Christian Paradox

[fr0d0]

Not at any point did I assume you had any belief. Disbelief to me is lacking belief and not actively disbelieving. I'm happy to be corrected on that and will try to be more accurate.

It doesn't follow that agnostic theism is illogical... only by your own construct of that. You don't 'know' if the chair will support you, yet you believe it will, for whatever reason, in this instance verifiable evidence. So your stance on belief is illogical.

[tavarish]

Not at any point did I assume you had any belief. Disbelief to me is lacking belief and not actively disbelieving. I'm happy to be corrected on that and will try to be more accurate.

It doesn't follow that agnostic theism is illogical... only by your own construct of that. You don't 'know' if the chair will support you, yet you believe it will, for whatever reason, in this instance verifiable evidence. So your stance on belief is illogical.

Why are you arguing agnostic theism when you believe in Christianity anyway?


Here's a quick definition, spoonfeeding again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Agnostic theism, also known as spiritual agnosticism, is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods is unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in. [1]

Agnostic theists are still making the positive claim that a god exists, without knowledge or evidence to support it. This is belief without knowledge. Would you believe in something without at least some subjective knowledge that it exists?

This is quite possibly the most irrational view out there. It's people who contend that "Yes, I don't know if what I'm hearing is true, but I'll believe it on the basis of faith".

Explain to me the logic in believing in something with no knowledge.

Here's another little snippet:

Christian Agnostics (distinct from Christian agnostics) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith; that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshipped and that humans should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.

Even Christian agnostics make positive claims.

And again,

Explain to me the logic in believing in something with no knowledge.

[fr0d0]

It's largely a forum thing tavares. Definitions we've thrashed out over time, not necessarily widely accepted outside of here. Christians don't 'know' god exists... they believe he does by faith. Well a small minority might do... just as there are potentially atheists who 'know' God _doesn't_ exist.

You don't 'know' the chair will not fail, yet you believe without 'knowledge'. you're happy to reason the possibility and take a safe bet.

The positive claim of belief in God cannot be an absolute from knowledge. That _would_ be illogical.

[tavarish]

It's largely a forum thing tavares. Definitions we've thrashed out over time, not necessarily widely accepted outside of here. Christians don't 'know' god exists... they believe he does by faith. Well a small minority might do... just as there are potentially atheists who 'know' God _doesn't_ exist.

We keep coming back to this, and I'm tired of it. You don't get it, nor do you want to.

You make a positive claim that he exists. Whether or not you have knowledge backed up by evidence or you take it on faith, it is irrelevant as you still maintain a positive claim. I disagree with your assumption that most Christian are agnostic. Many, and I mean MANY believe that God is as real as the chair you're sitting in, and know that he's there, not just believe or have faith primarily. They absolutely know that what they have experienced is the hand of God and could have been nothing else. It has never been the church's prerogative to say "well we don't KNOW that there is a God" - quite the contrary.

The fact that you're making a positive claim denotes that you have knowledge of something to make you believe a certain way - at least in a subjective sense. If you're believing something without a reason and some sort of supporting knowledge (subjective), you are, in fact, delusional. You are believing in something for absolutely no reason at that point.

You don't 'know' the chair will not fail, yet you believe without 'knowledge'. you're happy to reason the possibility and take a safe bet.

Your analogies suck. A chair falling still falls in the realm of objective evidence and confines to the laws of nature. What you're demonstrating is taking bets on chance and hoping you'll come out unscathed.

You're using faith in a different context. Faith in religion is belief without verifiable evidence.

Faith in the chair context is trust based on past experiences and objective, verifiable evidence.

The positive claim of belief in God cannot be an absolute from knowledge. That _would_ be illogical.

I never said it was an absolute, but many religious individuals make the claim that a God exists, and it cannot be any other way and won't explore the option that perhaps the God that they've built in their mind, simply isn't.

[fr0d0]

Listen tavares... I know very well what claims I'm making. I'm sorta posing and answering questions rather than making any claims - it's not why I'm here.

I make no positive claim that God exists. that would be irrational of a transcendental entity - God just is ...and I believe he just is.

What evidence have you that most Christians are not agnostic? I know very many Christians and used to work at a very popular annual Christian Festival in the UK frequented by about 60k of them. I've been an active member of 2 large churches and active interdenominationally. I've never met a Christian who claimed to know for sure that God existed. Like I've said, and you seem to gloss over... such a stance would be illogical.

Churches take the assurance of faith and 'claim' certainty. This is simply lingo which to any intelligent bystander isn't actually anyone saying anything beyond doubt. As Adrian covered on his blog, certainty isn't knowledge.

I believe, not claim, that God 'is'. I believe through faith. At the point of faith, there _has to be_ no knowledge.. for there to be any would indeed be illogical.

[Watson]

I do understand, and also, I never said that Sherlock Holmes' methods proved the existance of God. What I was saying is that he had to believe in the indivdual he was tracking down, and then look for evidence of their existance.

He used deductive reasoning, coupled with his own experience to re-create what happened at the crime scene. He didn't take any leaps of faith. He used tangible and verifiable evidence to solve cases.

Yes, he did use deductive reasoning, a fact I am very well aware of. But by the time his clients had presented their cases and left his apartment, he had already formulated an idea of who or what he was searching for, in most cases. Then, upon arriving at the scene he was expected to carry the case from, he watched for evidence as to the indivduality of the profile he had already formulated before-hand.

Not only this, what you are saying is that many of you were initially believers, but that you examined the 'evidence' and found none for proof of God. What I am saying is that you do not understand God, and you are looking for the wrong individual evidence of him. You are looking for scientific evidence where there is none to be had.

So it's like Sherlock Holmes, except with no evidence of anything. Who's chasing ghosts here? [/quote]
How about this? Think of the client coming to Sherlock as a believer telling you about God, and think of the evidence for individuality being the traits which you discerned from the client talking about God.

Saying "You don't understand God" is a cop out, because your definition of God varies greatly with many other Christians. If the only experience and truth God has is subjective, then guess what, anything anyone says about God would automatically be valid. I can say God is crazy and he talks to me every night. It wouldn't make it any less valid than what you're saying, and I can attest to knowing God on a much more personal level than you ever can. See how it works?

Of course mine differs greatly from many other people's defintiions of God, but that does not make mine any more or less valid. I have sound logical reasons for believing what I do, based also upon the knowledge and study of the Bible which I have conducted and applied into real life.

If you don't have objectively verifiable evidence, especially for someone who is apparently everywhere, in everything, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis, there should be at least SOME proof, don't you think? Considering my eternal soul is on the line here, I would think God would make his existence a bit more apparent.

But if God were to show you some 'scientific proof' for His existence, it would still be disputed and interpreted and skewed constantly. Such is human nature and our ability to think for ourselves through free will.

Not only this, if God did something verifiable that every shmuck with a degree in biology or some shit could repeat, it would put the free will, the decision of whether or not to believe in God out of the question, and you would have no choice but to accept His existance. That sounds to me like a tyrant god.

When Sherlock Holmes looked for evidence of a wooden legged man in the Sign of the Four, for instance, he knew he was looking for a wooden-legged man because of his clients claim that their father had shot a wooden legged man out of fear, and then been killed later. Sherlock then found evidence of this man in the form of footprints where one 'foot' was just a circle; the print of a wooden stump.

This is called deductive reasoning. He gets clues, forms a hypothesis, and tests the hypothesis and eventually catches the bad guy. I don't see any faith involved here.

Read what I wrote above, then.

You must understand the individual you are looking for evidence of first, then look for evidence which proves their individuality and existance.

I find it comical that most religious people won't even admit that it's a possibility that the concept of God exists purely in their mind.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

Your point? God does exist within the mind, and proves His own existance through our perception ofHim in things which are without the mind.

I don't consider evidence of God being events in my life that I don't understand right away. I don't consider evidence of God being things that I could have felt from being in a highly excited, suggestive state or the placebo effect. This is the creator of the UNIVERSE we're talking about. We have trillions of things he could have put his mark on, or left for us to find, since I'm assuming he knew that this would be an issue in many parts of the world. Yet there is no scientific evidence for his existence. The only thing left is to simply believe, and rationalize things to fit that belief system.

Of course there is only to believe. That's all there is for anything. What 'highly excited, suggestive state' are we talking about here, by the way? Self-transcendant moments? That's an oxymoron in itself, anyway, if you don't believe in God.

I hold myself to a higher standard than blind faith. I'm not a sheep, I don't need a shepherd. I have a brain, and I can think for myself. If God exists like you assert he does, he's reading this right now and can do something about it. If it is important to him for people to believe, he should do something about it. It's the 21st century, we don't sacrifice goats and burn witches. Blind faith is for chickens in the slaughterhouse, not for thinking and capable human beings.

So do I. My faith is not blind and it is certainly much more of a clear view of the world than is simply trying to jam a round peg in a square hole(God into science.) You misinterpret what a good shephard is supposed to be, then, if you don't think there is any need to be humble or listen carefully to those who love you. It is important to Him for people to believe, but as I said above, if He actualyl came forth with some "I am God" proof, it would leave belief in the dust.

[tavarish]

How about this? Think of the client coming to Sherlock as a believer telling you about God, and think of the evidence for individuality being the traits which you discerned from the client talking about God.

Sherlock would have nothing to go on, especially when he's told secondhand, anecdotal experiences that do not stand up to observation. I'm sure he would dismiss it as delusion.

However, it's a moot point, as we're talking about a fictional character manipulated by an author. It does not work like this in real life. Although some principles are sound, the very reason Holmes was popular because he was successful and unorthodox. Can you name anyone who actually does this in real life?

But if God were to show you some 'scientific proof' for His existence, it would still be disputed and interpreted and skewed constantly. Such is human nature and our ability to think for ourselves through free will.

Disputed - of course. Every scientific discovery ever has been greatly disputed and challenged. That's how science WORKS. It continually needs to disprove itself and eliminate the possibility of skewed or inaccurate results.

If prayer to a certain God was taught in medical schools as an effective, proven method to cure cancer, then that would be substantial evidence for the existence of that God. This is one example.

Not only this, if God did something verifiable that every shmuck with a degree in biology or some shit could repeat, it would put the free will, the decision of whether or not to believe in God out of the question, and you would have no choice but to accept His existance. That sounds to me like a tyrant god.

It would actually put things into perspective. If you knew he was around, you could actively choose to follow him or not. That would be the free will argument, and would definitely make more sense than "he needs you to believe because he says so". It would also shed a lot of light into our own existence.

If the existence of God was scientifically established with evidence, it would turn the world on its ear. Belief would be through the roof.

Your point? God does exist within the mind, and proves His own existance through our perception ofHim in things which are without the mind.

Like I've said a million times before: rationalization.

This also sheds light on the term "personal God", since every person's interpretation varies.

Just because you believe something to exist doesn't mean it exists without objective evidence that it does.

Of course there is only to believe. That's all there is for anything.

Wrong. There is objective evidence that backs up a claim without the need for belief or faith.

What 'highly excited, suggestive state' are we talking about here, by the way? Self-transcendant moments? That's an oxymoron in itself, anyway, if you don't believe in God.

Here's a few example of activities that operate in a highly excited, suggestive state that do not have to do with God:

Stage hypnosis
Cold reading
Psychic reading
Illusions (magic shows)
Ouija
Spiritual healers
Aura cleansing
Hallucinations (drug oriented, or not)

Here are some that do have to do with God:

Speaking in tongues
Faith healers
Near death experiences (Go into the light!)
Exorcism
Possession
Seeing Jesus in a pastry

They are all in the same realm - your mind playing tricks on you. There are no divine forces at work in any of them.

So do I. My faith is not blind and it is certainly much more of a clear view of the world than is simply trying to jam a round peg in a square hole(God into science.)

You make the claim that God created the universe. This is a scientific claim.
You make the claim that God's actions manifest in the physical world. This is a scientific claim.
You make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. This is a scientific claim.
You make the claim that Jesus performed miracles (suspensions of physics). This is a scientific claim.

There are MANY, many more. You see where I'm going with this? I'm not fitting a round peg into anything. You make a scientific claim and I dismiss it based on the scientific method. 1 + 1= 2.

You misinterpret what a good shephard is supposed to be, then, if you don't think there is any need to be humble or listen carefully to those who love you. It is important to Him for people to believe, but as I said above, if He actualyl came forth with some "I am God" proof, it would leave belief in the dust.

It is important for people to believe, yet he doesn't give verifiable reasons to support this need. I can't take your word for it, nor can I sit back and just take the word of a book written by those who had no idea how the world worked.

---

Listen tavares... I know very well what claims I'm making. I'm sorta posing and answering questions rather than making any claims - it's not why I'm here.

Who's tavares?

You make claims that God exists. Let me illustrate:

I make no positive claim that God exists. that would be irrational of a transcendental entity - God just is ...and I believe he just is.

Look at the bold underlined. This is a claim that God exists. If you don't know what the word "claim" means, it's OK, I've looked it up for you:

http://ardictionary.com/Claim/6270

Claim 4
Definition: To assert; to maintain.

Shit, man. In previous posts I even gave you the link for the meaning of "agnostic theist". What are you trying to argue?

What evidence have you that most Christians are not agnostic? I know very many Christians and used to work at a very popular annual Christian Festival in the UK frequented by about 60k of them. I've been an active member of 2 large churches and active interdenominationally. I've never met a Christian who claimed to know for sure that God existed. Like I've said, and you seem to gloss over... such a stance would be illogical.

A Christian who knows and talks to other Christians? Holy crap. That's a first.

How do I know Christians know that a God exists?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

1982 to 2004: Gallup polls:

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks randomly selected American adults about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults on at least six occasions between 1982 and 2004. By keeping the wording of their questions identical, each year's results are comparable to the others. This facilitates the detection of trends.

44% of the American population believes Adam and Eve was a true story. They take this as fact, not as an allegorical, metaphorical, or figurative claim.

I'll repeat this.

Forty-four percent of the American public takes the story of Genesis as a HISTORIC event. That is over 100 million people. Do you mean to say that they would not make the claim that they know God exists? "God created Adam and Eve, but that's dependent if God was actually there" - right?

Seriously, man. Learn to call a spade a spade.

here's some more:

2005-MAR: NBC News:

NBC News conducted a survey between 2005-MAR-8 and 10. They asked about the origin of human life -- whether it happened by evolution or "the biblical account of creation." If they answered the biblical account, they were then asked whether they believed that "God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh," or that God was "... a divine presence in the formation of the universe."

Results were:
bullet Humans came to be via evolution: 33%
bullet God created the world in 6 days: 44%
bullet God was a divine presence: 13%
bullet Don't know: 10%

We are at a loss to understand what "God as a divine presence" means as far as origin of the species is concerned.

Churches take the assurance of faith and 'claim' certainty. This is simply lingo which to any intelligent bystander isn't actually anyone saying anything beyond doubt. As Adrian covered on his blog, certainty isn't knowledge.

So certainty in church isn't certainty? It's not knowledge, but they have sunday schools and bible study to re-enforce this uncertain non-knowledge. Creationism also isn't taught as knowledge. Nope. Not at all.

I believe, not claim, that God 'is'. I believe through faith. At the point of faith, there _has to be_ no knowledge.. for there to be any would indeed be illogical.

Your belief is your claim, as it is an assertion. You're mixing concepts and coming to a conclusion to fit your argument, but it makes no sense. In your definition, we can never know ANYTHING.

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

Read your shit before you post. I'm tired of correcting your mistakes.

[Purple Rabbit]

According to Watson you need a telescope. Go figure.

I said this where, exactly?

About here. Scroll down to the last bit.

---

Here's a few example of activities that operate in a highly excited, suggestive state that do not have to do with God:

Stage hypnosis
Cold reading
Psychic reading
Illusions (magic shows)
Ouija
Spiritual healers
Aura cleansing
Hallucinations (drug oriented, or not)

Hey, let's not forget the genetically manipulated alien abductees. They have rights too you now.

Don't know if they are excused from paying tax though.

[fr0d0]

Who's tavares?

That's you bud

You make claims that God exists. Let me illustrate:

This should be good...

I make no positive claim that God exists. that would be irrational of a transcendental entity - God just is ...and I believe he just is.

Look at the bold underlined. This is a claim that God exists. If you don't know what the word "claim" means.

Word swapping magic! Wow!

Shit, man. In previous posts I even gave you the link for the meaning of "agnostic theist". What are you trying to argue?

Currently I'm classifying you as 'moron'.

How do I know Christians know that a God exists?

More American imbeciles - yeah great... line em up.

I'll repeat this

I noticed

So certainty in church isn't certainty? It's not knowledge, but they have sunday schools and bible study to re-enforce this uncertain non-knowledge. Creationism also isn't taught as knowledge. Nope. Not at all.

You're getting further and further from reality. Try to understand what you're saying.

You're mixing concepts and coming to a conclusion to fit your argument, but it makes no sense. In your definition, we can never know ANYTHING.

What concepts am I mixing? In my/ Christian definition we can know quite a lot. It's a pretty tight framework that is logically consistent. The error was yours in framing it inaccurately.

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

And you'd be totally wrong in my case.

[tavarish]

That's you bud

Did you always have reading problems, or did they just come about?

AD HOMINEM LOGICAL FALLACY ZOMG0RZ!!

Word swapping magic! Wow!

Yea, I like direct quotations too! High five! Next time try not to fuck up in the same sentence.

Currently I'm classifying you as 'moron'.

Coming from someone who doesn't know that "claim" means "assertion", I'll log that under not an issue.

More American imbeciles - yeah great... line em up.

It's the country with the most Christians and the largest world influence. You'd be dumb to dismiss something so glaringly obvious. Did you think that the UK is the world's authority on Christianity?

You're getting further and further from reality. Try to understand what you're saying.

You're saying religious teachings aren't knowledge. I referred you to bible studies, sunday school, and creationism, which are all taught as fact.

---

What concepts am I mixing? In my/ Christian definition we can know quite a lot. It's a pretty tight framework that is logically consistent. The error was yours in framing it inaccurately.

You're mixing concepts of knowledge and absolute truth. Your christian definition of knowledge apparently is putting in all sorts of crap that confuse you as to the actual meaning of the term. Again, spoonfeeding prevails:

Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Some philosophers have referred to such propositions as universalizable. Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. The relativist conception denies the existence of some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones (through moral relativism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth

I didn't frame anything inaccurately. The context of your post was that we can never know anything.

My point was that many Christians contend that they know (through subjective experiences) that there is a God. This knowledge is covered by the definitions above.

I provided sources which bring this to light:

Here's an article that would hit home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

This is happening in your country as well. Or will you make the point that this is not taught as knowledge, or people who are making this decision are on the fence about the existence of God?

And you'd be totally wrong in my case.

So you base your belief on nothing. Congratulations, you're insane.