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

[Polymath257]

No, I was talking about the present day.
There's no way to tell if those originals thousands of years ago had "religious faith" or "reasonable expectations". But considering the type of claims we are talking about ("miracles" and other supernatural things), I think it's reasonable to say that it probably was religious faith.

I think that at the time the distinction was not as great as it is today. Remember that the universe, according to their understanding, was much smaller than we know it to be today. The earth was fixed in the center, with the planets, and sun moving around it. The entire structure would fit inside what we now know to be the orbit of Saturn.

Also, according to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, the universe was spherical and outside that sphere was a world of abstract objects, including a prime mover. It was a common belief that human souls rose to 'heaven' above that crystalline sphere after death and that events in the sky directly impacted events on Earth, including events in society.

So, in this context, it might have been a 'reasonable expectation' where today it would be nothing of the sort.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that at the time the distinction was not as great as it is today. Remember that the universe, according to their understanding, was much smaller than we know it to be today. The earth was fixed in the center, with the planets, and sun moving around it. The entire structure would fit inside what we now know to be the orbit of Saturn.

Also, according to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, the universe was spherical and outside that sphere was a world of abstract objects, including a prime mover. It was a common belief that human souls rose to 'heaven' above that crystalline sphere after death and that events in the sky directly impacted events on Earth, including events in society.

So, in this context, it might have been a 'reasonable expectation' where today it would be nothing of the sort.

That even applies today in the case of different understandings of science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

how do you know that?

How do I know that, "knowledge about the world comes through the senses"? From 68 years of conscious experience. I see things, reach out for them, and they are in my hand. That kind of thing. I hear my refrigerator's open-door alarm and see a door open and an internal temperature reading that is too high. I take a glass of milk from it, and it tastes sour. I smell it and it smells rotten, so I throw it out.

It's an odd question. It's also how you learn what's going on around you, so I wonder why you asked.

What the watch analogy intends to show is that one can conclude that something was design even if you don't have prior evidence for the existence of designer.

What it also depicts is a man walking past untold numbers of natural objects before he encounters one he considers manufactured. It's odd that the story is intended to show that those shrubs and blades of grass that he walked by were manufactured by a deity, but shows us instead that manufactured and natural objects are generally easy to distinguish between.

natural science cannot engage with supernatural.

Nothing nonexistent is detectible empirically. Nothing necessarily (versus contingently) undetectable can be said to exist.

Have you ever made a list of the qualities that distinguish the existent from the nonexistent? Things that exist occupy space and time and interact with other things that exist. Contrast a wolf and a werewolf. There are places I can go and see a wolf. That gives the wolf a place in time and space, and specifies an interaction: experiencing and interpreting the light reflected from it to my eyes, and maybe experience it further if it's hungry and has access to me. You can't do any of that with a werewolf. Or the supernatural. Thus, we group the supernatural with werewolves, since they have so much in common, and not with wolves, which for the reasons given are to be classed among the real.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When l hear you talk about your previous faith as a Christian, l wonder whether you really had an encounter with Christ. Were you 'born again' of the Holy Spirit, as is necessary?

No. I thought I had and was, but later discovered that I had misunderstood the euphoric feeling that my first pastor was able to create to be the Holy Spirit. I discovered this upon discharge from the military and a return across country to my home state where I bounced about a few congregations with less gifted pastors until I realized that there was no Holy Spirit, just a state of mind that people confuse for deity. I now understand what people mean when they say the know Jesus or have direct evidence of the existence of God - things I used to believe and say.

All this stuff about what you've been able to do since rejecting Jesus is a nonsense. Peter had stern words for such people.

Peter's words aren't meaningful to me. Experience tells me I made a good choice. I explained it already - what I gave up and what I got in return. I gave up spending thousands of hours and dollars pursuing a religion that delivered nothing in return for thousands of hours studying the world and studying and performing music, and saved untold thousands of dollars that were spent traveling and seeing concerts, and later, retiring early with greater financial security. That was a huge improvement in my life.

Remember, I lived the before AND after phases of that life and thus can tell which was more rewarding, more educational, and more interesting. Do you think that you can talk somebody with that experience into believing that he should have listened to Peter instead? Wouldn't there need to be a little regret on his part to even begin to think that would be possible?

There's a distinct difference between a threat and a warning

Yes, a warning is when the danger comes from elsewhere, and a threat is when it comes from you. Everything comes from a tri-omni deity, who is responsible for all that transpires thereafter. Everything that happens is its will.

 

[firedragon]

Nothing nonexistent is detectible empirically. Nothing necessarily (versus contingently) undetectable can be said to exist.

Get a little bit of education in science rather than passing nonsensical comments. A tad in the basics of philosophy of science would do. Five minutes at least.

 

[leroy]

How do I know that, "knowledge about the world comes through the senses"? From 68 years of conscious experience. I see things, reach out for them, and they are in my hand. That kind of thing. I hear my refrigerator's open-door alarm and see a door open and an internal temperature reading that is too high. I take a glass of milk from it, and it tastes sour. I smell it and it smells rotten, so I throw it out.

It's an odd question. It's also how you learn what's going on around you, so I wonder why you asked.



l.

How do you know that your senses are reliable?

If you say that your senses are reliable because your senses tell you, then that would be circular reasoning.

Don’t take me seriously, I am just making random “Matrix-Like” philosophy.

It is just that by claiming that knowledge comes from your senses you are making the untestable assumption that your senses are reliable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that at the time the distinction was not as great as it is today. Remember that the universe, according to their understanding, was much smaller than we know it to be today. The earth was fixed in the center, with the planets, and sun moving around it. The entire structure would fit inside what we now know to be the orbit of Saturn.

Also, according to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, the universe was spherical and outside that sphere was a world of abstract objects, including a prime mover. It was a common belief that human souls rose to 'heaven' above that crystalline sphere after death and that events in the sky directly impacted events on Earth, including events in society.

So, in this context, it might have been a 'reasonable expectation' where today it would be nothing of the sort.

I tend to disagree. But I also realize I'm looking at it from a 21st century educated position.

It's kind of like the story of slavery. Back in those days, it was "normal" and thus had no moral component for the people living at that time. But in the end, that was informed by ignorance about the human condition, and possibly religious beliefs.

Today we indeed have a clear distinction between "faith despite lack of evidence" and "faith as a result of reasonable expectation based on evidence". I realize they didn't have such distinction back in the days and "gods" were as much part of reality to them as atoms are to us.

But nevertheless, from my perspective, it was still good ol' superstition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Get a little bit of education in science rather than passing nonsensical comments. A tad in the basics of philosophy of science would do. Five minutes at least.

Try expanding on your accusations instead of just passing empty asserting one-liners.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that your senses are reliable?

They are testable.

Don’t take me seriously

Oh wow, you won't believe the level of restrain I'm engaged in now not to make a joke or 3.

It is just that by claiming that knowledge comes from your senses you are making the untestable assumption that your senses are reliable.

No. Our senses are very much testable as they are used to make observations about the real world. And the real world is testable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nothing nonexistent is detectible empirically. Nothing necessarily (versus contingently) undetectable can be said to exist. Have you ever made a list of the qualities that distinguish the existent from the nonexistent? Things that exist occupy space and time and interact with other things that exist. Contrast a wolf and a werewolf. There are places I can go and see a wolf. That gives the wolf a place in time and space, and specifies an interaction: experiencing and interpreting the light reflected from it to my eyes, and maybe experience it further if it's hungry and has access to me. You can't do any of that with a werewolf. Or the supernatural. This, we group the supernatural with werewolves, since they have so much in common, and not with wolves, which for the reasons given are to be classed among the real.

Get a little bit of education in science rather than passing nonsensical comments. A tad in the basics of philosophy of science would do. Five minutes at least.

An impotent and disappointing reply, but not surprising. Do you really believe that you have a superior understanding of science or philosophy? Then demonstrate it. You wilted at the thought of a discussion of ideas with me. An active and inquisitive mind might have been intrigued by a philosophical discussion of the difference between "being and nothingness." Somebody who actually had the knowledge of philosophy you dismissively imply you possess ought to have been as enthusiastic about sharing some of that expertise as I was when I made my comment on the topic, whereas somebody who was insecure in his knowledge might shy away.

As always, the last plausible, unrebutted statement ends and resolves debate. Why? Because the purpose of dialectic is to resolve differences of opinion and determine which if either of two mutually exclusive opinions is correct. You gave an opinion and I rebutted it. You imply that the supernatural is real and exists. I explain why it should be classed with the nonexistent. We can't both be right, but one us can be, and if somebody is correct, his claim can't be successfully rebutted, and stands as the last plausible, unrebutted statement.

So did you want to try to defend your position from my rebuttal, or are you unable?

How do you know that your senses are reliable? If you say that your senses are reliable because your senses tell you, then that would be circular reasoning. Don’t take me seriously, I am just making random “Matrix-Like” philosophy. It is just that by claiming that knowledge comes from your senses you are making the untestable assumption that your senses are reliable.

All I require of my senses and mind is that they allow me some measure of control of how my life experience proceeds. The evolutionary value of belief resides in its ability to inform decisions and drive actions, which lead to events in the external world, which in turn lead to objective consequences evident to the senses. Take away any of these elements and "truth" immediately loses all relevance. The ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results.

If an idea is true or correct, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is its capacity to successfully inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. By this method, one accumulates demonstrably correct ideas - one's fund of knowledge - and generates a mental map of reality that corresponds with the features of reality the way a literal map corresponds to actual geographic features one might encounter. If your map is wrong, you won't reach your desired location, and the only way to have a correct map is to survey the landscape it intends to map.

If this works, it really doesn't matter what else is true about reality. Perhaps we are in a matrix-like world, and that there is no substance underlying our perceptions, no real world "out there" corresponding to the model we use to navigate reality. Maybe my finger doesn't exist. Maybe that flame there is an illusion of some sort. My senses and mind cannot answer that for me, and may be very mistaken about the nature of reality.

But even if I knew for a fact that it was all a dream of some sort, what choice do I have but to continue living it? If the illusion of willing an unreal finger into an unreal flame reliably produces the pain of fire, nothing changes. My senses and mind remain a reliable predictor of future outcomes even if my metaphysics is incorrect. As long as that continues to be the case, I will successfully continue to rely on those senses. It is the results of trusting the evidence of the senses that determine whether this is a reliable method.

 

[F1fan]

How do you know that your senses are reliable?

If you say that your senses are reliable because your senses tell you, then that would be circular reasoning.

Don’t take me seriously, I am just making random “Matrix-Like” philosophy.

It is just that by claiming that knowledge comes from your senses you are making the untestable assumption that your senses are reliable.

Well if you are going to question the reliability of human senses and exveriences then how does that help you argue for any sort of religious sensations and experiences? In essence you are making the religious experience less reliable and less likely as believed. Is that your intention?

Do you have more doubt about your religion after posting your question?

 

[leroy]

Well if you are going to question the reliability of human senses and exveriences then how does that help you argue for any sort of religious sensations and experiences? In essence you are making the religious experience less reliable and less likely as believed. Is that your intention?

Do you have more doubt about your religion after posting your question?

The difference is that *if* my world view is correct it makes sense to assume that our senses are reliable (after they were created by an intelligent designer)

But if your world view is correct, then you are just the result of natural selection and random mutations, … under that view your senses are expected to be “good” for survaival, but there is no reason that to assume that they are also good for getting knowledge……….specially deep philosophical and scientific knowledge that has no survival value

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that your senses are reliable?

Actually, I know that they are *unreliable* in many cases. I am subject to optical and auditory illusions, I cannot see a large part of the spectrum, I cannot hear outside of a fairly narrow range of frequencies, etc.

And I discovery these aspects of unreliability by investigating the information from the senses, looking for consistency and inconsistency, making models and testing those models.

If you say that your senses are reliable because your senses tell you, then that would be circular reasoning.

Actually, my senses tell me that they are unreliable in many cases. But in the cases where they all agree and after many tests, there is a component of confidence that grows.

Don’t take me seriously, I am just making random “Matrix-Like” philosophy.

And when a blue pill allows for a different model, then we can pursue what is then found. Until then, reality is *defined* by consistency with the senses.

It is just that by claiming that knowledge comes from your senses you are making the untestable assumption that your senses are reliable.

Not at all. It is closer to a matter of definition of the term 'reality'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The NT is a collection of claims that requires evidence. It is not evidence of itself.

Testimony is evidence, and is regularly relied upon in courts of law. Why should the testimony of numerous witnesses to events in the life of Jesus be any different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Testimony is evidence, and is regularly relied upon in courts of law. Why should the testimony of numerous witnesses to events in the life of Jesus be any different?

Because there is a difference. Can you tell what it is?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, a warning is when the danger comes from elsewhere, and a threat is when it comes from you. Everything comes from a tri-omni deity, who is responsible for all that transpires thereafter. Everything that happens is its will.

The heart of God, as expressed in Christ, is to see men saved. His desire is not to see men lost.

It's clear from what you say, that you find living without Christ a blessing. Who am l to say otherwise?

The words of Peter are, however, a prophecy. If prophecy fails to be fulfilled it is false prophecy. So, let's see how things pan out, because the evidence is now your life. Peter says that 'the latter end is worse with them than the beginning'. Maybe, when you reach the 'latter end', you could let us know if it turned out for better or worse?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because there is a difference. Can you tell what it is?

The testimonies were written down, or recorded, by reliable and honest followers of Christ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The testimonies were written down, or recorded, by reliable and honest followers of Christ?

And others were done by different religions. Then what is the difference in a court of law?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There's a distinct difference between a threat and a warning, especially when made by God.

Yes, a warning is when the danger comes from elsewhere, and a threat is when it comes from you. Everything comes from a tri-omni deity, who is responsible for all that transpires thereafter. Everything that happens is its will.

The heart of God, as expressed in Christ, is to see men saved. His desire is not to see men lost. It's clear from what you say, that you find living without Christ a blessing. Who am l to say otherwise? The words of Peter are, however, a prophecy. If prophecy fails to be fulfilled it is false prophecy. So, let's see how things pan out, because the evidence is now your life. Peter says that 'the latter end is worse with them than the beginning'. Maybe, when you reach the 'latter end', you could let us know if it turned out for better or worse?

Since none of this addresses my comment, much less tries to refute it, can we assume that you have no counterargument to it? Tri-omni gods don't warn. They threaten or act.

I can tell you now how it will work out. The god you believe in doesn't exist. It's already been ruled out. It's simply not possible that a benevolent deity that wants to be believed and wouldn't lie to man is responsible for the tree of life on earth. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution excludes that possibility EVEN IF THE THEORY IS EVER FALSIFIED, which would then require a paradigm shift to a deceptive intelligent designer - one that tried to fool man and was found out.

It is overwhelmingly likely that consciousness is extinguished permanently at death and returns to wherever it was for the billions of years preceding birth. If on the off chance that you and I awaken to an afterlife, there is no more reason to believe that it will involve judgment than birth did, and if it does, it cannot be the one Christianity envisions for the reasons just given. I know that these words are meaningless to you, but I am MUCH more likely to be correct than you are, since my position is based in reason applied to evidence.

Testimony is evidence, and is regularly relied upon in courts of law. Why should the testimony of numerous witnesses to events in the life of Jesus be any different?

It's hearsay. Even eyewitness testimony is relatively weak evidence of anything except that the testifier said those things, maybe believes them, and that they may have occurred. With hearsay, it's even worse. We don't even know that the eyewitnesses referred to actually said those things. And with everybody involved being dead and there being no cross-examination possibility including the source of the hearsay, none of it admissible in a court of law.

The Innocence Project lets us know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, much less hearsay: Eyewitness Identification Reform - Innocence Project

 

[Redemptionsong]

And others were done by different religions. Then what is the difference in a court of law?

What has this to do with other religions?

This is an issue solely based on God's dealings with Israel. The Tanakh provides the history of lsrael, and this includes the Messianic prophecies. So, this is an issue about the credentials of Jesus as the Christ, or 'anointed one' of God.

The testimonies supplied by witnesses to the life of Jesus (gathered in NT) can tell us whether or not he fulfils the prophecies.