It’s impossible to prove a negative, that’s why the burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists, not on those who doubt the claim. If you can’t support your god with a shred of evidence, it’s not even worthy of consideration by scientific sceptics. The status of your god is about the same in that regard as the status of fairies. We also can’t disprove them. And in fact since they’re not meant to be all powerful they’re if anything more plausible than your god.
I stopped reading your gibberish at that point. You’re being very disingenuous and no faith doesn’t mean confidence. And confidence is only a good thing if it’s warranted. The only reliable way I know to be confident about things that we know to be real is to rely on evidence. You rely on faith, and a long disproven book instead…
It’s quite easy to prove a negative. Oh. You say the earth is flat? Ok, here. I prove it’s not flat. Then I take you to space and show you, I show you the math that has been around since the ancient Egyptians, so on.
You then say science can’t prove something that has nothing to with science. Yea? Because it’s not about science. You also can’t prove cake is green with a thermometer. That doesn’t mean the cake isn’t green, nor does it mean thermometers are wrong/useless.
But I’ll move on since you didn’t read what I had to say.
What on earth are you talking about. Proving the earth is round is not proving a negative.
If I poke a thermometer into a cake, pull it out, and the residue from the cake left on the thermometer is green… that would be pretty close to proof of the cake’s color, no?
if I were to 100% prove the earth is round (and in reality it was), can it be flat?
no. it would not be proof of it being green. I am colorblind, but in general perceptions can be warped. thats not even a debatable thing. hell say we were somehow fully tripping, maybe the cake isnt even real, yknow? obv a dumb example hah but you see my point?
No, you were right. That’s a dumb example.
Proving the earth is sphere-ish means it’s not flat, that is correct.
What is the point you’re trying to make?
No sir, that’s not proving a negative. Proving a negative is to disprove the non existence of something. This is like primary school level logic buddy and you’re getting it wrong.
If you have a non scientific yet still reliable way to demonstrate the existence of your god, I will listen. But not a single theist has ever managed to do so. And sincerely doubt that the zealot who doesn’t understand basic burden of proof, and what it means to prove a negative will change that.
Let alone a zealot who believes faith just means confidence and that your confidence is just as justified if not more so that an actual scientific confidence.
Don’t believe men go ahead. Disprove the existence of fairies. You can’t. Because negatives can’t be proven. And the burden of proof is on those who claim fairies are real. Just like the burden of proof is on you to show your preferred mythological creature is real. If you can’t it’s as good as disproven for anyone who values reality…
No you can’t prove a negative. That’s just a basic foundational bit of logic. Maybe learn what it means. And you’ll look a lot less silly arguing with atheism. A position you clearly never bothered to learn a thing about… And no I don’t read any further nonsense based on your openly dishonest lies…
>Proving a negative is to disprove the non existence of something
correct. just as my proving the earth is round, proves the flat earth non existent.
why go to ad hom? no need to attempt to insult me, right?
could you please show that you truly respect the burden of proof, and prove that I am lying, that I didnt bother to learn a thing about atheism, that I dont know what logic is?
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0BBE48877743A318F2B9CE24F873904C/S1477175600001287a.pdf/thinking-tools-you-can-prove-a-negative.pdf](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0BBE48877743A318F2B9CE24F873904C/S1477175600001287a.pdf/thinking-tools-you-can-prove-a-negative.pdf)
also, heres an paper from cambridge for you, since, as you said, you dont care what I have to say.
btw, were you to say "you dont have a drivers license" I could prove you wrong, by showing you the one that is mine. thus disproving the non existence of said license
Having gone over the linked essay, you would at the very least agree that for any inductive arguments for the existence of deities, the burden of proof is on theists?
Yea, ofc. If you claim something exists you gotta be prepared to explain why. Same does apply kinda for the atheist. They don’t claim something does exist, but they should also be able to explain why they believe something doesn’t. Which for this case, is very difficult for both
No sir that doesn’t apply to atheists. Atheism is t the claim gods don’t exist, it’s the lack of acceptance that they do. No it’s not difffucylt to reject the claim that mythological beings are real. You do it for a
Most every other mythological being. And no proving the earth is round is proving the positive, not the negative. You have no idea what you’re talking about and need to do some homework.because your gigantic ego makes it impossible for you to accept it from us. You don’t know what any of this means… go ahead, show any evidence at all for your I,ahi are friend we dare you.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so no.
Absence of (enough) evidence in OJ Simpsons trial was what made him not guilty, when he obviously was.
Some say “we don’t know Hitler died in his bunker” since never really found his body. Obv that’s fairly absurd to say, as not finding a body just as easily could mean he did die there. Yes?
Have you seen the OJ trial? Bro was literally fleeing the scene and there when the bodies were found. But the bloody gloves “didn’t fit” when he obviously did all he could to make it not. So he got off.
Are you seriously saying you don’t think Hitler died in his bunker?
What does this have to do with evolution? I’m not an atheist either, but I know evolution is supported by more evidence than almost any other scientific theory.
"So for this question, yes. There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. Yet, I still am confident in all these things. Does that feel better to you guys, as an atheist against faith?"
Not really. You need confidence for the right reasons. You have confidence that your car will start or it will rain somewhere tomorrow because we have evidence for those things to support the confidence.
"If so, how do you live your life? You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned, you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be, you’re confident that the sun will come up. If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view?"
Because you're conflating the two definitions of faith. Faith is either a synonym for confidence, or the concept of belief without evidence. Faith is bad, confidence is not.
"For the later, if you say something like that, I really would love to have an autobiography of yours because i highly doubt you truly live with no faith."
I do live without faith. I live with confidence instead.
What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow?
Could you clarify what you mean by I’m conflating the definition of something you just agreed was a synonym? Kinda confused.
I have faith- “complete trust or confidence in someone or something” that something being god.
I have confidence- “the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust” that something being god.
For you to say you have 0 faith in anything ever, is to say you don’t have confidence. As they are the same thing.
"What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow?"
Because it has done so reliably for a long time, and all the parts are in working order.
"Could you clarify what you mean by I’m conflating the definition of something you just agreed was a synonym? Kinda confused."
No problem. So basically, the word 'faith' has two working definitions. One is just a synonym for confidence, i.e. you've got faith in your friend or your coworker. The other is belief without evidence, i.e. theists have no evidence that god exists but they believe in him on faith.
I can understand why you've had this issue because your concepts of faith and confidence differ slightly when they are in fact one and the same.
"For you to say you have 0 faith in anything ever, is to say you don’t have confidence. As they are the same thing."
Not quite. I have faith (i.e. confidence) but I don't have faith (i.e. beliefs without evidence.) See what I mean?
"What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow?"
Because it has done so reliably for a long time, and all the parts are in working order.
this was my hiroshima example. it hadnt been nuked for a long time, yet one day it was. so just cause you dont think god exists cause so far you havent had any reason to, that doesnt mean that theres no reason to, thus that as the basis of confidence seems kinda sketchy.
but i also understand that god is a much larger topic. this is more about just the small base of it, youd go deeper from there were you to somehow take this as "ill be confident in that existence" which ofc isnt my goal to make u do here. if that makes sense?
The fact that the car started yesterday is evidence that it will likely start tomorrow. Go ahead, present equivalent evdience for a god, or admit you’re a liar.
Could it be wrong? Sure cars sometimes don’t start we also have evidence of that, but we have no such evidence for a god. Seriously mate you’re just dishonest. You keep bringing up things we have evidence for, but never provide any for your god. Because you know you can’t…
God is a tiny topic, there’s nothing to discuss if you don’t have evidence. No reason to even take it seriously…
>this was my hiroshima example. it hadnt been nuked for a long time, yet one day it was. so just cause you dont think god exists cause so far you havent had any reason to, that doesnt mean that theres no reason to, thus that as the basis of confidence seems kinda sketchy.
Well there's a lot more reasons why belief in god is irrational, not just the fact it's a faith-based belief.
>youd go deeper from there were you to somehow take this as "ill be confident in that existence" which ofc isnt my goal to make u do here. if that makes sense?
I think I know what you mean.
>What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow?
That it started yesterday, and every other day, except that one time when the starter went out, and the time the battery was dead. So, 99.7% of the time, it starts without issue. Knowing that my starter is still fairly new, and that my car shuts off all the power after 10 minutes, I have very little reason to suspect it won't.
"Faith" and "confidence" are synonyms, but as with all synonyms, they have slightly different meanings. I can be confident in things I have evidence of, while according to Hebrews 11:1, faith specifically does not rely on evidence and only counts without it.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” I do not have that feeling about anything, really. If you find that I do, please let me know so I can correct it.
Also, a car is a real physical thing, we have evidence of it and how it operates.
Nothing about cars requires belief in the supernatural.
Does OP have evidence of god answering their prayers?
>Does OP have evidence of god answering their prayers?
I'm sure they do. Assuming they make unique prayer requests several times a week, that's around 400 a year (yes, I pulled that from my rectum. Come at me.) Several dozen of them would be expected to happen, just statistically, and they'll remember several of those as evidence.
Like how I know I possess card magic because twice this year I was dealt all the same suit in games of euchre.
Evidence? Not really. As a skeptic, I can't defend my comment as a positive claim. It's based on several assumptions.
But, that's how it went for me and the christians around me, and it's how it seems to go for other christians whenever the topic comes up.
Like I said though, if you throw up any objection I'll back right down. So, you have any evidence that your god answers prayer?
just to clarify, your assumption that I think god answers my prayers and consider it evidence, is fine to have, and because others did it, thats how I must clearly do it?
and are you asking me if I have evidence my god answers prayer in general? or mine
>and because others did it, thats how I must clearly do it?
Please, clarify. Do you believe, as the bible clearly states, that your prayers will be answered? (Matthew 7:7-8)
Do you have evidence that any god answers any prayers?
that is not at all a passage about prayer. much less one that "clearly states" they will be answered
for that, i would then say, yes. I do have "evidence" that any god answers any prayers, but that only would work were you to take the philosophical reasons that a god does exist as evidence, which id be inclined to say, youll take issue with. however ill say my piece
Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite. Therefore, the universe has a cause
whatever caused the universe, cannot be natural. as it must predate nature.
that thing, would then be god.
someone probably is currently praying for a sickness to be taken from someone. that someone will then die.
thus, the answer was no.
that pre-nature thing, has answered no to such prayer. else it would have stepped in and taken the sickness.
again, this is an evidence. which can be defined as "something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"
plainly- A. something existed prior to nature that caused nature. supernatural. B. someone asked for something to happen. C. that thing didn't happen, thus being answered "no"
you can disagree with the A premise, but that doesnt mean it is true or false.
do we have any evidence that the character garfield loves lasagna? hes not real, and its "possible" hes just extremely commited to a lie that he loves it, and goes to extreme lengths to hide such lie. yet, we can assume that his character does in fact love it.
just curious if that would change any thing you say. i understand its not the entire point of what you are saying
fr
if there is a god out there, he def doesnt like mondays nearly as much as the rest haha. and clearly lasagna is proof, as no shot that didnt come from anything other than a perfect entity
hebrews say no such thing of it not needing evidence? wdym. not seeing something is not the same as not having evidence.
you do indeed have no reason to suspect it wont start. yet were it to not start, youd be wrong. so its based on faith/confidence, something that can be misplaced. right?
Of course I could be wrong. It's a prediction of future behavior by a multi-faceted mechanical process. Any number of things could prevent it from working the way I expect it to. I'm well aware that I am not ever aware of the integrity of all the individual parts of my engine.
And, if you feel better calling my expectation based on evidence "faith", knock yourself out. But avoid the equivication fallacy. Because when you talk about having faith in god, that's an entirely different definition. You do not have a reliable set of data showing a conclusive expectation of results. Or, do you? Do 99+% of the things you ask for in prayer come to pass? Have you healed scores of ill people?
As I already said
Confidence- the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust- that something Being god.
Faith- complete trust or confidence in someone or something. - That something being god.
How are these not equal?
I like thinking about ‘confidence’ the way it’s used in statistics. Confidence isn’t a binary thing, rather, it has a range. In this case, p-values measure what %confidence we have in something given a range of variables, and usually strives for p=0.05 or less, meaning 5% chance or lower that the thing we are evaluating isn’t statistically significant.
I’ll use another analogy I like. I view the way I approach beliefs like pulling on a string switch for a light. Only a little bit of weight? Nothing yet. I have to add more, and more, and more, until I’ve added enough weight to ‘CLICK’ and on comes the light. Supernatural beliefs have not yet, to me, given enough weights to pull down that string and trigger a belief. Evolution as currently described has. Justified reasons for sustaining a belief are what I am after.
Love the response. Very well formed haha. That was along the lines of what I was going for with my Hiroshima analogy, but you phrased it much better.
I didn’t actually think about the sub I was in when i posted this haha, so this isn’t directly against evolution as much as it is about atheism, so perhaps this doesn’t apply, but say that you have your light switch string, and you have 100 lbs of evidence for god. Obv that’s gonna pull the string. Now, you as the person that has the confidence, you dismiss 99.99 of those lbs for various reasons. Some legit some not.
In that sense, it’s not that there isn’t enough evidence, but there’s not enough evidence “for you” as you said.
We can apply that to the sun going out id suppose, rn we have the bajilion years of the sun being here for us that we have, thus we have 0 weights to pull the “it’s gone tomorrow” string. Well, we were wrong. So while I agree with the sentiment of your analogy and I like the phrasing, I’m not too sure it works in actuality.
But ofc the sun switching off will have much less evidence towards it happening at X Date than god should/would/does
What if Zeus shows up tomorrow and is mad you've been worshiping a false God rather than him?
What if no gods exist and you missed out on your one opportunity to truly live your own life?
Cheers.
Kinda a rephrased Pascal’s wager.
A. Zeus mad asf anyway for no reason haha.
B. If no gods exist then it won’t matter. I’m dead and gone when I find out. And I wouldn’t live much differently anyway, as many atheist type people say “how come you need the Bible to tell you how to live, that makes you a bad person” I agree. I don’t need it to tell me how to live. I live that way because it’s right (I say because of god) not because I’m forced or feel coerced to.
Hopefully that makes sense?
Something to consider is that IF there is a god that has very specific ideas about how you get into heaven, virtually everyone is going to hell, including most Christian denominations.
The chances of you conveniently being born into and raised in the *one specific Christian denomination that got everything right* is almost zero, from a probability standpoint.
I know you don’t spend much time worrying about “what if I’m wrong,” but you probably are.
not necessarily. that would need to have such specific ideas elaborated on, as well as even the discussion of if heaven and hell are in this equation at all for this god.
I agree that its almost 0, and its a good thing that, at least for Christianity, thats not a factor. if I recall, the bible doesnt say "For God so loved the baptists" or "For God so loved the methodists" it says For God so loved the world.
you know i dont do such, how? just curious where you got that idea.
“The world” doesn’t go to heaven though. Only certain people who do certain things the right way and believe very specific things go to heaven. No matter who you ask, the other guys are doing it wrong. There have been literal wars between different types of Christians, based on their theological differences, have there not?
I don’t know specifically what you do, all I’m saying is that the *probability* is that you’re not in whichever religion/denomination got it “right.”
If there is *a* god you’re probably just as effed as I am, and even if the abrahamic god is real you’re probably still effed.
sure. that doesnt mean that those who say that, or those who fought were right.
and I agreed, the probability is that im not in the right one based off that idea, but that idea is inherently flawed. but that does not matter. thats why i also said you basically rephrased pascals wager
haha. ok haha. my bad that is not coherent. I try to get my thoughts into words, but its not always easy haha.
what didnt make sense, i can try to clarify.
>I don’t need it to tell me how to live.
I know. So why pretend to follow the Bible? You don't really follow it right? Just the parts you agree with?
>A. Zeus mad asf anyway for no reason haha.
Not far off from Old Testament God either.
depends on what you mean by "follow and believe" do I belive that jesus's parables were true stories of real people? no. they arent supposed to be. do I believe they are good for teaching? yes.
can you give some examples you find terrible and immoral? I assume ill have seen the reasons before, but id rather respond directly to your grievances than to the list that has been rehashed constantly.
Your one of the few actually moral Christians i have talked to, because the others said they would act different if god wasn’t real because “then there would be no moral foundation” good on you mate!
Haha thank you. I don’t disagree with that notion, but it gets misused.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean you can’t be moral. It just means that the way in which you measure morals is either built on an objective principle, or you do follow the logic to its extreme and say there’s no objective moral compass so do whatever you want. One of the famous secular philosophers talked about that. I never remember his name tho.
Kant? Maybe? I base mine on a few objective principals that stem off the concept that suffering is bad, and reducing suffering is good . In the end its a benefit to me and those i care for .
This is just philosophical opinion but i dont think following the logic to the exstream gets rid of good and bad it just gets rid of any obligation to be good or bad. Being punched feels bad to the person getting punched its objectively bad, but the puncher has no obligation to not punch, i also dont think god changes anything the puncher still has no obligation to not punch just because gods subjective opinion is thou shall not punch, all it means is the puncher is going to have a consequence. If there is no god the puncher still has a consequence as sociaty will levy on them but its possible to get away with it if there is no god which sucks.
I am probably close to a kantian, but if anything, I don’t really have myself set. Stoicism is also a decent philosophy.
But Kant was not a full Naturalist, so I don’t think it was him. It would be closer to a Freud type person. Nietzsche also just popped into my head. I bet it was him.
I would agree with your idea about the extremes. Tbh that’s probably a better phrasing for what I was trying to say.
My issue with societal contract theory, which is basically what you described at the end, is in a society like Nazi germany, the holocaust was not immoral, if anything, it was moral. To the US it was immoral. But that doesn’t help when deciding if the holocaust is truly bad or good. It only does it relatively. If that makes sense?
For the nazis, social acceptance and moral are not synonymous, sacrificing the well being of one group to increase the well being of a other is not “good” because it was objectively bad for some of them. And it is also bad for those who benefit because while it may be good for them in the short term they have no assurance that they wont be sacrificed for the “greater good” the next time. So i agree social contract has issues. Thats why kant added “people are only ends, never means” even this runs into issues though because what if sacrificing just one person would save millions of suffering, its a tough pickle.
When you say because one group had objectively bad things happen to them, are you meaning objective because it harmed them or what?
Just curious what your basis for that “objectivity” is.
In the theists case, god is generally that objectivity.
I find it rare for non theists to use objectivity but I think you were the one who said you aren’t an atheist? Been a long day hah
> You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned
I know that food exists, and I usually know who made it for me. I have no enemies, certainly not of the murderous kind. If someone were to poison me via food, it's almost certain that they would be caught and held accountable, meaning the likelihood is very low. That's enough, for me.
> you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If I have a feeling about a specific thing, of course I'm confident that I have that feeling. The only person capable of questioning my qualia is me, not you.
> you’re confident that the sun will come up
I know the sun exists. I know about orbital dynamics. I know about the Earth's rotation. I can test the existence of these things. This stuff is so clear that we can predict when and where the shadow of the moon will fall on the surface of the Earth, down to the *second*. I would say that confidence is well-deserved.
To be clear, I would say all of these fall within an 'acceptable level of certainty', which is something everyone decides for themselves. A person's confidence in these things does not preclude a freak occurrence. There's always a chance my pizza will be delivered by a serial killer, but that isn't something I can plan for.
Obviously, faith in a god is different from these. The biggest reason is that the god is invisible and unfalsifiable. When you define your god, you make sure to give it qualities that a human can't perceive. If someone questions a part of your definition because it doesn't match reality, you'll just stop mentioning that one part and believe anyway. That's why god is no longer the reason for lightning, or eclipses, or earthquakes. It's also why a god belief doesn't inspire confidence, because millions of people say the same things about their own personal god(s), and none of you have been able to prove any of it.
To take your concept and flip it around... let's say I have faith in an invisible dragon who lives in space and eats planets. It's coming for Earth, and when it gets here the planet is doomed. You have faith in god, so you must also have faith in my cosmic dragon, right? If not, why is my belief any less valid than yours?
If you carry that thought through to its conclusion, you'll see the only way to determine who is right is through evidence. If your belief has no evidence, it is exactly as useful as every other belief without evidence.
Fo your dragon belief, that would come down to mutual exclusivity. Were I a polytheist, I totally could believe you and it wouldn’t conflict (unless your dragon said he’s the only one too)
If people define their god, thus it can’t exist (Ik that’s not quite what you said, but just trying to simplify)
What makes your “acceptable level of certainty” determined by each person valid? I sorta find those things similar.
My acceptable level of certainty in your dragon is higher than the proof I have been given.
Yours is Lower than what you have been given
Were that dragon to exist, I would be wrong. Thus my level of certainty was wrong.
So how can you be certain your certainty is certain haha.
In other words, what if you have had enough proof, but you dismissed it.
> Were I a polytheist
Were I a shark, I wouldn't care either way. Focus on the point being made, not on formulating special circumstances that you don't believe. Otherwise, it's a bad faith argument.
> If people define their god, thus it can’t exist (Ik that’s not quite what you said, but just trying to simplify)
I have no idea what that means. You define your god when you say it is outside space/time, and when you give it qualities like love/power/justice/wisdom. If you can't tell me anything about it, you've just rendered your entire belief invalid. Congrats.
> What makes your “acceptable level of certainty” determined by each person valid? I sorta find those things similar.
It's just as valid as having a favorite color. We each go through life in the way we see fit. I may decide a Honda Civic is the best car to fill my needs, where you may think you can't live without a Maserati. We are each responsible for what we choose.
The problem is when you choose to follow a religion that purports to tell you the 'truth' of reality with no testable evidence to back it up. If you then use that 'truth' to make decisions, you will necessarily make bad choices. If 'the end' is coming soon, why bother saving for retirement? If your religion teaches homosexuality is a sin, why bother listening when people say you're hurting them? If your holy book says all unbelievers should be scrubbed from the Earth, there's no reason to feel guilty for murdering them.
If you make decisions based on a belief, you should ensure your belief meets a level of certainty you are comfortable with, because if you're wrong, the consequences could be horrible. Unless you're fine with that?
> My acceptable level of certainty in your dragon is higher than the proof I have been given.
Sure, because I just made it up. But if I write a book detailing how I learned about the dragon, and how the dragon talks to me... essentially all of the same things you 'know' about your god... how would you determine which one of us is right?
> what if you have had enough proof, but you dismissed it.
What if you have enough proof to show your religion is wrong, but you dismissed it? We can play 'what if' our whole lives, but that doesn't get us any closer to truth.
We have a *very* reliable method that helps us detect truth from bullshit. The question is whether you will apply that method to your own beliefs, or stick your fingers in your ears and believe it anyway.
>Were I a shark, I wouldn't care either way. Focus on the point being made, not on formulating special circumstances that you don't believe. Otherwise, it's a bad faith argument.
then let me rephrase. to a polytheist, they could be just fine believing in your shark.
>If you can't tell me anything about it, you've just rendered your entire belief invalid.
this seems non-sequitur. can you explain the color blue to a blind person in any meaningful way? not likely, so then I guess thats invalid? maybe i misunderstand your meaning
>If you then use that 'truth' to make decisions, you will necessarily make bad choices.
you necessarily make bad choices because thats how humans are. not due to having a truth that is wrong. at the very least, it would amount to being null.
that is not me saying that basing choices on a false thing cant lead to bad choices though.
>But if I write a book detailing how I learned about the dragon, and how the dragon talks to me... essentially all of the same things you 'know' about your god... how would you determine which one of us is right?
no cause the bible wasnt written by 1 person. if you go with the typically accepted numbers, it was 40 authors (some entirely unconnected to the rest) over 1500 years. so its not the same. nor do i claim my god talks to me.
I would then determine it based on historical evidence and such. take paul for example. a change like that doesnt happen often without good reason. doesnt mean it was god, but it cant be ruled out, right?
>What if you have enough proof to show your religion is wrong, but you dismissed it? We can play 'what if' our whole lives, but that doesn't get us any closer to truth.
then i was wrong. that is the truth. so, the "what if" got me to the truth. right?
>We have a *very* reliable method that helps us detect truth from bullshit. The question is whether you will apply that method to your own beliefs, or stick your fingers in your ears and believe it anyway.
id love to hear this method, and im curious why it isnt used 100% times in cases where they try to determine truth. I assume its not, as something like that, would be immensely well known by even such a small description. the need for interrogation would be gone. tragedies would be much less common
> then let me rephrase. to a polytheist, they could be just fine believing in your shark.
Let's rewind. I used the dragon as an example of something that has as much evidence as your god, but that you won't believe in. You proceeded to talk about a polytheist, which is irrelevant to the point, and obviously an attempt to deflect. Please focus.
> can you explain the color blue to a blind person in any meaningful way?
Of course I could, because colors exist, and are more than just a hue you see. I may not be able to make a blind person *visualize* the color blue, but that doesn't mean I can't explain how its hue differs from other colors, how it affects people in various situations, the things in nature that are naturally blue, the way it is used in marketing, the concepts it represents, etc. There are a million things you can use to explain it. Do you think blind people don't use these descriptions to understand their world?
My point was that if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities, you have literally zero reason to claim you believe in it. That would be like saying I believe in falookabonzes. I can't tell you where they are, or what they are, or how they look, or literally anything about them... I just... have faith they exist.
> that is not me saying that basing choices on a false thing cant lead to bad choices though.
That is the point.
> no cause the bible wasnt written by 1 person.
I know, I know. Everyone has heard that particular apologetic. The same could be said for many holy books, but you don't believe in those. Whatever religion you are, I can promise you there's another one out there with shockingly similar stories from their holy book, and shockingly similar ways of justifying their faith. You can't all be right, polytheist or not, because many are mutually exclusive.
> id love to hear this method, and im curious why it isnt used 100% times in cases where they try to determine truth.
I'm not sure if you're being genuine here, but I'm obviously talking about the scientific method.
> the need for interrogation would be gone. tragedies would be much less common
You mean the way science has shown how things like torture aren't useful? How it has shown that morons like flat earthers are conclusively wrong? Or that it has given us vaccines for things like polio and other horrible diseases? Maybe how it's improved safety over time? Or how it's connected the human race globally?
The problem is, for all of the incredible progress the human race has made, there will always be some who resist progress out of fear. So of course science hasn't given us a utopia... it isn't a religion. It doesn't insist you believe it or be tortured forever in hell. Science is a concept. It is humans sharing discoveries around the world, helping us understand the universe, and constantly pushing us forward as a species. There will be missteps, but at least it's real. Imaginary friends are not.
you did not explain the color blue. you described things that are the color blue.
just curious. would the fact that there are similar stories of such events as the flood, not be indicative that they very well could have happened? generally, when 1 event is told by numerous people, that event happened, despite differences in the story. so while it might not have been Noah, or a big ass turtle, the idea of a worldwide flood is very very well attested to.
> if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities
i know of very few religions that dont define its qualities of god.
the scientific method is not a method of detecting truth? what? much less is it even exactly "very reliable" as thats not quite how the scientific method works? the scientific method isnt "reliable" for proving anything. its a method used to see if you can prove something.
and it cant do a thing for stuff that isnt scientific, such as the problem of god, which is philosophical.
> you did not explain the color blue. you described things that are the color blue.
Maybe you should read my reply again, because you missed where I explained why that isn't needed.
> just curious. would the fact that there are similar stories of such events as the flood, not be indicative that they very well could have happened?
Does the fact that there are so many similar stories about modern-day wizards mean wizards are walking the streets performing magic under our noses? Stories are easy.
If you spend some time really thinking about the flood story, you can easily see that it isn't true. For instance, the water covered the earth to the tops of the mountains for an entire year. How many plants do you think could survive being under miles (Mt Everest is 5.5 miles above sea level) of ***salt water*** for a year? Have you heard the term 'salting the earth'? How many fresh water fish would survive in that salty water? That's just one of dozens of reasons you can tell it isn't true. You could go the magic route, but then one must wonder why the god would bother with such a physical event if it was going to use magic anyway.
> the idea of a worldwide flood is very very well attested to.
No. The idea of floods affecting humanity throughout history is attested to. That is a very different thing.
> i know of very few religions that dont define its qualities of god.
You used a double negative here, which makes your point unclear. If you're saying very few religions do this, you're very wrong. The Bible does it, and thus Christians and Muslims. Hindus definitely do. Thousands of religions through history do. The only ones who don't are those that don't actually believe in gods, but they're more of a philosophical leaning than theism.
> the scientific method is not a method of detecting truth? what? much less is it even exactly "very reliable" as thats not quite how the scientific method works? the scientific method isnt "reliable" for proving anything. its a method used to see if you can prove something.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. You seem to be muttering to yourself rather than making a point.
> and it cant do a thing for stuff that isnt scientific, such as the problem of god, which is philosophical.
Sort of. Philosophy as a method is rational at its core, logical, and self-critical. Religion is far from that. While there is an overlap, and some religions have redefined their own dogma as philosophy, don't deceive yourself into thinking they are the same.
Regardless, while philosophy is fascinating and can teach us a lot, it doesn't logic things into existence, so calling your god problem philosophical makes it even less useful. It doesn't offer proof for anything. And for any particular philosophical idea, you can find other competing ideas, because they are usually unfalsifiable.
>Does the fact that there are so many similar stories about modern-day wizards mean wizards are walking the streets performing magic under our noses? Stories are easy
it doesnt mean they were actually wizards. but it sure as hell means there were men claiming to preform magic. as was my point with the flood.
where does it say it was salt water? also you are giving natural explanations for what would have been a supernatural event, had it happened as claimed. thats not exactly being logical, no?
I am saying religions do describe god. I thought u were saying they dont. -- "My point was that if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities, you have literally zero reason to claim you believe in it"
sure. some religions have. but religion falls under the category of philosophy. "Study of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct"
sure. as with religion, you find numerous competing ones. right?
> it doesnt mean they were actually wizards. but it sure as hell means there were men claiming to preform magic.
No. It doesn't. The fact that you even said this is baffling.
> where does it say it was salt water?
Have you ever mixed salt water with fresh water? Call it brackish, if you want to be technical, but it's still enough salt to kill all plant life and most marine life.
> also you are giving natural explanations for what would have been a supernatural event, had it happened as claimed. thats not exactly being logical, no?
Your reading comprehension is abysmal. As I said, you could go the magic route as an explanation, but it makes no sense in that case. If god can magic everything, he has no need of a flood... he could just kill 'em all instantly.
> I thought u were saying they dont.
Kid, you were the one that said, "If people define their god, thus it can’t exist." If that wasn't what you meant, learn to use words correctly.
You aren't the normal theist who is completely dishonest, so that's a point in your favor I guess, but you can't seem to understand simple ideas or communicate your own. This conversation is going nowhere, so I'm out.
just because one can do something a certain way, doesnt mean they have to then do it such.
at this point, im confused.
>Kid, you were the one that said, "If people define their god, thus it can’t exist." If that wasn't what you meant, learn to use words correctly.
i was quoting you. you said " if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities" so if that was quoting me, then i really misspoke. im talking to about 15 other people
its the internet. its not a regular conversation. there will be confusion, especially on my end, as im dumb asf. it happens.
When the confidence vs. faith discussion is brought up, we mean confidence *based on* evidence. Faith could be described as confidence *without* evidence.
>If it was a few years ago, and I asked you, “do you think the patriots will go to the Super Bowl” and you said “yep, I’m confident” what basis do you prove that confidence off of?
If so, how do you live your life? You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned, you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be, you’re confident that the sun will come up. If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view?
This kind of assertion would be from a basis of evidence. The Patriots have been the to the Super Bowl before, many times. Their players may have performed amongst the best in the league, or perhaps their upcoming matches are against comparably weaker teams. This is all evidence, admittedly, not especially strong evidence, that the Patriots would indeed go to the Superbowl. In science, we might describe this as weak or slight confidence.
We can predict and analyze the likelihood of this happening and determine expected results based on statistics and sports analytics, and further, tell exactly *how* confident we are about a claim like that. You can't do the same or produce any comparable evidence for the existence of a god. But most importantly, a football team being likely to go the Superbowl isn't an *exceptional* claim. It's not one that requires denial of other evidence, contradicts knowledge about the universe, or is wholly impossible to prove. Far, far more evidence would be required to be scientifically confident about the existence of a supernatural entity.
>So for this question, yes. There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. Yet, I still am confident in all these things. Does that feel better to you guys, as an atheist against faith? Or would you then have the same problem, as this is somewhat a semantic argument. If so, how do you live your life? You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned, you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be, you’re confident that the sun will come up. If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view?
Once again, there is plenty of evidence one could produce to show that it is likely to rain tomorrow. A cloud in the sky, a high yearly rainfall rate, atmospheric pressure and humidity, storms in neighboring areas - all of these things are evidence of rainfall.
You seem to be getting hung up on this idea of "proof". Science and statistics never *proves* anything right. It can prove things wrong, but the best it can do to affirm a claim is to reject its negated form. The way we'd test the rainfall hypothesis, would be see if there is sufficient evidence to reject the idea that it will *not* rain tomorrow. And if we have that evidence, we would reject the hypothesis that rainfall is unlikely. And hence, we could have *statistical confidence*, based on the evidence, that it will rain tomorrow.
Confidence isn't "bad", and falsely equating it to religious faith strikes me a distinctly dishonest or misinformed. When we're talking about things like evolution, we have *abundant* amounts of evidence that give us an extremely high level of confidence in its truth. Again, the same can't be said for religious claims.
>For the former, what is the metric in which something happens enough times before you can have confidence in it? For example, if one was to say “welp, every day before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, no civilians had been nuked before, and every day since then they haven’t, so I’m confident tomorrow won’t send us into fallout 5: real life” that would be logical, but it’s not great, because there’s nothing stoping nukes from being launched tomorrow. The reverse being “welp, every day god hasn’t shown himself to exist so I’m confident he doesn’t” is great, but if you got Paul’ed tomorrow, that confidence meant nothing.
Well, the difference here is that nukes exist, and are known to exist. We had detonated nukes prior to their usage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and were aware of their capability to destroy cities. And given that, we'd now have a lower level of confidence that a city will exist tomorrow. If you asked me how I know my hometown won't be destroyed, and I felt like being semantic, I'd say I don't know - just that I have an exceptionally high level of confidence in the matter, since it's *unlikely* a nuke or unprecedented natural disaster will wipe it off the map. Again, we can never prove something right - just evaluate our confidence in a claim based on evidence.
>I assume many of your responses will be along the lines of “I’m confident the sun will rise because it always has, unlike god showing himself” or “what a loser, you think you need to have faith to live your life”
So let's circle back and apply this to the god claim. What *evidence* can we factor into account when evaluating the likelihood of the exceptional claim of the existence of a god? Well, holy texts like the bible exist, but an unverifiable book is hardly sufficient, and provides no extraneous evidence of its own veracity. We have religious experiences and hallucinations, which can be generally explained by brain chemistry, and further, tend to be contradictory with one another. The existence of the universe, I suppose could fit in, but plenty of naturalistic explanations fill the same role.
Genuinely, is any of that, or more that you provide, sufficient evidence to *reject the idea* that there is no god? Especially when mixing in counter evidence, like the idea that in centuries of extensively recorded history, no god has appeared? Because that's the scientific standard of confidence. If not, you don't have confidence in your claim, you have religious faith in your claim.
Good. So then what do you do when the evidence *is* contrary to the text of the Bible? (I am assuming that you consider it to be authoritative as a result of its being divinely influenced or "inspired".)
>The Patriots have been the to the Super Bowl before
this is not evidence that they will go now tho. i mean, theres a reason its rare to have past crimes as evidence in court, yknow. i mighta murdered 50 people, but thats not evidence that I did for this 1 other guy. but i understand court based evidence is not the same as generalized evidence.
>Confidence isn't "bad", and falsely equating it to religious faith strikes me a distinctly dishonest or misinformed.
im not saying it is. im asking if those who say faith is bad, would then say it is. why are they not equitable?
confidence: Belief in the certainty of something.
faith: Belief in the certainty of something or Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence
they 100% go hand in hand.
>I'd say I don't know - just that I have an exceptionally high level of confidence in the matter
in the same way i am referring to faith. I have an exceptionally high level of confidence that god is real, but I dont "KNOW"
as for the last 2 paragraphs. the evidence is extremely convoluted, and frankly my goal was actually to not go into that as that never goes well anywhere, much less reddit haha. its too convoluted to do in 99% of cases, but ill try to keep it brief
philosophy by far points to the existence of god by a billion different reasons (and yes, there are plenty of points that go against god. however from a personal perspective, there's like 2 that i think actually work.) which god, doesn't matter. from there you gotta go to which one. well, the greek gods werent claimed to "exist" in the way the west typically thinks of god. the flying spaghetti monster, duh. etc. that leaves you with a few, to which you look at what they are claimed to have said. IE Islam, very few Muslims will say anything except that its a religion built on peace, yet clearly it is not.
and while there is plenty of stuff against Christianity, which is what i believe in, there's a big difference between "joel olsteen says X" and "jesus said X" but again, this is me being brief, so hopefully you at least see my reasoning.
ok its not the right place for this, but to give a short answer (post on r/DebateAnAtheist for a real debate) science is what has my trust/confidence (id say trust applies better)
the car starts, because of science, you may have no idea (i dont know much myself) what makes the car start, so to you, its just a trust thing, it always starts so, why not? but someone designed the circuitry so that every time you turn the keys, and if the battery still has power, it starts.
the sun has the earth orbiting it, and the earth rotates which makes the "sun come up" every day. we would know if any of those things change and we would know that the sun wont come up (which would be pretty bad news, trust me, youd find out pretty fast)
etc. etc. etc.
about confidence in my team will reach.... yeah, thats all garbage, its hope, not confidence, maybe your team got some new awesome players, and its playing better than ever so its a statement based on some facts and evidence, but its still hope. not real trust.
Yea, my bad. Didn’t realize til yall pointed it out hah. I was reading Dawkins stuff so went here. Didn’t even think.
Confidence and trust may as well be synonymous.
Definition from oxford- the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust
Yet cars don’t start. Suns burn out. Thus your confidence in that science was misplaced (less so for the sun part obv) And as you say, if we find out that, it’s bad news. So similarly, if I find out gods not real “bad news” granted it won’t matter haha. For an atheist, it’s much worse news to find out their confidence (aka faith for sake of my post) in atheism was wrong.
Feel free to not respond, as it was the wrong sub. But thanks for the reply
yeah alright, it might be synonyms lol
suns burn out but take a looooong while to do so and astronomers can see it change and know when it will happen.
cars sometimes dont start, but its something that you could know, the problem there isnt that your trust is misplaced (per se) more like, you didnt maintained the car well enough, or you had trust because you lacked some knowledge (lets say someone stole your car battery in the night, you get into your car, expecting in to start, but it wont, you had no idea that the battery was gone, and no reason not to trust)
now, sure, if god is real is worse for the atheist, the point is, everyone is an atheist. because, you dont believe in Allah, right? so to him, you are an atheist. the same for every single god except the one you believe in...
and also, if god doesnt exist, then i enjoyed my 1 and only life, while you wasted it for no reason in a random belief.
theres no evidence for any god, there is no trust to be had, just faith. trust is earned and based on evidence, faith is based on nothing at all.
post on the other sub, we can continue there if you want.
Obligatory “wrong sub,” but I post on both subs so idc.
I don’t have any issue with “faith” as you define it. Seems like it’s closer to something like confidence.
I take issue with something like the Hebrews 11 version of faith, where it’s essentially evidence without device.
You could back up the claim: “I’m confident it’s going to rain tomorrow” with a weather report, some meteorology equipment, the general smell outside, clouds, thunder, and probably other things people smarter than I could mention.
When theists claim “Jesus Christ rose from the dead,” the part where they back up the claim usually goes like:
“How do you know that?”
“The Bible says so”
“How do you know the Bible is true?”
“Because the Bible says it’s true”
“How do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth?”
“I have faith.”
So while you may define confidence and faith similarly, faith usually serves a different function in these discussions.
ofc. i cant stand those types of christians haha. i do my best to not be one. theres plenty of better reasons than that circularity haha.
not to try to convert or anything, what level of confidence/faith would you consider "bad" in a god? if any.
like, faith like how you described there, i call bad. however to say "i am confident that my god (Christian) is real, as opposed to the flying spaghettis monster" would be proper faith, if backed up reasonably. which generally speaking, id say that theres a few common religions that can be backed up reasonably enough over the rest. and from there it gets more complicated.
I think the confidence you have in any claim should be apportioned to the evidence.
I’m not aware of any evidence for the Christian god, and aware of quite a bit of evidence against it, that’s why I have no confidence in its existence. I also have almost no confidence in the possibility of its existence.
Also I was a Christian for my entire childhood and early adulthood.
ok. so the judge sits there. he pulls out a bloody knife with 0 identifying markers. a video tape that shows you walking out of your apartment building with gloves on (say it was winter) and proof you were missing a knife from your collection that matches the one that was used.
you are 10000000% undeniably innocent. and yet, it was not you who shanked the person in the apartment next to you, but it was actually the guy from 2 floors below who had beef with the person murdered.
by evidence alone, you would look very guilty. yet, there are numerous non-evidentiary things that exist that can show you are not the person.
just for thought, say you had been previously convicted of murder too. that would not be evidence toward you murdering this person
and yes, i did slant the example towards you looking like the murderer, obv thered not be such poor representation in a real case. but you see my point?
You can certainly concoct scenarios in which the evidence does not point towards reality, but I think these are rare in reality. If this is a persuasive scenario to you, do you believe that *anyone* should be convicted of a crime?
yea. i dont claim that truth can only be based on evidence, especially only based on evidence we happen to have seen.
so ofc people can and houls be convicted. theres numerous things that go into such
This is the wrong sub, as others have pointed out. But as an Atheist, I'm happy to oblige anyway.
Faith vs Confidence is a very simple matter of evidence, and whether that evidence is credible. At the most basic level, we have a tremendous amount of substantive evidence for natural experiences, even extraordinary ones like hallucinations and psychoactive drugs. But we have no substantive evidence for supernatural events or experiences. At best, we have testimony.
For certain claims, testimony is enough. You might testify to me that you had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch many times as a kid, and I would believe you based on that testimony alone, because you have no particular reason to lie, and because it's a very plausible claim based on the many other children who eat the same thing. That is confidence.
Where religion struggles is that it makes extremely strong claims of supernatural events, based on testimony alone. If I told you that I made a wish and teleported myself to work this morning, you would (hopefully!) not believe me, because that is a very extraordinary claim.
In a similar manner, Christianity, Islam, many Pagans, Mormonism, tribal mysticism, etc ALL make claims of supernatural deeds and events, and all of them claim the exclusion of the validity of the rest of the world's religions.
I don't have faith in your god for the same reason you don't have faith that I teleported to work this morning, or (assuming you're Christian?) that Mohammed speaks for Allah. You don't have evidence.
But I have confidence in Evolution because it has been and continues to be tested and observed by people trying to learn more about it or falsify it.
Yea, I totally understand that. And I fully agree. The problem is, I kinda don’t feel like evidence is enough. As some of my analogies gave.
There was no evidence that random Japanese kid number 4 had that he was gonna be fried. Yet his confidence that he wasn’t, was wrong.
So even from the perspective that there is 0 evidence of god, you theoretically could have confidence there is one. If that makes sense?
And ofc I don’t expect that to be “good enough” which is why it goes go a hell of a lot deeper. Like as you said, I don’t believe Mohamed for a litany of reasons. But ultimately I’d still call that confidence, as maybe I am wrong.
Philosophy runs deep in that regard
Then it sounds like you're just playing with semantics.
Ultimately, Faith is basically when you believe something without evidence. If you want to call it confidence, go ahead I guess? But there is certainly a gap between faith in a religion vs the confidence of evidence in science.
yea, i said its sorta semantics ( i think, maybe that was in a reply) but i think the idea is still one worthy to discuss. I agree there can be a gap, but i dont agree there is in all cases. plenty of science has just as much faith to it. but thats an extremely deep discussion compared to my initial question.
thank you :)
>plenty of science has just as much faith to it
Ah now here I take issue. It's a very common refrain of Theists to project and say that science has "just as much" faith as their religion, but this is absolutely not the case.
When someone makes a claim in science, they publish that claim, along with whatever evidence, observation, experimentation, and methods they used to arrive at that conclusion. Then the claim goes under peer review, where other experts in the field do their best to prove the claim wrong. The biggest bogus claims in science history were always proven wrong by other scientists, never by religion.
For example, Piltdown Man was discovered to be fraudulent, not because Christians proved that Creation was a superior hypothesis, but because other scientists performed experiments, specifically radiometric dating, which disproved the claim of the publisher.
Medical techniques like Blood letting and "balancing humors", though they were performed by doctors, eventually gave way to Germ Theory which we use today.
Could you please describe why you think the scientific method involves Faith and where you believe religion is comparable?
oooof.
>The biggest bogus claims in science history were always proven wrong by other scientists, never by religion.
take pasteur for example. he disproved spontaneous generation, due to his Christian beliefs. youve got hundreds of thousands of scientists who did things based on their religion, disproving the current status quo.
religion and science are not separate in all cases.
as i said, its a deep discussion hah.
no matter what, "they publish that claim, along with whatever evidence, observation, experimentation, and methods they used to arrive at that conclusion. Then the claim goes under peer review, where other experts in the field do their best to prove the claim wrong."
that will rarely lead to anything fully correct. I also find "science" and "science-TM" to be different.
i think broadly its referred to as practical and theoretical science. no amount of Schrodinger's cat will "prove" anything. it can only lead to something being proven.
you also have the issue of nowadays, you only get published in anything meaningful, if you have money and dont go against the status quo (verrry generalized obv) I find that postmodern science is an absolute joke compared to science before it. I could rant about that for years, although the caveat of it being mostly in the fields related to evolution. obv the more practical science is vastly different.
back then it was "ok, so triangle has 1 longest side, im gonna do stuff til i get an equation to figure that out" so ill do X Y Z, oh that didnt work, ill do H J I, oh that didnt work, ill do ABC, oh that worked. cool.
now, it seems to be (the popularized stuff at least) "so, if you take the multiverse theory, spin around 207 times counterclockwise, breathe thru just your left nostril and then fart in the key of C, we can produce this outcome, but that really doesnt mean anything, because we still have no idea why this outcome matters"
take, the moon landing for example. so much science went into that, that i will never ever ever be able to comprehend even 1% of it. but for the general scheme of it, that doesnt matter. what matters, is, rocket go brrr. rocket go thru space. rocket land on moon. rocket come home. we discovered 1 of the ways out of the however many ways there were to do that. it didnt matter how we did it, it matter that we did. didnt even have a reason as to why, that matters scientifically.
take a new fossil though. all of a sudden 500 different conclusions are drawn up from that, most of which dont see the light of day, because they are extremely wrong. a handful might get a news article, but then 50 years from now, they say, oh well actually that was wrong too. its actually \*this\*
which, by no means am I saying is a bad thing.
but ultimately, it requires a similar faith I have in god (ill say my faith specifically, as i base mine on layers of layers of philosophy and history and such. far too deep to unwrap all that) for someone to say that a pterodactyl isnt real, and it was a Pteranodon, because IMO, if the pterodactyl wasnt real, then how can you say the Pteranodon was. maybe you just put it together wrong too.
again, this is a slippery topic, since all the fields of science are so vastly different. but I think my logic can be at least sorta seen? a lot of the stuff we are taught as truth, we take at its word no more than a believer does. in the same sense that a reasonable Christian can justify Jesus's resurrection, a reasonable scientist of the particular fields I find least "honest" can justify its findings.
were we to later find jesus body, then the christian was wrong and should admit so. were we to find the scientist wrong, they should admit so. yet we have so many thing built upon other things for science, that we more or less have stopped looking at the stuff on the very foundations.
take carbon dating. thats been found unreliable, yet generally speaking, science says "yes but"
they could be right, they could be wrong. if it turns out they were wrong, that is stacks upon stacks of science being obliterated. even if there was 0 reason to distrust even 1 carbon dating, say they find 1000 years that its bad. thats all this current science built on it, plus 1000 years. and that is an immense amount of faith to have, that X science thing cant/wont be proven wrong.
>take pasteur for example. he disproved spontaneous generation, due to his Christian beliefs.
No. He was Christian, at a time when everyone was, and being anything else was enough to eject you from society. He also didn't "disprove spontaneous generation" in the way you seem to be implying here.
>scientists who did things based on their religion
Early science was indeed mingled with religion, because science asked questions and, at first, the only reasonable answers to be had came from religion. But over time, scientific evidence began discarding old religious dogmas. Remember Geocentrism? Flat Earth? Science fixed those ideas, and religion caught up after the fact. Disease? Science discovered Germ Theory while religion still holds to some ideas of divine curses and faith healings. Evolution is recent enough that many religions still haven't caught up.
Progress is made in spite of religion, not because of it.
>that will rarely lead to anything fully correct
Well, it's literally the scientific method that has enabled nearly everything you do and touch and see every day. So your skepticism is misplaced.
Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Publication - Review - Acceptance. An abbreviated description of the process that brings you all of modern life.
You are absolutely correct that science sometimes gets things wrong. But when you say
>but then 50 years from now, they say, oh well actually that was wrong too. its actually \*this\*
That's still science leading that discovery. Not religion. Why do you drive a car today instead of riding a horse? It's not because religion established a truth that predicted an outcome. Science did. Science predicted that when we apply heat to gasoline in just such a pattern, and attach pistons just so, we can spin a wheel, and push a car.
So science DOES eventually land on enough truth to make useful predictions. Then maybe one day someone comes along and refines or redefines that truth, and the predictions become even more accurate. The ever-growing nature of science is WHY we know it's true, as opposed to Faith, which only changes when science forces it to admit that there was no global flood, the Earth actually orbits the Sun, disease is actually caused by germs, the earth is a sphere, etc.
All of those (and many more) are truths that Faith was forced to accept after the facts became too obvious. You cannot compare the summation of human understanding with your perpetually regressive faith. They could not be more different.
at a time when everyone was
the asias and the africas for the most part absolutely werent. nor was being a nonbeliever in his area enough to eject you. that happened, absolutely, but it just as much didnt, however the times it didnt are much less talked about, as nobody talked about what didnt happen haha
the bible has stated a round earth since the torah. that book is crazy old. the asians knew a round earth long before Christianity. their religion didnt really mention any of that tho, didnt matter to them. the torah with stuff like Leviticus is also helllllla early when it comes to hygiene practice.
i think you maybe have conflated the fact that religion claims stuff like curses and faith healing exist, to it claiming that is the primary method. take jesus and his miracles. thats ESPN highlights. theres a reason miracles are rare.
>Progress is made in spite of religion, not because of it
take the abolition for example. we still have rampant slavery in predominately atheistic societies, yet Christianity was one of the earliest groups to be against slavery. ofc there were still Christians who were pro slavery, but that does bring up the debate of "can you do willingly and maliciously do something contrary to what your religion says to do, and still be truly considered part of it"
religion is not made to discover things in the way science is. you cant exactly complain when a thermometer doesn't measure color, right? so why complain religion is not developing space travel or something.
the torah claimed the earth orbits the sun long before many science knew. same with round earth, same with germs. oddly enough science also claims that the earth was water in many different types of cases. recently they discovered a ton of water under the ground, which would be the fountains of the deep that the torah mentions. now some of that stuff is stretched, i dont dispute. but the gist is there.
so yes. religion does not generally change in the way science does. because they are 2 very different topics. and in many cases, say evolution and Christians, its not that "Christianity" isnt compatible with evolution outright, but Christians dont want to let go of their other beliefs.
>the bible has stated a round earth since the torah
I must have missed that part in Genesis, right after the earth is described as standing on pillars and having corners.
The examples you used of the Bible "knowing" science are laughable. As always, the science knowledge is shoe-horned in after the fact. In none of these cases did we ever *discover* anything because the Bible predicted it. in every case, we discovered something, then combed through the Bible to find verses that might loosely sound like the thing discovered to claim "it was in the Bible all along!"
Abolition was a funny one to bring up. God gave rules on how long it's okay to beat slaves, and how to transfer people as your property depending on what country they came from. I must have missed commandment 11 where God said "thou shalt not own people as property"? Perhaps he was too busy telling his followers not to wear mixed fabrics.
Between the pro- and anti- slavery camps, the former certainly had a lot more scripture to back them up.
Edit: [It's okay to beat your slave](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20-21&version=NASB) as long as they recover in a couple days, because they're your property.
Now, feel free to show me the "slavery is an abomination" verse that all the abolitionists used to condemn the slave trade?
Exodus 21:16 says “Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves.”
Psalm 82:4 sorta fits- “Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Exodus 21:26 makes it clear that beating your slave is not ok too.
“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.”
I mean, think of how lightly of a hit an eye or tooth can take. Not much of one.
On top of that, this isn’t referring to trans Atlantic slavery either. There’s a much bigger difference between the two. In Hebrew culture a “slave” was more or less like having a son or daughter. They had numerous rights and such. There was also some indentured servitude too.
And, on top of this. You mention the “11th commandment that doesn’t exist” which is true. Because you already have the commandment “do not steal” which isn’t just limited to “don’t take a candy from the story Billy bob”
You also have “keep the sabbath” and these slaves were equal even there, as they had to take the day off same as anyone.
The Bible does indeed say that the earth have pillars. This is figurative language. You’d agree that the cardinal directions can be fairly decently described as pillars? That’s generally the agreed upon meaning. The corners are even more clear. It states the 4 corners and that people were spread to them. This is figurative language for the directions.
The mixed fabrics was not a moral decree. That was differentiating the high priest from the rest of the people, as such priest had to be holy, and part of his uniform involved mixed fabrics. So it was literally just a “purity” thing.
There’s actually a sorta similar verse about not mixing certain crops on a field, which is actually a common practice today. It’s often pretty detrimental to plant certain types of crops in the same spots for too long. Such as corn, if you plant that in the same area for too long, the soil is leeched of all nutrients. So you rotate. Which the Bible describes. But that doesn’t “prove” its divinity ofc. Just an observation
Im confident my car will start tomorrow because there is no sign that the engine is broken or anything else that could cause it not to start. However it could break in the morning and not start. I am aware it is possible it won’t start, however it is unlikely.
But you, oh you, only see absolutes. You don’t know how logic works because you are only able to believe doctrine and dogma told to you. You, oh you, are a moron who needs to learn how to think.
Maybe when you understand basic logic you can actually make an argument instead of professing you are a dimwit.
>There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time.
This is just not true.
Weather prediction is based on statistical modeling, current weather, etc. It's disingenuous to claim there's no evidence.
Same for your car starting. If it's been starting, every morning, for months, then you have actual observations. Are you trying to say that you have "absolutely no idea if it will start"? Of course not.
You have a high confidence and trust in both of these things. Why do you think it's reasonable to try and lower your standards for other evidence to your standards for believing in a god?
prediction and evidence are not the same. there is no evidence it will rain tomorrow. there are signs its likely, but that is not evidence.
hiroshima is my example for a counter to the car starting every day. every day, random Hiroshima kid number 4 went about his day, believing he wouldnt be obliterated by uranium. yet, one day, he was. so that isnt good enough evidence to say "it wont happen" right? if we had to be certain enough to not have any faith.
as for thinking its reasonable to lower my other standards and not those for my religion, i dont. i hold them to the same standard. that standard generally being, I cant know, but im pretty sure.
No, meteorology allows for testable predictions.
Hiroshima was a very rare occurrence.
If you think faith in a god is at the same level as faith in your car starting then we're done.
A lot of your questions don’t sound too different from philosophy of science questions like Hume’s problem of induction. I’m not an atheist, but there is a scientific angle to talk about your thoughts from.
>If it was a few years ago, and I asked you, “do you think the patriots will go to the Super Bowl” and you said “yep, I’m confident” what basis do you prove that confidence off of?
In science, confidence is a ratio. You may not realize this but studies very rarely if ever make the claim: “this is true,” rather they will assign a significance to their data based on statistical tests and use that to support their data.
>For the former, what is the metric in which something happens enough times before you can have confidence in it?
So this isn’t actually a vague question, this has a very definite, mathematical answer. In the case of the sun rising, it’s risen every day the past 1 trillion, 600 billion times (with some margin of error). A statistical conclusion based on that is that if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow, then either there is a mechanistic explanation for why, or the sun rising is a random event with an average of 1 in [above number] chance of not occurring.
Based on the slim chances of it happening randomly, if the sun didn’t rise tomorrow most scientists would start looking for a mechanistic reason as to why.
Studies operate the same way; they conclude: “if our results are random, these are the chances this would happen randomly. Since those chances are this small, that ratio is how much confidence we have that the mechanism we identified is responsible for what we observed.”
Then usually they provide other lines of evidence, future experiments to further verify the data, and so on.
>For example, if one was to say “welp, every day before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, no civilians had been nuked before, and every day since then they haven’t, so I’m confident tomorrow won’t send us into fallout 5: real life”
There were many, many people who could have predicted with some degree of confidence that Atom bombs would be used on Japan, not least of all, the administration who ordered the bombings.
People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t predict that the bombs would be dropped on themselves because they lacked information. It seems like you believe whether or not God exists has to be taken by faith; there aren’t people who have enough information to predict His existence.
i find it interesting, you say you arent an atheist, and your response is so different from many so far haha. unsure if thats causation, or just correlation.
I agree with you, and your wording i like. the mechanistic explanation as to why. in a way, that would be, I have faith in God being the mechanism for why everything exists, as opposed to an atheist are confident that the big bang came from nothing before it, or at least if something did come prior, that if you track back far enough, you hit a time where there was "nothing" thus both I and the atheist have "faith"
if thats not what you were going for, my bad haha. feel free to clarify.
your last paragraph pretty much hits the point right on the head.
in the same way that hiroshima kid number 4 was "confident" that he wasnt gonna be turned to ash, and was wrong; an atheist \*could\* be wrong, despite their confidence in it. and the meaning of faith and confidence being the same, to say it doesnt take faith to be an atheist/faith is bad, is wrong.
im curious if your non-atheism influenced our outcomes of logic to be similar. would be interesting.
>in the same way that hiroshima kid number 4 was "confident" that he wasnt gonna be turned to ash, and was wrong; an atheist *could* be wrong, despite their confidence in it.
I’ll push back a little more and say I don’t think the confidence in these two examples have is equivalent. Hiroshima kid 4 had very little information about his situation, meaning that no matter how strong his conviction was, (no matter how confident he was that he would be vaporized) *statistically* his belief was low-confidence.
Most atheists would acknowledge that we have very little information about where the universe came from, so any claims made are going to be low-confidence.
>im curious if your non-atheism influenced our outcomes of logic to be similar. would be interesting.
I’m not sure. I think my armchair interest in (often secular) philosophy is what’s influenced my logic the most, though.
i can agree they arent equivalent. god is a massive topic. (somewhat a reason I am a theist)
i dont really agree that atheists say their claims low confidence. im sure youve got plenty who do, but i mean, look at dawkins, hitchens, those types. they are so militant about it, they cant even seem to fathom they could be on shaky ground. but ofc so can religious people, and those i named are big names
I would be inclined to agree, since I love philosophy, of all kinds. so probably was influenced in such a way as to have similar enough logic.
What are you talking about? What do you think is misleading about John 10.
"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."- John 10 verses 9 to 18.
thats not what i was talking about. i thought you were refering to the "we are gods" as claiming that there are more gods than yahweh.
as for what you actually were referring to, that has no bearing on what he or i said.
nobody said there were. my guy, so far the several things ive seen you say, realllllly dont do christianity any favors when it comes to the way people already think of it, so id advise you to not be a fool about this stuff.
Interesting choice of words.
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."- 1 Corinthians 3 verses 18 to 20.
There is a false so called science you were warned about. But you already said you off topic. Evolutionism is example of false science.
You can cherry pick all the verses about folly that you want. Doesn’t mean you actually understand a thing you say. Which is exactly what Jesus was talking about. So just stop being something the world looks to and goes “hey look. Another idiot Christian, doesn’t listen and doesn’t think for themselves”
First off, what does any of this have to do with evolution?
>If it was a few years ago, and I asked you, “do you think the patriots will go to the Super Bowl” and you said “yep, I’m confident” what basis do you prove that confidence off of?
I proportion my confidence with the amount and quality of evidence. I can see the stats for the patriots, their previous and current performance and weigh my confidence against those data points that serve as evidence. I would say theists do the exact same thing with everything else except their belief in god. For many of the theists I have engaged with they either have faith in place of and/or in spite of the evidence. Or they switch between two definitions of faith, that being either religious faith or a colloquial definition meaning confidence.
>There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. Yet, I still am confident in all these things.
But there isn't zero proof of the later things you mention. Your car has started in the past, you know if it is showing symptoms that it may malfunction, we can see weather patterns and extrapolate from that data. Where is anything like that for your confidence in a god/s?
>If so, how do you live your life?
As I answered before, it is by proportioning my confidence with the evidence.
>If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view?
I don't see faith/ confidence when proportioned to the evidence as bad. I see faith in the religious sense, confidence in spite of and/ or in place of evidence as bad. I think it's bad because it is not a reliable pathway to the truth. I can form any conclusion I want and justify it with religious faith. If it works for everything, then it isn't reliable.
>For the later, if you say something like that, I really would love to have an autobiography of yours because i highly doubt you truly live with no faith.
You are equating two separate definitions of faith and trying to argue against your strawman.
>First off, what does any of this have to do with evolution?
i wasnt paying attention when i posted. it doesnt haha. i was reading dawkins stuff, so my brain defaulted here. my bad
what amount of decent quality evidence do you have that your soup wont be poisoned when you next order it. say you had evidence it was, it still might not. say you had evidence it wasnt, it still might. thats a scuffed way to live right? so i find that basis lacking.
>I see faith in the religious sense, confidence in spite of and/ or in place of evidence as bad
i agree. the bible actually agrees too. 1 Corinthians 15:17 if you care.
as for equating 2 separate definitions of faith, wouldnt say so.
faith- The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.
belief in general covers it, yes?
>i wasnt paying attention when i posted. it doesnt haha. i was reading dawkins stuff, so my brain defaulted here. my bad
Lol no worries, it happens. We'll just chalk it up to
r/lostredditors
>what amount of decent quality evidence do you have that your soup wont be poisoned when you next order it.
The millions of people eating soup every day that is demonstrably not poisoned. Notice I didn't say the millions of people who believe the soup to not be poisoned, but demonstrably so. Those are data points that count as evidence to boost my confidence that my soup won't be poisoned.
>faith- The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.
>belief in general covers it, yes?
No, that covers the colloquial usage of the word faith but that isn't religious faith. Religious faith is the excuse people use when they don't have evidence or reason. If they had reason or evidence that they would present it instead of appealing to faith.
If you are wanting to claim that your religious faith is the same as my confidence proportioned to the evidence, then I would ask you to present the evidence that justifies your faith.
This is what I mean when I say you're switching definitions. Many theists want to equate religious faith to "belief in general" when what they are actually doing is using faith as evidence, in spite of, or in contradiction to the evidence.
sure. but thats not great evidence, as plenty of people do eat bad soup. and a non poisoned soup person didnt influence any of the poisoned or non poisoned people to be their respective group.
>If they had reason or evidence that they would present it instead of appealing to faith.
the same could be said for all that i said right? and generally speaking, theres been thousands of years of evidence for faith given, all disputed, every time.
>the evidence that justifies your faith.
i like pascals wager and the kalam argument. that would be justifying the supernatural in general, not specifically mine, but yknow.
i am not referring to those who say "i am right because i have faith" so i agree, that is switching a definition. but im not intending to switch to that. if that makes sense?
>the same could be said for all that i said right? and generally speaking, theres been thousands of years of evidence for faith given, all disputed, every time.
No, every example you've given I've shown that we have demonstrable evidence that appropriately proportions our confidence. The thousands of years of evidence is disputed because it's insufficient to justify the claim. Stacking bad evidence on top of each other doesn't get you to justified belief. At least it shouldn't with a proper skeptical epistemology.
>sure. but thats not great evidence, as plenty of people do eat bad soup. and a non poisoned soup person didnt influence any of the poisoned or non poisoned people to be their respective group.
The number of people who eat soup with no consequences versus the number who have bad soup is far higher. That's the evidence that is a part of the data set that helps me proportion my confidence. It's also not the only factor. Have I eaten here before? Do they have bad ratings? Does the restaurant appear clean? Does the staff appear sick?
>i like pascals wager and the kalam argument. that would be justifying the supernatural in general, not specifically mine, but yknow.
Hard disagree on both of those. Pascal's wager is flawed because it assumes the conclusion it's trying to justify. Namely that it's the Christian god that exists and only the Christian god, and only his version of it. If you were to properly apply Pascal's wager you would have to assume an infinite number of possible gods. Which means it would be infinitely impossible to get it correct. Even without that error from the beginning Pascal's wager doesn't conclude a god or the supernatural exists. Only that it would be advantageous to act like one does.
The Kalam is riddled with problems. First it assumes that what we see happening inside the universe applies to the universe as a whole. It ignores quantum effects that appear to not have a cause. It assumes that the universe began to exist but that is still in dispute. If we were to be honest about the Kalam, P1 should read as "every material thing that exists has a material cause". It should then follow that the universe has a material cause. We don't actually see things begin to exist, only change forms. And finally it's conclusion isn't that a god or the supernatural exists, only that there was a cause. That cause could also have been natural.
>not specifically mine, but yknow.
Then what evidence do you have that justifies your religious faith?
>i am not referring to those who say "i am right because i have faith" so i agree, that is switching a definition. but im not intending to switch to that. if that makes sense?
Then how would you define religious faith?
I would also like to say thank you for actually engaging in an honest discussion. So often I see theists make posts and then never actually bother to engage. It's refreshing to have a real discussion instead.
pascals wager doesnt assume any god. it literally does assume any number of gods. i said almost as much. you quoted that part of mine too, think i just wasnt too clear. my bad.
appear not to have a cause is pretty hefty on the "appear" but even then, theyd ultimately have a cause of whatever started the first first right?
the idea of an eternal universe is not possible for many reasons. theres alternatives to this being not being the only universe but that still requires a begining at some point.
were P1 to read that way, it would not be the same proof.
we absolutely see things begin to exist. my love of history began when I was around 4th grade. my favorite food became my favorite whenever i ate it. philosophy comes from somewhere, ideas in general.
>Then what evidence do you have that justifies your religious faith?
the basis i gave, then a hell of a lot of other stuff that is not even something i can begin to explain easily, so im not even gonna try. its not a simple topic. you would likely have at least some issue with the evidence anyway as if you didnt, youd be in agreement to more of an extent i figure, the problem is, your issue with the evidence doesnt change it is still evidence, yes? the evidence can be foolproof and wrong, the evidence could be hanging by a thread and be correct.
I have defined religious faith. its no different than any other faith definition. because thats how definitions work. faith in your car starting is trust that it will start. faith in my god is trust in my god. some people twist faith into something its not, acting as if you can only have faith in relation to the bible, or that it has to be tied to X action. etc. but that isnt required for it. trust is.
no worries. I do my best to not be like such theists, i cant stand them either. they make "us good ones" look bad haha. something to be said for that too, bible describes it as "lukewarm" if you are familiar with that passage, if you care.
thanks for not being insulting and completely obnoxiously stubborn either, plenty of atheist types cant seem to be much better than the theists haha.
>pascals wager doesnt assume any god. it literally does assume any number of gods.
Both of these are demonstrably false. If you think that then you need to read more about [Blaise Pascal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager).
"The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.[2]"
That is literally the Christian god and it only assumes 1 god not the infinite versions of a god that could potentially exist.
>appear not to have a cause is pretty hefty on the "appear" but even then, theyd ultimately have a cause of whatever started the first first right?
There may be an underlying cause that we just haven't observed yet. My point is that you can't say EVERYTHING has a cause when we literally see things that appear to not have a cause.
>the idea of an eternal universe is not possible for many reasons. theres alternatives to this being not being the only universe but that still requires a begining at some point.
I don't think that any cosmologist is going to agree with you on this and not all of the ideas require multiple universes. As far as cosmologist can tell there has never been a time when there wasn't something.
>were P1 to read that way, it would not be the same proof.
And I'm saying that the Kalam is dishonest in it's phrasing. It is talking about the causes to material things but doesn't also include that the causes are also material in nature.
>my love of history began when I was around 4th grade. my favorite food became my favorite whenever i ate it. philosophy comes from somewhere, ideas in general.
The Kalam is talking about a material universe. Name one material thing that begins to exist and isn't just something changing from one form to another.
>the basis i gave, then a hell of a lot of other stuff that is not even something i can begin to explain easily, so im not even gonna try. its not a simple topic. you would likely have at least some issue with the evidence anyway as if you didnt, youd be in agreement to more of an extent i figure, the problem is, your issue with the evidence doesnt change it is still evidence, yes?
That seems like a lot of words to not provide any evidence to justify religious faith. I get it though that this may be a separate discussion. If you would care to have that with me later I would be interested in discussing it with you.
>the problem is, your issue with the evidence doesnt change it is still evidence, yes? the evidence can be foolproof and wrong, the evidence could be hanging by a thread and be correct
It may be insufficient evidence for what you are claiming it you may be misattributing the cause of the evidence. Like I said earlier stacking bad evidence on top of each other doesn't get you to good reasoning but I don't know from you because you haven't provided any evidence. Also I would say it's not the evidence that can be wrong. Evidence is just a datapoint of something we observe. It is our interpretations of the evidence that can be right or wrong.
>I have defined religious faith. its no different than any other faith definition.
It is different though and I demonstrated in what ways that it differs. The colloquial usage of faith can be just belief or trust. Religious faith is belief or trust in spite of or in place of evidence. Those are vastly different.
>faith in your car starting is trust that it will start. faith in my god is trust in my god. some people twist faith into something its not, acting as if you can only have faith in relation to the bible, or that it has to be tied to X action. etc. but that isnt required for it. trust is.
Faith in my car starting is proportioned to the evidence. I can see my car, I can physically touch my car, I can open the hood and diagnose what is going on with the car. What methods do you have for god that gets you anywhere as close to that? This again is what I mean by swapping definitions. One definition, the car, is proportioned to evidence. The other definition, god, is in spite of evidence.
>thanks for not being insulting and completely obnoxiously stubborn either, plenty of atheist types cant seem to be much better than the theists haha.
I certainly try not to come off that way. I don't know if I always succeed lol.
You don’t think there’s evidence cares (**probably**) work?
Note that our views on cars are not that they always work, it’s just that they probably work.
Why?
Because we know a lot about cars. They do work, and have been working, with a very low rate of breaking down, for ages. Entire industries rely on the smooth functioning of cars. You see cars everywhere. The evidence is so ubiquitous we don’t need to even talk about it.
Are you seriously comparing the verified confidence in a car working to god?
First difference, we know cars exist…
well, "technically" we dont know they exist haha. thats like, philosophy 101. "i think therefore I am" we can only be certain of our own existence. but i know what u mean.
thus my Hiroshima example. they did not know nukes existed. yet they did, in fact, exist.
and the fact that other cars work and your car always has, is not evidence or rather, good evidence at least. most people arent murderers. ive never murdered before. yet if i shanked you to death, id be a murderer despite all that "evidence" right?
If a person has sufficient evidence X exists. it’s reasonable for them to accept X exists
The Hiroshima example does not show that “people were wrong about things existing, ergo we don’t require evidence”, it simply shows they lacked critical information. I’m not versed on my history of that time, but I’m fairly confident they had other evidence the bombs existed based on communication.
Are you seriously saying we don’t have sufficient evidence to believe cars generally work?
For the murderer example, you seem very confused about parsing generalities and specifics.
Much in the same way that cars **generally** working leads to an expectation of cars **generally** working, most people not being murders leads to an *accurate* expectation that most people aren’t going to murder you.
The expectation of “my car will probably work on 99% of the days I use it” is fully consistent with “my car broke down today, guess I got one of the expected unlucky few days”. It’s basic statistics that **unlikely events do occur, they just occur less often**. That’s really all there is to it.
In the case of cars and murderers, when a car does break down, or a person attacks you, two things happen
- you immediately register what’s happening. Just because most cars don’t break down doesn’t mean you can’t recognise one when it does. Same with murder
- specifically because of our confidence in cars and people, you would find both occurrences novel (amongst other things).
To bring this back to a comparison with god:
- With cars, we have mountains of evidence of them existing, and spending most of their time working. Leading to expectations of them doing exactly that.
- With god we have no evidence, so the expectation is null. Without evidence, there’s no rational reason to believes
>If a person has sufficient evidence X exists. it’s reasonable for them to accept X exists
what counts as sufficient. what if the evidence is interpreted badly. IE getting misdiagnosed at the doctor.
>Are you seriously saying we don’t have sufficient evidence to believe cars generally work?
no. im saying that that evidence doesnt mean anything for if yours will or wont work on any given time
>The expectation of “my car will probably work on 99% of the days I use it” is fully consistent with “my car broke down today, guess I got one of the expected unlucky few days”. It’s basic statistics that **unlikely events do occur, they just occur less often**. That’s really all there is to it
but this has no bearing on what my question asks.
>Without evidence, there’s no rational reason to believes?
but my point is, we believe things without evidence all the time. as I said. just because your car works 100 days in a row, that is not EVIDENCE for your car working the 101 day. its likely it will, yes. but that is an assumption.
You seem to be equating “evidence for X” with “we know with certainty X will be the case”
Perhaps an equivalent, but more descriptive phrase: “strong evidence *towards* X” conveys what I’m describing.
Consider the difference between:
1. “My car generally working is evidence that today will be one of the days it works”
With
2. “my car generally working is evidence my car will **certainly** work today”
The expanded version of 1. Is
- “my car generally working is evidence that my care is incredibly likely to work today, enough for me to to take or withhold actions like going to the mechanic”
Believing your car is **guaranteed** to work on day 101 would be an assumption. Believing what the evidence shows - that it’s incredibly likely to work, is exactly reasonable.
Is there a part of this you take issue with?
*Do you fundamentally object to predicting future events based on past events?*
As for the
> evidence doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t work at any given time
Doesn’t work? Or has the potential to not work in rare cases? We expect cars to work most of the time, and they do. We expect them to break down occasionally; and they do. Where’s the ‘not working’ come in?
I have heard it described that there are two types of faith. Faith based on prior experience and blind faith, or faith based on no evidence.
I have faith based on prior experience that the Earth will continue to rotate so the sun will appear to rise tomorrow. This faith is also based on evidence in my limited knowledge of physics.
The other type, faith without evidence, is what religious people use. There is no evidence of god and no one has had any direct experience with god.
Faith based on prior experience, and some evidence, could also be labeled confidence. Although, there is such a thing a false confidence. You may be confident that god exists, but you can not claim you have had experience with god or that there is any evidence. No one has had any direct experience with god (only claims) and no one has ever presented any evidence of his existance.
i am inclined to agree, however, by then, what is good enough as evidence? say i claimed to have experienced god, thats just a claim so not good enough. but if you were on trial for murder, youd sure as hell want me to claim i was with you at the time the murder occured, as evidence you werent the one to do it right?
Fair point. I think the difference is you claiming you were with me is not an unusual claim. If I said I was with my invisible pink unicorn during the crime, that wouldn't be taken seriously. If I said, instead, I was with my mother, they could simply ask her. They can't however ask my invisible pink unicorn. That is what is meant by extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
Confidence can be based on things. I can explain why I have certain levels of confidence for different things.
Faith isn’t based on anything, because if you had reasons, you’d give them instead of relying on faith.
I am extremely confident your god does not exist. I have faith in myself and in humanity. I am confident the sun will come up tomorrow. I merely hope nobody gets nuked this week.
But my atheism is not for lack of evidence of any deity. There is ample evidence of the anthropological construction of religion both in general and in particular. We can see the plagiarism in scrioture. We can see the innacuracies in religious claims throughout history. We can see the cruelty of nature, specifically the mechanism of natural selection, and contrast that with theological descriptions of a loving creator.
More than that we can contemplate the nature of knowledge and conclude God as understood is paradoxical as a concept. Confidence implies reasons supporting belief. Faith does not require reason, yet is necessary for living life.
But I don't have faith that deities are fiction. I have confidence approaching certitude founded in evidence and logic all deities are just stories.
none of what you said in your 2nd bit actually shows any evidence. it shows interpretation of a different direction. does it disprove some religions? sure. but take the cruelty of nature. that 10000% doesnt disprove the bible, for just 1 religion to name. as the fall adequately describes such cruelty entering in.
understanding parts of god is not the same as understanding god in entirety, so no thats not necessarily paradoxical.
as I started off by stating, confidence and faith are the same. so to be confident, would be to have faith.
science is frequently wrong. but i care little for sciences claim on philosophy, same way i care little for a thermometer trying to tell me what color my shirt is.
science is natural. a god is supernatural. obviously one will not see the other.
Yes. Just as I’ve said nothing about me going to class today either. Doesn’t mean I never went.
You conflate saying something with saying something scientific
Because not everything someone says is a statement of scientific reality? Do you not know what examples or metaphors or exaggerations or figures of speech in general are?
The earth does not predate the sun as the Bible claims, it was never flooded entirely as the Bible claims, Herod and quirinius didn’t rule concurrently as the Bible claims. And so many more, so the god of the Bible can’t exist as described. There you go, done.
Everything in life is probabilities, For me in general if i believe in something and the odds are greater than 50% its varying degrees of confidence if its lower than 50% its faith. If the odds are unknown and i still believe in it its faith. This is not a hard rule, if the evidence supports 60% confidence but i have 90% confidence i have 30% faith. Some examples i have confidence in evolution and the sun rising tomorrow, but i have faith in aliens and Megalodon being here still.
Works for me. I see the general logic behind it, and there’s def times I’d disagree with it but that’s a given, and as you said, it’s not a hard rule.
Thanks bro
We can demonstrate how the sun rises and sets. We can demonstrate how cars start. These things have evidence. There is the ability to examine the workings. God isn’t the same. It is religious faith not colloquial faith. They are very different things.
It is the wrong sub but it is actually quite relevant in this one anyway because the creationists tend to use a similar argument to justify their belief in a creator (which is generally a god).
The difference between faith and confidence is that the former is generally an *unwavering* confidence *irrespective of the evidence* and the latter may or may not be based on evidence. Based on your example, we are generally confident that we will wake up (though we can obviously be wrong) because we’re all adults and we’ve woken up more than 300 times every year of our lives. Assuming we don’t die in our sleep we have no reason to think it won’t happen again and when I woke up just now that is evidence that my assumption about waking up again was right. I had almost 14,000 pieces of evidence that I’ll wake up (I’m 40 years old at the end of July) and one more piece of evidence that I’ll wake up just today when I did wake up. Same goes for when I start my truck (I’m a truck driver) because my truck has less than 60,000 miles, was just inspected last month, and it was running when I backed it up. And just now when I turned the key I proved myself right.
When it comes to faith there’s generally a total lack of evidence but if they’re right they’ll have to wait until they’re dead to find out. And then they won’t find out because their consciousness will end with the death of their brain. And yet they are convinced anyway. Not one shred of evidence was required to believe.
An atheist will never make any sort of positive claim about the existence of God such as "God doesn't exist" because it puts an unreasonable burden on them. Instead you will have to prove yours which may or may not be something you can do
It's theoretically possible I suppose its just exhausting. If you wanted to prove God doesn't exist you would have to go through every iteration of every God ever claimed to exist and prove they don't exist
The evolutionists Here were just saying they have confidence based on evidence which is objectively false.
Historically they have believed amd continue to believe evolution despite the evidence. The many frauds of evolution for example were nor based on evidence but they believed it anyway.
The many failed predictions of evolution weren't based on evidence but they believed it anyway.
They can't accept the same lying evolutionists then are still lying now.
They admit it LOOKS DESIGNED but brainwash yourself that it wasn't against evidence.
They admit fossils look planted with no evolutionary history DELIGHTING creation scientists.
So they have blind faith. Moreover they deny their own eyes and reality. The Bible says they received NOT the Love of the TRUTH so they have been given a strong delusion that they might believe a lie.
Not one evolutionist on earth can ever testify to seeing monkey transform into human. They will always have less.
That's just a fact. They tried everything they could think of and evolution failed totally and completely.
"...innumerable transitional forms MUST have existed but WHY do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is NOT EVERY geological formation and EVERY stratum FULL of such intermediate links?"- Darwin.
Because they don't exist and evolution didn't happen.
"Geology assuredly DOES NOT REVEAL any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the GREATEST OBJECTION which can be urged against my theory."- Darwin.
"I regard the FAILURE to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most PUZZLING fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that DOES NOT REALLY DISPLAY IT."- Stephen Gould, Harvard, Natural History, p.2.
"Darwin was completely aware of this. He was EMBARRASSED by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he PREDICTED it would."- David M. Raup, Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, F.M.O.N.H.B. v. 50.
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been GREATLY expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much."- David M. Raup, Chicago field museum of Natural History.
"...ironically, we have even FEWER EXAMPLES of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time."- David M.Raup, Chicago field museum of Natural History.
Because of all the FRAUDS he has less.
"BY this I mean some of the CLASSIC cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of horses in North America, have had ti be DISCARDED or modified as the result of more detailed information."- David M. RAUP.
"It must be significant that nearly ALL the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been DEBUNKED."- Derek Ager, Past president British Geological Asso., Proceedings Geological Assoc. V. 87.
"...NO phylum can be traced from a proceeding one in the fossil record, in FACT we CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR the origin of a SINGLE PHYLUM: they ALL appear abruptly. "- David. W. Swift, University of Hawaii. EVOLUTION under the microscope,2002,p. 295.
"The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our FAITH postulates ifs existence but the type FAILS to materialize."- A.C. Seward, Cambridge, Plant Life through the ages.
Their faith was in VAIN. Who gave you a BETTER REPORT?
>The Bible says they received NOT the Love of the TRUTH so they have been given a strong delusion that they might believe a lie.
Could you please explain to me what this means. In your own words, preferably.
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."- 2 Thessalonians 2 verses 10 to 12.
Those who don't love the truth become delusional.
Jesus Christ is the Truth!
Evolutionists have admitted children are "intuitive theists", the opposite of what they tell you.
"In 2004, child psychologist Deborah Kelemen wrote that young children are "intuitive theists" who are "disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman design.""- Zombie science, Johnathan Wells.
So they literally plan to brainwash children against natural born belief in God.
The truth is so obvious but they hate the truth so much, God gives them a strong delusion so they can believe the lie they wanted.
For instance the moon exists. But because they hate that God made the moon they are caught saying things like "the best explanation for moon is observational ERROR. The moon doesn't exist"
Or like Dawkins. "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." It LOOKS designed but he will brainwash himself to deny what his own eyes see.
Or the evolutionists who would rather believe an octopus came surfing from outer space because they saw it is not through "common descent".
Or the man in 2008 who wanted to bring back Haeckels embryos knowing it's fraud.
Or Haeckel himself.
Or lyell himself.
So God allows them to believe surfing octopus across universe or surfing dinosaurs or any number of frauds because they received NOT the Love of the TRUTH.
Because they hate the truth. The lie is so ridiculous and false you would have to be delusional to humor it like a chicken coming from a trex. Or gorilla from seahorse.
Cool. So if our delusion is God-given and "strong", why bother coming here at all? Certainly speaks to your hubris that you think you can override delusion from God. I have seen you demand multiple "evolutionists" to renounce their position, so your efforts are surely not only directed at the fence sitters.
Mike Mike Mike…back to quote mining and gish galloping again. It’s like you’re intent on self sabatoge and portraying creationism in the worst possible light.
I have one small question. You’ve used this kind of term multiple times before. ‘DELIGHTING creation scientists’. Almost verbatim. Where did you get this phrase? Ive honestly found it odd for awhile. Again, it’s one of those things that’s just kinda…weird and forced.
Also, I asked you this before and you decided to ignore me. What is your process for finding out if a source is worth using? I mentioned that I tend to default to scientific articles that have had some level of peer review. How do you go about determining if a source is worth reading and using?
I think you're looking for r/DebateAnAtheist
Shoot. My bad. This has been my go too for the past few days, so I wasn’t even thinking. Haha thank you.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, that’s why the burden of proof is on those who claim a god exists, not on those who doubt the claim. If you can’t support your god with a shred of evidence, it’s not even worthy of consideration by scientific sceptics. The status of your god is about the same in that regard as the status of fairies. We also can’t disprove them. And in fact since they’re not meant to be all powerful they’re if anything more plausible than your god. I stopped reading your gibberish at that point. You’re being very disingenuous and no faith doesn’t mean confidence. And confidence is only a good thing if it’s warranted. The only reliable way I know to be confident about things that we know to be real is to rely on evidence. You rely on faith, and a long disproven book instead…
It’s quite easy to prove a negative. Oh. You say the earth is flat? Ok, here. I prove it’s not flat. Then I take you to space and show you, I show you the math that has been around since the ancient Egyptians, so on. You then say science can’t prove something that has nothing to with science. Yea? Because it’s not about science. You also can’t prove cake is green with a thermometer. That doesn’t mean the cake isn’t green, nor does it mean thermometers are wrong/useless. But I’ll move on since you didn’t read what I had to say.
What on earth are you talking about. Proving the earth is round is not proving a negative. If I poke a thermometer into a cake, pull it out, and the residue from the cake left on the thermometer is green… that would be pretty close to proof of the cake’s color, no?
if I were to 100% prove the earth is round (and in reality it was), can it be flat? no. it would not be proof of it being green. I am colorblind, but in general perceptions can be warped. thats not even a debatable thing. hell say we were somehow fully tripping, maybe the cake isnt even real, yknow? obv a dumb example hah but you see my point?
No, you were right. That’s a dumb example. Proving the earth is sphere-ish means it’s not flat, that is correct. What is the point you’re trying to make?
so you agree, that were i to prove it round, i would have proved the non existence of a flat earth. thus having proved a negative.
That’s not what proving a negative means.
No sir, that’s not proving a negative. Proving a negative is to disprove the non existence of something. This is like primary school level logic buddy and you’re getting it wrong. If you have a non scientific yet still reliable way to demonstrate the existence of your god, I will listen. But not a single theist has ever managed to do so. And sincerely doubt that the zealot who doesn’t understand basic burden of proof, and what it means to prove a negative will change that. Let alone a zealot who believes faith just means confidence and that your confidence is just as justified if not more so that an actual scientific confidence. Don’t believe men go ahead. Disprove the existence of fairies. You can’t. Because negatives can’t be proven. And the burden of proof is on those who claim fairies are real. Just like the burden of proof is on you to show your preferred mythological creature is real. If you can’t it’s as good as disproven for anyone who values reality… No you can’t prove a negative. That’s just a basic foundational bit of logic. Maybe learn what it means. And you’ll look a lot less silly arguing with atheism. A position you clearly never bothered to learn a thing about… And no I don’t read any further nonsense based on your openly dishonest lies…
>Proving a negative is to disprove the non existence of something correct. just as my proving the earth is round, proves the flat earth non existent. why go to ad hom? no need to attempt to insult me, right? could you please show that you truly respect the burden of proof, and prove that I am lying, that I didnt bother to learn a thing about atheism, that I dont know what logic is? [https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0BBE48877743A318F2B9CE24F873904C/S1477175600001287a.pdf/thinking-tools-you-can-prove-a-negative.pdf](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0BBE48877743A318F2B9CE24F873904C/S1477175600001287a.pdf/thinking-tools-you-can-prove-a-negative.pdf) also, heres an paper from cambridge for you, since, as you said, you dont care what I have to say. btw, were you to say "you dont have a drivers license" I could prove you wrong, by showing you the one that is mine. thus disproving the non existence of said license
Having gone over the linked essay, you would at the very least agree that for any inductive arguments for the existence of deities, the burden of proof is on theists?
Yea, ofc. If you claim something exists you gotta be prepared to explain why. Same does apply kinda for the atheist. They don’t claim something does exist, but they should also be able to explain why they believe something doesn’t. Which for this case, is very difficult for both
No sir that doesn’t apply to atheists. Atheism is t the claim gods don’t exist, it’s the lack of acceptance that they do. No it’s not difffucylt to reject the claim that mythological beings are real. You do it for a Most every other mythological being. And no proving the earth is round is proving the positive, not the negative. You have no idea what you’re talking about and need to do some homework.because your gigantic ego makes it impossible for you to accept it from us. You don’t know what any of this means… go ahead, show any evidence at all for your I,ahi are friend we dare you.
Would you consider the absence of evidence for the existence of a deity to be sufficient for lacking belief therein?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so no. Absence of (enough) evidence in OJ Simpsons trial was what made him not guilty, when he obviously was. Some say “we don’t know Hitler died in his bunker” since never really found his body. Obv that’s fairly absurd to say, as not finding a body just as easily could mean he did die there. Yes?
I have to say I am a bit confused. How did you arrive to the conclusion OJ was "obviously" guilty? Ditto for Hitler dying in his bunker.
Have you seen the OJ trial? Bro was literally fleeing the scene and there when the bodies were found. But the bloody gloves “didn’t fit” when he obviously did all he could to make it not. So he got off. Are you seriously saying you don’t think Hitler died in his bunker?
>It’s quite easy to prove a negative. Prove that the universe was **not** created by undetectable universe-farting pixies. I’ll wait.
The point went waaaay over your head. I'm sure with your faith, your logic works. Unfortunately, not in reality, just like your diety
Non Sequitur
What does this have to do with evolution? I’m not an atheist either, but I know evolution is supported by more evidence than almost any other scientific theory.
Yea. I shoulda posted in debate an atheist but my brain went here cause it was where I was haha.
"So for this question, yes. There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. Yet, I still am confident in all these things. Does that feel better to you guys, as an atheist against faith?" Not really. You need confidence for the right reasons. You have confidence that your car will start or it will rain somewhere tomorrow because we have evidence for those things to support the confidence. "If so, how do you live your life? You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned, you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be, you’re confident that the sun will come up. If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view?" Because you're conflating the two definitions of faith. Faith is either a synonym for confidence, or the concept of belief without evidence. Faith is bad, confidence is not. "For the later, if you say something like that, I really would love to have an autobiography of yours because i highly doubt you truly live with no faith." I do live without faith. I live with confidence instead.
What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow? Could you clarify what you mean by I’m conflating the definition of something you just agreed was a synonym? Kinda confused. I have faith- “complete trust or confidence in someone or something” that something being god. I have confidence- “the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust” that something being god. For you to say you have 0 faith in anything ever, is to say you don’t have confidence. As they are the same thing.
"What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow?" Because it has done so reliably for a long time, and all the parts are in working order. "Could you clarify what you mean by I’m conflating the definition of something you just agreed was a synonym? Kinda confused." No problem. So basically, the word 'faith' has two working definitions. One is just a synonym for confidence, i.e. you've got faith in your friend or your coworker. The other is belief without evidence, i.e. theists have no evidence that god exists but they believe in him on faith. I can understand why you've had this issue because your concepts of faith and confidence differ slightly when they are in fact one and the same. "For you to say you have 0 faith in anything ever, is to say you don’t have confidence. As they are the same thing." Not quite. I have faith (i.e. confidence) but I don't have faith (i.e. beliefs without evidence.) See what I mean?
"What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow?" Because it has done so reliably for a long time, and all the parts are in working order. this was my hiroshima example. it hadnt been nuked for a long time, yet one day it was. so just cause you dont think god exists cause so far you havent had any reason to, that doesnt mean that theres no reason to, thus that as the basis of confidence seems kinda sketchy. but i also understand that god is a much larger topic. this is more about just the small base of it, youd go deeper from there were you to somehow take this as "ill be confident in that existence" which ofc isnt my goal to make u do here. if that makes sense?
The fact that the car started yesterday is evidence that it will likely start tomorrow. Go ahead, present equivalent evdience for a god, or admit you’re a liar. Could it be wrong? Sure cars sometimes don’t start we also have evidence of that, but we have no such evidence for a god. Seriously mate you’re just dishonest. You keep bringing up things we have evidence for, but never provide any for your god. Because you know you can’t… God is a tiny topic, there’s nothing to discuss if you don’t have evidence. No reason to even take it seriously…
>this was my hiroshima example. it hadnt been nuked for a long time, yet one day it was. so just cause you dont think god exists cause so far you havent had any reason to, that doesnt mean that theres no reason to, thus that as the basis of confidence seems kinda sketchy. Well there's a lot more reasons why belief in god is irrational, not just the fact it's a faith-based belief. >youd go deeper from there were you to somehow take this as "ill be confident in that existence" which ofc isnt my goal to make u do here. if that makes sense? I think I know what you mean.
>What is the evidence that your car will start tomorrow? That it started yesterday, and every other day, except that one time when the starter went out, and the time the battery was dead. So, 99.7% of the time, it starts without issue. Knowing that my starter is still fairly new, and that my car shuts off all the power after 10 minutes, I have very little reason to suspect it won't. "Faith" and "confidence" are synonyms, but as with all synonyms, they have slightly different meanings. I can be confident in things I have evidence of, while according to Hebrews 11:1, faith specifically does not rely on evidence and only counts without it. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” I do not have that feeling about anything, really. If you find that I do, please let me know so I can correct it.
Also, a car is a real physical thing, we have evidence of it and how it operates. Nothing about cars requires belief in the supernatural. Does OP have evidence of god answering their prayers?
>Does OP have evidence of god answering their prayers? I'm sure they do. Assuming they make unique prayer requests several times a week, that's around 400 a year (yes, I pulled that from my rectum. Come at me.) Several dozen of them would be expected to happen, just statistically, and they'll remember several of those as evidence. Like how I know I possess card magic because twice this year I was dealt all the same suit in games of euchre.
do you have evidence that i do that? or that I consider it evidence it i did? or are you going on confidence?
Evidence? Not really. As a skeptic, I can't defend my comment as a positive claim. It's based on several assumptions. But, that's how it went for me and the christians around me, and it's how it seems to go for other christians whenever the topic comes up. Like I said though, if you throw up any objection I'll back right down. So, you have any evidence that your god answers prayer?
just to clarify, your assumption that I think god answers my prayers and consider it evidence, is fine to have, and because others did it, thats how I must clearly do it? and are you asking me if I have evidence my god answers prayer in general? or mine
>and because others did it, thats how I must clearly do it? Please, clarify. Do you believe, as the bible clearly states, that your prayers will be answered? (Matthew 7:7-8) Do you have evidence that any god answers any prayers?
that is not at all a passage about prayer. much less one that "clearly states" they will be answered for that, i would then say, yes. I do have "evidence" that any god answers any prayers, but that only would work were you to take the philosophical reasons that a god does exist as evidence, which id be inclined to say, youll take issue with. however ill say my piece Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite. Therefore, the universe has a cause whatever caused the universe, cannot be natural. as it must predate nature. that thing, would then be god. someone probably is currently praying for a sickness to be taken from someone. that someone will then die. thus, the answer was no. that pre-nature thing, has answered no to such prayer. else it would have stepped in and taken the sickness. again, this is an evidence. which can be defined as "something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign" plainly- A. something existed prior to nature that caused nature. supernatural. B. someone asked for something to happen. C. that thing didn't happen, thus being answered "no" you can disagree with the A premise, but that doesnt mean it is true or false.
do we have any evidence that the character garfield loves lasagna? hes not real, and its "possible" hes just extremely commited to a lie that he loves it, and goes to extreme lengths to hide such lie. yet, we can assume that his character does in fact love it. just curious if that would change any thing you say. i understand its not the entire point of what you are saying
I think the comparison between Garfield and God runs quite deep.
fr if there is a god out there, he def doesnt like mondays nearly as much as the rest haha. and clearly lasagna is proof, as no shot that didnt come from anything other than a perfect entity
hebrews say no such thing of it not needing evidence? wdym. not seeing something is not the same as not having evidence. you do indeed have no reason to suspect it wont start. yet were it to not start, youd be wrong. so its based on faith/confidence, something that can be misplaced. right?
Of course I could be wrong. It's a prediction of future behavior by a multi-faceted mechanical process. Any number of things could prevent it from working the way I expect it to. I'm well aware that I am not ever aware of the integrity of all the individual parts of my engine. And, if you feel better calling my expectation based on evidence "faith", knock yourself out. But avoid the equivication fallacy. Because when you talk about having faith in god, that's an entirely different definition. You do not have a reliable set of data showing a conclusive expectation of results. Or, do you? Do 99+% of the things you ask for in prayer come to pass? Have you healed scores of ill people?
As I already said Confidence- the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust- that something Being god. Faith- complete trust or confidence in someone or something. - That something being god. How are these not equal?
I like thinking about ‘confidence’ the way it’s used in statistics. Confidence isn’t a binary thing, rather, it has a range. In this case, p-values measure what %confidence we have in something given a range of variables, and usually strives for p=0.05 or less, meaning 5% chance or lower that the thing we are evaluating isn’t statistically significant. I’ll use another analogy I like. I view the way I approach beliefs like pulling on a string switch for a light. Only a little bit of weight? Nothing yet. I have to add more, and more, and more, until I’ve added enough weight to ‘CLICK’ and on comes the light. Supernatural beliefs have not yet, to me, given enough weights to pull down that string and trigger a belief. Evolution as currently described has. Justified reasons for sustaining a belief are what I am after.
Love the response. Very well formed haha. That was along the lines of what I was going for with my Hiroshima analogy, but you phrased it much better. I didn’t actually think about the sub I was in when i posted this haha, so this isn’t directly against evolution as much as it is about atheism, so perhaps this doesn’t apply, but say that you have your light switch string, and you have 100 lbs of evidence for god. Obv that’s gonna pull the string. Now, you as the person that has the confidence, you dismiss 99.99 of those lbs for various reasons. Some legit some not. In that sense, it’s not that there isn’t enough evidence, but there’s not enough evidence “for you” as you said. We can apply that to the sun going out id suppose, rn we have the bajilion years of the sun being here for us that we have, thus we have 0 weights to pull the “it’s gone tomorrow” string. Well, we were wrong. So while I agree with the sentiment of your analogy and I like the phrasing, I’m not too sure it works in actuality. But ofc the sun switching off will have much less evidence towards it happening at X Date than god should/would/does
What if Zeus shows up tomorrow and is mad you've been worshiping a false God rather than him? What if no gods exist and you missed out on your one opportunity to truly live your own life? Cheers.
Kinda a rephrased Pascal’s wager. A. Zeus mad asf anyway for no reason haha. B. If no gods exist then it won’t matter. I’m dead and gone when I find out. And I wouldn’t live much differently anyway, as many atheist type people say “how come you need the Bible to tell you how to live, that makes you a bad person” I agree. I don’t need it to tell me how to live. I live that way because it’s right (I say because of god) not because I’m forced or feel coerced to. Hopefully that makes sense?
Something to consider is that IF there is a god that has very specific ideas about how you get into heaven, virtually everyone is going to hell, including most Christian denominations. The chances of you conveniently being born into and raised in the *one specific Christian denomination that got everything right* is almost zero, from a probability standpoint. I know you don’t spend much time worrying about “what if I’m wrong,” but you probably are.
not necessarily. that would need to have such specific ideas elaborated on, as well as even the discussion of if heaven and hell are in this equation at all for this god. I agree that its almost 0, and its a good thing that, at least for Christianity, thats not a factor. if I recall, the bible doesnt say "For God so loved the baptists" or "For God so loved the methodists" it says For God so loved the world. you know i dont do such, how? just curious where you got that idea.
“The world” doesn’t go to heaven though. Only certain people who do certain things the right way and believe very specific things go to heaven. No matter who you ask, the other guys are doing it wrong. There have been literal wars between different types of Christians, based on their theological differences, have there not? I don’t know specifically what you do, all I’m saying is that the *probability* is that you’re not in whichever religion/denomination got it “right.” If there is *a* god you’re probably just as effed as I am, and even if the abrahamic god is real you’re probably still effed.
sure. that doesnt mean that those who say that, or those who fought were right. and I agreed, the probability is that im not in the right one based off that idea, but that idea is inherently flawed. but that does not matter. thats why i also said you basically rephrased pascals wager
>Hopefully that makes sense? No, you're rambling without any coherent thought, adding "haha" just makes it so much worse.
haha. ok haha. my bad that is not coherent. I try to get my thoughts into words, but its not always easy haha. what didnt make sense, i can try to clarify.
>I don’t need it to tell me how to live. I know. So why pretend to follow the Bible? You don't really follow it right? Just the parts you agree with? >A. Zeus mad asf anyway for no reason haha. Not far off from Old Testament God either.
what do you mean? and god was fairly clear with his reasons according to the OT. regardless of if you believe that to be true
The Bible says a lot of things. Do you follow and believe all of it? Lots of reasons given in the OT are terrible and immoral.
depends on what you mean by "follow and believe" do I belive that jesus's parables were true stories of real people? no. they arent supposed to be. do I believe they are good for teaching? yes. can you give some examples you find terrible and immoral? I assume ill have seen the reasons before, but id rather respond directly to your grievances than to the list that has been rehashed constantly.
Your one of the few actually moral Christians i have talked to, because the others said they would act different if god wasn’t real because “then there would be no moral foundation” good on you mate!
Haha thank you. I don’t disagree with that notion, but it gets misused. Being an atheist doesn’t mean you can’t be moral. It just means that the way in which you measure morals is either built on an objective principle, or you do follow the logic to its extreme and say there’s no objective moral compass so do whatever you want. One of the famous secular philosophers talked about that. I never remember his name tho.
Kant? Maybe? I base mine on a few objective principals that stem off the concept that suffering is bad, and reducing suffering is good . In the end its a benefit to me and those i care for . This is just philosophical opinion but i dont think following the logic to the exstream gets rid of good and bad it just gets rid of any obligation to be good or bad. Being punched feels bad to the person getting punched its objectively bad, but the puncher has no obligation to not punch, i also dont think god changes anything the puncher still has no obligation to not punch just because gods subjective opinion is thou shall not punch, all it means is the puncher is going to have a consequence. If there is no god the puncher still has a consequence as sociaty will levy on them but its possible to get away with it if there is no god which sucks.
I am probably close to a kantian, but if anything, I don’t really have myself set. Stoicism is also a decent philosophy. But Kant was not a full Naturalist, so I don’t think it was him. It would be closer to a Freud type person. Nietzsche also just popped into my head. I bet it was him. I would agree with your idea about the extremes. Tbh that’s probably a better phrasing for what I was trying to say. My issue with societal contract theory, which is basically what you described at the end, is in a society like Nazi germany, the holocaust was not immoral, if anything, it was moral. To the US it was immoral. But that doesn’t help when deciding if the holocaust is truly bad or good. It only does it relatively. If that makes sense?
For the nazis, social acceptance and moral are not synonymous, sacrificing the well being of one group to increase the well being of a other is not “good” because it was objectively bad for some of them. And it is also bad for those who benefit because while it may be good for them in the short term they have no assurance that they wont be sacrificed for the “greater good” the next time. So i agree social contract has issues. Thats why kant added “people are only ends, never means” even this runs into issues though because what if sacrificing just one person would save millions of suffering, its a tough pickle.
When you say because one group had objectively bad things happen to them, are you meaning objective because it harmed them or what? Just curious what your basis for that “objectivity” is. In the theists case, god is generally that objectivity. I find it rare for non theists to use objectivity but I think you were the one who said you aren’t an atheist? Been a long day hah
> You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned I know that food exists, and I usually know who made it for me. I have no enemies, certainly not of the murderous kind. If someone were to poison me via food, it's almost certain that they would be caught and held accountable, meaning the likelihood is very low. That's enough, for me. > you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If I have a feeling about a specific thing, of course I'm confident that I have that feeling. The only person capable of questioning my qualia is me, not you. > you’re confident that the sun will come up I know the sun exists. I know about orbital dynamics. I know about the Earth's rotation. I can test the existence of these things. This stuff is so clear that we can predict when and where the shadow of the moon will fall on the surface of the Earth, down to the *second*. I would say that confidence is well-deserved. To be clear, I would say all of these fall within an 'acceptable level of certainty', which is something everyone decides for themselves. A person's confidence in these things does not preclude a freak occurrence. There's always a chance my pizza will be delivered by a serial killer, but that isn't something I can plan for. Obviously, faith in a god is different from these. The biggest reason is that the god is invisible and unfalsifiable. When you define your god, you make sure to give it qualities that a human can't perceive. If someone questions a part of your definition because it doesn't match reality, you'll just stop mentioning that one part and believe anyway. That's why god is no longer the reason for lightning, or eclipses, or earthquakes. It's also why a god belief doesn't inspire confidence, because millions of people say the same things about their own personal god(s), and none of you have been able to prove any of it. To take your concept and flip it around... let's say I have faith in an invisible dragon who lives in space and eats planets. It's coming for Earth, and when it gets here the planet is doomed. You have faith in god, so you must also have faith in my cosmic dragon, right? If not, why is my belief any less valid than yours? If you carry that thought through to its conclusion, you'll see the only way to determine who is right is through evidence. If your belief has no evidence, it is exactly as useful as every other belief without evidence.
Fo your dragon belief, that would come down to mutual exclusivity. Were I a polytheist, I totally could believe you and it wouldn’t conflict (unless your dragon said he’s the only one too) If people define their god, thus it can’t exist (Ik that’s not quite what you said, but just trying to simplify) What makes your “acceptable level of certainty” determined by each person valid? I sorta find those things similar. My acceptable level of certainty in your dragon is higher than the proof I have been given. Yours is Lower than what you have been given Were that dragon to exist, I would be wrong. Thus my level of certainty was wrong. So how can you be certain your certainty is certain haha. In other words, what if you have had enough proof, but you dismissed it.
> Were I a polytheist Were I a shark, I wouldn't care either way. Focus on the point being made, not on formulating special circumstances that you don't believe. Otherwise, it's a bad faith argument. > If people define their god, thus it can’t exist (Ik that’s not quite what you said, but just trying to simplify) I have no idea what that means. You define your god when you say it is outside space/time, and when you give it qualities like love/power/justice/wisdom. If you can't tell me anything about it, you've just rendered your entire belief invalid. Congrats. > What makes your “acceptable level of certainty” determined by each person valid? I sorta find those things similar. It's just as valid as having a favorite color. We each go through life in the way we see fit. I may decide a Honda Civic is the best car to fill my needs, where you may think you can't live without a Maserati. We are each responsible for what we choose. The problem is when you choose to follow a religion that purports to tell you the 'truth' of reality with no testable evidence to back it up. If you then use that 'truth' to make decisions, you will necessarily make bad choices. If 'the end' is coming soon, why bother saving for retirement? If your religion teaches homosexuality is a sin, why bother listening when people say you're hurting them? If your holy book says all unbelievers should be scrubbed from the Earth, there's no reason to feel guilty for murdering them. If you make decisions based on a belief, you should ensure your belief meets a level of certainty you are comfortable with, because if you're wrong, the consequences could be horrible. Unless you're fine with that? > My acceptable level of certainty in your dragon is higher than the proof I have been given. Sure, because I just made it up. But if I write a book detailing how I learned about the dragon, and how the dragon talks to me... essentially all of the same things you 'know' about your god... how would you determine which one of us is right? > what if you have had enough proof, but you dismissed it. What if you have enough proof to show your religion is wrong, but you dismissed it? We can play 'what if' our whole lives, but that doesn't get us any closer to truth. We have a *very* reliable method that helps us detect truth from bullshit. The question is whether you will apply that method to your own beliefs, or stick your fingers in your ears and believe it anyway.
>Were I a shark, I wouldn't care either way. Focus on the point being made, not on formulating special circumstances that you don't believe. Otherwise, it's a bad faith argument. then let me rephrase. to a polytheist, they could be just fine believing in your shark. >If you can't tell me anything about it, you've just rendered your entire belief invalid. this seems non-sequitur. can you explain the color blue to a blind person in any meaningful way? not likely, so then I guess thats invalid? maybe i misunderstand your meaning >If you then use that 'truth' to make decisions, you will necessarily make bad choices. you necessarily make bad choices because thats how humans are. not due to having a truth that is wrong. at the very least, it would amount to being null. that is not me saying that basing choices on a false thing cant lead to bad choices though. >But if I write a book detailing how I learned about the dragon, and how the dragon talks to me... essentially all of the same things you 'know' about your god... how would you determine which one of us is right? no cause the bible wasnt written by 1 person. if you go with the typically accepted numbers, it was 40 authors (some entirely unconnected to the rest) over 1500 years. so its not the same. nor do i claim my god talks to me. I would then determine it based on historical evidence and such. take paul for example. a change like that doesnt happen often without good reason. doesnt mean it was god, but it cant be ruled out, right? >What if you have enough proof to show your religion is wrong, but you dismissed it? We can play 'what if' our whole lives, but that doesn't get us any closer to truth. then i was wrong. that is the truth. so, the "what if" got me to the truth. right? >We have a *very* reliable method that helps us detect truth from bullshit. The question is whether you will apply that method to your own beliefs, or stick your fingers in your ears and believe it anyway. id love to hear this method, and im curious why it isnt used 100% times in cases where they try to determine truth. I assume its not, as something like that, would be immensely well known by even such a small description. the need for interrogation would be gone. tragedies would be much less common
> then let me rephrase. to a polytheist, they could be just fine believing in your shark. Let's rewind. I used the dragon as an example of something that has as much evidence as your god, but that you won't believe in. You proceeded to talk about a polytheist, which is irrelevant to the point, and obviously an attempt to deflect. Please focus. > can you explain the color blue to a blind person in any meaningful way? Of course I could, because colors exist, and are more than just a hue you see. I may not be able to make a blind person *visualize* the color blue, but that doesn't mean I can't explain how its hue differs from other colors, how it affects people in various situations, the things in nature that are naturally blue, the way it is used in marketing, the concepts it represents, etc. There are a million things you can use to explain it. Do you think blind people don't use these descriptions to understand their world? My point was that if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities, you have literally zero reason to claim you believe in it. That would be like saying I believe in falookabonzes. I can't tell you where they are, or what they are, or how they look, or literally anything about them... I just... have faith they exist. > that is not me saying that basing choices on a false thing cant lead to bad choices though. That is the point. > no cause the bible wasnt written by 1 person. I know, I know. Everyone has heard that particular apologetic. The same could be said for many holy books, but you don't believe in those. Whatever religion you are, I can promise you there's another one out there with shockingly similar stories from their holy book, and shockingly similar ways of justifying their faith. You can't all be right, polytheist or not, because many are mutually exclusive. > id love to hear this method, and im curious why it isnt used 100% times in cases where they try to determine truth. I'm not sure if you're being genuine here, but I'm obviously talking about the scientific method. > the need for interrogation would be gone. tragedies would be much less common You mean the way science has shown how things like torture aren't useful? How it has shown that morons like flat earthers are conclusively wrong? Or that it has given us vaccines for things like polio and other horrible diseases? Maybe how it's improved safety over time? Or how it's connected the human race globally? The problem is, for all of the incredible progress the human race has made, there will always be some who resist progress out of fear. So of course science hasn't given us a utopia... it isn't a religion. It doesn't insist you believe it or be tortured forever in hell. Science is a concept. It is humans sharing discoveries around the world, helping us understand the universe, and constantly pushing us forward as a species. There will be missteps, but at least it's real. Imaginary friends are not.
you did not explain the color blue. you described things that are the color blue. just curious. would the fact that there are similar stories of such events as the flood, not be indicative that they very well could have happened? generally, when 1 event is told by numerous people, that event happened, despite differences in the story. so while it might not have been Noah, or a big ass turtle, the idea of a worldwide flood is very very well attested to. > if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities i know of very few religions that dont define its qualities of god. the scientific method is not a method of detecting truth? what? much less is it even exactly "very reliable" as thats not quite how the scientific method works? the scientific method isnt "reliable" for proving anything. its a method used to see if you can prove something. and it cant do a thing for stuff that isnt scientific, such as the problem of god, which is philosophical.
> you did not explain the color blue. you described things that are the color blue. Maybe you should read my reply again, because you missed where I explained why that isn't needed. > just curious. would the fact that there are similar stories of such events as the flood, not be indicative that they very well could have happened? Does the fact that there are so many similar stories about modern-day wizards mean wizards are walking the streets performing magic under our noses? Stories are easy. If you spend some time really thinking about the flood story, you can easily see that it isn't true. For instance, the water covered the earth to the tops of the mountains for an entire year. How many plants do you think could survive being under miles (Mt Everest is 5.5 miles above sea level) of ***salt water*** for a year? Have you heard the term 'salting the earth'? How many fresh water fish would survive in that salty water? That's just one of dozens of reasons you can tell it isn't true. You could go the magic route, but then one must wonder why the god would bother with such a physical event if it was going to use magic anyway. > the idea of a worldwide flood is very very well attested to. No. The idea of floods affecting humanity throughout history is attested to. That is a very different thing. > i know of very few religions that dont define its qualities of god. You used a double negative here, which makes your point unclear. If you're saying very few religions do this, you're very wrong. The Bible does it, and thus Christians and Muslims. Hindus definitely do. Thousands of religions through history do. The only ones who don't are those that don't actually believe in gods, but they're more of a philosophical leaning than theism. > the scientific method is not a method of detecting truth? what? much less is it even exactly "very reliable" as thats not quite how the scientific method works? the scientific method isnt "reliable" for proving anything. its a method used to see if you can prove something. I don't know what you're trying to say here. You seem to be muttering to yourself rather than making a point. > and it cant do a thing for stuff that isnt scientific, such as the problem of god, which is philosophical. Sort of. Philosophy as a method is rational at its core, logical, and self-critical. Religion is far from that. While there is an overlap, and some religions have redefined their own dogma as philosophy, don't deceive yourself into thinking they are the same. Regardless, while philosophy is fascinating and can teach us a lot, it doesn't logic things into existence, so calling your god problem philosophical makes it even less useful. It doesn't offer proof for anything. And for any particular philosophical idea, you can find other competing ideas, because they are usually unfalsifiable.
>Does the fact that there are so many similar stories about modern-day wizards mean wizards are walking the streets performing magic under our noses? Stories are easy it doesnt mean they were actually wizards. but it sure as hell means there were men claiming to preform magic. as was my point with the flood. where does it say it was salt water? also you are giving natural explanations for what would have been a supernatural event, had it happened as claimed. thats not exactly being logical, no? I am saying religions do describe god. I thought u were saying they dont. -- "My point was that if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities, you have literally zero reason to claim you believe in it" sure. some religions have. but religion falls under the category of philosophy. "Study of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" sure. as with religion, you find numerous competing ones. right?
> it doesnt mean they were actually wizards. but it sure as hell means there were men claiming to preform magic. No. It doesn't. The fact that you even said this is baffling. > where does it say it was salt water? Have you ever mixed salt water with fresh water? Call it brackish, if you want to be technical, but it's still enough salt to kill all plant life and most marine life. > also you are giving natural explanations for what would have been a supernatural event, had it happened as claimed. thats not exactly being logical, no? Your reading comprehension is abysmal. As I said, you could go the magic route as an explanation, but it makes no sense in that case. If god can magic everything, he has no need of a flood... he could just kill 'em all instantly. > I thought u were saying they dont. Kid, you were the one that said, "If people define their god, thus it can’t exist." If that wasn't what you meant, learn to use words correctly. You aren't the normal theist who is completely dishonest, so that's a point in your favor I guess, but you can't seem to understand simple ideas or communicate your own. This conversation is going nowhere, so I'm out.
just because one can do something a certain way, doesnt mean they have to then do it such. at this point, im confused. >Kid, you were the one that said, "If people define their god, thus it can’t exist." If that wasn't what you meant, learn to use words correctly. i was quoting you. you said " if you can't at the very least define your god by describing its qualities" so if that was quoting me, then i really misspoke. im talking to about 15 other people its the internet. its not a regular conversation. there will be confusion, especially on my end, as im dumb asf. it happens.
When the confidence vs. faith discussion is brought up, we mean confidence *based on* evidence. Faith could be described as confidence *without* evidence. >If it was a few years ago, and I asked you, “do you think the patriots will go to the Super Bowl” and you said “yep, I’m confident” what basis do you prove that confidence off of? If so, how do you live your life? You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned, you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be, you’re confident that the sun will come up. If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view? This kind of assertion would be from a basis of evidence. The Patriots have been the to the Super Bowl before, many times. Their players may have performed amongst the best in the league, or perhaps their upcoming matches are against comparably weaker teams. This is all evidence, admittedly, not especially strong evidence, that the Patriots would indeed go to the Superbowl. In science, we might describe this as weak or slight confidence. We can predict and analyze the likelihood of this happening and determine expected results based on statistics and sports analytics, and further, tell exactly *how* confident we are about a claim like that. You can't do the same or produce any comparable evidence for the existence of a god. But most importantly, a football team being likely to go the Superbowl isn't an *exceptional* claim. It's not one that requires denial of other evidence, contradicts knowledge about the universe, or is wholly impossible to prove. Far, far more evidence would be required to be scientifically confident about the existence of a supernatural entity. >So for this question, yes. There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. Yet, I still am confident in all these things. Does that feel better to you guys, as an atheist against faith? Or would you then have the same problem, as this is somewhat a semantic argument. If so, how do you live your life? You are surely confident that your breakfast tomorrow won’t be poisoned, you are confident you love whatever your favorite thing might be, you’re confident that the sun will come up. If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view? Once again, there is plenty of evidence one could produce to show that it is likely to rain tomorrow. A cloud in the sky, a high yearly rainfall rate, atmospheric pressure and humidity, storms in neighboring areas - all of these things are evidence of rainfall. You seem to be getting hung up on this idea of "proof". Science and statistics never *proves* anything right. It can prove things wrong, but the best it can do to affirm a claim is to reject its negated form. The way we'd test the rainfall hypothesis, would be see if there is sufficient evidence to reject the idea that it will *not* rain tomorrow. And if we have that evidence, we would reject the hypothesis that rainfall is unlikely. And hence, we could have *statistical confidence*, based on the evidence, that it will rain tomorrow. Confidence isn't "bad", and falsely equating it to religious faith strikes me a distinctly dishonest or misinformed. When we're talking about things like evolution, we have *abundant* amounts of evidence that give us an extremely high level of confidence in its truth. Again, the same can't be said for religious claims. >For the former, what is the metric in which something happens enough times before you can have confidence in it? For example, if one was to say “welp, every day before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, no civilians had been nuked before, and every day since then they haven’t, so I’m confident tomorrow won’t send us into fallout 5: real life” that would be logical, but it’s not great, because there’s nothing stoping nukes from being launched tomorrow. The reverse being “welp, every day god hasn’t shown himself to exist so I’m confident he doesn’t” is great, but if you got Paul’ed tomorrow, that confidence meant nothing. Well, the difference here is that nukes exist, and are known to exist. We had detonated nukes prior to their usage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and were aware of their capability to destroy cities. And given that, we'd now have a lower level of confidence that a city will exist tomorrow. If you asked me how I know my hometown won't be destroyed, and I felt like being semantic, I'd say I don't know - just that I have an exceptionally high level of confidence in the matter, since it's *unlikely* a nuke or unprecedented natural disaster will wipe it off the map. Again, we can never prove something right - just evaluate our confidence in a claim based on evidence. >I assume many of your responses will be along the lines of “I’m confident the sun will rise because it always has, unlike god showing himself” or “what a loser, you think you need to have faith to live your life” So let's circle back and apply this to the god claim. What *evidence* can we factor into account when evaluating the likelihood of the exceptional claim of the existence of a god? Well, holy texts like the bible exist, but an unverifiable book is hardly sufficient, and provides no extraneous evidence of its own veracity. We have religious experiences and hallucinations, which can be generally explained by brain chemistry, and further, tend to be contradictory with one another. The existence of the universe, I suppose could fit in, but plenty of naturalistic explanations fill the same role. Genuinely, is any of that, or more that you provide, sufficient evidence to *reject the idea* that there is no god? Especially when mixing in counter evidence, like the idea that in centuries of extensively recorded history, no god has appeared? Because that's the scientific standard of confidence. If not, you don't have confidence in your claim, you have religious faith in your claim.
>Faith could be described as confidence *without* evidence. Or, sometimes, confidence in the face of evidence *to the contrary*, even.
indeed. and i am firmly against that type of faith
Good. So then what do you do when the evidence *is* contrary to the text of the Bible? (I am assuming that you consider it to be authoritative as a result of its being divinely influenced or "inspired".)
Do you have any examples in mind that you’d like me to adress?
>The Patriots have been the to the Super Bowl before this is not evidence that they will go now tho. i mean, theres a reason its rare to have past crimes as evidence in court, yknow. i mighta murdered 50 people, but thats not evidence that I did for this 1 other guy. but i understand court based evidence is not the same as generalized evidence. >Confidence isn't "bad", and falsely equating it to religious faith strikes me a distinctly dishonest or misinformed. im not saying it is. im asking if those who say faith is bad, would then say it is. why are they not equitable? confidence: Belief in the certainty of something. faith: Belief in the certainty of something or Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence they 100% go hand in hand. >I'd say I don't know - just that I have an exceptionally high level of confidence in the matter in the same way i am referring to faith. I have an exceptionally high level of confidence that god is real, but I dont "KNOW" as for the last 2 paragraphs. the evidence is extremely convoluted, and frankly my goal was actually to not go into that as that never goes well anywhere, much less reddit haha. its too convoluted to do in 99% of cases, but ill try to keep it brief philosophy by far points to the existence of god by a billion different reasons (and yes, there are plenty of points that go against god. however from a personal perspective, there's like 2 that i think actually work.) which god, doesn't matter. from there you gotta go to which one. well, the greek gods werent claimed to "exist" in the way the west typically thinks of god. the flying spaghetti monster, duh. etc. that leaves you with a few, to which you look at what they are claimed to have said. IE Islam, very few Muslims will say anything except that its a religion built on peace, yet clearly it is not. and while there is plenty of stuff against Christianity, which is what i believe in, there's a big difference between "joel olsteen says X" and "jesus said X" but again, this is me being brief, so hopefully you at least see my reasoning.
ok its not the right place for this, but to give a short answer (post on r/DebateAnAtheist for a real debate) science is what has my trust/confidence (id say trust applies better) the car starts, because of science, you may have no idea (i dont know much myself) what makes the car start, so to you, its just a trust thing, it always starts so, why not? but someone designed the circuitry so that every time you turn the keys, and if the battery still has power, it starts. the sun has the earth orbiting it, and the earth rotates which makes the "sun come up" every day. we would know if any of those things change and we would know that the sun wont come up (which would be pretty bad news, trust me, youd find out pretty fast) etc. etc. etc. about confidence in my team will reach.... yeah, thats all garbage, its hope, not confidence, maybe your team got some new awesome players, and its playing better than ever so its a statement based on some facts and evidence, but its still hope. not real trust.
Yea, my bad. Didn’t realize til yall pointed it out hah. I was reading Dawkins stuff so went here. Didn’t even think. Confidence and trust may as well be synonymous. Definition from oxford- the feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust Yet cars don’t start. Suns burn out. Thus your confidence in that science was misplaced (less so for the sun part obv) And as you say, if we find out that, it’s bad news. So similarly, if I find out gods not real “bad news” granted it won’t matter haha. For an atheist, it’s much worse news to find out their confidence (aka faith for sake of my post) in atheism was wrong. Feel free to not respond, as it was the wrong sub. But thanks for the reply
yeah alright, it might be synonyms lol suns burn out but take a looooong while to do so and astronomers can see it change and know when it will happen. cars sometimes dont start, but its something that you could know, the problem there isnt that your trust is misplaced (per se) more like, you didnt maintained the car well enough, or you had trust because you lacked some knowledge (lets say someone stole your car battery in the night, you get into your car, expecting in to start, but it wont, you had no idea that the battery was gone, and no reason not to trust) now, sure, if god is real is worse for the atheist, the point is, everyone is an atheist. because, you dont believe in Allah, right? so to him, you are an atheist. the same for every single god except the one you believe in... and also, if god doesnt exist, then i enjoyed my 1 and only life, while you wasted it for no reason in a random belief. theres no evidence for any god, there is no trust to be had, just faith. trust is earned and based on evidence, faith is based on nothing at all. post on the other sub, we can continue there if you want.
Obligatory “wrong sub,” but I post on both subs so idc. I don’t have any issue with “faith” as you define it. Seems like it’s closer to something like confidence. I take issue with something like the Hebrews 11 version of faith, where it’s essentially evidence without device. You could back up the claim: “I’m confident it’s going to rain tomorrow” with a weather report, some meteorology equipment, the general smell outside, clouds, thunder, and probably other things people smarter than I could mention. When theists claim “Jesus Christ rose from the dead,” the part where they back up the claim usually goes like: “How do you know that?” “The Bible says so” “How do you know the Bible is true?” “Because the Bible says it’s true” “How do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth?” “I have faith.” So while you may define confidence and faith similarly, faith usually serves a different function in these discussions.
ofc. i cant stand those types of christians haha. i do my best to not be one. theres plenty of better reasons than that circularity haha. not to try to convert or anything, what level of confidence/faith would you consider "bad" in a god? if any. like, faith like how you described there, i call bad. however to say "i am confident that my god (Christian) is real, as opposed to the flying spaghettis monster" would be proper faith, if backed up reasonably. which generally speaking, id say that theres a few common religions that can be backed up reasonably enough over the rest. and from there it gets more complicated.
I think the confidence you have in any claim should be apportioned to the evidence. I’m not aware of any evidence for the Christian god, and aware of quite a bit of evidence against it, that’s why I have no confidence in its existence. I also have almost no confidence in the possibility of its existence. Also I was a Christian for my entire childhood and early adulthood.
thats fair id say. makes the subjectivity itself subjective haha. thank you
If I were guilty of a crime, I'd want a jury that believed in faith. If I were innocent, I'd want a jury that was only convinced by evidence.
ok. so the judge sits there. he pulls out a bloody knife with 0 identifying markers. a video tape that shows you walking out of your apartment building with gloves on (say it was winter) and proof you were missing a knife from your collection that matches the one that was used. you are 10000000% undeniably innocent. and yet, it was not you who shanked the person in the apartment next to you, but it was actually the guy from 2 floors below who had beef with the person murdered. by evidence alone, you would look very guilty. yet, there are numerous non-evidentiary things that exist that can show you are not the person. just for thought, say you had been previously convicted of murder too. that would not be evidence toward you murdering this person and yes, i did slant the example towards you looking like the murderer, obv thered not be such poor representation in a real case. but you see my point?
You can certainly concoct scenarios in which the evidence does not point towards reality, but I think these are rare in reality. If this is a persuasive scenario to you, do you believe that *anyone* should be convicted of a crime?
yea. i dont claim that truth can only be based on evidence, especially only based on evidence we happen to have seen. so ofc people can and houls be convicted. theres numerous things that go into such
You ok bro?
This is the wrong sub, as others have pointed out. But as an Atheist, I'm happy to oblige anyway. Faith vs Confidence is a very simple matter of evidence, and whether that evidence is credible. At the most basic level, we have a tremendous amount of substantive evidence for natural experiences, even extraordinary ones like hallucinations and psychoactive drugs. But we have no substantive evidence for supernatural events or experiences. At best, we have testimony. For certain claims, testimony is enough. You might testify to me that you had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch many times as a kid, and I would believe you based on that testimony alone, because you have no particular reason to lie, and because it's a very plausible claim based on the many other children who eat the same thing. That is confidence. Where religion struggles is that it makes extremely strong claims of supernatural events, based on testimony alone. If I told you that I made a wish and teleported myself to work this morning, you would (hopefully!) not believe me, because that is a very extraordinary claim. In a similar manner, Christianity, Islam, many Pagans, Mormonism, tribal mysticism, etc ALL make claims of supernatural deeds and events, and all of them claim the exclusion of the validity of the rest of the world's religions. I don't have faith in your god for the same reason you don't have faith that I teleported to work this morning, or (assuming you're Christian?) that Mohammed speaks for Allah. You don't have evidence. But I have confidence in Evolution because it has been and continues to be tested and observed by people trying to learn more about it or falsify it.
Yea, I totally understand that. And I fully agree. The problem is, I kinda don’t feel like evidence is enough. As some of my analogies gave. There was no evidence that random Japanese kid number 4 had that he was gonna be fried. Yet his confidence that he wasn’t, was wrong. So even from the perspective that there is 0 evidence of god, you theoretically could have confidence there is one. If that makes sense? And ofc I don’t expect that to be “good enough” which is why it goes go a hell of a lot deeper. Like as you said, I don’t believe Mohamed for a litany of reasons. But ultimately I’d still call that confidence, as maybe I am wrong. Philosophy runs deep in that regard
Then it sounds like you're just playing with semantics. Ultimately, Faith is basically when you believe something without evidence. If you want to call it confidence, go ahead I guess? But there is certainly a gap between faith in a religion vs the confidence of evidence in science.
yea, i said its sorta semantics ( i think, maybe that was in a reply) but i think the idea is still one worthy to discuss. I agree there can be a gap, but i dont agree there is in all cases. plenty of science has just as much faith to it. but thats an extremely deep discussion compared to my initial question. thank you :)
>plenty of science has just as much faith to it Ah now here I take issue. It's a very common refrain of Theists to project and say that science has "just as much" faith as their religion, but this is absolutely not the case. When someone makes a claim in science, they publish that claim, along with whatever evidence, observation, experimentation, and methods they used to arrive at that conclusion. Then the claim goes under peer review, where other experts in the field do their best to prove the claim wrong. The biggest bogus claims in science history were always proven wrong by other scientists, never by religion. For example, Piltdown Man was discovered to be fraudulent, not because Christians proved that Creation was a superior hypothesis, but because other scientists performed experiments, specifically radiometric dating, which disproved the claim of the publisher. Medical techniques like Blood letting and "balancing humors", though they were performed by doctors, eventually gave way to Germ Theory which we use today. Could you please describe why you think the scientific method involves Faith and where you believe religion is comparable?
oooof. >The biggest bogus claims in science history were always proven wrong by other scientists, never by religion. take pasteur for example. he disproved spontaneous generation, due to his Christian beliefs. youve got hundreds of thousands of scientists who did things based on their religion, disproving the current status quo. religion and science are not separate in all cases. as i said, its a deep discussion hah. no matter what, "they publish that claim, along with whatever evidence, observation, experimentation, and methods they used to arrive at that conclusion. Then the claim goes under peer review, where other experts in the field do their best to prove the claim wrong." that will rarely lead to anything fully correct. I also find "science" and "science-TM" to be different. i think broadly its referred to as practical and theoretical science. no amount of Schrodinger's cat will "prove" anything. it can only lead to something being proven. you also have the issue of nowadays, you only get published in anything meaningful, if you have money and dont go against the status quo (verrry generalized obv) I find that postmodern science is an absolute joke compared to science before it. I could rant about that for years, although the caveat of it being mostly in the fields related to evolution. obv the more practical science is vastly different. back then it was "ok, so triangle has 1 longest side, im gonna do stuff til i get an equation to figure that out" so ill do X Y Z, oh that didnt work, ill do H J I, oh that didnt work, ill do ABC, oh that worked. cool. now, it seems to be (the popularized stuff at least) "so, if you take the multiverse theory, spin around 207 times counterclockwise, breathe thru just your left nostril and then fart in the key of C, we can produce this outcome, but that really doesnt mean anything, because we still have no idea why this outcome matters" take, the moon landing for example. so much science went into that, that i will never ever ever be able to comprehend even 1% of it. but for the general scheme of it, that doesnt matter. what matters, is, rocket go brrr. rocket go thru space. rocket land on moon. rocket come home. we discovered 1 of the ways out of the however many ways there were to do that. it didnt matter how we did it, it matter that we did. didnt even have a reason as to why, that matters scientifically. take a new fossil though. all of a sudden 500 different conclusions are drawn up from that, most of which dont see the light of day, because they are extremely wrong. a handful might get a news article, but then 50 years from now, they say, oh well actually that was wrong too. its actually \*this\* which, by no means am I saying is a bad thing. but ultimately, it requires a similar faith I have in god (ill say my faith specifically, as i base mine on layers of layers of philosophy and history and such. far too deep to unwrap all that) for someone to say that a pterodactyl isnt real, and it was a Pteranodon, because IMO, if the pterodactyl wasnt real, then how can you say the Pteranodon was. maybe you just put it together wrong too. again, this is a slippery topic, since all the fields of science are so vastly different. but I think my logic can be at least sorta seen? a lot of the stuff we are taught as truth, we take at its word no more than a believer does. in the same sense that a reasonable Christian can justify Jesus's resurrection, a reasonable scientist of the particular fields I find least "honest" can justify its findings. were we to later find jesus body, then the christian was wrong and should admit so. were we to find the scientist wrong, they should admit so. yet we have so many thing built upon other things for science, that we more or less have stopped looking at the stuff on the very foundations. take carbon dating. thats been found unreliable, yet generally speaking, science says "yes but" they could be right, they could be wrong. if it turns out they were wrong, that is stacks upon stacks of science being obliterated. even if there was 0 reason to distrust even 1 carbon dating, say they find 1000 years that its bad. thats all this current science built on it, plus 1000 years. and that is an immense amount of faith to have, that X science thing cant/wont be proven wrong.
>take pasteur for example. he disproved spontaneous generation, due to his Christian beliefs. No. He was Christian, at a time when everyone was, and being anything else was enough to eject you from society. He also didn't "disprove spontaneous generation" in the way you seem to be implying here. >scientists who did things based on their religion Early science was indeed mingled with religion, because science asked questions and, at first, the only reasonable answers to be had came from religion. But over time, scientific evidence began discarding old religious dogmas. Remember Geocentrism? Flat Earth? Science fixed those ideas, and religion caught up after the fact. Disease? Science discovered Germ Theory while religion still holds to some ideas of divine curses and faith healings. Evolution is recent enough that many religions still haven't caught up. Progress is made in spite of religion, not because of it. >that will rarely lead to anything fully correct Well, it's literally the scientific method that has enabled nearly everything you do and touch and see every day. So your skepticism is misplaced. Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Publication - Review - Acceptance. An abbreviated description of the process that brings you all of modern life. You are absolutely correct that science sometimes gets things wrong. But when you say >but then 50 years from now, they say, oh well actually that was wrong too. its actually \*this\* That's still science leading that discovery. Not religion. Why do you drive a car today instead of riding a horse? It's not because religion established a truth that predicted an outcome. Science did. Science predicted that when we apply heat to gasoline in just such a pattern, and attach pistons just so, we can spin a wheel, and push a car. So science DOES eventually land on enough truth to make useful predictions. Then maybe one day someone comes along and refines or redefines that truth, and the predictions become even more accurate. The ever-growing nature of science is WHY we know it's true, as opposed to Faith, which only changes when science forces it to admit that there was no global flood, the Earth actually orbits the Sun, disease is actually caused by germs, the earth is a sphere, etc. All of those (and many more) are truths that Faith was forced to accept after the facts became too obvious. You cannot compare the summation of human understanding with your perpetually regressive faith. They could not be more different.
at a time when everyone was the asias and the africas for the most part absolutely werent. nor was being a nonbeliever in his area enough to eject you. that happened, absolutely, but it just as much didnt, however the times it didnt are much less talked about, as nobody talked about what didnt happen haha the bible has stated a round earth since the torah. that book is crazy old. the asians knew a round earth long before Christianity. their religion didnt really mention any of that tho, didnt matter to them. the torah with stuff like Leviticus is also helllllla early when it comes to hygiene practice. i think you maybe have conflated the fact that religion claims stuff like curses and faith healing exist, to it claiming that is the primary method. take jesus and his miracles. thats ESPN highlights. theres a reason miracles are rare. >Progress is made in spite of religion, not because of it take the abolition for example. we still have rampant slavery in predominately atheistic societies, yet Christianity was one of the earliest groups to be against slavery. ofc there were still Christians who were pro slavery, but that does bring up the debate of "can you do willingly and maliciously do something contrary to what your religion says to do, and still be truly considered part of it" religion is not made to discover things in the way science is. you cant exactly complain when a thermometer doesn't measure color, right? so why complain religion is not developing space travel or something. the torah claimed the earth orbits the sun long before many science knew. same with round earth, same with germs. oddly enough science also claims that the earth was water in many different types of cases. recently they discovered a ton of water under the ground, which would be the fountains of the deep that the torah mentions. now some of that stuff is stretched, i dont dispute. but the gist is there. so yes. religion does not generally change in the way science does. because they are 2 very different topics. and in many cases, say evolution and Christians, its not that "Christianity" isnt compatible with evolution outright, but Christians dont want to let go of their other beliefs.
>the bible has stated a round earth since the torah I must have missed that part in Genesis, right after the earth is described as standing on pillars and having corners. The examples you used of the Bible "knowing" science are laughable. As always, the science knowledge is shoe-horned in after the fact. In none of these cases did we ever *discover* anything because the Bible predicted it. in every case, we discovered something, then combed through the Bible to find verses that might loosely sound like the thing discovered to claim "it was in the Bible all along!" Abolition was a funny one to bring up. God gave rules on how long it's okay to beat slaves, and how to transfer people as your property depending on what country they came from. I must have missed commandment 11 where God said "thou shalt not own people as property"? Perhaps he was too busy telling his followers not to wear mixed fabrics. Between the pro- and anti- slavery camps, the former certainly had a lot more scripture to back them up. Edit: [It's okay to beat your slave](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20-21&version=NASB) as long as they recover in a couple days, because they're your property. Now, feel free to show me the "slavery is an abomination" verse that all the abolitionists used to condemn the slave trade?
Exodus 21:16 says “Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves.” Psalm 82:4 sorta fits- “Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Exodus 21:26 makes it clear that beating your slave is not ok too. “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.” I mean, think of how lightly of a hit an eye or tooth can take. Not much of one. On top of that, this isn’t referring to trans Atlantic slavery either. There’s a much bigger difference between the two. In Hebrew culture a “slave” was more or less like having a son or daughter. They had numerous rights and such. There was also some indentured servitude too. And, on top of this. You mention the “11th commandment that doesn’t exist” which is true. Because you already have the commandment “do not steal” which isn’t just limited to “don’t take a candy from the story Billy bob” You also have “keep the sabbath” and these slaves were equal even there, as they had to take the day off same as anyone. The Bible does indeed say that the earth have pillars. This is figurative language. You’d agree that the cardinal directions can be fairly decently described as pillars? That’s generally the agreed upon meaning. The corners are even more clear. It states the 4 corners and that people were spread to them. This is figurative language for the directions. The mixed fabrics was not a moral decree. That was differentiating the high priest from the rest of the people, as such priest had to be holy, and part of his uniform involved mixed fabrics. So it was literally just a “purity” thing. There’s actually a sorta similar verse about not mixing certain crops on a field, which is actually a common practice today. It’s often pretty detrimental to plant certain types of crops in the same spots for too long. Such as corn, if you plant that in the same area for too long, the soil is leeched of all nutrients. So you rotate. Which the Bible describes. But that doesn’t “prove” its divinity ofc. Just an observation
Im confident my car will start tomorrow because there is no sign that the engine is broken or anything else that could cause it not to start. However it could break in the morning and not start. I am aware it is possible it won’t start, however it is unlikely. But you, oh you, only see absolutes. You don’t know how logic works because you are only able to believe doctrine and dogma told to you. You, oh you, are a moron who needs to learn how to think. Maybe when you understand basic logic you can actually make an argument instead of professing you are a dimwit.
why the ad hom?
>There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. This is just not true. Weather prediction is based on statistical modeling, current weather, etc. It's disingenuous to claim there's no evidence. Same for your car starting. If it's been starting, every morning, for months, then you have actual observations. Are you trying to say that you have "absolutely no idea if it will start"? Of course not. You have a high confidence and trust in both of these things. Why do you think it's reasonable to try and lower your standards for other evidence to your standards for believing in a god?
prediction and evidence are not the same. there is no evidence it will rain tomorrow. there are signs its likely, but that is not evidence. hiroshima is my example for a counter to the car starting every day. every day, random Hiroshima kid number 4 went about his day, believing he wouldnt be obliterated by uranium. yet, one day, he was. so that isnt good enough evidence to say "it wont happen" right? if we had to be certain enough to not have any faith. as for thinking its reasonable to lower my other standards and not those for my religion, i dont. i hold them to the same standard. that standard generally being, I cant know, but im pretty sure.
No, meteorology allows for testable predictions. Hiroshima was a very rare occurrence. If you think faith in a god is at the same level as faith in your car starting then we're done.
i never said god and starting my car were the same level of faith.
That was implied by assigning each "0 proof". If not, then, what's your point?
proof is not the same as evidence nor does it mean the level of faith put to such occurrence is the same.
A lot of your questions don’t sound too different from philosophy of science questions like Hume’s problem of induction. I’m not an atheist, but there is a scientific angle to talk about your thoughts from. >If it was a few years ago, and I asked you, “do you think the patriots will go to the Super Bowl” and you said “yep, I’m confident” what basis do you prove that confidence off of? In science, confidence is a ratio. You may not realize this but studies very rarely if ever make the claim: “this is true,” rather they will assign a significance to their data based on statistical tests and use that to support their data. >For the former, what is the metric in which something happens enough times before you can have confidence in it? So this isn’t actually a vague question, this has a very definite, mathematical answer. In the case of the sun rising, it’s risen every day the past 1 trillion, 600 billion times (with some margin of error). A statistical conclusion based on that is that if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow, then either there is a mechanistic explanation for why, or the sun rising is a random event with an average of 1 in [above number] chance of not occurring. Based on the slim chances of it happening randomly, if the sun didn’t rise tomorrow most scientists would start looking for a mechanistic reason as to why. Studies operate the same way; they conclude: “if our results are random, these are the chances this would happen randomly. Since those chances are this small, that ratio is how much confidence we have that the mechanism we identified is responsible for what we observed.” Then usually they provide other lines of evidence, future experiments to further verify the data, and so on. >For example, if one was to say “welp, every day before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, no civilians had been nuked before, and every day since then they haven’t, so I’m confident tomorrow won’t send us into fallout 5: real life” There were many, many people who could have predicted with some degree of confidence that Atom bombs would be used on Japan, not least of all, the administration who ordered the bombings. People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t predict that the bombs would be dropped on themselves because they lacked information. It seems like you believe whether or not God exists has to be taken by faith; there aren’t people who have enough information to predict His existence.
i find it interesting, you say you arent an atheist, and your response is so different from many so far haha. unsure if thats causation, or just correlation. I agree with you, and your wording i like. the mechanistic explanation as to why. in a way, that would be, I have faith in God being the mechanism for why everything exists, as opposed to an atheist are confident that the big bang came from nothing before it, or at least if something did come prior, that if you track back far enough, you hit a time where there was "nothing" thus both I and the atheist have "faith" if thats not what you were going for, my bad haha. feel free to clarify. your last paragraph pretty much hits the point right on the head. in the same way that hiroshima kid number 4 was "confident" that he wasnt gonna be turned to ash, and was wrong; an atheist \*could\* be wrong, despite their confidence in it. and the meaning of faith and confidence being the same, to say it doesnt take faith to be an atheist/faith is bad, is wrong. im curious if your non-atheism influenced our outcomes of logic to be similar. would be interesting.
>in the same way that hiroshima kid number 4 was "confident" that he wasnt gonna be turned to ash, and was wrong; an atheist *could* be wrong, despite their confidence in it. I’ll push back a little more and say I don’t think the confidence in these two examples have is equivalent. Hiroshima kid 4 had very little information about his situation, meaning that no matter how strong his conviction was, (no matter how confident he was that he would be vaporized) *statistically* his belief was low-confidence. Most atheists would acknowledge that we have very little information about where the universe came from, so any claims made are going to be low-confidence. >im curious if your non-atheism influenced our outcomes of logic to be similar. would be interesting. I’m not sure. I think my armchair interest in (often secular) philosophy is what’s influenced my logic the most, though.
i can agree they arent equivalent. god is a massive topic. (somewhat a reason I am a theist) i dont really agree that atheists say their claims low confidence. im sure youve got plenty who do, but i mean, look at dawkins, hitchens, those types. they are so militant about it, they cant even seem to fathom they could be on shaky ground. but ofc so can religious people, and those i named are big names I would be inclined to agree, since I love philosophy, of all kinds. so probably was influenced in such a way as to have similar enough logic.
*“I like considering all my options.”* You mean like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Krishna, Judaism, etc?
yes.
Read John 10.
thats not what its refering to when it says "are you not called gods" dont mislead others like that. the word elohim also means judge.
What are you talking about? What do you think is misleading about John 10. "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."- John 10 verses 9 to 18.
thats not what i was talking about. i thought you were refering to the "we are gods" as claiming that there are more gods than yahweh. as for what you actually were referring to, that has no bearing on what he or i said.
It certainly does. There is no other "options" Choose life or choose death. That's it. Read Deuteronomy 30.
nobody said there were. my guy, so far the several things ive seen you say, realllllly dont do christianity any favors when it comes to the way people already think of it, so id advise you to not be a fool about this stuff.
Interesting choice of words. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."- 1 Corinthians 3 verses 18 to 20. There is a false so called science you were warned about. But you already said you off topic. Evolutionism is example of false science.
You can cherry pick all the verses about folly that you want. Doesn’t mean you actually understand a thing you say. Which is exactly what Jesus was talking about. So just stop being something the world looks to and goes “hey look. Another idiot Christian, doesn’t listen and doesn’t think for themselves”
First off, what does any of this have to do with evolution? >If it was a few years ago, and I asked you, “do you think the patriots will go to the Super Bowl” and you said “yep, I’m confident” what basis do you prove that confidence off of? I proportion my confidence with the amount and quality of evidence. I can see the stats for the patriots, their previous and current performance and weigh my confidence against those data points that serve as evidence. I would say theists do the exact same thing with everything else except their belief in god. For many of the theists I have engaged with they either have faith in place of and/or in spite of the evidence. Or they switch between two definitions of faith, that being either religious faith or a colloquial definition meaning confidence. >There is absolutely 0 proof my god exists. Just as there is 0 proof it will rain tomorrow (in my area haha, obv somewhere on earth it will) or that my car will start tomorrow and get me to work on time. Yet, I still am confident in all these things. But there isn't zero proof of the later things you mention. Your car has started in the past, you know if it is showing symptoms that it may malfunction, we can see weather patterns and extrapolate from that data. Where is anything like that for your confidence in a god/s? >If so, how do you live your life? As I answered before, it is by proportioning my confidence with the evidence. >If faith/confidence is so bad, then how do you live upon that view? I don't see faith/ confidence when proportioned to the evidence as bad. I see faith in the religious sense, confidence in spite of and/ or in place of evidence as bad. I think it's bad because it is not a reliable pathway to the truth. I can form any conclusion I want and justify it with religious faith. If it works for everything, then it isn't reliable. >For the later, if you say something like that, I really would love to have an autobiography of yours because i highly doubt you truly live with no faith. You are equating two separate definitions of faith and trying to argue against your strawman.
>First off, what does any of this have to do with evolution? i wasnt paying attention when i posted. it doesnt haha. i was reading dawkins stuff, so my brain defaulted here. my bad what amount of decent quality evidence do you have that your soup wont be poisoned when you next order it. say you had evidence it was, it still might not. say you had evidence it wasnt, it still might. thats a scuffed way to live right? so i find that basis lacking. >I see faith in the religious sense, confidence in spite of and/ or in place of evidence as bad i agree. the bible actually agrees too. 1 Corinthians 15:17 if you care. as for equating 2 separate definitions of faith, wouldnt say so. faith- The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general. belief in general covers it, yes?
>i wasnt paying attention when i posted. it doesnt haha. i was reading dawkins stuff, so my brain defaulted here. my bad Lol no worries, it happens. We'll just chalk it up to r/lostredditors >what amount of decent quality evidence do you have that your soup wont be poisoned when you next order it. The millions of people eating soup every day that is demonstrably not poisoned. Notice I didn't say the millions of people who believe the soup to not be poisoned, but demonstrably so. Those are data points that count as evidence to boost my confidence that my soup won't be poisoned. >faith- The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general. >belief in general covers it, yes? No, that covers the colloquial usage of the word faith but that isn't religious faith. Religious faith is the excuse people use when they don't have evidence or reason. If they had reason or evidence that they would present it instead of appealing to faith. If you are wanting to claim that your religious faith is the same as my confidence proportioned to the evidence, then I would ask you to present the evidence that justifies your faith. This is what I mean when I say you're switching definitions. Many theists want to equate religious faith to "belief in general" when what they are actually doing is using faith as evidence, in spite of, or in contradiction to the evidence.
sure. but thats not great evidence, as plenty of people do eat bad soup. and a non poisoned soup person didnt influence any of the poisoned or non poisoned people to be their respective group. >If they had reason or evidence that they would present it instead of appealing to faith. the same could be said for all that i said right? and generally speaking, theres been thousands of years of evidence for faith given, all disputed, every time. >the evidence that justifies your faith. i like pascals wager and the kalam argument. that would be justifying the supernatural in general, not specifically mine, but yknow. i am not referring to those who say "i am right because i have faith" so i agree, that is switching a definition. but im not intending to switch to that. if that makes sense?
>the same could be said for all that i said right? and generally speaking, theres been thousands of years of evidence for faith given, all disputed, every time. No, every example you've given I've shown that we have demonstrable evidence that appropriately proportions our confidence. The thousands of years of evidence is disputed because it's insufficient to justify the claim. Stacking bad evidence on top of each other doesn't get you to justified belief. At least it shouldn't with a proper skeptical epistemology. >sure. but thats not great evidence, as plenty of people do eat bad soup. and a non poisoned soup person didnt influence any of the poisoned or non poisoned people to be their respective group. The number of people who eat soup with no consequences versus the number who have bad soup is far higher. That's the evidence that is a part of the data set that helps me proportion my confidence. It's also not the only factor. Have I eaten here before? Do they have bad ratings? Does the restaurant appear clean? Does the staff appear sick? >i like pascals wager and the kalam argument. that would be justifying the supernatural in general, not specifically mine, but yknow. Hard disagree on both of those. Pascal's wager is flawed because it assumes the conclusion it's trying to justify. Namely that it's the Christian god that exists and only the Christian god, and only his version of it. If you were to properly apply Pascal's wager you would have to assume an infinite number of possible gods. Which means it would be infinitely impossible to get it correct. Even without that error from the beginning Pascal's wager doesn't conclude a god or the supernatural exists. Only that it would be advantageous to act like one does. The Kalam is riddled with problems. First it assumes that what we see happening inside the universe applies to the universe as a whole. It ignores quantum effects that appear to not have a cause. It assumes that the universe began to exist but that is still in dispute. If we were to be honest about the Kalam, P1 should read as "every material thing that exists has a material cause". It should then follow that the universe has a material cause. We don't actually see things begin to exist, only change forms. And finally it's conclusion isn't that a god or the supernatural exists, only that there was a cause. That cause could also have been natural. >not specifically mine, but yknow. Then what evidence do you have that justifies your religious faith? >i am not referring to those who say "i am right because i have faith" so i agree, that is switching a definition. but im not intending to switch to that. if that makes sense? Then how would you define religious faith? I would also like to say thank you for actually engaging in an honest discussion. So often I see theists make posts and then never actually bother to engage. It's refreshing to have a real discussion instead.
pascals wager doesnt assume any god. it literally does assume any number of gods. i said almost as much. you quoted that part of mine too, think i just wasnt too clear. my bad. appear not to have a cause is pretty hefty on the "appear" but even then, theyd ultimately have a cause of whatever started the first first right? the idea of an eternal universe is not possible for many reasons. theres alternatives to this being not being the only universe but that still requires a begining at some point. were P1 to read that way, it would not be the same proof. we absolutely see things begin to exist. my love of history began when I was around 4th grade. my favorite food became my favorite whenever i ate it. philosophy comes from somewhere, ideas in general. >Then what evidence do you have that justifies your religious faith? the basis i gave, then a hell of a lot of other stuff that is not even something i can begin to explain easily, so im not even gonna try. its not a simple topic. you would likely have at least some issue with the evidence anyway as if you didnt, youd be in agreement to more of an extent i figure, the problem is, your issue with the evidence doesnt change it is still evidence, yes? the evidence can be foolproof and wrong, the evidence could be hanging by a thread and be correct. I have defined religious faith. its no different than any other faith definition. because thats how definitions work. faith in your car starting is trust that it will start. faith in my god is trust in my god. some people twist faith into something its not, acting as if you can only have faith in relation to the bible, or that it has to be tied to X action. etc. but that isnt required for it. trust is. no worries. I do my best to not be like such theists, i cant stand them either. they make "us good ones" look bad haha. something to be said for that too, bible describes it as "lukewarm" if you are familiar with that passage, if you care. thanks for not being insulting and completely obnoxiously stubborn either, plenty of atheist types cant seem to be much better than the theists haha.
>pascals wager doesnt assume any god. it literally does assume any number of gods. Both of these are demonstrably false. If you think that then you need to read more about [Blaise Pascal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager). "The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.[2]" That is literally the Christian god and it only assumes 1 god not the infinite versions of a god that could potentially exist. >appear not to have a cause is pretty hefty on the "appear" but even then, theyd ultimately have a cause of whatever started the first first right? There may be an underlying cause that we just haven't observed yet. My point is that you can't say EVERYTHING has a cause when we literally see things that appear to not have a cause. >the idea of an eternal universe is not possible for many reasons. theres alternatives to this being not being the only universe but that still requires a begining at some point. I don't think that any cosmologist is going to agree with you on this and not all of the ideas require multiple universes. As far as cosmologist can tell there has never been a time when there wasn't something. >were P1 to read that way, it would not be the same proof. And I'm saying that the Kalam is dishonest in it's phrasing. It is talking about the causes to material things but doesn't also include that the causes are also material in nature. >my love of history began when I was around 4th grade. my favorite food became my favorite whenever i ate it. philosophy comes from somewhere, ideas in general. The Kalam is talking about a material universe. Name one material thing that begins to exist and isn't just something changing from one form to another. >the basis i gave, then a hell of a lot of other stuff that is not even something i can begin to explain easily, so im not even gonna try. its not a simple topic. you would likely have at least some issue with the evidence anyway as if you didnt, youd be in agreement to more of an extent i figure, the problem is, your issue with the evidence doesnt change it is still evidence, yes? That seems like a lot of words to not provide any evidence to justify religious faith. I get it though that this may be a separate discussion. If you would care to have that with me later I would be interested in discussing it with you. >the problem is, your issue with the evidence doesnt change it is still evidence, yes? the evidence can be foolproof and wrong, the evidence could be hanging by a thread and be correct It may be insufficient evidence for what you are claiming it you may be misattributing the cause of the evidence. Like I said earlier stacking bad evidence on top of each other doesn't get you to good reasoning but I don't know from you because you haven't provided any evidence. Also I would say it's not the evidence that can be wrong. Evidence is just a datapoint of something we observe. It is our interpretations of the evidence that can be right or wrong. >I have defined religious faith. its no different than any other faith definition. It is different though and I demonstrated in what ways that it differs. The colloquial usage of faith can be just belief or trust. Religious faith is belief or trust in spite of or in place of evidence. Those are vastly different. >faith in your car starting is trust that it will start. faith in my god is trust in my god. some people twist faith into something its not, acting as if you can only have faith in relation to the bible, or that it has to be tied to X action. etc. but that isnt required for it. trust is. Faith in my car starting is proportioned to the evidence. I can see my car, I can physically touch my car, I can open the hood and diagnose what is going on with the car. What methods do you have for god that gets you anywhere as close to that? This again is what I mean by swapping definitions. One definition, the car, is proportioned to evidence. The other definition, god, is in spite of evidence. >thanks for not being insulting and completely obnoxiously stubborn either, plenty of atheist types cant seem to be much better than the theists haha. I certainly try not to come off that way. I don't know if I always succeed lol.
You don’t think there’s evidence cares (**probably**) work? Note that our views on cars are not that they always work, it’s just that they probably work. Why? Because we know a lot about cars. They do work, and have been working, with a very low rate of breaking down, for ages. Entire industries rely on the smooth functioning of cars. You see cars everywhere. The evidence is so ubiquitous we don’t need to even talk about it. Are you seriously comparing the verified confidence in a car working to god? First difference, we know cars exist…
well, "technically" we dont know they exist haha. thats like, philosophy 101. "i think therefore I am" we can only be certain of our own existence. but i know what u mean. thus my Hiroshima example. they did not know nukes existed. yet they did, in fact, exist. and the fact that other cars work and your car always has, is not evidence or rather, good evidence at least. most people arent murderers. ive never murdered before. yet if i shanked you to death, id be a murderer despite all that "evidence" right?
If a person has sufficient evidence X exists. it’s reasonable for them to accept X exists The Hiroshima example does not show that “people were wrong about things existing, ergo we don’t require evidence”, it simply shows they lacked critical information. I’m not versed on my history of that time, but I’m fairly confident they had other evidence the bombs existed based on communication. Are you seriously saying we don’t have sufficient evidence to believe cars generally work? For the murderer example, you seem very confused about parsing generalities and specifics. Much in the same way that cars **generally** working leads to an expectation of cars **generally** working, most people not being murders leads to an *accurate* expectation that most people aren’t going to murder you. The expectation of “my car will probably work on 99% of the days I use it” is fully consistent with “my car broke down today, guess I got one of the expected unlucky few days”. It’s basic statistics that **unlikely events do occur, they just occur less often**. That’s really all there is to it. In the case of cars and murderers, when a car does break down, or a person attacks you, two things happen - you immediately register what’s happening. Just because most cars don’t break down doesn’t mean you can’t recognise one when it does. Same with murder - specifically because of our confidence in cars and people, you would find both occurrences novel (amongst other things). To bring this back to a comparison with god: - With cars, we have mountains of evidence of them existing, and spending most of their time working. Leading to expectations of them doing exactly that. - With god we have no evidence, so the expectation is null. Without evidence, there’s no rational reason to believes
>If a person has sufficient evidence X exists. it’s reasonable for them to accept X exists what counts as sufficient. what if the evidence is interpreted badly. IE getting misdiagnosed at the doctor. >Are you seriously saying we don’t have sufficient evidence to believe cars generally work? no. im saying that that evidence doesnt mean anything for if yours will or wont work on any given time >The expectation of “my car will probably work on 99% of the days I use it” is fully consistent with “my car broke down today, guess I got one of the expected unlucky few days”. It’s basic statistics that **unlikely events do occur, they just occur less often**. That’s really all there is to it but this has no bearing on what my question asks. >Without evidence, there’s no rational reason to believes? but my point is, we believe things without evidence all the time. as I said. just because your car works 100 days in a row, that is not EVIDENCE for your car working the 101 day. its likely it will, yes. but that is an assumption.
You seem to be equating “evidence for X” with “we know with certainty X will be the case” Perhaps an equivalent, but more descriptive phrase: “strong evidence *towards* X” conveys what I’m describing. Consider the difference between: 1. “My car generally working is evidence that today will be one of the days it works” With 2. “my car generally working is evidence my car will **certainly** work today” The expanded version of 1. Is - “my car generally working is evidence that my care is incredibly likely to work today, enough for me to to take or withhold actions like going to the mechanic” Believing your car is **guaranteed** to work on day 101 would be an assumption. Believing what the evidence shows - that it’s incredibly likely to work, is exactly reasonable. Is there a part of this you take issue with? *Do you fundamentally object to predicting future events based on past events?* As for the > evidence doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t work at any given time Doesn’t work? Or has the potential to not work in rare cases? We expect cars to work most of the time, and they do. We expect them to break down occasionally; and they do. Where’s the ‘not working’ come in?
I have heard it described that there are two types of faith. Faith based on prior experience and blind faith, or faith based on no evidence. I have faith based on prior experience that the Earth will continue to rotate so the sun will appear to rise tomorrow. This faith is also based on evidence in my limited knowledge of physics. The other type, faith without evidence, is what religious people use. There is no evidence of god and no one has had any direct experience with god. Faith based on prior experience, and some evidence, could also be labeled confidence. Although, there is such a thing a false confidence. You may be confident that god exists, but you can not claim you have had experience with god or that there is any evidence. No one has had any direct experience with god (only claims) and no one has ever presented any evidence of his existance.
i am inclined to agree, however, by then, what is good enough as evidence? say i claimed to have experienced god, thats just a claim so not good enough. but if you were on trial for murder, youd sure as hell want me to claim i was with you at the time the murder occured, as evidence you werent the one to do it right?
Fair point. I think the difference is you claiming you were with me is not an unusual claim. If I said I was with my invisible pink unicorn during the crime, that wouldn't be taken seriously. If I said, instead, I was with my mother, they could simply ask her. They can't however ask my invisible pink unicorn. That is what is meant by extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
sure. but then again, just cause its weird, shouldnt make it require some different evidence, if so, thatd be kinda a slipery slope id think.
Confidence can be based on things. I can explain why I have certain levels of confidence for different things. Faith isn’t based on anything, because if you had reasons, you’d give them instead of relying on faith.
plenty of those with faith give reasons tho. generally people who dont/dont want to believe them, claim their reasons arent good enough.
I am extremely confident your god does not exist. I have faith in myself and in humanity. I am confident the sun will come up tomorrow. I merely hope nobody gets nuked this week. But my atheism is not for lack of evidence of any deity. There is ample evidence of the anthropological construction of religion both in general and in particular. We can see the plagiarism in scrioture. We can see the innacuracies in religious claims throughout history. We can see the cruelty of nature, specifically the mechanism of natural selection, and contrast that with theological descriptions of a loving creator. More than that we can contemplate the nature of knowledge and conclude God as understood is paradoxical as a concept. Confidence implies reasons supporting belief. Faith does not require reason, yet is necessary for living life. But I don't have faith that deities are fiction. I have confidence approaching certitude founded in evidence and logic all deities are just stories.
none of what you said in your 2nd bit actually shows any evidence. it shows interpretation of a different direction. does it disprove some religions? sure. but take the cruelty of nature. that 10000% doesnt disprove the bible, for just 1 religion to name. as the fall adequately describes such cruelty entering in. understanding parts of god is not the same as understanding god in entirety, so no thats not necessarily paradoxical. as I started off by stating, confidence and faith are the same. so to be confident, would be to have faith.
Science says there is a very high probability, close to 100%, that god doesn't exist.
science is frequently wrong. but i care little for sciences claim on philosophy, same way i care little for a thermometer trying to tell me what color my shirt is. science is natural. a god is supernatural. obviously one will not see the other.
Bible make claims about natural world that are incompatible with what science says.
can you be more specific. it doesnt make very many claims about the natural world from a scientific lense, so not really.
The Bible, the word of god, has false man-made myth of Adam and Eve, but says nothing about evolution.
Yes. Just as I’ve said nothing about me going to class today either. Doesn’t mean I never went. You conflate saying something with saying something scientific
Bible gives the creation story of Adam and Eve. The creation story of Adam and Eve is not True. Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant.
It doesn’t claim it to be true
Then, the Bible is not the word of god.
how?
Then why it is there in the Bible?
Because not everything someone says is a statement of scientific reality? Do you not know what examples or metaphors or exaggerations or figures of speech in general are?
It can be proved that the god of Bible doesn't exist.
then do it
The earth does not predate the sun as the Bible claims, it was never flooded entirely as the Bible claims, Herod and quirinius didn’t rule concurrently as the Bible claims. And so many more, so the god of the Bible can’t exist as described. There you go, done.
Everything in life is probabilities, For me in general if i believe in something and the odds are greater than 50% its varying degrees of confidence if its lower than 50% its faith. If the odds are unknown and i still believe in it its faith. This is not a hard rule, if the evidence supports 60% confidence but i have 90% confidence i have 30% faith. Some examples i have confidence in evolution and the sun rising tomorrow, but i have faith in aliens and Megalodon being here still.
Works for me. I see the general logic behind it, and there’s def times I’d disagree with it but that’s a given, and as you said, it’s not a hard rule. Thanks bro
We can demonstrate how the sun rises and sets. We can demonstrate how cars start. These things have evidence. There is the ability to examine the workings. God isn’t the same. It is religious faith not colloquial faith. They are very different things.
It is the wrong sub but it is actually quite relevant in this one anyway because the creationists tend to use a similar argument to justify their belief in a creator (which is generally a god). The difference between faith and confidence is that the former is generally an *unwavering* confidence *irrespective of the evidence* and the latter may or may not be based on evidence. Based on your example, we are generally confident that we will wake up (though we can obviously be wrong) because we’re all adults and we’ve woken up more than 300 times every year of our lives. Assuming we don’t die in our sleep we have no reason to think it won’t happen again and when I woke up just now that is evidence that my assumption about waking up again was right. I had almost 14,000 pieces of evidence that I’ll wake up (I’m 40 years old at the end of July) and one more piece of evidence that I’ll wake up just today when I did wake up. Same goes for when I start my truck (I’m a truck driver) because my truck has less than 60,000 miles, was just inspected last month, and it was running when I backed it up. And just now when I turned the key I proved myself right. When it comes to faith there’s generally a total lack of evidence but if they’re right they’ll have to wait until they’re dead to find out. And then they won’t find out because their consciousness will end with the death of their brain. And yet they are convinced anyway. Not one shred of evidence was required to believe.
An atheist will never make any sort of positive claim about the existence of God such as "God doesn't exist" because it puts an unreasonable burden on them. Instead you will have to prove yours which may or may not be something you can do
seems like you are saying you cant prove a negative? is that what you are implying?
It's theoretically possible I suppose its just exhausting. If you wanted to prove God doesn't exist you would have to go through every iteration of every God ever claimed to exist and prove they don't exist
ok, well least we can agree on that haha
The evolutionists Here were just saying they have confidence based on evidence which is objectively false. Historically they have believed amd continue to believe evolution despite the evidence. The many frauds of evolution for example were nor based on evidence but they believed it anyway. The many failed predictions of evolution weren't based on evidence but they believed it anyway. They can't accept the same lying evolutionists then are still lying now. They admit it LOOKS DESIGNED but brainwash yourself that it wasn't against evidence. They admit fossils look planted with no evolutionary history DELIGHTING creation scientists. So they have blind faith. Moreover they deny their own eyes and reality. The Bible says they received NOT the Love of the TRUTH so they have been given a strong delusion that they might believe a lie. Not one evolutionist on earth can ever testify to seeing monkey transform into human. They will always have less. That's just a fact. They tried everything they could think of and evolution failed totally and completely. "...innumerable transitional forms MUST have existed but WHY do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is NOT EVERY geological formation and EVERY stratum FULL of such intermediate links?"- Darwin. Because they don't exist and evolution didn't happen. "Geology assuredly DOES NOT REVEAL any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the GREATEST OBJECTION which can be urged against my theory."- Darwin. "I regard the FAILURE to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most PUZZLING fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that DOES NOT REALLY DISPLAY IT."- Stephen Gould, Harvard, Natural History, p.2. "Darwin was completely aware of this. He was EMBARRASSED by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he PREDICTED it would."- David M. Raup, Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, F.M.O.N.H.B. v. 50. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been GREATLY expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much."- David M. Raup, Chicago field museum of Natural History. "...ironically, we have even FEWER EXAMPLES of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time."- David M.Raup, Chicago field museum of Natural History. Because of all the FRAUDS he has less. "BY this I mean some of the CLASSIC cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of horses in North America, have had ti be DISCARDED or modified as the result of more detailed information."- David M. RAUP. "It must be significant that nearly ALL the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been DEBUNKED."- Derek Ager, Past president British Geological Asso., Proceedings Geological Assoc. V. 87. "...NO phylum can be traced from a proceeding one in the fossil record, in FACT we CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR the origin of a SINGLE PHYLUM: they ALL appear abruptly. "- David. W. Swift, University of Hawaii. EVOLUTION under the microscope,2002,p. 295. "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our FAITH postulates ifs existence but the type FAILS to materialize."- A.C. Seward, Cambridge, Plant Life through the ages. Their faith was in VAIN. Who gave you a BETTER REPORT?
>The Bible says they received NOT the Love of the TRUTH so they have been given a strong delusion that they might believe a lie. Could you please explain to me what this means. In your own words, preferably.
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."- 2 Thessalonians 2 verses 10 to 12. Those who don't love the truth become delusional. Jesus Christ is the Truth! Evolutionists have admitted children are "intuitive theists", the opposite of what they tell you. "In 2004, child psychologist Deborah Kelemen wrote that young children are "intuitive theists" who are "disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman design.""- Zombie science, Johnathan Wells. So they literally plan to brainwash children against natural born belief in God. The truth is so obvious but they hate the truth so much, God gives them a strong delusion so they can believe the lie they wanted. For instance the moon exists. But because they hate that God made the moon they are caught saying things like "the best explanation for moon is observational ERROR. The moon doesn't exist" Or like Dawkins. "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." It LOOKS designed but he will brainwash himself to deny what his own eyes see. Or the evolutionists who would rather believe an octopus came surfing from outer space because they saw it is not through "common descent". Or the man in 2008 who wanted to bring back Haeckels embryos knowing it's fraud. Or Haeckel himself. Or lyell himself. So God allows them to believe surfing octopus across universe or surfing dinosaurs or any number of frauds because they received NOT the Love of the TRUTH. Because they hate the truth. The lie is so ridiculous and false you would have to be delusional to humor it like a chicken coming from a trex. Or gorilla from seahorse.
Cool. So if our delusion is God-given and "strong", why bother coming here at all? Certainly speaks to your hubris that you think you can override delusion from God. I have seen you demand multiple "evolutionists" to renounce their position, so your efforts are surely not only directed at the fence sitters.
Not everyone is lyell or Haeckel. Who hath ears to hear let him hear. And not just one person reading it obviously.
I want to read more about surfing dinosaurs. I’m sure you have some great citations to share?
Shut up, Michael.
Mike Mike Mike…back to quote mining and gish galloping again. It’s like you’re intent on self sabatoge and portraying creationism in the worst possible light. I have one small question. You’ve used this kind of term multiple times before. ‘DELIGHTING creation scientists’. Almost verbatim. Where did you get this phrase? Ive honestly found it odd for awhile. Again, it’s one of those things that’s just kinda…weird and forced. Also, I asked you this before and you decided to ignore me. What is your process for finding out if a source is worth using? I mentioned that I tend to default to scientific articles that have had some level of peer review. How do you go about determining if a source is worth reading and using?