(Yesterday at 1:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Question: if your thinking is invincible, why is there any possible reason to discuss your beliefs with other people?

Boru

There's a very subtle point left unspoken as yet.  Conscience doesn't usually demand 100% certainty, except on questions of massive import (viz. Should I kill that person?) 

The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets with absolute clarity, that is, 100% certainty.

Not so with us regular Christians like me. In fact I self-published a theology book arguing that the New Testament, especially Paul, urges all Christians to achieve prophethood and considers them spiritually immature until then (e.g. 1Corinthians 14:1).  

In other words the typical Christian, like me, believes the gospel at an invincible 90% certainty.  (Most Christians like to pretend it's 100% certainty, which dishonesty frustrates me to no end).

Since I am not 100% certain, I need to be honest in my conversations with people, viz., "It's just my opinion that God exists and that the Bible is true, but I can't be totally sure."

(Yesterday at 12:58 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:31 am)Angrboda Wrote: You can't relinquish that belief.  That doesn't mean it is justified as there are reasons besides justification why you might be unable to relinquish it.

Your belief that being unable to relinquish it makes it justified/warranted is false.

When I was younger I believed that I was from another universe.  I was unable to relinquish this belief.  That did not make it justified/warranted.  

Justification and inability to relinquish operate on different planes.  They aren't directly reciprocal.

You're faulting a guy for something he cannot change. Unacceptable. 

Secondly, you underestimate the primacy of conscience. Allow me to explain.

Epistemically, the heavenly Father's role is like a human father.  You, my friend, seem to want absolute epistemic justification/warrant for a belief but that's not how it works even with a human father. Does a toddler possess laboratory proof that his father isn't an impostor? No, right? Yet the human father expects/demands his chilren obey him. Why? Because from birth, the human father has nurtured a relationship with the child that eventually instilled a kind of invincible conviction of  his father's parenthood. Therefore the child finds it difficult to disobey his father in good conscience. Knowing this, the father rightly demands obedience and punishes the child accordingly.

If you don't like this kind of dynamic, if you consider it stupid, silly, unwarranted, and unjustified, what you are really saying is that children should shrug off their parents in bad conscience. (I've already argued on this thread  that conscience is God's only law for both Himself and His children)

With the heavenly Father, the only difference is that He can INSTANTLY instill this invincible conviction in our conscience. We call it "The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit."

Conscience demands that one abide by more reliable rather than less reliable evidence. Subjective justifications are less reliable than objective, intersubjectively validated rational reasoning.

If you were following the subjective evidence of inward witness, you were either being willfully stupid or not following your conscience. Either way you aren't justified.

All this heavenly father business is just opinion. You are assuming things about God that must be concluded after justification, not as a condition in justification. What you are practicing is a form of question-begging, which your conscience should suitably advise you about.

(Yesterday at 1:13 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Question: if your thinking is invincible, why is there any possible reason to discuss your beliefs with other people?

Boru

There's a very subtle point left unspoken as yet.  Conscience doesn't usually demand 100% certainty, except on questions of massive import (viz. Should I kill that person?) 

The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets with absolute clarity, that is, 100% certainty.

Not so with us regular Christians like me. In fact I self-published a theology book arguing that the New Testament, especially Paul, urges all Christians to achieve prophethood and considers them spiritually immature until then (e.g. 1Corinthians 14:1).  

In other words the typical Christian, like me, believes the gospel at an invincible 90% certainty.  (Most Christians like to pretend it's 100% certainty, which dishonesty frustrates me to no end).

Since I am not 100% certain, I need to be honest in my conversations with people, viz., "It's just my opinion that God exists and that the Bible is true, but I can't be totally sure."

So we're back to where we started. You complain about one kind of invisible forces that explains things parsimoniously, while believing in a less parsimonious invible God that you believe but do not know exists. I don't see how you've moved the ball at all. At the end of the day you have a double standard in spite of the inward witness. I don't need to have an inward witness to know that having a double standard violates any semblance of claim to be acting in good conscience that you might care to make.

Your previous response to the accusation of a double standard was to attempt to show that your dismissal of invisible forces was not arbitrary, a claim which failed on account of the reasons given by Hume and other defects. So it appears that we have come full circle.

Approaching truth with a double standard is not morally defensible as a matter of conscience, attributable to inward witness, or a structural aspect of a relationship to a heavenly father. This is a you problem.

(Yesterday at 1:03 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 11:17 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think you’d have to add a moral component to persistence or desistance in a given belief before we could start to assess (or claim) that belief is morally justified?  Maybe what you mean to say is that there’s nothing inherently wrong with persisting in a false but genuine belief in general?

Not sure if you are conflating two separate issues. 
(1) Is his belief telling him to do something immoral?
(2) Is his commitment to the belief immoral? Again, you can't fault someone for something outside his control.

No free will there, eh?

Personally, I have no problem faulting people for immoral beliefs that they just can’t shake. Picture a racist, you know? Still, I suppose it’s nice to know that in your belief system god cannot fault us for being atheists.

(Yesterday at 1:13 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Question: if your thinking is invincible, why is there any possible reason to discuss your beliefs with other people?

Boru

There's a very subtle point left unspoken as yet.  Conscience doesn't usually demand 100% certainty, except on questions of massive import (viz. Should I kill that person?) 

The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets with absolute clarity, that is, 100% certainty.

Not so with us regular Christians like me. In fact I self-published a theology book arguing that the New Testament, especially Paul, urges all Christians to achieve prophethood and considers them spiritually immature until then (e.g. 1Corinthians 14:1).  

In other words the typical Christian, like me, believes the gospel at an invincible 90% certainty.  (Most Christians like to pretend it's 100% certainty, which dishonesty frustrates me to no end).

Since I am not 100% certain, I need to be honest in my conversations with people, viz., "It's just my opinion that God exists and that the Bible is true, but I can't be totally sure."

But why have conversation with other people regarding your faith at all? It seems to be either to reassure yourself or it’s an attempt to convert others.

If your thinking is truly invincible, you wouldn’t need reassurance. And if you’re trying to convert others, it seems that you don’t think anyone but yourself is capable of invincible thinking.

Tu sens comme un troll.

Boru

(Yesterday at 1:03 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 11:17 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think you’d have to add a moral component to persistence or desistance in a given belief before we could start to assess (or claim) that belief is morally justified?  Maybe what you mean to say is that there’s nothing inherently wrong with persisting in a false but genuine belief in general?

Not sure if you are conflating two separate issues. 
(1) Is his belief telling him to do something immoral?
(2) Is his commitment to the belief immoral? Again, you can't fault someone for something outside his control.

Methinks thou dost protest too much (about things being outside your control).

(Yesterday at 1:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 12:58 pm)Jal Wrote: You're faulting a guy for something he cannot change. Unacceptable. 

Secondly, you underestimate the primacy of conscience. Allow me to explain.

Epistemically, the heavenly Father's role is like a human father.  You, my friend, seem to want absolute epistemic justification/warrant for a belief but that's not how it works even with a human father. Does a toddler possess laboratory proof that his father isn't an impostor? No, right? Yet the human father expects/demands his chilren obey him. Why? Because from birth, the human father has nurtured a relationship with the child that eventually instilled a kind of invincible conviction of  his father's parenthood. Therefore the child finds it difficult to disobey his father in good conscience. Knowing this, the father rightly demands obedience and punishes the child accordingly.

If you don't like this kind of dynamic, if you consider it stupid, silly, unwarranted, and unjustified, what you are really saying is that children should shrug off their parents in bad conscience. (I've already argued on this thread  that conscience is God's only law for both Himself and His children)

With the heavenly Father, the only difference is that He can INSTANTLY instill this invincible conviction in our conscience. We call it "The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit."

Conscience demands that one abide by more reliable rather than less reliable evidence. Subjective justifications are less reliable than objective, intersubjectively validated rational reasoning.  

If you were following the subjective evidence of inward witness, you were either being willfully stupid or not following your conscience.  Either way you aren't justified.

All this heavenly father business is just opinion.  You are assuming things about God that must be concluded after justification, not as a condition in justification.  What you are practicing is a form of question-begging, which your conscience should suitably advise you about.

"Conscience demands that one abide by more reliable rather than less reliable evidence. Subjective justifications are less reliable than objective, intersubjectively validated rational reasoning." Wrong on two accounts. (1) I just gave you the example of the child who lacks laboratory/ genetic proof of who his real father his, let alone the case of adoptive parents. (2) In God's case, conscience demands whatever God tells it to demand any given moment, such as the prophet Abraham sacrificing his own son spoken to Abraham at 100% certainty.

Quote:All this heavenly father business is just opinion.  You are assuming things about God that must be concluded after justification, not as a condition in justification.  What you are practicing is a form of question-begging, which your conscience should suitably advise you about.

I am not assuming anything. I can't even prove that you exist. I'm just sharing some opinions on theology, and informing you of my 90% certainty that Yahweh is real.

You are free to rebut, but given points 1 and 2 above, I don't see your rebuttal convincing.

(Yesterday at 7:16 am)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You're just being silly. The inability to relinquish a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is justifiable. It also doesn't speak to the validity of that belief.

I may believe so strongly that Lupita Nyong'o wants to take me behind the barn and bang me like a snare drum that I find it impossible to rid myself of that belief. Therefore, my belief that she is consumed by lust for me is both justifiable and warranted.

See? Silly.

Boru

Boru

Yeah I'm just a silly guy.  Silly, silly, silly. 

I am not sure why you think your reply is cogent.

You cannot rightly/ properly fault someone for invincible thinking (even if we feel the need to do so in this world of imperfect justice). Right?

To fault someone for something he cannot fix is absurd, right? What am I missing here?

If, then, he is faultess/blameless in his belief, he is justified/ warranted in his belief.

And you do understand that, if God exists, this dynamic is the only possible pragmatic way for Him to reveal Himself and govern us?  How else could we recognize His voice?

It is better to be thought a fool than to speak, and remove all doubt. You should stop trying so hard to remove whatever little doubt may remain.

(Yesterday at 1:37 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:13 pm)Jal Wrote: There's a very subtle point left unspoken as yet.  Conscience doesn't usually demand 100% certainty, except on questions of massive import (viz. Should I kill that person?) 

The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets with absolute clarity, that is, 100% certainty.

Not so with us regular Christians like me. In fact I self-published a theology book arguing that the New Testament, especially Paul, urges all Christians to achieve prophethood and considers them spiritually immature until then (e.g. 1Corinthians 14:1).  

In other words the typical Christian, like me, believes the gospel at an invincible 90% certainty.  (Most Christians like to pretend it's 100% certainty, which dishonesty frustrates me to no end).

Since I am not 100% certain, I need to be honest in my conversations with people, viz., "It's just my opinion that God exists and that the Bible is true, but I can't be totally sure."

So we're back to where we started.  You complain about one kind of invisible forces that explains things parsimoniously, while believing in a less parsimonious invible God that you believe but do not know exists.  I don't see how you've moved the ball at all.  At the end of the day you have a double standard in spite of the inward witness.  I don't need to have an inward witness to know that having a double standard violates any semblance of claim to be acting in good conscience that you might care to make.

Your previous response to the accusation of a double standard was to attempt to show that your dismissal of invisible forces was not arbitrary, a claim which failed on account of the reasons given by Hume and other defects.  So it appears that we have come full circle.

Approaching truth with a double standard is not morally defensible as a matter of conscience, attributable to inward witness, or a structural aspect of a relationship to a heavenly father.  This is a you problem.

Sometimes you rebuttals seem so rando and disjunctive, conflating different terms and contexts. 
It's like you're taking arbitrary potshots with no real cohesion.
I won't necessarily respond to every such post.