Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[orangebox21]

---

So is it fair to say you believe the earth is a sphere because you have seen photographs?

Well, I can do the relevant geometry to demonstrate the Earth's spherical shape, so I don't need photographs myself.

If yes, why do you trust both the photographer and your senses as reliable?

1) Reproduceable.
2) Can be validated personally, given the opportunity.
3) Multiple lines of convergent evidence (geometry, physics, photography, direct experience).


4) As for the senses, what do you mean by "reliable" here?


I know you weren't responding to me, but I interjected here because I have a feeling you're going to try and troll with your, likely, surface understanding of philosophy. I hope I'm wrong, but that seems to be a direction plausibly interpretable from your post. ._.

---

[fr0d0]

There have been differing views on faith, sure. I fully acknowledge that. You haven't addressed my objection that they either a. don't address the route to belief , or b. are simply incorrect.

I did address them.

They actually do, most notably Kant and Kierkegaard. For the latter, go read his book "Fear and Trembling", which is all about Kierkegaard's unique take on the story of Abraham and Isaac, and the latter's existential dilemma (in Kierkegaard's eyes) on the road to faith in obeying God's command.

Secondly - and I've pointed this out seriously like 6 times to you with no response -, you're assuming there is a "the Christian view" on this topic by which you can adjudicate who is definitively wrong. This is both arrogant and indefensible, even on a historic ground, which was my point in bringing up those 4 Christian philosophers, 3 of which were very influential on Christian theology.

You have never addressed them. You don't even start to address the subject at hand, because you have no understanding of it. I know that those philosophers disagree with the mainstream view. That's pretty much their point given their discipline to explore all alternatives. They happen to be wrong, and this is widely agreed. I have little interest in philosophy because it is mostly nonsensical naval gazing. The subject here is theology, and the mainstream view contradicts the 4 'major' protagonists of philosophy... So what!?

In not assuming that this is the Christian view as you keep arrogantly asserting. I know it is. Through study of my subject. I'll not saying that it's the only view. There are plenty people who believe irrationally. It may not be the philosophical view, but who cares? Christians certainly don't.

Ryft would explain it to you in your own discipline, and I was trying to link you with him but he's offline at the moment.

[MindForgedManacle]

You have never addressed them. You don't even start to address the subject at hand, because you have no understanding of it.

And you're evidence of that assertion is? In every response to you I've directly addressed your claim of there being some set, definitive Christian view. Again, you are being very dishonest here to say otherwise, given that even in your quote of me I do this.

I know that those philosophers disagree with the mainstream view. That's pretty much their point given their discipline to explore all alternatives.

So here we have an obvious backpedal on your part. You've constantly been saying their is a specific Christian view on this. And you've now dropped to it being "mainstream". But the problem is that what that actually means is, as I said in my last post, you are simply saying that in YOUR particular socio-religious context thisis the prevalent view, which is most likely Anglo-American and Protestant.

And no, the individuals in question weren't merely 'exploring all the alternatives', they were giving their views on the topic at hand and gave arguments in support of it.

They happen to be wrong, and this is widely agreed.

How do you know they're wrong? It simply being "widely agreed" that they're wrong is not an argument, and is in fact an argumentum ad populum fallacy to pretend otherwise. Unlike you, these individuals actually atrempted to give a rational justification of their views on the rationality (or lack thereof) of faith.

I have little interest in philosophy because it is mostly nonsensical naval gazing. The subject here is theology, and the mainstream view contradicts the 4 'major' protagonists of philosophy... So what!?

...So, you are even more ignorant than I realized. What do you think underpins and guides theology? Hm? Oh yeah, philosophy. Arguments for the existence of god? Based entirely in philosophy. Theological explications of God-related topics like the Trinity? Philosophical speculations as to God's ontology. Ryft's account of what he thinks the relationship between faith and rationality? Theological epistemology, which is a purely philosophical pursuit.

Please, know your OWN traditions' foundation before you further make a fool of yourself.
Further, these aren't the "4 major protagonists of philosophiy", and are not even the most influential Christian philosophers/theologians. Effectively everything YOU believe about Christianity is derived from the philosophical speculations of St. Augstine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas. Again, get your theological tradition straight.

I'm not assuming that this is the Christian view as you keep arrogantly asserting. I know it is. Through study of my subject. I'll not saying that it's the only view. There are plenty people who believe irrationally. It may not be the philosophical view, but who cares? Christians certainly don't.

Lol, you're not assuming, you just happen to know it's true but have entirely evaded evidencing that and worse, ignore counter-evidence in a stupid way because it didn't suit your belief. How quaint.

Ryft would explain it to you in your own discipline, and I was trying to link you with him but he's offline at the moment.

I doubt he could without begging the very question you have continuously.

---

No offense taken and most likely your understanding of philosophy will exceed mine. The questions are aimed at trying to understand a person's perspective. Unlike yourself, not everyone states their perspective in their 'religious view.' Some people believe that the physical world is an illusion. That while we can touch, taste, see, etc. things they don't really exist. To them our senses are not 'reliable'. Others, and I'll assume yourself included, would hold that all there is is the physical world. Two very different conversations.

Don't mean to come off, as I likely did, as antagonistic to you. Little tired from work/studying for mid-terms.
And i should be clear that I have no clue as to your level of knowledge of philosophy, and I myself am a first-year philosophy student, though interested i n the discipline for a bit longer than that.

I put that as my religious view because it entails my religious view as well.

By 'reliable' I mean trustworthy and unchanging.

Well then unless we're going the whole 9-yards and doubting memory too, it seems clear we have good inductive grounds for our senses' reliability as you define it.

We've never discussed before so please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position. From a naturalist perspective haven't you already ruled out the possibility of God before asking the question? If you presuppose the physical is all that is, then there cannot be anything non-physical.

Actually, I have ruled out the possibility of God's existence. However, I did not/do not do so merely because of a presupposition that non-physical things cannot exist. I don't think the God concept, as has been presented to me, is logically coherent, and I find many faults in all of the arguments for God's existence as well.

[fr0d0]

Plenty ad homs, no argument. I don't discuss philosophy because I'm not interested in it. You need to take that up with people that are. I'm interested to read what philosophers say.

You refuse to address me where I am, then call me names because I cannot address philosophy. I have no further interest in your wankfest.

[MindForgedManacle]

Plenty ad homs, no argument. I don't discuss philosophy because I'm not interested in it. You need to take that up with people that are. I'm interested to read what philosophers say.

You refuse to address me where I am, then call me names because I cannot address philosophy. I have no further interest in your wankfest.

Lol. You have your argument addressed multiple times, then lie that I haven't addressed them. I'm sorry you don't want to address philosophy, but when your claims venture into the realm of philosophy, as they did, I will address them as such. Yes, I know rational argumentation against your views frightens you, but chin up, you too can be an honest seeker if you don't lie and are willing to engage in a discussion with openess and no bull...

And heck, calling you a fool wasn't part of any argument I gave. It was a clear fact given you claiming "This is theology not philosophy." That is a demonstration of your ignorance on theology and its history. It would be like saying "This is physics not science!"

Eh, braggy but true.

[fr0d0]

Wanky more like.

I am entirely rational about my beliefs, but you are uninterested in that.

Philosophy is great in that it explores all avenues to the ridiculous. That's entirely in opposition to your dogmatic presentation here.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Plenty ad homs, no argument. I don't discuss philosophy because I'm not interested in it. You need to take that up with people that are. I'm interested to read what philosophers say.

You refuse to address me where I am, then call me names because I cannot address philosophy. I have no further interest in your wankfest.

He laid it out for you clearly, in an easy to understand fashion. You're backpedaling because the garbage you tried to pass as an argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

If you have no interest in philosophy, but are interested in what philosophers say, how do you judge the merits of a work? Whether or not it appears in AiG's approved books list?

[MindForgedManacle]

I am entirely rational about my beliefs, but you are uninterested in that.

Except for the parts where you weren't and complained about having your argument critiqued in the realm it ventured into, in addition to making silly remarks.

Philosophy is great in that it explores all avenues to the ridiculous. That's entirely in opposition to your dogmatic presentation here.

Except for the part where I employed rational argumentation to critiqued your claims. Further, being abrasive is not the same as being dogmatic. And the projection is priceless, given you've been asserting your views, and that of the supposed mainstream, as "the" Christian view and any who disagree are merely "dissenters" who "happen to be wrong", which is very clearly dogmatic.

[fr0d0]

I presented the reasoning. Your counter was "this is not true because I have these examples that disagree, even though your quote already discounted them". I see no reasoning from you at all.

Clearly Jacob here is evidence of someone who disagrees with me on that too. That's fine. I'm happy to acknowledge his opinion as valid for him, and as a Christian I respect for his beliefs as consistent with my own.

Never did I claim exclusivity, but that seems to be your point. Great. Let's move on.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Wanky more like.

I am entirely rational about my beliefs, but you are uninterested in that.

I'm sure you believe they are. However, this is not Fr0d0's Pers0nal Pulpit Thread. If you can't state your beliefs clearly and support them with the reason, you have no buisiness making that claim, or continuing to derail the thread with self-platitudes.

Philosophy is great in that it explores all avenues to the ridiculous. That's entirely in opposition to your dogmatic presentation here.

You're thinking of metaphysics.

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Note that announcing you have "personal, mainstream Christian views" that you refuse to quantify does not count as rational argument.