cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Redemptionsong]

Ah, so all those starving kids across the globe praying everyday for food and not getting it just aren't righteous enough. But that guy in Florida praying for his mortgage payment to come through, now he's righteous enough!

Ugh.

Here we go! The passing of judgement.

Maybe you also don't understand that the righteousness of God comes from God, and is not man's to boast about. This is why the Holy Spirit descended from on high, and did not arise from man's rational brain!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, faith is a response to love.

That's a flowery sentence that doesn't mean much to me.
I love a lot of people. I also don't have any use for faith.

Maybe you haven't noticed this, but animals consistently respond to human love with their trust.

The animals that we've bred to be our mates, like dogs, for example, can respond to human love, yes. Because we've made them that way.
Try that with a lion and I don't think you'll achieve the same result.

Do you not apply trust in your relationships? Or, do you go into the laboratory and test for chemical levels to determine whether you love someone?

I know I love someone because of the feelings I have that are generated from my brain chemistry. Go look up oxytocin, for example.

Yes, trust based on a reasonable consideration of the evidence. I don't trust people who don't give me good reason to trust them.
Trust, in this context and religious faith are not synonymous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here we go! The passing of judgement.

Maybe you also don't understand that the righteousness of God comes from God, and is not man's to boast about. This is why the Holy Spirit descended from on high, and did not arise from man's rational brain!

Your assertions about prayer don't make much sense in light of the reality I just presented to you.
Maybe that's why you won't address it.

But you're not concerned about making any sense or being reasonable, apparently and conveniently. I guess I can see why now and it explains why your position doesn't make much sense.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You've seen negative results from reasoning? Do tell.

I do remember reading some interesting remarks made by a holocaust survivor who said, without quoting him exactly, that he'd seen science (reason) applied without heart, and it had taught him that heart mattered more than science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You've seen negative results from reasoning? Do tell.

No, because you already know that since you are a skeptic. You know the most important findings in skepticism and this is one of them. You have studied that and know the history of skepticism, since you haven't just found a word and then not looked into its history. Clue, it is older than Christianity and a part of your cultural history.
And yes, I am playing with you. But you really should know this since you are a skeptic.

So now here it is: In its oldest version it is from a human called Agrippa, but it also has a modern version. Look up Agrippa the Skeptic.
But that is not all of skepticism. You still haven't answered about the problem of reason in regards to the Evil Demon and how that lead to modern philosophy giving up on reason as per rationalism. Or even the is-ought problem, that is also about reason.

Wait, there is more. There is the idea of the thing in itself and how that is a limit for reason. And then there is of course this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." That is the problem of objective rational measurement standards for the non-objective part of the everyday world.

So in essence you have around at least 5 problem in regards to reason, that you have to solve and there are even more.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do remember reading some interesting remarks made by a holocaust survivor who said, without quoting him exactly, that he'd seen science (reason) applied without heart, and it had taught him that heart mattered more than science.

I asked about reasoning.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I know I love someone because of the feelings I have that are generated from my brain chemistry. Go look up oxytocin, for example.

So, when your oxytocin levels are low, does this mean that you have fallen out of love? Does this happen often? It must be very upsetting for your family to find that your feelings fluctuate so much.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, because you already know that since you are a skeptic. You know the most important findings in skepticism and this is one of them. You have studied that and know the history of skepticism, since you haven't just found a word and then not looked into its history. Clue, it is older than Christianity and a part of your cultural history.
And yes, I am playing with you. But you really should know this since you are a skeptic.

So now here it is: In its oldest version it is from a human called Agrippa, but it also has a modern version. Look up Agrippa the Skeptic.
But that is not all of skepticism. You still haven't answered about the problem of reason in regards to the Evil Demon and how that lead to modern philosophy giving up on reason as per rationalism. Or even the is-ought problem, that is also about reason.

Wait, there is more. There is the idea of the thing in itself and how that is a limit for reason. And then there is of course this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." That is the problem of objective rational measurement standards for the non-objective part of the everyday world.

So in essence you have around at least 5 problem in regards to reason, that you have to solve and there are even more.

You used a lot of words to say "no, I have not actually seen negative results from reasoning."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You used a lot of words to say "no, I have not actually seen negative results from reasoning."

Well, start here:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

It is all in the books that you haven't read yet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, when your oxytocin levels are low, does this mean that you have fallen out of love? Does this happen often? It must be very upsetting for your family to find that your feelings fluctuate so much.

Oxytocin is released from my pituitary gland when I interact with my loved ones. So, no.

Low oxytocin levels are associated with depression.

There are other chemicals involved, I just provided that particular one as an example. All of our feelings are the result of chemical interactions in our brains.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, start here:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

It is all in the books that you haven't read yet.

I love that I'm supposed to go read mountains of books and literature just to get a straight answer out of you on like, any question I ask you.
No thanks. You could just answer the questions. But you don't appear to want to, so whatever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I love that I'm supposed to go read mountains of books and literature just to get a straight answer out of you on like, any question I ask you.
No thanks. You could just answer the questions. But you don't appear to want to, so whatever.

You can't learn everything on your own. You are not the first human having that idea. It is over 2000+ years old. If you can't get yourself to read a long text, I am not going to write something already written better and answered better than by me.
So I give you a reference. You still have to read a long answer.

So here is another text with too many words:
Agrippa | Greek philosopher

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can't learn everything on your own. You are not the first human having that idea. It is over 2000+ years old. If you can't get yourself to read a long text, I am not going to write something already written better and answered better than by me.
So I give you a reference. You still have to read a long answer.

So here is another text with too many words:
Agrippa | Greek philosopher

You could just answer the questions by typing the words your brain generates onto the screen. I don't need an entire dissertation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You could just answer the questions by typing the words your brain generates onto the screen. I don't need an entire dissertation.

But it is that. It is not just one sentence. Keep it simple, but not too simple.
Reason is not so simple as it can be described in one sentence. Sorry, but that is how it is. If you don't like that, then okay.
But then deliver the evidence yourself.
You made a positive claim, now give the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not averse to reasoning

You do seem averse to replying to the main points of posts, like the first part where I informed you that biblical history does not match actual history.

, but I'm quite convinced that reasoning does not bring us closer to understanding all the realities of life.

Why?

You appear to think that reasoning answers all the questions of life.

No. I never made any such claim.
What I would say though, is that IF questions are answered accurately, it'll be through reason.

Any other way would result in at best a lucky guess.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day...

Reason is a pathway to knowledge.
Faith is not.

Yet, if reasoning was that effective, there would be a consensus of opinion on how to solve the problems of life.

Well, there most certainly is consensus concerning area's that are well understood. Because reason indeed leads us to answers.

For example, our understanding of tooth decay and the effects of various foods and stuff on teeth as well as the problems that can potentially occur after a while of teeth neglect, through reason, informs us that it's probably a good idea to brush several times a day.

I think you will have a hard time finding someone who disagrees with that.

There obviously would be no consensus in areas that are NOT properly understood.

If reasoning could provide a unifying answer, then there would be peace and harmony amongst the peoples of the world.

Doesn't follow.

Can you explain to me why people do not concur, and reach the same conclusions, if reason is the only path to truth?

When reason is properly used, they mostly DO reach the same conclusions.

Incidently, in context of all this, you might want to ask yourself why there are literally thousands of different christian denominations. And why there are hundreds, thousands, of other mutually exclusive religions also.

If you feel like "not reaching a consensus" means that therefor the method used "isn't all that", then surely the "faith" method of religious belief is hundreds of times worse.

So, even following your very own logic, reason still comes out on top.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

things outside the realm of reason.

Try and explain in detail what it is that you mean exactly with "things outside the realm of reason".

If I said that my heart was was full of the love of God, it would be meaningless to a person who did not understand the Spirit. God is not observable, and love, as a spiritual force, is not knowable by the five senses.

If it is not knowable, then how do you know about it?

Does this mean that you know nothing about love?

Love is not some "force" that exists absent sentient beings.
Love is an emotion that is produced by a physical brain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, faith is a response to love. Maybe you haven't noticed this, but animals consistently respond to human love with their trust.

Do you not apply trust in your relationships? Or, do you go into the laboratory and test for chemical levels to determine whether you love someone?

You are dishonestly equating "faith" in the religious sense with "faith" in the colloquial trusting sense again.

These are different uses of the word "faith" and they are NOT the same thing.
I informed you of this earlier in the thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, when your oxytocin levels are low, does this mean that you have fallen out of love? Does this happen often? It must be very upsetting for your family to find that your feelings fluctuate so much.

Not at all what he said. Not even close.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You do seem averse to replying to the main points of posts, like the first part where I informed you that biblical history does not match actual history.

You made a claim that Biblical history does not match actual history. But to simply say that there is no archaeological evidence of lsrael in Egypt (which is debateable) is, of course, arguing a case from the absence of a particular type of evidence. I would argue that l have documentary evidence, in the form of the Bible. My claims, therefore, rest on better evidence!

The realm that reason cannot enter is the realm of revelation. If God exists, as l believe He does, then only God can reveal his intentions to mankind.

You reply, But what material evidence, based on reason, do you have for believing in God?

I reply, the Bible, from beginning to end, speaks the truth to me. The person of Jesus, whom l believe is the Christ of scripture, walked the earth in flesh and blood. Many testimonies were given by those who claimed to have met him, and this includes testimonies to his death, resurrection and ascension.

But, you say, What evidence is there to support these testimonies?

I say, the same way we arrive at the truth in a court of law. We listen, determine the likelihood of various different witnesses providing the same story, and reach our conclusions. If we trust the words spoken, we accept the testimony on trust.

Then, you say, But you have trusted things, like healings, miracles and resurrection, which are not normal occurences, and do not match the experience of ordinary men and women.

Well, l say, Jesus was never going to be an ordinary man, if he were to be the Christ of God. The picture painted of the Messiah in scripture is not of an ordinary man. If God could work miracles through the prophets of old, then the Messiah could do greater miracles.

You reply, l don't believe in the miracles performed in the OT, so why should l believe in the miracles of the NT.

And that's when we get back to Genesis 1:1. Either the creation of the world is a miracle of God, or it's some kind of accident.

If you think that the world is an accident, and not the creation of God, then we have two widely differing starting points. You live life in an accidental world, spend a few years on earth, die, and rot away. I live life trusting in my Lord, who lives eternally, in the belief that He knows best, and has my best interests at heart.

Simple.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You made a claim that Biblical history does not match actual history. But to simply say that there is no archaeological evidence of lsrael in Egypt (which is debateable) is, of course, arguing a case from the absence of a particular type of evidence. I would argue that l have documentary evidence, in the form of the Bible. My claims, therefore, rest on better evidence!

The realm that reason cannot enter is the realm of revelation. If God exists, as l believe He does, then only God can reveal his intentions to mankind.

You reply, But what material evidence, based on reason, do you have for believing in God?

I reply, the Bible, from beginning to end, speaks the truth to me. The person of Jesus, whom l believe is the Christ of scripture, walked the earth in flesh and blood. Many testimonies were given by those who claimed to have met him, and this includes testimonies to his death, resurrection and ascension.

But, you say, What evidence is there to support these testimonies?

I say, the same way we arrive at the truth in a court of law. We listen, determine the likelihood of various different witnesses providing the same story, and reach our conclusions. If we trust the words spoken, we accept the testimony on trust.

Then, you say, But you have trusted things, like healings, miracles and resurrection, which are not normal occurences, and do not match the experience of ordinary men and women.

Well, l say, Jesus was never going to be an ordinary man, if he were the Christ of God. The picture painted of the Messiah in scripture is not of an ordinary man. If God could work miracles through the prophets of old, then the Messiah could do greater miracles.

You reply, l don't believe in the miracles performed in the OT, so why should l believe in the miracles of the NT.

And that's when we get back to Genesis 1:1. Either the creation of the world is a miracle of God, or it's some kind of accident.

If you think that the world is an accident, and not the creation of God, then we have two widely differing starting points. You live life in an accidental world, spend a few years on earth, die, and rot away. I live life trusting in my Lord, who lives eternally, in the belief that He knows best, and has my best interests at heart.

Simple.

And, there exists, for those who begin to walk by faith, a whole new world. The basis for acquiring evidence of God's presence is through faith, and this is the message preached by Jesus.

If a person places their trust in Jesus, his promise is to lead them as the Good Shepherd. How does he do this? Through the Holy Spirit, in truth.