Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Feedback On Series Of Questions


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Hi ya'll

 

I have a series of questions I'd like to fire at a Christian.

 

Some background: The Christian has recently shifted some goal posts as to definitions of faith and evidence and what science can and can't do. The assertions were made that 1) science cannot observe beyond the natural world (no argument there) 2) faith should have evidence to back it up, 3) we can see the workings of God in the natural world. (Essentially look a leaf - I see the maker in it!)

 

This Christian is basically attempting to combat the idea that belief in God is 'faith only'. No apparently there is evidence and by evidence we have faith.

 

So I want to fire off this set of questions - is this set robust or have I made a weak question set given the scenario?

 

1)      How do you justify your belief in God, taking into account there is no way for God to be revealed/proved though the observable world? (Or else science could test it)

2)      What evidence is there for God, considering that evidence cannot come from the natural world per your statements on faith and evidence?

3)      If you have no evidence for God why do you believe in God?

 

 

Thanks - hope I didn't bore you all. smile.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone could argue what you mean by observable world, because there experiences could qualify by your wording. That seems like a potential opening.

 

Also this heavily depending on the defintion of a debateable term. The term being miracle.

 

You got the right idea those just seem to me at least to be worthwhile considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how sophisticated this Christian is. If he (I'm guessing it's a dude) thinks he can present evidence without relying on God assumptions, I think he'll fail. At Vatican I, the Catholic church declared that miracles and fulfilled prophecies provide evidence for its claims. On examination, those usually evaporate, or else you have to have faith already to accept that the event counts as a miracle or fulfilled prophecy.

 

There are some more sophisticated apologists who will happily admit that there is no "evidence" for faith because, they'll say, the question of God's existence etc. is not a scientific question. They'll accuse you of category mistakes if you ask for evidence.

 

One group may insist instead that the foundational questions are metaphysical questions, which we tackle by reason not observation, and they'll insist that scientists unthinkingly import metaphysical assumptions into their supposedly metaphysics-free disciplines. These guys tend to be Catholics, often Thomists. Apologists like Wm. Lane Craig don't really fall into this camp, because, while they will use any argument that they think will work, they are OK with cherrypicking from among appealing to scientific data when they suit their purposes.

 

Another group may take a more epistemological angle. They'll try to reduce you to skepticism about the reliability of observation and reasoning and will insist that unless god guarantees logic, we can't know anything. These are usually Calvinist Transcendental Argument for God types, though I think some Catholics are trying this approach these days, too.

 

If I were your Christian interlocutor, I'd argue that unless there is some being that exists necessarily, we cannot account for why anything exists. Since the universe undergoes change, and change must be caused by something other than the thing (or part) that changes, the necessary being has to be other than the universe, with the universe dependent on it for causality and not ultimately causing itself. Then I'd identify that necessary being with the God of Christianity because I'd argue that the trinity solves the age-old problem of the one and the many, etc etc. I wouldn't "go there" on evidence if I were trying to sell religion unless my listener were fairly new to the apologetics racket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I've had similar discussions with believers, my SIL in particular comes to mind. I think she is representative of the vast majority of those who identify as Christian.

 

As a rule, such believers are not apologists, thinkers or scholars on Biblical matters whatsoever. Essentially it comes down to the fact that they believe because they want to, and my SIL plainly said exactly that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ya'll

 

I have a series of questions I'd like to fire at a Christian.

 

Some background: The Christian has recently shifted some goal posts as to definitions of faith and evidence and what science can and can't do. The assertions were made that 1) science cannot observe beyond the natural world (no argument there) 2) faith should have evidence to back it up, 3) we can see the workings of God in the natural world. (Essentially look a leaf - I see the maker in it!)

 

This Christian is basically attempting to combat the idea that belief in God is 'faith only'. No apparently there is evidence and by evidence we have faith.

 

So I want to fire off this set of questions - is this set robust or have I made a weak question set given the scenario?

 

1)      How do you justify your belief in God, taking into account there is no way for God to be revealed/proved though the observable world? (Or else science could test it)

2)      What evidence is there for God, considering that evidence cannot come from the natural world per your statements on faith and evidence?

3)      If you have no evidence for God why do you believe in God?

 

 

Thanks - hope I didn't bore you all. smile.png

 

This looks like a fun one for me to play "devils advocatezDuivel7.gif "  I have been an atheist for all of my adult life. With all due respect I think that all religions are a joke, but I have laughed enough about what religions profess for scores of years now so I am now pretty much "laughed out," so now one might say that I am simply amused by the ignorance of most religious people. Those that believe in both religion and science have a very difficult task of internal justification IMO.

 

But for this thread I will pretend to be the faithful Christian, which is generally the opposite of my real understands of the "truth."

 

That being said, I will answer your questions as if I were a devout Christian --- NOT. This will be fun smile.png

 

Your quote: "So I want to fire off this set of questions - is this set robust or have I made a weak question set given the scenario?"

 

Questions in blue: "Faithful Christian's" answers in black

 

1)      How do you justify your belief in God, taking into account there is no way for God to be revealed/proved though the observable world? (Or else science could test it)

 

Christian's answer:

 

God/ Christ has not revealed himself since he finally rose into heaven. He will arise again for a second coming, the timing of which no one knows. His second coming will be the proof of the scriptures. Belief, otherwise comes from personal experiences with Jesus and god through prayer. Those that feel his presence, have the knowledge of their personal relationship with Christ, that cannot be disproved.

 

2)      What evidence is there for God, considering that evidence cannot come from the natural world per your statements on faith and evidence?

 

The natural world, including mankind, is full of all kinds of fantastic wonders. These interrelationships strongly hint to a master plan of creation. Science would have us believe that this all happened by the chances of evolution. Science also believes that matter progresses toward disorder and chaos over time, second law of thermodynamics, rather than producing the fine creations of life. These science ideas together are contradictory.

 

3)      If you have no evidence for God why do you believe in God? 

 

The evidence is twofold. First the knowledge of a personal relationship with god through prayer. Secondly, the perfection of creation as observed in the details of the natural world.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

So there it is, a classical, brief, Christian-like answers to your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ya'll

 

I have a series of questions I'd like to fire at a Christian.

 

Some background: The Christian has recently shifted some goal posts as to definitions of faith and evidence and what science can and can't do. The assertions were made that 1) science cannot observe beyond the natural world (no argument there) 2) faith should have evidence to back it up, 3) we can see the workings of God in the natural world. (Essentially look a leaf - I see the maker in it!)

 

This Christian is basically attempting to combat the idea that belief in God is 'faith only'. No apparently there is evidence and by evidence we have faith.

 

So I want to fire off this set of questions - is this set robust or have I made a weak question set given the scenario?

 

1)      How do you justify your belief in God, taking into account there is no way for God to be revealed/proved though the observable world? (Or else science could test it)

2)      What evidence is there for God, considering that evidence cannot come from the natural world per your statements on faith and evidence?

3)      If you have no evidence for God why do you believe in God?

 

 

Thanks - hope I didn't bore you all. smile.png

 

Hey LF!

 

Could you please clarify assertion # 2 please?

 

Does the Christian mean...

 

 

A.  Christian faith should have evidence to back it up - but it doesn't have any. 

 

B. Christian faith should have evidence to back it up - but if there isn't any, Christian faith is still valid. 

 

C. Christian faith should (i.e., must) have evidence to back it up, or else Christian faith is invalid.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@ BAA

 

Well that's a tricky question. I am not exactly sure what the Christian mean's. (You know who the Christian is) Goal posts are rapidly changing as I challenge his beliefs. So I am attempting to pin him down on whether he has evidence or really just relies on faith. See I have, of course, come out and said there is no evidence for God, and the assertions made above is the kind of rapid changing response I'm getting.

 

He said (This is paraphrased) "The Christian should have evidence. What is faith? Having evidence results in faith. That is the faith God is looking for"

 

Honestly I think he's confused himself with all this delving into science/theology/philosophy and is trying to essentially say Christianity operates like science and has evidence to create faith.

 

To your options... it cannot be C simply because he will never say the Christian faith is invalid thus he cannot mean that. It can't be A, because apparently with the newfound 'inspiration from God' faith is the result of evidence.

 

So I'd have to go with B, because I believe even if you could "prove" in every sense of the word that God didn't exist, he'd still say God exists.... science is wrong blah blah and etc.

 

I'd prefer not to have to engage with this mindless going around and changing beliefs, but I have to with this person. On the plus side he's talking about science.... and butchering the scientific method to boot tongue.png

 

 

@ all others. Thanks for your replies, I will respond directly when I have more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Hi Ficino

I don't know how sophisticated this Christian is. If he (I'm guessing it's a dude) thinks he can present evidence without relying on God assumptions, I think he'll fail. At Vatican I, the Catholic church declared that miracles and fulfilled prophecies provide evidence for its claims. On examination, those usually evaporate, or else you have to have faith already to accept that the event counts as a miracle or fulfilled prophecy.

 

​Getting more sophisticated because my coming out has made him (yes correct is a dude) watch tonnes of youtube's on all sorts of apologetic's etc. He has learned that throwing science out as ungodly worked 10 years ago but won't work now.

 

There are some more sophisticated apologists who will happily admit that there is no "evidence" for faith because, they'll say, the question of God's existence etc. is not a scientific question. They'll accuse you of category mistakes if you ask for evidence.

 

One group may insist instead that the foundational questions are metaphysical questions, which we tackle by reason not observation, and they'll insist that scientists unthinkingly import metaphysical assumptions into their supposedly metaphysics-free disciplines. These guys tend to be Catholics, often Thomists. Apologists like Wm. Lane Craig don't really fall into this camp, because, while they will use any argument that they think will work, they are OK with cherrypicking from among appealing to scientific data when they suit their purposes.

 

Regarding the two points above: So on one hand he says science says nothing about God, on the other the genome project, lead by Christian Francis Collins, shows there is a grand designer because DNA complexity, but evolution is a big conspiracy to destroy God. That's what I'm dealing with. Yes I have to deal with it.

 

Another group may take a more epistemological angle. They'll try to reduce you to skepticism about the reliability of observation and reasoning and will insist that unless god guarantees logic, we can't know anything. These are usually Calvinist Transcendental Argument for God types, though I think some Catholics are trying this approach these days, too.

 

A bit of this coming through with statements like "evolution can't be observed, all observations are not really evolution just change inside a species" etc

 

If I were your Christian interlocutor, I'd argue that unless there is some being that exists necessarily, we cannot account for why anything exists. Since the universe undergoes change, and change must be caused by something other than the thing (or part) that changes, the necessary being has to be other than the universe, with the universe dependent on it for causality and not ultimately causing itself. Then I'd identify that necessary being with the God of Christianity because I'd argue that the trinity solves the age-old problem of the one and the many, etc etc. I wouldn't "go there" on evidence if I were trying to sell religion unless my listener were fairly new to the apologetics racket.

 

This is similar to a WLC argument? What is your answer to this kind of argument? At the moment, as I understand it, the science around the cause of the universe is very fuzzy (Krauss universe from nothing etc) so can be a weak point to bring up.

 

Thanks

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Someone could argue what you mean by observable world, because there experiences could qualify by your wording. That seems like a potential opening.

 

By the Christians current stand on science, observable world should be that which science can deal with. So reality as we perceive it, and can measure. Personal experiences can't be measured therefore are outside of this? However new neuro technology possibly could measure what happens to a person if they had a God experience while connect to equipment?

 

Also this heavily depending on the defintion of a debateable term. The term being miracle.

 

Hmm, yes, see a bit of the problem, as mentioned in my posts above, is a newfound habit of rapid goal shifting. The person I'm dealing with today is not the person I dealt with 3 months ago.

 

You got the right idea those just seem to me at least to be worthwhile considerations.

 

Thanks

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying, LF. 

 

Yeah (deep sigh)...I figgered it would be option B.  Going with A would rule out the possibility of using ID to prop up his beliefs and C would directly contradict Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 

 

Anyway, before you go much further with him, you really need to pin him down on what science can and cannot do and then hold him there.  No flip-flopping!

You and I both know that it's not within science's remit to draw any religious or supernatural conclusions from it's investigation of the natural universe.  Scientists like Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, Don Page and John Polkinghorne have broken that rule and sacrificed their professionalism and neutrality on the altar of their personal Christian beliefs.  What they claim to be legitimate science should be treated with extreme suspicion.  This is because they are freely mixing aspects of their professional and personal lives that science requires to be kept separate. 

 

The absolute need for this separation can be easily demonstrated to your Christian, LF. 

Just ask him if a Muslim scientist should use their scientific work to promote their religious beliefs.  If he says, No...then ask him why it's ok for Christians who are scientists to do it.  Why are Christians above or exempt from the rules?  "Because Christianity is true and other beliefs are not" is not a valid answer, of course.  That's just begging the question and all such circular arguments are invalid.  If he says, Yes...then please direct him to this site... http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html ...and let him try to refute their arguments.  Please remind him that he can't invoke his Christian faith to just declare them wrong from get go.  That's because, if he holds up ID as legitimate science then anyone arguing against ID has to use the rules of legitimate science to show that it is false.  Religious arguments and religious faith can't be used because ID is science, right?  wink.png

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Someone could argue what you mean by observable world, because there experiences could qualify by your wording. That seems like a potential opening.

 

By the Christians current stand on science, observable world should be that which science can deal with. So reality as we perceive it, and can measure. Personal experiences can't be measured therefore are outside of this? However new neuro technology possibly could measure what happens to a person if they had a God experience while connect to equipment?

Also this heavily depending on the defintion of a debateable term. The term being miracle.

 

Hmm, yes, see a bit of the problem, as mentioned in my posts above, is a newfound habit of rapid goal shifting. The person I'm dealing with today is not the person I dealt with 3 months ago.

You got the right idea those just seem to me at least to be worthwhile considerations.

 

Thanks

LF

my suggestion would be to use whatever way he wishes to define miracle or observable world because untill the he can goal shift till he is blue in the face.

 

Just some general ideas but your mileage with these may vary.

 

I would challenge him to explain how he can prove his faith without reference to science if personal experience is off the table because personal experience can be studied and anaylized. I would reference deism alot.

 

If personal experience is fair game i would use the tactic of reductio ad absurdem and tie him up in nots about which personal experience he can accept. As well, you can mention studies on memory.

 

You cant really win if he doesnt commit to a position. Let him hang himself mentally.

 

If he changes his mind and wants to use science, i would mention probability, bayes theorem, etc and harp on testability. While its technically a no no(methdological naturalism), you can use scientific elements to criticise religion.

 

Dunno if that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ficino

I don't know how sophisticated this Christian is. If he (I'm guessing it's a dude) thinks he can present evidence without relying on God assumptions, I think he'll fail. At Vatican I, the Catholic church declared that miracles and fulfilled prophecies provide evidence for its claims. On examination, those usually evaporate, or else you have to have faith already to accept that the event counts as a miracle or fulfilled prophecy.

 

​Getting more sophisticated because my coming out has made him (yes correct is a dude) watch tonnes of youtube's on all sorts of apologetic's etc. He has learned that throwing science out as ungodly worked 10 years ago but won't work now.

 

There are some more sophisticated apologists who will happily admit that there is no "evidence" for faith because, they'll say, the question of God's existence etc. is not a scientific question. They'll accuse you of category mistakes if you ask for evidence.

 

One group may insist instead that the foundational questions are metaphysical questions, which we tackle by reason not observation, and they'll insist that scientists unthinkingly import metaphysical assumptions into their supposedly metaphysics-free disciplines. These guys tend to be Catholics, often Thomists. Apologists like Wm. Lane Craig don't really fall into this camp, because, while they will use any argument that they think will work, they are OK with cherrypicking from among appealing to scientific data when they suit their purposes.

 

Regarding the two points above: So on one hand he says science says nothing about God, on the other the genome project, lead by Christian Francis Collins, shows there is a grand designer because DNA complexity, but evolution is a big conspiracy to destroy God. That's what I'm dealing with. Yes I have to deal with it.

 

Another group may take a more epistemological angle. They'll try to reduce you to skepticism about the reliability of observation and reasoning and will insist that unless god guarantees logic, we can't know anything. These are usually Calvinist Transcendental Argument for God types, though I think some Catholics are trying this approach these days, too.

 

A bit of this coming through with statements like "evolution can't be observed, all observations are not really evolution just change inside a species" etc

 

If I were your Christian interlocutor, I'd argue that unless there is some being that exists necessarily, we cannot account for why anything exists. Since the universe undergoes change, and change must be caused by something other than the thing (or part) that changes, the necessary being has to be other than the universe, with the universe dependent on it for causality and not ultimately causing itself. Then I'd identify that necessary being with the God of Christianity because I'd argue that the trinity solves the age-old problem of the one and the many, etc etc. I wouldn't "go there" on evidence if I were trying to sell religion unless my listener were fairly new to the apologetics racket.

 

This is similar to a WLC argument? What is your answer to this kind of argument? At the moment, as I understand it, the science around the cause of the universe is very fuzzy (Krauss universe from nothing etc) so can be a weak point to bring up.

 

Thanks

LF

 

Hi LogicalFallacy, BAA and others gave good advice about handling the conversation if your friend wants to keep appealing to science. If your friend keeps doing that, I think his arguments will boil down to "we don't know, so God did it."

 

If he tries to inoculate his position against science altogether and go the purely metaphysical route, claiming that science in principle cannot contribute to a discussion about the existence of God, then that would be a whole new area for him. It's too complicated to get into much, and there are more metaphysical systems out there than I can keep up with.

 

I'd say as a quickie against the Thomist system:

1. Thomas himself claimed that theology rests on and uses the findings of "lower" sciences such as physics. But Aquinas' physics and cosmology were way off. So the burden is on the Thomist to show us why we should adopt Thomism, which uses an Aristotelian framework. Attempts of modern Thomists to slice off Thomas' wrong science and leave the metaphysics go against Thomas' own approach.

2. Thomas' First Mover, First Cause, etc. are Aristotelian constructs. At the end, Thomas just says, "and this all men understand to be God." But Aristotle's First/Unmoved Mover cannot have any interaction with the world because it is pure Act. If it interacts with things, it stands in relation to them and thus is linked to the world of "becoming." The Christian God interacts with its creatures, but Aristotle's god has no knowledge of individuals and performs no actions upon individuals. Thomas is not entitled to slide from Aristotle's God to Yahweh. [Thomists of course deny that Thomas "slid."]

 

I don't want to belabor this, since it may be irrelevant to your friend's developing concerns. Let me know if you want to pursue any of these avenues later on.

 

As for Wm. Lane Craig, he's not a Thomist. He disagrees with them and holds that God does enter into direct relationships with creatures. That entails that God can be affected somehow by creatures, since in a relation, things operate in both directions.  And Craig pushes the Kalam Cosmological argument, which Thomas Aquinas did not think is sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of intellectually good arguments, historical references and comments given in this thread smile.png  I have taken a different approach in my life when dealing with religious people. I refer back to the old question "what is better, a religion which is true, or one that makes one happy." Philosophers generally agree that there is no correct answer to this question for a number of reasons.

 

So I don't argue with people about religious matters unless I know them well enough to believe that I will be helping them by explaining "the truth" to them. I have known very bright scientists who totally believe in science and also with some form of Christianity, and balance both without internal conflict and also don't like to talk about their religious beliefs, which of course they have the right to do.

 

In general I believe that I am the most resolute atheist that I know of. Not because I am anti-religion, which I am not, Its just that all religious arguments seem totally ridiculous to me, so much so that I would bet any possibility of the validity of religion, of spiritual beings ( non-physical), or the damnation of my eternal soul, against most any six pack of beer. However, I like going to church once in a while because I like singing the songs and I like most of the people who I know that go there. Although I don't talk about it, most realize that I am a non-believer but do not mind my being in their meetings or church, primarily, I think, because of my upbeat personality. Of course maybe if they knew the extent of my disbelief, I expect many would not want my presence.

 

If and when JW's, Mormons, or others come to the door and are inviting me to their church I often accept their invitation. If they are talking religion trying to see where I stand, I tell them that I am a scientist and believe all religions are wrong -- that humans are nothing more than relatively smart animals. If that doesn't stop them and they wish to continue talking religion, I will explain my "beliefs" to them but little effort toward trying to convince them of anything because it may not be in their best interest.

 

I think a good example of how religion can be of service to a person would be those that have taken up drugs, resulting in a very unhappy life or their early demise. For instance, I believe a lower percentage of people growing up in a loving, religious home, would take up drugs or alcohol as a way of life. Granted, having come from a loving and supportive family alone can make the difference that deters most people from becoming addicted to "recreational" drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@ Pantheory: I also enjoy songs and singing.. despite my complete lack of any tunefullness :) However in my church often things are said that grates me. It's an apocalyptic church so EVERYTHING points towards the end. Society is failing, the world is going to hell, homosexuals etc are taking over, Sodom and Gomorrah is upon us, science is good, science is bad, unholy amounts of inconsistent assertions. The pastor has total and complete confidence in every assertion he makes about everything. So as far as sitting in a service I find it hard to enjoy it - I spend the entire service mentally refuting much of what is said.

 

Re your statement about religion can be good: Yes totally agree, and this is one area non believers/atheists haven't yet managed to make a real dent in yet. Possibly because we can't offer a nice mental fantasy. We are too skeptical and generally don't offer false hopes. It's ironic that such false hopes can indeed take a person off the street, off drugs, and turn them into a productive member of society... that believes in fairy tales.

 

Also re your answers to your first post: That is fairly much in line with what answers I could expect from this Christian, though he could surprise me.

 

@ ficino: thanks. The Christian is not yet getting into philosophical arguments so at the moment no need for me to go there.

 

@ Shinzon. Thanks. Re "You cant really win if he doesnt commit to a position. Let him hang himself mentally" This is a bit of an issue, as positions seem to change by the week. Rather frustrating. I'm of half a mind to say I'm not engaging any further until he commits to positions.

 

@BAA: Yes, despite what I have said above I am going to try and pin down a position of science. However, I am pretty sure its along the lines of "Science that agrees with the Bible (Or his interpretation thereof) is sound science, science that doesn't agree with the bible (Evolution, age of universe, biological predisposition to homosexuality etc) is not sound and is discarded" I need to figure out how to basically say that its incorrect to accept some peer reviewed science, but reject other peer reviewed science simply because it contradicts his presupposed world view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Pantheory: I also enjoy songs and singing.. despite my complete lack of any tunefullness smile.png However in my church often things are said that grates me. It's an apocalyptic church so EVERYTHING points towards the end. Society is failing, the world is going to hell, homosexuals etc are taking over, Sodom and Gomorrah is upon us, science is good, science is bad, unholy amounts of inconsistent assertions. The pastor has total and complete confidence in every assertion he makes about everything. So as far as sitting in a service I find it hard to enjoy it - I spend the entire service mentally refuting much of what is said.

 

Re your statement about religion can be good: Yes totally agree, and this is one area non believers/atheists haven't yet managed to make a real dent in yet. Possibly because we can't offer a nice mental fantasy. We are too skeptical and generally don't offer false hopes. It's ironic that such false hopes can indeed take a person off the street, off drugs, and turn them into a productive member of society... that believes in fairy tales.

 

Also re your answers to your first post: That is fairly much in line with what answers I could expect from this Christian, though he could surprise me.

 

@ ficino: thanks. The Christian is not yet getting into philosophical arguments so at the moment no need for me to go there.

 

@ Shinzon. Thanks. Re "You cant really win if he doesnt commit to a position. Let him hang himself mentally" This is a bit of an issue, as positions seem to change by the week. Rather frustrating. I'm of half a mind to say I'm not engaging any further until he commits to positions.

 

@BAA: Yes, despite what I have said above I am going to try and pin down a position of science. However, I am pretty sure its along the lines of "Science that agrees with the Bible (Or his interpretation thereof) is sound science, science that doesn't agree with the bible (Evolution, age of universe, biological predisposition to homosexuality etc) is not sound and is discarded" I need to figure out how to basically say that its incorrect to accept some peer reviewed science, but reject other peer reviewed science simply because it contradicts his presupposed world view. 

 

LF, If you are really a non-believer I suggest going to a different church, if and when you wish to go. From my experiences there are a number of up-beat churches that emphasize the positives of living like the golden rule, positive sermons, with lots of nice songs and music, and which generally don't talk about the fear of god or other negatives of the bible in general. From my experiences there are also a number of upbeat Jewish Temples, Mosques, Hindu temples, Jain and Buddhist Temples, etc. that involve little or no negative sermons, indoctrination, prayers, or ritual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@BAA: Yes, despite what I have said above I am going to try and pin down a position of science. However, I am pretty sure its along the lines of "Science that agrees with the Bible (Or his interpretation thereof) is sound science, science that doesn't agree with the bible (Evolution, age of universe, biological predisposition to homosexuality etc) is not sound and is discarded" I need to figure out how to basically say that its incorrect to accept some peer reviewed science, but reject other peer reviewed science simply because it contradicts his presupposed world view. 

 

That Miracles of the Quran link shows them using the Fine Tuned Universe argument for the existence of Allah.

 

Please ask Mr. Christian why it's not ok for them to do that, but ok for him to do that.

 

The real answer, of course, is that neither Christians nor Muslims are making scientific arguments for their respective gods.

 

Instead, they are interpreting agnostic and neutral scientific data thru the lens of their beliefs.

 

Science cannot and does not serve any particular deity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

@BAA: Yes, despite what I have said above I am going to try and pin down a position of science. However, I am pretty sure its along the lines of "Science that agrees with the Bible (Or his interpretation thereof) is sound science, science that doesn't agree with the bible (Evolution, age of universe, biological predisposition to homosexuality etc) is not sound and is discarded" I need to figure out how to basically say that its incorrect to accept some peer reviewed science, but reject other peer reviewed science simply because it contradicts his presupposed world view. 

 

That Miracles of the Quran link shows them using the Fine Tuned Universe argument for the existence of Allah.

 

Please ask Mr. Christian why it's not ok for them to do that, but ok for him to do that.

 

The real answer, of course, is that neither Christians nor Muslims are making scientific arguments for their respective gods.

 

Instead, they are interpreting agnostic and neutral scientific data thru the lens of their beliefs.

 

Science cannot and does not serve any particular deity.

 

Mr. Christian might be OK with Christianity's and Islam's agreement on some theses of so-called classical theism. Medieval scholastics agreed with Islamic philosophers, and were influenced by them, as long as it suited their purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

@BAA: Yes, despite what I have said above I am going to try and pin down a position of science. However, I am pretty sure its along the lines of "Science that agrees with the Bible (Or his interpretation thereof) is sound science, science that doesn't agree with the bible (Evolution, age of universe, biological predisposition to homosexuality etc) is not sound and is discarded" I need to figure out how to basically say that its incorrect to accept some peer reviewed science, but reject other peer reviewed science simply because it contradicts his presupposed world view. 

 

That Miracles of the Quran link shows them using the Fine Tuned Universe argument for the existence of Allah.

 

Please ask Mr. Christian why it's not ok for them to do that, but ok for him to do that.

 

The real answer, of course, is that neither Christians nor Muslims are making scientific arguments for their respective gods.

 

Instead, they are interpreting agnostic and neutral scientific data thru the lens of their beliefs.

 

Science cannot and does not serve any particular deity.

 

Mr. Christian might be OK with Christianity's and Islam's agreement on some theses of so-called classical theism. Medieval scholastics agreed with Islamic philosophers, and were influenced by them, as long as it suited their purposes.

 

 

Point taken, Ficino.

 

However, LogicalFallacy's Christian is a modern (and rigid) YEC, which suggests that he may not be happy to jump thru the same theological hoops as those medieval scholars.  

 

Another point worth mentioning is that Fine-Tuned universe argument cannot be reconciled in any way with a YEC Biblical timeline.  

All of the many finely-tuned physical constants that Christian apologists claim to show the hand of God, only work in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old.   So LF's Christian is cherry picking and doing so from a position of ignorance of the workings of science.  He seems happy to blithely accept whatever science appears to support his faith and to reject whatever doesn't, without understanding why or how.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked cherries.

 

Aquinas held that the doctrine of the creation of the world in time out of nothing, as opposed to an eternal universe, cannot be proved by reason and can only be known by revelation. In holding that philosophy cannot disprove an eternal universe, Aquinas followed the famous Islamic philosopher, Averroes. Averroes, however, just said that the doctrine of creation of the world in time out of nothing must be taken allegorically. Aquinas did not go that far, since he always held to doctrines defined by the Church. Averroes was an Aristotelian outlier among Islamic philosophers. Of course, both of them as Aristotelians held that by reason we can know that even on the model of an eternal universe, God as first cause must sustain it in being at every moment.

 

I only mention this in case anyone is interested. As a geek, I'm always interested in such things. I doubt that LogicalFallacy's Christian chum will go very far into metaphysics.

 

When I was a fundy I was told by our medieval philosophy prof that Augustine held that the world was created in a moment of time, complete, and that the days of Genesis are an allegorical framework. Augustine held that before creation, there was no time, since time is a function of a body's motion. I liked that. I never bought YEC thinking even as a fundy. I guess that's because even then I loved sin and was mad at God and was hurt by mean people at church.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ya'll

 

I have a series of questions I'd like to fire at a Christian.

 

Some background: The Christian has recently shifted some goal posts as to definitions of faith and evidence and what science can and can't do. The assertions were made that 1) science cannot observe beyond the natural world (no argument there) 2) faith should have evidence to back it up, 3) we can see the workings of God in the natural world. (Essentially look a leaf - I see the maker in it!)

 

This Christian is basically attempting to combat the idea that belief in God is 'faith only'. No apparently there is evidence and by evidence we have faith.

 

So I want to fire off this set of questions - is this set robust or have I made a weak question set given the scenario?

 

1)      How do you justify your belief in God, taking into account there is no way for God to be revealed/proved though the observable world? (Or else science could test it)

2)      What evidence is there for God, considering that evidence cannot come from the natural world per your statements on faith and evidence?

3)      If you have no evidence for God why do you believe in God?

 

 

Thanks - hope I didn't bore you all. smile.png

 

Question 1. It appears that your friend's assertion #3 provides evidence of God and so #2 is covered as well.

Question 2. The leaf was evidence, right? The physical world is his evidence, per #3...I guess.

Question 3. The more evidence you have, the less faith needed, imo. And vice versa. Christians don't really need evidence unless they are dealing with a non-believer. They don't believe in Jesus because there is evidence. It's emotional. It's one part of their life where logic takes a break. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had similar discussions with believers, my SIL in particular comes to mind. I think she is representative of the vast majority of those who identify as Christian.

 

As a rule, such believers are not apologists, thinkers or scholars on Biblical matters whatsoever. Essentially it comes down to the fact that they believe because they want to, and my SIL plainly said exactly that. 

 

I was given that exact defense to use against non-believers back in the day..."That's nice, but I choose to believe in Jesus." No reason needed. smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked cherries.

 

Aquinas held that the doctrine of the creation of the world in time out of nothing, as opposed to an eternal universe, cannot be proved by reason and can only be known by revelation. In holding that philosophy cannot disprove an eternal universe, Aquinas followed the famous Islamic philosopher, Averroes. Averroes, however, just said that the doctrine of creation of the world in time out of nothing must be taken allegorically. Aquinas did not go that far, since he always held to doctrines defined by the Church. Averroes was an Aristotelian outlier among Islamic philosophers. Of course, both of them as Aristotelians held that by reason we can know that even on the model of an eternal universe, God as first cause must sustain it in being at every moment.

 

I only mention this in case anyone is interested. As a geek, I'm always interested in such things. I doubt that LogicalFallacy's Christian chum will go very far into metaphysics.

 

When I was a fundy I was told by our medieval philosophy prof that Augustine held that the world was created in a moment of time, complete, and that the days of Genesis are an allegorical framework. Augustine held that before creation, there was no time, since time is a function of a body's motion. I liked that. I never bought YEC thinking even as a fundy. I guess that's because even then I loved sin and was mad at God and was hurt by mean people at church.

 

Averroes, huh?

 

Hmmm... this is about as much as I know about him.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

 

So those Scientific-Miracles-of-the-Quran websites would be getting back into Falsafa, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I shall graciously bow out at the mention of Scientific Miracles of the Quran websites! GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very wise, Ficino!    

 

I shall do the same and await further input from LogicalFallacy.

 

Byeee!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

He seems happy to blithely accept whatever science appears to support his faith and to reject whatever doesn't, without understanding why or how. 

Thanks,

BAA.

In his mind he approaches it with the authority that God has inspired him to know this stuff, and to figure out what is true and what is not. This is a very difficult position to talk sense with because the person is so convinced that only their revelation is right.

 

 

 

Hi ya'll

 

I have a series of questions I'd like to fire at a Christian.

 

Some background: The Christian has recently shifted some goal posts as to definitions of faith and evidence and what science can and can't do. The assertions were made that 1) science cannot observe beyond the natural world (no argument there) 2) faith should have evidence to back it up, 3) we can see the workings of God in the natural world. (Essentially look a leaf - I see the maker in it!)

 

This Christian is basically attempting to combat the idea that belief in God is 'faith only'. No apparently there is evidence and by evidence we have faith.

 

So I want to fire off this set of questions - is this set robust or have I made a weak question set given the scenario?

 

1)      How do you justify your belief in God, taking into account there is no way for God to be revealed/proved though the observable world? (Or else science could test it)

2)      What evidence is there for God, considering that evidence cannot come from the natural world per your statements on faith and evidence?

3)      If you have no evidence for God why do you believe in God?

 

 

Thanks - hope I didn't bore you all. smile.png

 

Question 1. It appears that your friend's assertion #3 provides evidence of God and so #2 is covered as well.

Question 2. The leaf was evidence, right? The physical world is his evidence, per #3...I guess.

Question 3. The more evidence you have, the less faith needed, imo. And vice versa. Christians don't really need evidence unless they are dealing with a non-believer. They don't believe in Jesus because there is evidence. It's emotional. It's one part of their life where logic takes a break. smile.png

 

Regarding number 1 - this is what I am trying to pin down. He says we can see God in nature (He created it all etc) but at the same time says science cannot be used to support any position against God.

 

So #1 and 2 is basically me saying considering the confused position where the christian asserts there is evidence, observable in this world, to support faith, BUT at the same time science can say nothing about God then assuming we play by the rules (Evidence cannot be anything science can measure) then WHAT is his evidence? Or is it all just faith? That's what I'm trying to get at.

 

 

@ BAA & ficino

 

BAA thanks for pointing out that the fine tuning argument cannot be used by a YEC. Basically if he is using either fine tuning or irreducible complexity then I should hold him to believing both a 4.7 billion year old earth, and evolution. In which case I'd say case closed I'm happy.

 

ficino - the christian in mention is certainly not delving into metaphysics yet. And hopefully doesn't. He is delving into conspiracy theory type arguments - evolution was created entirely to do away with God etc. I'm dealing with a person who thinks the US government brought down the twin towers, and that man never got to the moon. The point here is it is hard pinning down his beliefs - hence me wanting feed back on my questions to see if they are well informed questions considering the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.