There is no basis whatsoever for belief in any kind of existence after death. The proposition is as completely speculative as my exploding-moon idea. Nobody who could have observed heaven is in any position to report back to us, just as nobody who could have observed the moon exploding in the future is in any position to report back to us. It's just people making up cool-sounding stuff about areas they cannot observe.
I did not assert there was a basis for belief in the existence after death. But since we are here, there may be no scientific basis for belief in existence after death, but that does not equate to no basis.
If you generate an idea from your imagination, and you know it is an absurd idea concocted to belittle another idea, then you have no basis to believe in the reality of that idea. As with the moonhat.
My point is that "seeking the Creator" is not actually a pursuit. We as a community have no way of making advances in our knowledge on that front. There are no common benchmarks and goals, no way of settling what direction we're supposed to be going and how to get there. One person can say, "Aha, I have scored a touchdown; I have made contact with God!", then another person can respond, "You haven't even rounded first base."
Are you asserting here that only collaborative pursuits are worthwhile?
This prompts the same question as "intelligent design": Doesn't this elevate Creation to a role greater than the Creator?
Or more to the point: You'll tie your bets to someone else? Are these questions their responsibility?
Religious contemplation is an attempt to reach a posteriori conclusions without engaging in a posteriori reasoning. You cannot just sit there and think and reliably come up with a truth about the world outside your brain, like "God exists" or "Good and faithful people go to Heaven". All you can do is speculate, and speculations are wrong more often than they're right. To learn about the outside world, you must observe the outside world. And if you can observe the outside world, others must be able to reliably make the same observations.
There is no obvious way to seek the Creator through scientific means. And yet we can test and weigh our motives and convict ourselves. That is my purpose.
Science is a collaborative effort. If you have observed something, but none of the rest of us can replicate your result, then your observation does not constitute evidence for any hypothesis about objective reality.
And yet, science works. The scientific community very quickly reaches consensus on detailed, quantitative theories of the world, where the religious community can't even agree on the most basic questions about the divine. This is because the religious community accepts subjective experiences as valid evidence, which of course leads to irresolvable contradictions (and, eventually, bloodshed), whereas science demands experimental results that anyone can replicate objectively.
Of course, if religious ideas would lead one to bloodshed, then testing is in order. Gideon is a premiere example of this. I'm not encouraging bloodshed, by any means. I hate bloodshed.
I am humbly suggesting that people seek the Creator, and there is nothing ignoble in doing so. I do not even propose a method or direction, as if there is a great Creator that wants to be found, it can. I do not suggest that doing so is without cost, as the more you learn, the more you will lose.
We can await some great collaboration, and the testimony may shift there someday. But at the time, we have little evidence, yet arguably more abundant understanding of God now than when He stood as a pillar of flame.
There is no basis whatsoever for belief in any kind of existence after death. The proposition is as completely speculative as my exploding-moon idea. Nobody who could have observed heaven is in any position to report back to us, just as nobody who could have observed the moon exploding in the future is in any position to report back to us. It's just people making up cool-sounding stuff about areas they cannot observe.
I did not assert there was a basis for belief in the existence after death. But since we are here, there may be no scientific basis for belief in existence after death, but that does not equate to no basis.
What basis would that be?
Anecdotal stories from people who had NDE's?
Religious contemplation is an attempt to reach a posteriori conclusions without engaging in a posteriori reasoning. You cannot just sit there and think and reliably come up with a truth about the world outside your brain, like "God exists" or "Good and faithful people go to Heaven". All you can do is speculate, and speculations are wrong more often than they're right. To learn about the outside world, you must observe the outside world. And if you can observe the outside world, others must be able to reliably make the same observations.
There is no obvious way to seek the Creator through scientific means. And yet we can test and weigh our motives and convict ourselves. That is my purpose.
I find this contentious. We have no idea if there is or is not an obvious way to seek the creator, for starters since we have no idea if there is or is not a creator to seek.
Science is a collaborative effort. If you have observed something, but none of the rest of us can replicate your result, then your observation does not constitute evidence for any hypothesis about objective reality.
To attain conviction, we must test our own reasons. No one can do this for another person.
Conviction is meaningless if it's conviction in a falsehood.
And yet, science works. The scientific community very quickly reaches consensus on detailed, quantitative theories of the world, where the religious community can't even agree on the most basic questions about the divine. This is because the religious community accepts subjective experiences as valid evidence, which of course leads to irresolvable contradictions (and, eventually, bloodshed), whereas science demands experimental results that anyone can replicate objectively.
Of course, if religious ideas would lead one to bloodshed, then testing is in order. Gideon is a premiere example of this. I'm not encouraging bloodshed, by any means. I hate bloodshed.
I am humbly suggesting that people seek the Creator, and there is nothing ignoble in doing so. I do not even propose a method or direction, as if there is a great Creator that wants to be found, it can. I do not suggest that doing so is without cost, as the more you learn, the more you will lose.
I don't think it's humble or noble to assert without evidence that a creator exists to seek.
You inadvertently could be leading people to waste precious time in their lives chasing a falsehood. I find that cruel and irresponsible.
We can await some great collaboration, and the testimony may shift there someday. But at the time, we have little evidence, yet arguably more abundant understanding of God now than when He stood as a pillar of flame.
We have no evidence, and an erroneous (at best) and false (at worst) belief that we have ever had ANY understanding of god(s) at all.
What Moses wrote down is only evidence that Moses lived and believed it. What Abraham wrote down is only evidence that Abraham lived and believed it. What John, Paul, Timothy, Mohammed, or anyone else for that matter wrote down isn't actually evidence that God(s) exist.
A historical Jesus only proves the existence of Jewish carpenter turned cult leader, and we would only consider him a cult leader based on the words of people who called him as much 60-70 years after his death.
Even Pontius Pilate's testimony isn't evidence that God(s) exist, only that a man (or men) were willing to die for their beliefs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I did not assert there was a basis for belief in the existence after death. But since we are here, there may be no scientific basis for belief in existence after death, but that does not equate to no basis.
Then--for the third time--please, tell us what that basis is.
What greater basis for belief does the resurrection of Jesus have over the reincarnation of Buddha, or the ascension of Hercules, or the reconstruction of Osiris, or the FSM?
You inadvertently could be leading people to waste precious time in their lives chasing a falsehood. I find that cruel and irresponsible.
By that same logic, you can understand why I decline to remain silent.
@ Taylor, although I believe in the resurrection and kingship of Jesus Christ, I did not insist on any particulars. My only point is to encourage searching, and not be intimidated by others, whether those others are supposedly religious or non-religious. Moreover, I encourage one to test their own motives and ambitions.
@ Taylor, although I believe in the resurrection and kingship of Jesus Christ, I did not insist on any particulars.
I get that you're Christian.
However, for the last 2 pages you've done nothing but allude to there being some basis for it; that your claims to Christianity are not baseless, like the exploding moon or whatever.
However, you've not once explained what that basis is.
To be more direct/blunt: What makes your beliefs different from the convictions of a madman?
To be more direct/blunt: What makes your beliefs different from the convictions of a madman?
We can throw madmen in asylums, get them the help they need.
Religious people? Not so much
Although I joke, I would like to hear from Ludd on this matter. Why believe in the ressurection? Why continue posting while not speaking to the matter?
I realize I need to clarify: When I say "conviction" I mean it not only as "belief" but more as "self-conviction". That is, confronting and disassembling one's own motives and preconceptions.
The reasons I believe in resurrection are borne of my own search. They are meaningless, worthless and unusable to others.
The credibility of others is a bit of a red herring. Should you put stock in an anonymous internet person? Pascal? St. Paul? Aren't the stakes a bit high to rest one's beliefs on a human?
Understand, I use scripture often because I think it describes something well. I do not cite it as a matter of proving fact.
I'm not saying to wholly disregard every idea another person has, but strongly question the motives of all parties therein, including yourself. Be aware, as with Eve sharing the fruit in the garden, man is not content to sin alone.
Aren't the stakes a bit high to rest one's beliefs on a human?
You're a human. Whatever your search consisted of, it was underpinned and limited by your own human nature. Relying on your own humanity certainly can't be said a priori to be superior to relying on Pascal's.
Understand, I use scripture often because I think it describes something well. I do not cite it as a matter of proving fact.
What does it mean for it to describe something well, and what is the logical significance if it succeeds in doing so? It seems to me that most often, the very question at hand is whether the thing being described by scripture exists, however well-described it may be.
I'm not saying to wholly disregard every idea another person has, but strongly question the motives of all parties therein, including yourself. Be aware, as with Eve sharing the fruit in the garden, man is not content to sin alone.
This is predicated not only on the existence of sin, but on the idea that the intended target of your scrutiny is engaging in it by his very words on the matter. In that sense it is potentially both question-begging and circular. That being said, the weighing of evidence against interest is important.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Should you put stock in an anonymous internet person?
I might be willing to trust if the person was willing to put out more than a waved hand.
Taylor, I am not trying to be cryptic. I am absolutely no authority on this matter. You are as able as I to petition whatever Creator might be out there.
Let me give you an example of a woman who lived some centuries ago. I don't recall who she was, but she had a vision of a blue Jesus. When we heard this story, the religion class laughed because they didn't understand it, and it seemed silly to them. That is how religious experiences often are: They cannot make sense to someone else.
Taylor, I am not trying to be cryptic. I am absolutely no authority on this matter. You are as able as I to petition whatever Creator might be out there.
Let me give you an example of a woman who lived some centuries ago. I don't recall who she was, but she had a vision of a blue Jesus. When we heard this story, the religion class laughed because they didn't understand it, and it seemed silly to them. That is how religious experiences often are: They cannot make sense to someone else.
Then it was misleading of you to claim your beliefs had more credibility than the "banana hat vs. moon" theory, and get my hopes up.
Then it was misleading of you to claim your beliefs had more credibility than the "banana hat vs. moon" theory, and get my hopes up.
If you read my posts, I did no such thing at any time, at least in terms of credibility for others as you apparently expect. I have said my experience is useless to anyone else.
In the post you cite above, I pointed Pascal wasn't making up something out of the blue. This is different than BS making up some BS on the spot. To equate the two ideas entirely is not sensible. And yes, obviously a historical root does not make a resulting theology true.
My only intent in this thread has been to point out that the particulars of this 17th century philosopher can be extended into a more universal terms. The response has been, "show us the evidence of God that meets our criteria, and then maybe we'll look."
Then it was misleading of you to claim your beliefs had more credibility than the "banana hat vs. moon" theory, and get my hopes up.
If you read my posts, I did no such thing at any time.
So, you're saying that your claim ARE just as credible as the "banana hat vs. moon" theory? Which is to say, not credible in the least?
In that case, I guess I did misread the post after all. I thought you were saying your beliefs were not baseless. My mistake.
My only intent in this thread has been to point out that the particulars of this 17th century philosopher can be extended into a more universal terms. The response has been, "show us the evidence of God that meets our criteria, and then maybe we'll look."
If you've been reading my posts, then you know I wasn't asking for "evidence of God that meets our criteria." I was asking for ANYTHING, anything at all.
Taylor, do you feel victorious reiterating what I freely admit?
Consider a extremely personal memory of your own. Suppose I want internet text evidence that it occurred. Also, you suspect I want you to tell it to me in a public forum so that I can crap all over it. If you don't, I'll say that your memory has as much basis as whatever absurd notion I make up on the spot. Does this seem reasonable?
If you will notice, my purpose participating in this thread is to discuss Pascal's wager, not provide evidence to anonymous masses that what I believe is correct. I contend his wager has merit beyond the ready solution they teach in Philosophy 101, although certainly not equal merit to all ideas.
Taylor, do you feel victorious reiterating what I freely admit?
You've not admitted anything. You keep saying both that your beliefs have a basis, but that you can't show anyone that basis. This is the first time I've run into someone actually doing this in a theological argument. It's upsetting because I always assumed that was complete strawman of a theist.
I've debated with Exremastan about the gospels being legitimate historical accounts, which is the basis of his faith. I've talked to Highroller about his personal experiences in life, which he claims are the justification of his faith. I've even had conversations with ColonelCoo about his church going on retreats and exorcising what he claims are actual demons, which is why he's such a strong believer. I mean, heck, I--myself--am a Diest, which is probably why I'm taking personal offense to your obstinacy.
But,
I've never run into someone who claims their beliefs are justified, but makes no attempts to try and justify them. I mean, if you don't want to even attempt to try and explain them to others, that's cool. I can understand that. But, then don't go around claiming you have a baseball if you're not willing to show it to anyone.
Consider a extremely personal memory of your own. Suppose I want internet text evidence that it occurred. Also, you suspect I want you to tell it to me in a public forum so that I can crap all over it. If you don't, I'll say that your memory has as much basis as whatever absurd notion I make up on the spot. Does this seem reasonable?
IS your bases a extremely personal memory? If so, why not just SAY that?
That's normally what Highroller does when pressed; he normally says it's based on personal experiences he'd rather not talk about, but that they do lead him to the conclusion that Christianity is correct. However, you're not even bothered to do that.
Instead, you keep making vague references to something without saying anything definite. It's very annoying.
If you will notice, my purpose participating in this thread is to discuss Pascal's wager, not provide evidence to anonymous masses that what I believe is correct. I contend his wager has merit beyond the ready solution they teach in Philosophy 101, although certainly not equal merit to all ideas.
I will also note that when debating BS about Pascal's wager, one of the points you tried to utilize was that you're beliefs were more legitimate than the ones he made up on the spot, right? Your claim was that the resurrection of Jesus should be given more weight in the Wager than BS's example, correct? I asked you to backup that claim, and you refused.
You're making claims and then you are refusing to even attempt to back them up with anything. We can't have anything approaching a real discussion if you do that; we just can't. Be prepared to back up your claims, or don't bother making them.
Please.
I will also note that when debating BS about Pascal's wager, one of the points you tried to utilize was that you're beliefs were more legitimate than the ones he made up on the spot, right? Your claim was that the resurrection of Jesus should be given more weight in the Wager than BS's example, correct? I asked you to backup that claim, and you refused.
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
If you're unable--even in principle--to rationalize to another living soul why your beliefs are more legitimate than the Invisible Pink Unicorn, then it's time to do some serious self-reflection on why you hold those beliefs in the first place.
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
Regardless of your opinion, I don't think "dogmatic" is the word you're looking for. And no, the earnestness of a proposition is not relevant to determining whether it is supported by the evidence. I could teach a young child my exploding-moon idea, and he'd then believe it every bit as earnestly as any Christian. I could even start my own religion and get millions to believe. (See: Mormonism and Scientology.) It would not change the fact that the idea is totally unjustified, and a rational person ought not to believe it, or waste their time "seeking the truth" about lunar explosions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
Regardless of your opinion, I don't think "dogmatic" is the word you're looking for. And no, the earnestness of a proposition is not relevant to determining whether it is supported by the evidence. I could teach a young child my exploding-moon idea, and he'd then believe it every bit as earnestly as any Christian. I could even start my own religion and get millions to believe. (See: Mormonism and Scientology.) It would not change the fact that the idea is totally unjustified, and a rational person ought not to believe it, or waste their time "seeking the truth" about lunar explosions.
Am I incorrect to say you've changed you intial scenario by adding a child to the mix?
Because the point of adding a kid to the mix is that is where most people learn this stuff and then are unable to seperate themselves from it once they are past a point where nobody would rationally accept it with the lens of experience firmly placed over their eyes.
Because the point of adding a kid to the mix is that is where most people learn this stuff and then are unable to seperate themselves from it once they are past a point where nobody would rationally accept it with the lens of experience firmly placed over their eyes.
Whats that old Jesuit saying?
I think I need to clarify. My point is he changed the scenario. He is not specific in his intial post.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
That is not to say an earnest belief is inherently correct, by any means.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
Let's not be overdramatic. I think if we really sat down and thought about it, most of us would admit that we'd rather be forced to hang out with a narcissist for all eternity than suffer excruciating torture. I know I would. So that's not the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem is simply that it presents a false dichotomy and illicitly assumes that both horns of the dichotomy have equal weight. It's a false dichotomy because it assumes that if Christianity is false, then you will suffer no bad consequences - but we can just as easily and with just as much supporting evidence (i.e. none) introduce the proposition, "If you live life as an atheist, then the irony-god will reward you, and if you live as a Christian, he will punish you." And there are infinitely more propositions that describe arbitrary consequences for your belief or disbelief. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you don't wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you do wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Since each of these propositions is directly contradicted by another, there is no way that you can evaluate a priori the best course of action for yourself. You have to start reasoning a posteriori, looking at the evidence to weigh which propositions are more or less plausible. And of course, looking at evidence is precisely what Pascal's Wager was proposed to avoid in the first place...
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
You have the experience of creating your beliefs (ridiculous or no) as well. If the genuinity of a belief is to bear on its credibility, how are we, who do not have access to your mind, supposed to tell whether or not your beliefs are formed "genuinely" (whatever that means) or made up? How do we establish this in a court of law?
More generally, everyone has the experience of creating their beliefs. Belief-formation is an internal process. That a person formed a belief in the best contemplative or even scientific spirit does not lend it credibility (see: astrology, alchemy, phlogiston) -- and that a person formed a belief that they thought or even intended to be silly does not mean that the resulting proposition is wholly incredible or useless. (what if there were a star so large even light couldn't escape from it? what if space and time are inseparable from each other? what if everything is actually just tiny vibrating strings? what if I put a cat in a box and poisoned it if this Geiger counter goes off?)
The entire point is that these beliefs have to be evaluated in a way that is independent of the internal belief-formation process of their inventors -- because that process is very plainly not reliable or consistent! A made-up belief could be spot-on true, and a belief formed with deep conviction could be wrong. And that's where evidence comes in. It's the crucible in which beliefs are tested.
Because the point of adding a kid to the mix is that is where most people learn this stuff and then are unable to seperate themselves from it once they are past a point where nobody would rationally accept it with the lens of experience firmly placed over their eyes.
Whats that old Jesuit saying?
I think I need to clarify. My point is he changed the scenario. He is not specific in his intial post.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
Two responses to this -
First, if you're not already (circularly) convinced that they spoke for God, you believe that lots of prophets pretty much made up a bunch of stuff on the spot while simultaneously making themselves believe in it. People seem to be pretty good at talking themselves into things.
Second, Pascal's Wager depends on the odds of each side of the wager being impossible to evaluate. Your response is only a true response to Blinking_Spirit's point if you can demonstrate that the fact that he just came up with those proposals affects the odds of their truth value. Remembering that they're totally untestable, and also that people put forth new ideas all the time which turn out to be correct, go ahead, demonstrate it.
First, if you're not already (circularly) convinced that they spoke for God, you believe that lots of prophets pretty much made up a bunch of stuff on the spot while simultaneously making themselves believe in it. People seem to be pretty good at talking themselves into things.
It's a well known glitch in human psych. "The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect
I saw a video once where someone on the street was asked what 'parallax' was. He made up this explanation using probably all of the astrophysics words he knew, and then insisted it was right. He refused to back down about it afterwords. I found it pretty scary.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
I know it's an invention. That has no bearing on whether or not it's correct. I could have gotten it right by accident - and my chances of doing so are no different than the chances of anyone else proposing anything else for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I write in a novel that there is an alien civilization of sentient amphibianoids in the star system Zubenelgenubi. This is my invention. Are the chances of there actually being such a civilization very high? Of course not. Are they any lower because I wrote it in a novel than if I hadn't? Of course not. It's ridiculous to say, "You just made up that civilization, so it must not exist; but David Icke's followers sincerely believe in this other civilization of reptiloids from Alpha Draconis, so it's more likely to exist." One entirely speculative theory is as likely as the other. The truth of the universe is utterly indifferent to what people believe, or why they believe it. All that matters is the evidence.
I saw a video once where someone on the street was asked what 'parallax' was. He made up this explanation using probably all of the astrophysics words he knew, and then insisted it was right. He refused to back down about it afterwords. I found it pretty scary.
I did not assert there was a basis for belief in the existence after death. But since we are here, there may be no scientific basis for belief in existence after death, but that does not equate to no basis.
If you generate an idea from your imagination, and you know it is an absurd idea concocted to belittle another idea, then you have no basis to believe in the reality of that idea. As with the moonhat.
Are you asserting here that only collaborative pursuits are worthwhile?
This prompts the same question as "intelligent design": Doesn't this elevate Creation to a role greater than the Creator?
Or more to the point: You'll tie your bets to someone else? Are these questions their responsibility?
There is no obvious way to seek the Creator through scientific means. And yet we can test and weigh our motives and convict ourselves. That is my purpose.
Of course, if religious ideas would lead one to bloodshed, then testing is in order. Gideon is a premiere example of this. I'm not encouraging bloodshed, by any means. I hate bloodshed.
I am humbly suggesting that people seek the Creator, and there is nothing ignoble in doing so. I do not even propose a method or direction, as if there is a great Creator that wants to be found, it can. I do not suggest that doing so is without cost, as the more you learn, the more you will lose.
We can await some great collaboration, and the testimony may shift there someday. But at the time, we have little evidence, yet arguably more abundant understanding of God now than when He stood as a pillar of flame.
What basis would that be?
Anecdotal stories from people who had NDE's?
I find this contentious. We have no idea if there is or is not an obvious way to seek the creator, for starters since we have no idea if there is or is not a creator to seek.
Conviction is meaningless if it's conviction in a falsehood.
I don't think it's humble or noble to assert without evidence that a creator exists to seek.
You inadvertently could be leading people to waste precious time in their lives chasing a falsehood. I find that cruel and irresponsible.
We have no evidence, and an erroneous (at best) and false (at worst) belief that we have ever had ANY understanding of god(s) at all.
What Moses wrote down is only evidence that Moses lived and believed it. What Abraham wrote down is only evidence that Abraham lived and believed it. What John, Paul, Timothy, Mohammed, or anyone else for that matter wrote down isn't actually evidence that God(s) exist.
A historical Jesus only proves the existence of Jewish carpenter turned cult leader, and we would only consider him a cult leader based on the words of people who called him as much 60-70 years after his death.
Even Pontius Pilate's testimony isn't evidence that God(s) exist, only that a man (or men) were willing to die for their beliefs.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What greater basis for belief does the resurrection of Jesus have over the reincarnation of Buddha, or the ascension of Hercules, or the reconstruction of Osiris, or the FSM?
By that same logic, you can understand why I decline to remain silent.
@ Taylor, although I believe in the resurrection and kingship of Jesus Christ, I did not insist on any particulars. My only point is to encourage searching, and not be intimidated by others, whether those others are supposedly religious or non-religious. Moreover, I encourage one to test their own motives and ambitions.
I get that you're Christian.
However, for the last 2 pages you've done nothing but allude to there being some basis for it; that your claims to Christianity are not baseless, like the exploding moon or whatever.
However, you've not once explained what that basis is.
To be more direct/blunt: What makes your beliefs different from the convictions of a madman?
We can throw madmen in asylums, get them the help they need.
Religious people? Not so much
Although I joke, I would like to hear from Ludd on this matter. Why believe in the ressurection? Why continue posting while not speaking to the matter?
The reasons I believe in resurrection are borne of my own search. They are meaningless, worthless and unusable to others.
The credibility of others is a bit of a red herring. Should you put stock in an anonymous internet person? Pascal? St. Paul? Aren't the stakes a bit high to rest one's beliefs on a human?
Understand, I use scripture often because I think it describes something well. I do not cite it as a matter of proving fact.
I'm not saying to wholly disregard every idea another person has, but strongly question the motives of all parties therein, including yourself. Be aware, as with Eve sharing the fruit in the garden, man is not content to sin alone.
You're a human. Whatever your search consisted of, it was underpinned and limited by your own human nature. Relying on your own humanity certainly can't be said a priori to be superior to relying on Pascal's.
What does it mean for it to describe something well, and what is the logical significance if it succeeds in doing so? It seems to me that most often, the very question at hand is whether the thing being described by scripture exists, however well-described it may be.
This is predicated not only on the existence of sin, but on the idea that the intended target of your scrutiny is engaging in it by his very words on the matter. In that sense it is potentially both question-begging and circular. That being said, the weighing of evidence against interest is important.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
We should not accept your claim that your beliefs aren't baseless if you're unwilling to show the basis. I might be willing to trust if the person was willing to put out more than a waved hand.
Taylor, I am not trying to be cryptic. I am absolutely no authority on this matter. You are as able as I to petition whatever Creator might be out there.
Let me give you an example of a woman who lived some centuries ago. I don't recall who she was, but she had a vision of a blue Jesus. When we heard this story, the religion class laughed because they didn't understand it, and it seemed silly to them. That is how religious experiences often are: They cannot make sense to someone else.
Then it was misleading of you to claim your beliefs had more credibility than the "banana hat vs. moon" theory, and get my hopes up.
If you read my posts, I did no such thing at any time, at least in terms of credibility for others as you apparently expect. I have said my experience is useless to anyone else.
In the post you cite above, I pointed Pascal wasn't making up something out of the blue. This is different than BS making up some BS on the spot. To equate the two ideas entirely is not sensible. And yes, obviously a historical root does not make a resulting theology true.
My only intent in this thread has been to point out that the particulars of this 17th century philosopher can be extended into a more universal terms. The response has been, "show us the evidence of God that meets our criteria, and then maybe we'll look."
So, you're saying that your claim ARE just as credible as the "banana hat vs. moon" theory? Which is to say, not credible in the least?
In that case, I guess I did misread the post after all. I thought you were saying your beliefs were not baseless. My mistake.
Edit:
Aaaaaand you're off again; alluding to stuff you--apparently--have no intention of persenting in any capacity whatsoever.
If you've been reading my posts, then you know I wasn't asking for "evidence of God that meets our criteria." I was asking for ANYTHING, anything at all.
To which you responded with nothing.
Consider a extremely personal memory of your own. Suppose I want internet text evidence that it occurred. Also, you suspect I want you to tell it to me in a public forum so that I can crap all over it. If you don't, I'll say that your memory has as much basis as whatever absurd notion I make up on the spot. Does this seem reasonable?
If you will notice, my purpose participating in this thread is to discuss Pascal's wager, not provide evidence to anonymous masses that what I believe is correct. I contend his wager has merit beyond the ready solution they teach in Philosophy 101, although certainly not equal merit to all ideas.
I've debated with Exremastan about the gospels being legitimate historical accounts, which is the basis of his faith. I've talked to Highroller about his personal experiences in life, which he claims are the justification of his faith. I've even had conversations with ColonelCoo about his church going on retreats and exorcising what he claims are actual demons, which is why he's such a strong believer. I mean, heck, I--myself--am a Diest, which is probably why I'm taking personal offense to your obstinacy.
But,
I've never run into someone who claims their beliefs are justified, but makes no attempts to try and justify them. I mean, if you don't want to even attempt to try and explain them to others, that's cool. I can understand that. But, then don't go around claiming you have a baseball if you're not willing to show it to anyone.
IS your bases a extremely personal memory? If so, why not just SAY that?
That's normally what Highroller does when pressed; he normally says it's based on personal experiences he'd rather not talk about, but that they do lead him to the conclusion that Christianity is correct. However, you're not even bothered to do that.
Instead, you keep making vague references to something without saying anything definite. It's very annoying.
I will also note that when debating BS about Pascal's wager, one of the points you tried to utilize was that you're beliefs were more legitimate than the ones he made up on the spot, right? Your claim was that the resurrection of Jesus should be given more weight in the Wager than BS's example, correct? I asked you to backup that claim, and you refused.
You're making claims and then you are refusing to even attempt to back them up with anything. We can't have anything approaching a real discussion if you do that; we just can't. Be prepared to back up your claims, or don't bother making them.
Please.
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Am I incorrect to say you've changed you intial scenario by adding a child to the mix?
Because the point of adding a kid to the mix is that is where most people learn this stuff and then are unable to seperate themselves from it once they are past a point where nobody would rationally accept it with the lens of experience firmly placed over their eyes.
Whats that old Jesuit saying?
I think I need to clarify. My point is he changed the scenario. He is not specific in his intial post.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
That is not to say an earnest belief is inherently correct, by any means.
You have the experience of creating your beliefs (ridiculous or no) as well. If the genuinity of a belief is to bear on its credibility, how are we, who do not have access to your mind, supposed to tell whether or not your beliefs are formed "genuinely" (whatever that means) or made up? How do we establish this in a court of law?
More generally, everyone has the experience of creating their beliefs. Belief-formation is an internal process. That a person formed a belief in the best contemplative or even scientific spirit does not lend it credibility (see: astrology, alchemy, phlogiston) -- and that a person formed a belief that they thought or even intended to be silly does not mean that the resulting proposition is wholly incredible or useless. (what if there were a star so large even light couldn't escape from it? what if space and time are inseparable from each other? what if everything is actually just tiny vibrating strings? what if I put a cat in a box and poisoned it if this Geiger counter goes off?)
The entire point is that these beliefs have to be evaluated in a way that is independent of the internal belief-formation process of their inventors -- because that process is very plainly not reliable or consistent! A made-up belief could be spot-on true, and a belief formed with deep conviction could be wrong. And that's where evidence comes in. It's the crucible in which beliefs are tested.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Two responses to this -
First, if you're not already (circularly) convinced that they spoke for God, you believe that lots of prophets pretty much made up a bunch of stuff on the spot while simultaneously making themselves believe in it. People seem to be pretty good at talking themselves into things.
Second, Pascal's Wager depends on the odds of each side of the wager being impossible to evaluate. Your response is only a true response to Blinking_Spirit's point if you can demonstrate that the fact that he just came up with those proposals affects the odds of their truth value. Remembering that they're totally untestable, and also that people put forth new ideas all the time which turn out to be correct, go ahead, demonstrate it.
"The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect
I saw a video once where someone on the street was asked what 'parallax' was. He made up this explanation using probably all of the astrophysics words he knew, and then insisted it was right. He refused to back down about it afterwords. I found it pretty scary.
I write in a novel that there is an alien civilization of sentient amphibianoids in the star system Zubenelgenubi. This is my invention. Are the chances of there actually being such a civilization very high? Of course not. Are they any lower because I wrote it in a novel than if I hadn't? Of course not. It's ridiculous to say, "You just made up that civilization, so it must not exist; but David Icke's followers sincerely believe in this other civilization of reptiloids from Alpha Draconis, so it's more likely to exist." One entirely speculative theory is as likely as the other. The truth of the universe is utterly indifferent to what people believe, or why they believe it. All that matters is the evidence.
He didn't happen to work for DC Comics, did he?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.