Chris (from Oz) said...
Why do we need to account for evidence's utility and existance (sic) ?
Just stop a second and listen to yourself. Why do you need to account for its *existence*? Are you looking for explanations or not? Interested in truth or not?
Tell you what, though...
Why do we need to account for Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead?
Answer me that and you may have your own answer.
There are many mysteries. Why can't this be one ?
This sure seems to me a convenient escape hatch. You come in here all sure that you can just throw around "prove it!"s about MY position, and you have less than no evidence for your own position. Typical atheist move, actually.
Prove that evidence's utility and existance (sic) must be accounted for.
It is apparently a fruitless exercise for someone with such a powerful faith as yours. You put the greatest faith-healer to shame with your blind confidence in the power of your convictions. It's a bit embarrassing.
Atheists, gather 'round - this guy is no friend of your position either.
A theistic God is certainly not the only explanation for evidence. And doubtful it's the best.
How could you possibly know that, since you were, one sentence ago, strongly questioning whether evidence even needs to be accounted for. You need to figure out WHETHER it needs to be accounted for before we can deal with this question.
Using logic and reason, which we both agree is useful.
I don't agree that they are useful on atheism, no. I'm waiting for your argument.
6 comments:
Just stop a second and listen to yourself. Why do you need to account for its *existence*? Are you looking for explanations or not? Interested in truth or not?
I'm absolutely interested in explanations and truth. It seems that there isn't an explanation for evidence's utility which doesn't use evidence though. It appears that's the truth of the matter.
Why do we need to account for Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead?
Answer me that and you may have your own answer.
You're comparing a principle with an event ? I don't get it.
This sure seems to me a convenient escape hatch. You come in here all sure that you can just throw around "prove it!"s about MY position, and you have less than no evidence for your own position.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence, remember ? But you don't like using evidence to prove evidence is good.
Typical atheist move, actually.
You're the one who thinks there's proof enough to believe in God. I don't. Prove your claim.
I'm not claiming to be able to prove there isn't a god.
Prove that evidence's utility and existance (sic) must be accounted for.
It is apparently a fruitless exercise for someone with such a powerful faith as yours. You put the greatest faith-healer to shame with your blind confidence in the power of your convictions. It's a bit embarrassing.
Atheists, gather 'round - this guy is no friend of your position either.
That's a lot of pointless words to say that you have no proof in one of the main foundations of your position.
A theistic God is certainly not the only explanation for evidence. And doubtful it's the best.
How could you possibly know that, since you were, one sentence ago, strongly questioning whether evidence even needs to be accounted for. You need to figure out WHETHER it needs to be accounted for before we can deal with this question.
I'm questioning whether it can be accounted for in a non-circular way. It doesn't change the fact that evidence is the best way to understand reality. It seems that you're trying to divert away from the fact that one of the foundations of your position is unprovable.
Hi, I don't mean to change the subject but I found this site looking for apologetics information on the movie Zeitgeist and I've een reading your stuff. You strike me as a wise and sincere believer and I need help.
A lot of people I know have sent me to Zeitgeist telling me that it debunks Christinaity. Well, I watched the film and I find it very compelling. I can't say that I've lost my faith, but I wish I knew how to even engage the issues brought up in the film with my friends.
I'm not asking for some snappy quick answers that I can copy and paste to email my friends and family, but if you would be willing to demonstrate where the film gets it wrong or point me to some good resources, I would be in your debt.
I just don't know how to even go about it.
J. - I'll see if I can watch it... I've never heard of it before, but I have time to listen (if not watch closely) to stuff like this, so maybe I can come up with some stuff.
I'm always looking for blog material anyway (I'm not the most original or creative person I've ever known, that's for sure!) so maybe this will be really good for me too!
Hoping this is the right one.
BTW, want to email me? See my email addy in my profile.
It seems that there isn't an explanation for evidence's utility which doesn't use evidence though.
So you have to take it solely on faith.
Besides, there is just such an explanation - TGOTB exists and has created the world in such a way that evidence is a good way to discover truth. What's wrong with that, seriously?
You're comparing a principle with an event ? I don't get it.
You're telling me that you can take this principle w/o evidence and it's reasonable to believe. I simply want to extend that to other things, as opposed to limiting its application artificially.
there's plenty of evidence, remember ?
There is? Evidence is not composed of naked appeals to authority, you know. If you can't show me a reasonable basis for evidence on your view, what evidence for your view could you then bring forth to support your view?
You're the one who thinks there's proof enough to believe in God. I don't. Prove your claim.
The fact that you are spinning in circles and can't justify the existence or utility of evidence is a good start.
I'm questioning whether it can be accounted for in a non-circular way. It doesn't change the fact that evidence is the best way to understand reality.
Which you can't know, since you don't have evidence for it.
And which is a complete question beg.
one of the foundations of your position is unprovable.
Let's say I grant that, for the sake of argument.
Now our positions have that in common!
It seems that there isn't an explanation for evidence's utility which doesn't use evidence though.
So you have to take it solely on faith.
Or the fact that it is reasonable, and has been demonstrated to work.
Besides, there is just such an explanation - TGOTB exists and has created the world in such a way that evidence is a good way to discover truth. What's wrong with that, seriously?
Seriously ????
Well, because there's no good reason to believe it's true. And because that causes more questions.
Evidence is not composed of naked appeals to authority, you know. If you can't show me a reasonable basis for evidence on your view, what evidence for your view could you then bring forth to support your view?
We've been over this. Evidence can be used to prove evidence. And we can see it works. It's not fully satisfying, but it's better than your God hypothesis. I'm done with going over the same ground with you. I'd go onto attacking your God, but the links you sent me regarding your position are long and boring. So I think this is the point where we part ways again. I'll enter the fray again if you post a shorter "proof of God".
one of the foundations of your position is unprovable.
Let's say I grant that, for the sake of argument.
Now our positions have that in common!
Yes, that's my point. I've never claimed absolute certainly God doesn't exist. Just there's no good reason to believe he does. I've never claimed that I knew everything and could prove it. Whereas you project a certainty about the existance of your God, and his characteristics, and that's what I am challenging.
Or the fact that it is reasonable, and has been demonstrated to work.
Not so fast. We're back to asking you for evidence that it has been demonstrated to work. That's square one, and you're going to get caught back in the infinite regress. I try to help you get out of it, and you just jump right back in! Kind of ungrateful on your part. ;-)
because there's no good reason to believe it's true
There are plenty of good reasons to believe it's true. One of them is that believing it enables us to think that evidence is a good way to discover truth.
Evidence can be used to prove evidence.
No it can't. And we have indeed been over this. What is it about "infinite regress" that you don't understand?
I'm done with going over the same ground with you.
Apparently you aren't.
Whereas you project a certainty about the existance of your God, and his characteristics, and that's what I am challenging.
B/c I, unlike you, have a foundation and a good reason (one that actually does some justifying) to believe that the way I live my life, that is, largely according to the idea that evidence is a good way to discover truth, actually makes sense.
Post a Comment