Question(s) for the Religious

[fr0d0]

Chas: do you deny that anything can be understood by intellect alone?

[Chas]

Chas: do you deny that anything can be understood by intellect alone?

I don't understand your question. Would you please re-phrase it.

[fr0d0]

Does there need to be a physical instance of something for it to be understood?

[Bad Writer]

And my point is that your position is ad hoc and based on your biases. You apply rules of evidence differently to religion than you do other things in order to reach your desired conclusion.

A position of non-assent or, in this case, disbelief is the default position, and therefore cannot be ad hoc, as it fails to meet that qualification. I'm sensing you cannot be reasoned with, but I'm going to go through this post first before I reach my conclusion on whether or not I will continue to address you.

You ask for proof of the Spaghetti monster (not Pastrami but same Italian origin)

No, I haven't asked for proof of IPU or FSM.

Disregarding the line of reasoning and misrepresenting the meaning in the reply, check. So far you are 0-2. Let's see how you do on the next one.

because you cannot take us at our word.

Just the opposite. I don't ask for proof because I do take you at your word. You admit that these are purely human constructs, and I accept that.

Okay. Much better. I don't remember the context in which you quoted me, but I can't find any misrepresentation, and the response is sound, if not a little worrisome still. You get this one. 2-1.

It doesn't matter if this thing is spiritual or corporeal, for neither can be proven with demonstrable evidence, as far as we've seen.

This is a false dichotomy. There are degrees of evidence. That neither of two things can be conclusively proven does not imply that the two have equal evidence or lack thereof.

Perhaps it's a dichotomy, but it's not false. There are degrees of evidence, sure, but that's not what we're arguing about. We're discussing whether or not claims need evidence, and that's exactly what I just said was the case. If there is inconclusive evidence in Court, the verdict is either put on hold, or thrown out. It can be appealed if new evidence arises, but the person on trial is innocent until proven guilty. Just as a trial demands evidence, so do all claims, degrees and levels aside.

Oh, good response though. Perhaps you do have a point you're trying to make. 2-2.

You ask us to take a walk in your shoes, to believe in something we can't see, to give faith a try.

No I don't.

3-2. Nobody appreciates lying.

Many of us have attempted this, and results always vary, or there are simply no results. If you took a look at the world through our eyes, to try and see if your god can be demonstrated to exist by some testable and reproducible means, then you might understand us a little better.

I do understand you. I've never claimed that your lack of belief is unintelligible.

Claiming that I put certain words in your mouth? Really? I digress. By arguing with us you have proven that you do have a beef with our lack of belief and how we go about determining things with evidence.

"I do understand you" is therefore a lie. 4-2. Not looking good for the two of us.

Bottom-line, your examination process is flawed simply because you are shifting the burden of proof of your claim. We understand that you believe in it, but we can't verify its veracity without evidence, so we don't attempt to believe in it as you do. Doing so is called using faith, and faith is always blind.

Why is faith always blind?

Asking questions is always admirable. 4-3.

Faith is blind because it is used in someone's decision to believe something that has no demonstrable evidence attributed to it. Belief based on faith is the antithesis to belief based on evidence.

I don't think that's what WV was postulating. The situation he created, that is, the person making up spiritual claims, is going to try very hard not to wink at the crowd when he gives his spiel. Whether the claim comes from an honest believer or a decidedly conny con man, we still need evidence to demonstrate whether or not what either person says is true.

What type of evidence is needed in addition to testimony, and why? What do we have regarding historical claims before sound recording and photography other than testimony? How do we know that the Gettysburg address occurred?

My hope in you is restored. I count this response as two points. 4-5.

In court, any evidence given in addition to testimony is absolutely wanted. Sometimes all we have are eye-witness accounts. These eye-witnesses could also be lying, and evidence proves this point sometimes.

Because the Bible was written so long ago, the evidence needs to be stronger. You mentioned varying degrees of evidence, and this is exactly where it plays its part. Since we have no living eye-witnesses, no birth certificate that says Jesus ever lived, and no way to determine anything other than that there are words written in a book, the is a much higher burden of proof on those people who claim this book is more than what it appears to be.

You make a good point about sound recording and photography. The further back in time we go, the harder it is to verify if something is true or not. But would you agree that saying the Gettysburg Address is true does not have as much at stake as saying the Bible is true? For if the former is false, all we lose is a little credibility in Lincoln, and he's already dead. If the Bible is false, that means all of Christendom is a lie.

Well, this one was close, but since you showed a bit of gumption back there, I wouldn't mind more discussion, but if you go the SW route and get all tautological on me with arguments from ignorance and the like, then I will end it.

---

Does there need to be a physical instance of something for it to be understood?

We understand that space is empty, and therefore is not physical. However, this is where our understanding of non-physical stops. Anything else requires special pleading.

[fr0d0]

We understand that space is empty, and therefore is not physical. However, this is where our understanding of non-physical stops. Anything else requires special pleading.

What about maths? There are plenty of ideas that need no basis in reality besides the point that reality is logical. Many theories have turned out to be real. Without the conjecture we wouldn't have been looking for those outcomes. Dawkins states that many modern technologies wouldn't exist without non evidenced theorizing. Is this all special pleading then?

[Bad Writer]

Number exist in reality, so I don't think math can be considered any kind of special pleading. Theorizing with math is possible because it's real. If we theorize about God without a basis to do so, then history has shown that this leaves people floundering every which way (evidenced by the thousands of different denominations and religions in the world).

[Chas]

Does there need to be a physical instance of something for it to be understood?

That has nothing in particular to do with the question of evidence.

I understand alchemy - but there is no evidence that it is true.

[Bad Writer]

Adding to that, why aren't there 1000 different ways to do math? All problems should arrive at the same conclusions.

[fr0d0]

There are no doubts about the basis of theology. Without a basis in logic they are worthless. Complex maths is likewise disputed. Conclusions are varied. Sometimes only one is right. Sometimes a few are right. Sometimes there is only one answer.

---

Does there need to be a physical instance of something for it to be understood?

That has nothing in particular to do with the question of evidence.

I understand alchemy - but there is no evidence that it is true.

I understand alchemy. It's bs. Dismissed.

Of course it's to do with evidence. Like I've said to you before, and you failed to respond... why does science refer to empirical and non empirical evidence if, like you say, there is only empirical evidence?
Do you deny logic? Can you not conclude that because A > B, then B < A? Does that kind of logical proof not pay a huge part in your day to day functioning? I can't see how it wouldn't.

[Chas]

There are no doubts about the basis of theology. Without a basis in logic they are worthless. Complex maths is likewise disputed. Conclusions are varied. Sometimes only one is right. Sometimes a few are right. Sometimes there is only one answer.

---

That has nothing in particular to do with the question of evidence.

I understand alchemy - but there is no evidence that it is true.

I understand alchemy. It's bs. Dismissed.

Of course it's to do with evidence. Like I've said to you before, and you failed to respond... why does science refer to empirical and non empirical evidence if, like you say, there is only empirical evidence?
Do you deny logic? Can you not conclude that because A > B, then B < A? Does that kind of logical proof not pay a huge part in your day to day functioning? I can't see how it wouldn't.

Non-empirical evidence in science is that which is theory-driven. Essentially, it is conjecture based on inference from the existing, evidence-based theory.