God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.

[fr0d0]

@ Kyu: I never brought up the subject of my non claims. you did. I tried to say I didn't want to discuss it, but you insisted very strongly that I did.

You don't have to do anything with my beliefs. Why should you? Your point, I'm sure, was to debunk any claim I had. As I made none, then you are disappointed, understandably.

I've said many times why I'm here. I say your crap has merit. I'm happy that you think differently to me, and I value your opinion.

[athoughtfulman]

If you feel as though you have come to your conclusions about Christianity on the basis of rational thought, but do not insist that everyone believe, are you saying that reason is different to different people? And if so, then how could anyone ever have a "reasonable" discussion, if no one agreed on what reason actually was.

For the idea of reason to work, I think it would need to have to have at least a similar meaning to everyone, otherwise everyone could base their claim on reason, simply for the fact that it was the way they defined reason.

[fr0d0]

I'm confused about how you're defining 'reason'.

Reasoned conclusions can be different, hence why people hold different views. In an impossibly controlled environment with two people experiencing identical influences, all their lives, with their minds thinking the same thing, would reach that same conclusions.

I could in no way assume another persons' conclusions. The potential information influencing an individuals reasoning have to be almost infinite. Everyone concludes what they do as a result of their own unique reasoning, and for each person, those conclusions are what that individual believe to be true.

[athoughtfulman]

Of course, the definition of reason must be exactly the same for you and me, or our arguments fall apart.

Perhaps think about it this way, what you insist on believing is based on both objective evidence and subjective evidence. What I insist on believing is based on objective evidence. And I know that anyone can argue that everything is subjective, but this leaves us with no answers.

Objective is that which can be observed by everyone and still be the same. Subjective the observable unique to the individual. You use both, I use objective.

How's that sound?

[fr0d0]

Right I think I get you now. The reasons to believe I think are probably more common than I'd like to think. So I'd say that the vast majority of reasons are common. That's not to say that anyone could parade them out and there would be an unstoppable reason to believe. although some believe that to be the case.

When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

[athoughtfulman]

When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Of course, are perhaps it would seem that because people agree and have the same reasons, there must be some objective truth. But the amount of people that believe in something does not affect where something is true or not. All it says is that lots of people believe in it.

If something is objective is means it is undistorted by emotion or personal bias; it is based on observable phenomena.

So if lots of people share a common reason for something, the next step is to evaluate whether there reason/s are objective or subjective. Are the reason/s undistorted by an emotional bias and based on observable phenomena? Then their reason/s are likely objective. But if there is an emotional bias and the reason/s are not based on observable phenomena, then they are subjective.

I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.

In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.

[fr0d0]

When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Of course, are perhaps it would seem that because people agree and have the same reasons, there must be some objective truth. But the amount of people that believe in something does not affect where something is true or not. All it says is that lots of people believe in it.

Absolutely. I was just answering your point on common reasoning.

If something is objective is means it is undistorted by emotion or personal bias; it is based on observable phenomena.

So if lots of people share a common reason for something, the next step is to evaluate whether there reason/s are objective or subjective. Are the reason/s undistorted by an emotional bias and based on observable phenomena? Then their reason/s are likely objective. But if there is an emotional bias and the reason/s are not based on observable phenomena, then they are subjective.

Agreed

I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.

I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.

In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.

Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.

[athoughtfulman]

I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.

I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.

What evidence? It simply comes back to how we define observable phenomena. And at this point in time, what science can know, is observable phenomena. As for what is can't know, it might still be there, there's just no reason to believe in it yet. I hope I never rule out the possibility of the existence of god, however at this point in time, I can't believe and simultaneously be honest with myself.

In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.

Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.

Ha, I guess I was getting lazy and thought I'd throw in a made-up statistic.

What I was trying to say was that the majority of Christians do not base their faith on observable phenomena. But I do recognise that there are some very intelligent Christians who are aware of why they believe, what makes is reasonable to believe in it, and are capable of explaining it and backing up their claim to any takers. They also realise that everything they say is still, at least on one level, subjective. They simply find that there is more reason to believe in god than not.

[Kyuuketsuki]

When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Consensus on things that can't be demonstrated? Colour me impressed ... oh no wait ... I'm not.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.

I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.

What evidence? It simply comes back to how we define observable phenomena. And at this point in time, what science can know, is observable phenomena. As for what is can't know, it might still be there, there's just no reason to believe in it yet. I hope I never rule out the possibility of the existence of god, however at this point in time, I can't believe and simultaneously be honest with myself.

Again, I was talking about your idea of a subject to reason with. Observable phenomena is all hogwash.

In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.

Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.

Ha, I guess I was getting lazy and thought I'd throw in a made-up statistic.

What I was trying to say was that the majority of Christians do not base their faith on observable phenomena. But I do recognise that there are some very intelligent Christians who are aware of why they believe, what makes is reasonable to believe in it, and are capable of explaining it and backing up their claim to any takers. They also realise that everything they say is still, at least on one level, subjective. They simply find that there is more reason to believe in god than not.

They also have to realise the reason to believe involves an element of faith. Maybe I'm saying the same thing as you. Interesting though.

When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Consensus on things that can't be demonstrated? Colour me impressed ... oh no wait ... I'm not.

What I was talking about was thoughtful's point that disparate reasoning was illogical. The point being it isn't disparate.

That these things can't be demonstrated is irrelevant here.