Is faith based on little or no evidence reasonable? (Revelations, Christian, believer)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Ding, ding, ding . . . you are so close to the real purpose of scripture and the "spiritual fossil record," Arequipa. When the Bible is described as spiritual not worldly or carnal . . . it means cognitive (relating to things produced by the brain during thought). The Bible is not and never has been a historical record in the sense that we mistakenly try to apply it today. First . . . our ancestors were not yet linear time thinkers cognitively. They were event-oriented thinkers similar to many Latin American thinkers today who still do not treat time as a linear phenomenon. If they miss a supposed deadline date they simply work toward the next one because it is the event NOT the date that is central to their thinking.

Everything in the scriptures is to be interpreted spiritually . . .
NOT carnally (or worldly). That means that the "history" is not date-centric. It is event-centric. It also means that the events are cognitively relevant to the spiritual evolution of our conceptual understanding of God and the development of our independent judgment of Good and Evil . . . NOT historically relevant. That independent ability cannot be bestowed . . . or it would NOT be independent.

Thank you for explaining your view of scripture a bit further. I am quite content with an explanation of human myth as a way of providing the explanations they hadn't the science to provide.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thank you for explaining your view of scripture a bit further. I am quite content with an explanation of human myth as a way of providing the explanations they hadn't the science to provide.

You are welcome. Myths are indeed the earliest evolutionary form of cognitive explanation for the inexplicable. Isn't evolution wonderful?

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I said what I meant to say. I do not require you to pretend I meant something else.

What I am saying is that it is up to the person making a claim to tell us what the evidence is, not the other way around. Evidence to me is a process, not a thing and the process goes as follows:

1) State clearly your claim.
2) List clearly the things that support that claim.
3) Explain exactly how that listed in 2 supports that claimed in 1.

However when I ask for evidence from theists they generally make the process as follows:

1) State a vague claim.
2) List some stuff and run.

If the best you can do is come to the forum and tell us all that your evidence is enough to satisfy you then you have said precisely nothing. Similarly you have said precisely nothing if your argument is simply "Everything is complex... therefore god".

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Extraordinary evidence as they say. If you had a vision of God as a pillar of fire, nobody could reasonably take that as hard evidence. Now, if four other people signed an affidavit to say they witnessed it, that would probably do for - say - something like a car accident, though if it were your case, you'd probably be spitting blood if your lawyer just accepted that as fact without cross- questioning the 'witnesses'. Do you see where I'm going?

While Mormonism is now going through having to deal with the Abraham papyrus, Joseph Smith got some witnesses to sign affidavits. Under the clean hands principle, when someone's claim to be able to translate ancient Egyptian is shown to be spurious, it is reasonable to ask just how J Smith got these people to sign a paper. I'm not saying that they were lying, but I'm saying that questioning is what we have to do, especially in respect of extraordinary claims and even where there is still a pair of clean hands.

The point of this rigmarole is to explain what I am going to say next - that your argument that we are being unreasonable in not accepting your experiences as valid by using the argument that we would not accept the signed affidavits of four witnesses to a miracle is actually unreasonable in itself.

Let me take the example of the Fatima apparitions. This is the nearest thing to a Marian miracle attested and documented by as many people as you could wish. It was regarded by me as the best support for miracles as the Shroud (not the Bible ) was regarded by me as the best evidence for a crucified Jesus.

So for myself, it is not fair to say that I regard it as no more than a UFO abduction - though it may say something about you and your reasoning that you appear to mention those as an obvious delusion but expect us to accept your personal experiences as valid.

I may say that I was researching Barney and Betty Hill (q.v) and take it a good deal more seriously than I do the Fatima miracle (1) since a study of the latter event (which results were posted here) show that it is ...let me be careful in my selection of wording...a load of codswallop. Especially in the light of the recent Knock apparition which was just the same and certainly Not Real.

So the reason I go into length and detail is to explain that your argument about skeptics not accepting signed affidavits is actually a bit of self - justification on your part and a biased view of the way evidence is correctly evaluated.

This is an important matter because the second biggest false reasoning of theists (after equivocation) is bifurcation -such as 'believe or not' -and the weight of evidence is consistently, perversely and irrationally sidelined as unimportant when or as compared to Faith.

(1) No it was NOT a UFO.

I don't know how often I have to repeat that I'm not making a claim. I'm engaging in a conversation which came out of being irked about everyone saying that there's NO evidence for God, and so I wanted to explain a little of why I believe - NOT why you should believe. There IS evidence for God but it is not strong objective evidence, the kind that would compel a skeptic to believe.

For objective evidence I have decided that the claims of Intelligent Design are accurate, even though that's not enough alone to convince me. It's evidence of a sort, but fairly weak. Your mileage may vary - you may not have seen all the examples of intelligent design, but you feel you've seen enough to discount it.

What I have for personal, subjective evidence of answered prayers and minor miracles is not something that I could bring to the table to convince any of you, and it wouldn't be good enough NO MATTER HOW STRONG IT MIGHT BE TO ME, NO MATTER IF IT'S THE STRONGEST CONCEIVABLE SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE - just as in the example above, and so I'm not trying to make a claim or convince anyone.

What I've done is to show you that I haven't made my decision to believe in God on nothing more than blind faith - it involved reasoning. I've done that to my own satisfaction.

[The Lantern]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That's what Seeker means. When your story becomes unworkable, you have God wave a magic wand to make it work.

As we found in the Noachian Flood thread, it was very difficult to make the Flood story work without having to introduce magic to avoid admitting that it could not be true.

The problem with that is that, once you get God casting a spell to make something work, then you have to ask whether the events are necessary at all - God could just 'Do' it. You don't need Noah or a Flood, you Don't need Moses or an Exodus.

The only reason that could possibly work is that God needed to go through the whole event (making it 'work' miraculously where necessary) in order to leave the memory and the message in the human psyche.

Then, if so, why not create the humans with the idea in mind? That way you can have the message without the fact.

Wouldn't that explain why the story of the Exodus and Flood doesn't actually work factually? It didn't actually need to happen.

The workings of the flood is actually easier to understand, than the workings of the Exodus. I do have an experiment in mind to show how the global flood effected the world. (When it comes to radioactive dating methods)

All of this will come in due time, but what I'm ultimately saying is when you add up all the details the Bible gives us, things really begin to fall into place. I can't say much more until my research is a little more mature.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

The workings of the flood is actually easier to understand, than the workings of the Exodus. I do have an experiment in mind to show how the global flood effected the world. (When it comes to radioactive dating methods)

All of this will come in due time, but what I'm ultimately saying is when you add up all the details the Bible gives us, things really begin to fall into place. I can't say much more until my research is a little more mature.

You keep claiming this and if you had irrefutable proof, scientists would be interested.

However you first have to overcome many hurdles and the one which you cannot overcome is an Antarctic ice core record of 400-780 thousand years. A global fludd of noah's kind would have rendered this ice record defunct as ice floats and the chances of it lifting of the land in one piece and settling in the same manner is impossible.

Radiometric dating is not affected by water submergence, water does not accelerate or delay isotopic decay. If that were the case, someone a lot smarter than you (or I) would have already discovered that and made the necessary adjustments.

You have been shown up in your lack of basic scientific acumen and biblical knowledge too many times here already to take anything you say seriously.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by The Lantern

Well, I definitely am going to test these things out. (I made a thread a while ago about testing some things out, of course it wasn't received very well)

Actually I just this morning connected the dots on this comment here. I assume you are referring to this thread here with the above comment. It is dishonest and disingenuous to claim it "was not received very well". What the truth is, is that people like myself asked more about it... you know for some actual details rather than a vague "I have a magic secret experiment that will wow you all" crap.... and you retreated out of the thread and were never seen again.

So the only thing that was not "received very well" in this little canard of yours was you not receiving questions very well. That you should try and turn that fact on others tells much about you, none of it good.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Woof

I don't know how often I have to repeat that I'm not making a claim. I'm engaging in a conversation which came out of being irked about everyone saying that there's NO evidence for God

There either is evidence for god, or there is not. It can not be both. You are either capable of laying that evidence out, or you are not. It can not be both.

Pretending there is evidence and you can present it but then engaging in a series of hand waving posts that try to change the subject away from that evidence does nothing but make us think you are not being wholly honest with us, or yourself, or both.

Originally Posted by Woof

There IS evidence for God

So you keep saying, yet here we are still not being given any of it.

Originally Posted by Woof

For objective evidence I have decided that the claims of Intelligent Design are accurate

Oh you "decided" they were accurate did you. How convenient for you. Which claims exactly because I can tell you having studied creationism for some time I have yet to see an accurate claim from that camp. They rarely claim anything in fact except that evolution is false. If you think there is some magical claim I just happen to have missed then by all means, present it. I imagine... as per usual from you... you will just keep claiming there are accurate claims and evidence but somehow manage not to say what they are in post... after post.... after post.... after post.........

Originally Posted by Woof

What I've done is to show you that I haven't made my decision to believe in God on nothing more than blind faith - it involved reasoning. I've done that to my own satisfaction.

Still looks like blind faith to me given you just keep claiming there is evidence, accurate claims and more... but can not present a shred of it.

[TRANSPONDER]

quote=MysticPhD;24400469]You are welcome. Myths are indeed the earliest evolutionary form of cognitive explanation for the inexplicable. Isn't evolution wonderful?[/quote]

Originally Posted by Woof

I don't know how often I have to repeat that I'm not making a claim. I'm engaging in a conversation which came out of being irked about everyone saying that there's NO evidence for God, and so I wanted to explain a little of why I believe - NOT why you should believe. There IS evidence for God but it is not strong objective evidence, the kind that would compel a skeptic to believe.

For objective evidence I have decided that the claims of Intelligent Design are accurate, even though that's not enough alone to convince me. It's evidence of a sort, but fairly weak. Your mileage may vary - you may not have seen all the examples of intelligent design, but you feel you've seen enough to discount it.

What I have for personal, subjective evidence of answered prayers and minor miracles is not something that I could bring to the table to convince any of you, and it wouldn't be good enough NO MATTER HOW STRONG IT MIGHT BE TO ME, NO MATTER IF IT'S THE STRONGEST CONCEIVABLE SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE - just as in the example above, and so I'm not trying to make a claim or convince anyone.

What I've done is to show you that I haven't made my decision to believe in God on nothing more than blind faith - it involved reasoning. I've done that to my own satisfaction.

Originally Posted by The Lantern

The workings of the flood is actually easier to understand, than the workings of the Exodus. I do have an experiment in mind to show how the global flood effected the world. (When it comes to radioactive dating methods)

All of this will come in due time, but what I'm ultimately saying is when you add up all the details the Bible gives us, things really begin to fall into place. I can't say much more until my research is a little more mature.

In the context of the thread it's worth replying to Woof and Lantern all together. Mystic's theories - especially on Myth as a spiritual fossil record are so speculative that we are talking faith - based beliefs right away. Woof and Lantern are talking about stuff that can be argued. And it must be - saying 'That's my opinion - I don't want to argue' well....

I've said it to Thom R before - anyone who comes and posts their views here - even if they are just 'telling us about it' rather than trying to convert people, can expect to be challenged. Semantic fiddling about what is meant by 'claim' is either mistaken or evasive - I never know whether the evasion is deliberate or not. Now, if one is convinced by the evidence of Myth, ID or the stories in Genesis and exodus, that is supporting faith by evidence and that is reasonable enough.

But the person holding those views as valid and telling us so (and that is what is called a 'claim' in the logical sense of who has to validate the evidence) can expect to be challenged. Why should myths be any more than humans without any facts trying to explain the inexplicables? Does ID arguments really stack up? Can Genesis and exodus be trusted as fact?

To wriggle out of supporting those claims in one way or another is dishonest, not to say gutless and I do not believe that any of our three posters are dishonest or gutless. Therefore, in the appropriate threads, they should give the evidence to substantiate those claims. That evidence can also expect to be challenged and to avoid or evade such a challenge is evasive, gutless and smacks of an innate realization that there really is no validity in the claims and they are not defensible. As I say, I don't think our three are doing so and so will be arguing the evidence.

In fact, ID and the first books of the Bible have been discussed and not one of the claims has stood up - and they have been argued by the best and one would expect that it would be accepted that the case for ID and the Flood and Exodus do not stand up. What we often then get are various 'excuse' arguments which are intended to emphasize the possibility - that science doesn't know everything, that we weren't there to see. In rational terms these are not good reasons to continue to hold up ID or the Flood and Exodus as probable, let alone believable.

What is going on is Faith - based - it is supporting a personal belief in spite of the evidence and that is not reasonable. I'm not saying the debate is a done deal - in fact it is, but not with Woof or Lantern, just with others so I have seen it argued out.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Woof

What I have for personal, subjective evidence of answered prayers and minor miracles is not something that I could bring to the table to convince any of you, and it wouldn't be good enough NO MATTER HOW STRONG IT MIGHT BE TO ME, NO MATTER IF IT'S THE STRONGEST CONCEIVABLE SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE - just as in the example above, and so I'm not trying to make a claim or convince anyone.

Keeping in mind that you're not trying to convince anyone, how do you work through the problem that every religion has people saying the same thing about their personal beliefs? Most of these personal beliefs end up contradicting each other - how do you reconcile the idea that your revelation is accurate the belief that most other people's are not? Seems that either you believe revelation is a good way to get knowledge or not, but believing that it is puts you in the uncomfortable place of having to reject the majority of that revelation since it disagrees with your own.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by usedtobeanyer

....God doesn't answer prayers in the way you are suggesting.

What happened to 'ask for anything in my name and i will give it'?

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

What I don't get is why theist always insist that atheist have just as much faith as they do?

...because they want to make out that we are as illogical as they are.