Are you certain that God exists?

[Fascist Christ]

In San Fransisco, a man once challenged Dr. Harry Ironside to a debate on "Agnosticism versus Christianity." Dr. Ironside agreed, on one condition: that the agnostic first provide evidence that agnosticism was beneficial enough to defend. Dr. Ironside challenged the agnostic to bring one man who had been a "down-and -outer" (a drunkard, criminal, or such) and one woman who had been trapped in a degraded life (such as prostitution), and show that both of these people had been rescued from their lives of degradation through embracing the philosophy of agnosticism. Dr. Ironside undertook to bring 100 men and women to the debate who had been gloriously rescued through believing the gospel the agnostic ridiculed. The skeptic withdrew his challenge to debate Dr. Ironside. So DUDE, I didn't make it up!

That's not a very good example. First of all, you have far more evangelizing Christians in the USA than evangelizing Agnostics. This allows for more successes, and more unmentioned failures. Second, Agnostics don't make empty promises of salvation to give people an illusion of being saved. You shouldn't have to lie to people to change their lives for the better. Sorry, it's just not statistically reasonable to do what was said.

Besides, where is the proof that this ever happened? Do I take your word for it? What did the Agnostic say about the situation? Should religion have traumatic benefits to be valid? How were those individual's lives changed? Was it supernatural or personal will power?

 

[Ahmadi]

Should religion have traumatic benefits to be valid? How were those individual's lives changed? Was it supernatural or personal will power?

Well, in my view, it depends on the type of benefits the person has experienced. Sometimes, prayer helps a person survive a disease which had brough him/her to the very brink of death. In some cases, the disease is perhaps a pshychological one.

 

[Tawn]

Okay? Now, I am beginning to doubt whether you even consider yourself a human. Are you really sure that you yourself exist? 100%?

You are beginning to get the idea.

Now dont start thinking im insane. Remember we are only talking about POSSIBILITIES here. Not BELIEF.

I believe I am human, and I happen to believe you are who you say you are too! However, I am still certain of neither.

 

[Tawn]

In San Fransisco, a man once challenged Dr. Harry Ironside to a debate on "Agnosticism versus Christianity." Dr. Ironside agreed, on one condition: that the agnostic first provide evidence that agnosticism was beneficial enough to defend. Dr. Ironside challenged the agnostic to bring one man who had been a "down-and -outer" (a drunkard, criminal, or such) and one woman who had been trapped in a degraded life (such as prostitution), and show that both of these people had been rescued from their lives of degradation through embracing the philosophy of agnosticism. Dr. Ironside undertook to bring 100 men and women to the debate who had been gloriously rescued through believing the gospel the agnostic ridiculed. The skeptic withdrew his challenge to debate Dr. Ironside. So DUDE, I didn't make it up!

This proves what?

Tell you what, how about we go around an excate all the human skulls of people who died in wars involving Christianity.. then we can do the same with all the.. oh wait a minute..

As FC said, Agnosticism doesnt claim to provide salvation.. the debate is about truth. Dodging the REAL debate like in your example just indicates that the Christian in this example has no real argument to defend. Why is he so afraid to have a proper debate?

 

[Ahmadi]

You are beginning to get the idea.

Now dont start thinking im insane. Remember we are only talking about POSSIBILITIES here. Not BELIEF.

I believe I am human, and I happen to believe you are who you say you are too! However, I am still certain of neither.

Okay... so you don't want to talk about belief but you believe that you are a human and you happen to believe that I am a human. However, you are not certain that you and I are human. We could suppose that we are just figments of the imagination of some other being. (On a side note, there were some religious scholars in Islamic history who actually believed that everything that we experience is just imagination because whatever we experience really gets processed in the brain before it 'reaches' us )

But ... what's this? Even objective evidence for our existence is not enough for certainty, then the very question of this thread is invalid. Even if I provide you objective evidence for God's existence, you would still not be very sure of His existence. In fact, this becomes a paradox. How will we really know that anything at all even exists around us beyond a shadow of doubt (based on your standards)?

.. the debate is about truth.

What truth? You only "believe" that you are human. You're perhaps not sure - or at least not certain.

 

[Fade]

But ... what's this? Even objective evidence for our existence is not enough for certainty, then the very question of this thread is invalid. Even if I provide you objective evidence for God's existence, you would still not be very sure of His existence. In fact, this becomes a paradox. How will we really know that anything at all even exists around us beyond a shadow of doubt (based on your standards)?
What truth? You only "believe" that you are human. You're perhaps not sure - or at least not certain.

Descartes and Methodological Skeptisism anyone?

 

[Tawn]

Okay... so you don't want to talk about belief but you believe that you are a human and you happen to believe that I am a human. However, you are not certain that you and I are human. We could suppose that we are just figments of the imagination of some other being. (On a side note, there were some religious scholars in Islamic history who actually believed that everything that we experience is just imagination because whatever we experience really gets processed in the brain before it 'reaches' us )

A fascinating perspective, id agree with that since we cannot know what transformations may happen to the information as it is processed.

But ... what's this? Even objective evidence for our existence is not enough for certainty, then the very question of this thread is invalid. Even if I provide you objective evidence for God's existence, you would still not be very sure of His existence. In fact, this becomes a paradox. How will we really know that anything at all even exists around us beyond a shadow of doubt (based on your standards)?

Yes, yes and yes! Nothing is for certain.. we just have to make a personal honest assessment about what is most likely to be true.
This is why it is wrong to assert our beliefs on others (within reason).

What truth? You only "believe" that you are human. You're perhaps not sure - or at least not certain.

Yes, the search for truth. We can never be certain we have reached it, but one would hope that if we are honest with ourselves and look at life in an unbias way then we would come closer than if we hadnt.

 

[Fascist Christ]

if we are honest with ourselves and look at life in an unbias way then we would come closer than if we hadnt.

This is what Thomas Paine was saying, that if you believe something that is not likely to be true, then you are being dishonest with yourself. This applies not only to religions either.

"I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe." Age of Reason

 

[Fade]

This is what Thomas Paine was saying, that if you believe something that is not likely to be true, then you are being dishonest with yourself. This applies not only to religions either.

How does one know that what they believe is not likely to be true?

 

[Fascist Christ]

How does one know that what they believe is not likely to be true?

It is not likely to be true if it goes against the matter of probability. I know that it is possible that I am asleep right now and dreaming all of this. However, based on my experiences being awake and asleep, I am reasonably certain (albeit not 100%) that I am awake. Probability favors the notion that I am awake, and so that is what I believe. Should I convince myself that I am reallly sleeping when the probability is greatly against such a notion, then I would be deceiving myself.

Likewise, we can say that there could be a god, since we exist, and something may have brought us into existence. However, there is nothing that we can observe to suggest that such an entity had a son, or that he would sanction murder or genocide, or that he would cause natural disasters, other than the words in some book that were defended and enforced at sword and gunpoint. In fact, the more we study the Universe, or Creation, the more we see that it is self-regulating and requires no divine intervention.

 

[Fade]

It is not likely to be true if it goes against the matter of probability. I know that it is possible that I am asleep right now and dreaming all of this. However, based on my experiences being awake and asleep, I am reasonably certain (albeit not 100%) that I am awake. Probability favors the notion that I am awake, and so that is what I believe. Should I convince myself that I am reallly sleeping when the probability is greatly against such a notion, then I would be deceiving myself.

Likewise, we can say that there could be a god, since we exist, and something may have brought us into existence. However, there is nothing that we can observe to suggest that such an entity had a son, or that he would sanction murder or genocide, or that he would cause natural disasters, other than the words in some book that were defended and enforced at sword and gunpoint. In fact, the more we study the Universe, or Creation, the more we see that it is self-regulating and requires no divine intervention.

I know I personally have had dreams that I was absolutley certain were real. The only reason I know they weren't is because I woke up. You or I could be in the middle of a dream right now and the only reason we can't be certain is because we haven't yet woken up.
In fact I've had dreams within dreams, where I've woken up from a dream and still actually been in a dream.
And so I think the question still stands, how do you know that what you believe is likely to be untrue?
In a way this reminds me of another thread where I stated that I view faith in the face of evidence to the contrary[and firm belief without evidence...mr pedantic ] as intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In a way this reminds me of another thread where I stated that I view faith in the face of evidence to the contrary[and firm belief without evidence...mr pedantic ] as intellectual dishonesty.

And you retain every right to such an unfounded judgement.

 

[Fade]

And you retain every right to such an unfounded judgement.

and is there any difference to this one?

that if you believe something that is not likely to be true, then you are being dishonest with yourself

At any rate I don't think it is unfounded and I actually agree with the above statement but I'm trying to poke holes in it.

 

[Fascist Christ]

I know I personally have had dreams that I was absolutley certain were real. The only reason I know they weren't is because I woke up. You or I could be in the middle of a dream right now and the only reason we can't be certain is because we haven't yet woken up.
In fact I've had dreams within dreams, where I've woken up from a dream and still actually been in a dream.
And so I think the question still stands, how do you know that what you believe is likely to be untrue?

You must make the best judgement possible. In your dream, when you think you are awake, it is your dream that is deceptive, yet your remain honest by saying that it seemed so real. Thus, you would be warranted to believe it was real, until you woke up.

Taking this dream scenario a step further, it is possible that we all live within the Matrix - our entire existence as we know it is a computer-regulated dream. However, there is little evidence to support this, and we would not be warranted in saying it was so, unless we could actually wake from this slumber.

 

[Fade]

You must make the best judgement possible. In your dream, when you think you are awake, it is your dream that is deceptive, yet your remain honest by saying that it seemed so real. Thus, you would be warranted to believe it was real, until you woke up.

Taking this dream scenario a step further, it is possible that we all live within the Matrix - our entire existence as we know it is a computer-regulated dream. However, there is little evidence to support this, and we would not be warranted in saying it was so, unless we could actually wake from this slumber.

Ah but you see, the whole premise behind the matrix was that you don't know you are in the matrix until you are told. You know, red pill, blue pill.

 

[michel]

Taking this dream scenario a step further, it is possible that we all live within the Matrix - our entire existence as we know it is a computer-regulated dream.

I'd say whoever truly believes this has an IQ of I/O, and had better hope the Electric Company keeps their sorry hide online!

 

[Fascist Christ]

Ah but you see, the whole premise behind the matrix was that you don't know you are in the matrix until you are told. You know, red pill, blue pill.

Yes, but, even after being told, and then seeing it with his own eyes, he rejects the idea because it contradicts what he previously knew. Over time, he learns to accept it. Only after being in both supposed realities for some time was he then able to determine which was most likely true, and only then did he begin to fully believe it.

It is kind of like waking from a dream that you were so convinced was real, and getting all confused about where you are even though you are in your own bedroom.

It is also like the Allegory of the Den. It is hard to accept or understand something that contradicts our experiences.

Many people believe that Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus. Why would anyone believe such a thing unless they are told to? Our own experiences tell us that if a woman is pregnant, it is most likely because she had sex. Therefore, an immaculate conception, rather than making the story more believable, ought to make it less believable. Furthermore, knowing this much, I cannot imagine why god would cloak his works in what are normally signs of lies.

 

[Ori]

I'd say whoever truly believes this has an IQ of I/O, and had better hope the Electric Company keeps their sorry hide online!

Better to think of the Matrix as a metaphor, same with most of the Bible.

 

[Fade]

I'd say whoever truly believes this has an IQ of I/O, and had better hope the Electric Company keeps their sorry hide online!

or 01 if you've seen the animatrix

 

[Fascist Christ]

I'd say whoever truly believes this has an IQ of I/O, and had better hope the Electric Company keeps their sorry hide online!

Exactly! It is unreasonable to believe such a thing, even if it were true.