undetectable god, it clearly must interact with our world through miracles, prayers, sending messengers etc. Therefore the physical effects of this god ARE detectable by science. And guess what, whenever they are exposed to scientific methods they fail the test and are exposed as confirmation bias, wish thinking, cons, frauds or in the case of prayer just disproved. It is equally the claim of the tailors in the 'Emperors new clothes' that there is a fine garment, just an invisible, ineffable etc. I struggle to see the difference between these arguments for a god and the arguments the tailors made in that fictional story.

(February 7, 2011 at 9:05 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

(February 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm)Matthew Wrote: Regarding the first assumption, I would have to know what you consider constitutes "evidence" before I could answer that. Depending on your definition, I may or may not be able to present evidence.

Regarding the second, I am challenging your assumption that evidence is necessary in order to hold onto a hypothesis.

Why don't you just tell us what constitutes evidence for you. Is there a different kind of 'evidence' out there that's equally valid?

(February 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm)Matthew Wrote: God is not a part of the physical world and thus can not be subject to the scientific method by definition.

So tell us, how can you possibly know that God exists, then? You are part of the physical world, and so is your brain, so if God is interacting with you in some way or another (or interacting with our bodies or 'souls' after death, more to the point of this thread), I fail to see why the interaction can't be measured. I suppose you could say that the 'soul' is also non-physical and immeasurable, like God, but then you'd have to explain how such a thing could exist within a physical and measurable human body and brain, yet still be separate from the natural world.

Quote:This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

However, there is no evidence which supports your particular superstition either, yet you accept that and even try to explain it to others. This makes you something of a hypocrite.

(February 6, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Ervin Wrote: Don't mean to be lazy but if you go about 7 posts back I believe that there is your answer as to why I have faith.

I can't find any answer.

The concept of the afterlife is based on the human ego. We as a species are special and we have souls which will go on to live for eternity after we die. What we have deemed the soul, however, is just a way for us to label our consciousness and the complex workings of the brain. I believe we are not different from any other animial and the soul is just an illusion that ends with death.

(February 7, 2011 at 11:42 am)OnlyNatural Wrote: Why don't you just tell us what constitutes evidence for you.

Because we are critically thinking about your assumptions and definitions, and to give my view would be irrelevant.

Quote:So tell us, how can you possibly know that God exists, then?

Well, according to Christian epistemology, all people are given immediate knowledge of God by way of His self-revelation through what He has created (including ourselves).

---

(February 7, 2011 at 11:57 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

However, there is no evidence which supports your particular superstition either, yet you accept that and even try to explain it to others. This makes you something of a hypocrite.

I am giving an internal critique of OnlyNatural's assumption that evidence is necessary in order to demonstrate that it is self-refuting. I, personally, do not accept OnlyNatural's assumption that evidence is necessary - so even if there were no evidence of God as you claim, it would not be hypocritical of me to accept His existence. It would only be hypocritical if accepting God's existence violated some epistemological principle which I hold myself and others to.