Defending Belief in God

[Working Poor]

Beliefs are very powerful thought forms. What you believe you preceive. Beliefs create. As one thinks one becomes. It is really very simple. My belief in God puts God in everything to me.

I can see why someone who beliees in God would want to influence others to believe the same thing.

To do this the best way is to just live a life that others wish to emulate. Then they will believe your actions more than your words.

 

[reillym]

Hello hazek. I know you meant this for Nate, but I'll bite. What extrinsic evidence can bolster a belief in Christianity? Well one thing I have to point out first. As the saying goes "The same sun that melts butter, hardens clay". The point is that the same evidence that the believer finds compelling, only gives the skeptic more reason for doubt. Remember the thread about Julian Assange's accounts being frozen and how I pointed out this actually fits into Bible prophecy? Remember how that caused you to wrongly assume I had not seen Zeitgeist and that if I had only seen this "wonderful evidence" that I "my eyes would be opened"? Remember how I went on to debunk Zeitgeist, but Dannno defended it despite what was, in my opinion, absolute evidence that ZG was a total fraud? My point is, that at the end of the day people are still going to believe what they are going to believe.

That said, here's some of my extrinsic evidence that the Bible, and by extension belief in God, is at the very least a logical possibility. I don't expect this to convert you or anyone else. But if you are being intellectually honest, you should see why belief in the Bible

HAHAHHAHHAA. So.... you and the bible can't be proven wrong,... because the bible says so?

Proof, is what we are looking for. Not this: "Here's evidence, and if you prove it wrong, the bible is right anyways."

Go back to school and learn how to argue. There is no scientific proof of a creator.

 

[nate895]

There is no scientific proof of a creator.

What do you consider "scientific proof," and why does there have to be such proof?

 

[low preference guy]

There is no scientific proof of a creator.

duh. how can there be if there is no creator?

 

[jmdrake]

HAHAHHAHHAA. So.... you and the bible can't be proven wrong,... because the bible says so?

*sigh* I see reading isn't your strong point. I never said the Bible couldn't be proven wrong. I said there was extrinsic evidence (as in evidence outside the Bible and outside the mind of the believer) that supports the proposition that the Bible is true.

Proof, is what we are looking for. Not this: "Here's evidence, and if you prove it wrong, the bible is right anyways."

1) Straw man argument. I never claimed to be offering "proof". And hazek wasn't asking for absolute "proof". He asked to explain how one would differentiate between a complete fairy tale and the Bible. I gave him a method. Take one of the bits of evidence I gave for instance, archeology. Has any archeological find shown the possible location of Rapunzel's tower for example?

2) Who is "we"? Do you know speak for hazek? I disagree with him, but he is interested in civil conversation. You are not. And he didn't ask for "proof".

Go back to school and learn how to argue. There is no scientific proof of a creator.

Go back to school and learn how to read. You are being dishonest both about hazek's answer and my response. He didn't ask for proof and I didn't offer it. He asked for a method of differentiating between Mother Goose fairy tales and the Bible. And I gave him a method. It's called using extrinsic evidence. And yes some of the evidence that supports the Bible is scientific.

 

[Bman]

What do you consider "scientific proof,"

This should give a good overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

and why does there have to be such proof?

I wouldn't say there has to be, but I think the problem comes when people say crap like the Universe and/or Earth is only 10,000 or less years old. At such a point ones notion on what they believe to be God becomes silly.

 

[jmdrake]

duh. how there can be if there is no creator?

"How there can be"? Where is MellissaW when you need her?

Anyway that's more circular reasoning coupled to reillym's straw man argument. Hazek asked for a method to differentiate fairy tales from the Bible. I gave him a method. Aspects of the Bible can be shown to be true from evidence outside the Bible and outside the mind of the believer. Just because the evidence exists doesn't mean you have to accept the conclusion. I made that clear.

 

[jmdrake]

This should give a good overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method



I wouldn't say there has to be, but I think the problem comes when people say crap like the Universe and/or Earth is only 10,000 or less years old. At such a point ones notion on what they believe to be God becomes silly.

I don't know of anyone that dates the universe to be the same age as the earth. As for the age of the earth itself, science used the age in needed to be to fit the theory of evolution and went from their instead of figuring out the age based on observation and fitting their theories of origin based on that. But that's really non sequitor. ReillyM has succeeded in getting you off track. My point was never to "prove" that everything in the Bible is 100% correct. Rather it was to show how someone can differentiate between the Bible and a fairy tale. I've shown that. The fact that the other side now has to resort to straw men to avoid dealing with the point I made is quite telling.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There is no scientific proof of a creator.

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

If you think there is such a thing as "scientific proof", lets you and me have a discussion about it right now in front of everybody.

 

[YumYum]

Dr. Theobald agrees.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

 

[Sola_Fide]

Dr. Theobald agrees.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Great article YumYum. It always amuses me when kids come here and make these grand philosophical statements about "proof" and "truth" yet they have never even read a Popper book or Structure Of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. Hahahaha...wow....it never ceases to amaze.

Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only been inferred via indirect observation.

Of course, and I would go further than the article does and completely discount observation as a valid way of knowing altogether. The scientific method is formally fallacious. It commits the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

1. If p, then q
2. Q
3. Therefore, p

It is formally fallacious because it could be the case that x, y, or z is a sufficient condition for q, but p was asserted arbitrarily.

Science is also neccessarily inductive, and therefore fallacious. Universal propositions cannot ever be obtained from observation.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bump.

Any takers?

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Of course, and I would go further than the article does and completely discount observation as a valid way of knowing altogether. The scientific method is formally fallacious. It commits the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

1. If p, then q
2. Q
3. Therefore, p

It is formally fallacious because it could be the case that x, y, or z is a sufficient condition for q, but p was asserted arbitrarily.

Science is also necessarily inductive, and therefore fallacious. Universal propositions cannot ever be obtained from observation.

I would just like to support your assessment by saying that atheistic philosophers David Hume and Bertrand Russell agree with you in regard to their skepticism of induction.

Here is where Greg Bahnsen questions Gordon Stein on Hume’s views;

The validity of Scientific Laws were undermined by Hume when he contended that we have no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past - to be the types of events (so that when one event happened, it's a type of event so that when you see it happening somewhere else) you can expect the same consequence from similar causation. Hume suggested that there was no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past, in which case Science is based simply on convention or habits of thought. Do you agree with him?

Which is to say, without a Christian metaphysic, we have no rational basis for practicing science, and he is right.

Sorry I don’t have direct quotes from Hume but Bertrand Russell says basically the same thing that Hume asserted in these quotes;

The problem we have to discuss is whether there is any reason for believing in what is called 'the uniformity of nature'. The belief in the uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions…

This brings us back to the question: Have we any reason, assuming that they have always held in the past, to suppose that they will hold in the future?

It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures, but not of future futures, and the question is: Will future futures resemble past futures? This question is not to be answered by an argument which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past…

The reference to the future in this question is not essential. The same question arises when we apply the laws that work in our experience to past things of which we have no experience -- as, for example, in geology, or in theories as to the origin of the Solar system. The question we really have to ask is: 'When two things have been found to be often associated, and no instance is known of the one occurring without the other, does the occurrence of one of the two, in a fresh instance, give any good ground for expecting the other?' On our answer to this question must depend the validity of the whole of our expectations as to the future, the whole of the results obtained by induction, and in fact practically all the beliefs upon which our daily life is based.

And now here’s the clincher, Russell continues;

The inductive principle, however, is equally incapable of being proved by an appeal to experience. Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future. If the principle is unsound, we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow, to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone, or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall. When we see what looks like our best friend approaching us, we shall have no reason to suppose that his body is not inhabited by the mind of our worst enemy or of some total stranger. All our conduct is based upon associations which have worked in the past, and which we therefore regard as likely to work in the future; and this likelihood is dependent for its validity upon the inductive principle.

When Russell says we must accept the inductive principle on the ground of its “intrinsic evidence” he is basically admitting that you must resort to the fallacy of circular reasoning in order to justify the inductive principle.

Of course, as a Christian, I have sufficient reason to trust in the inductive principle given my world and life view of a omniscient creator that has ordered thing to behave in law-like fashion and has told us such.

 

[Sola_Fide]

PaulineDisciple,

Yes, and just by way of clarification, Clark would differ from Van Til by saying that Christianity does not provide a basis for induction, but rather induction is never valid...ever. Universal propositions can never be obtained from observation.

Clark differed with Van Til in a few different areas.

1. Clark showed that the idea of there being paradoxes within the Christian worldview was detrimental to the clear presentation in Scripture of God as logic. (In fact, you will see theological liberals cling to paradoxes as essential). Clark argued that Christianity was a completely logical system without even apparent paradoxes, with which Van Til disagreed.

2. Van Til still left an area of autonomy to the mind of man by claiming that fallacious reasoning like induction or sense experience could somehow be rescued when Christianity is made the precondition. Clark simply applied the soveriegnty of God over the mind of man (I think a more consistent Calvinism) by showing that empricism is not logically sound and God is the only cause, for anything, including thought itself.

Check out www.vincentcheung.com

Vincent has some free books and free debates that I think simply destroy atheistic arguments. Make them look silly. The benefit of this apologetic is that the Christian never again has to be on the defensive...he can simply show the glaring irrationality of sense experience as an epistemology and disarm the unbeliever at the outset of any confrontation.

Here is Vincent Cheung just basically having fun in a debate showing the utter irrationality of atheism: http://www.vincentcheung.com/files/html/sansone-cheung.htm


Google the "Clark/Van Til controversy" to learn more about it. Monergism used to have a good article up about it...

 

[reillym]

*sigh* I see reading isn't your strong point. I never said the Bible couldn't be proven wrong. I said there was extrinsic evidence (as in evidence outside the Bible and outside the mind of the believer) that supports the proposition that the Bible is true.


1) Straw man argument. I never claimed to be offering "proof". And hazek wasn't asking for absolute "proof". He asked to explain how one would differentiate between a complete fairy tale and the Bible. I gave him a method. Take one of the bits of evidence I gave for instance, archeology. Has any archeological find shown the possible location of Rapunzel's tower for example?

2) Who is "we"? Do you know speak for hazek? I disagree with him, but he is interested in civil conversation. You are not. And he didn't ask for "proof".



Go back to school and learn how to read. You are being dishonest both about hazek's answer and my response. He didn't ask for proof and I didn't offer it. He asked for a method of differentiating between Mother Goose fairy tales and the Bible. And I gave him a method. It's called using extrinsic evidence. And yes some of the evidence that supports the Bible is scientific.

siiighhh..

Just because some things in the bible are true (the caves you mentioned, for example) doesn't equate an existence of god, as you say here: "That said, here's some of my extrinsic evidence that the Bible, and by extension belief in God, is at the very least a logical possibility. I don't expect this to convert you or anyone else. But if you are being intellectually honest, you should see why belief in the Bible is rational and different than belief in fairy tails[1]."

The bible is a historical document; if it didn't contain at least *some* correct historical evidence, then something is wrong.

There is no difference between fairy tales and god. You have yet to present evidence for this argument. Why? Because the story of god, is by definition, a children's fairy tale.


Also, your third argument... "science" is hilarious. The bible says not to eat animal fat...so god is real!

 

[hazek]

jmdrake you are right about what I asked, but your answer to my question is flawed which is what reillym correctly pointed out as did I try to already explain to you in the other thread.

There is no difference between the stories in The Bible and any other childrens book with fairy tales. None what so ever. It's your choice to have faith in what The Bible says or any religious book for that matter that makes it real in your reality just like it's a child choice to believe in Santa that makes it real in his reality until of course he grows up and catches his parents buying the presents he wishes.


But the debate around whether or not your reality is the real one is irrelevant because I think in this day and age of information it's getting harder and harder to fool people with a religion. And as people get more and more educated about how our mind works, how it can produce something into our reality based only on a belief it being true eventually every person on the planet is going to stop believing in these fairy tales.

Of course a catastrophic event which would stop this information stream could reverse that trend but I really hope that doesn't happen.

 

[YumYum]

jmdrake you are right about what I asked, but your answer to my question is flawed which is what reillym correctly pointed out as did I try to already explain to you in the other thread.

There is no difference between the stories in The Bible and any other childrens book with fairy tales. None what so ever. It's your choice to have faith in what The Bible says or any religious book for that matter that makes it real in your reality just like it's a child choice to believe in Santa that makes it real in his reality until of course he grows up and catches his parents buying the presents he wishes.


But the debate around whether or not your reality is the real one is irrelevant because I think in this day and age of information it's getting harder and harder to fool people with a religion. And as people get more and more educated about how our mind works, how it can produce something into our reality based only on a belief it being true eventually every person on the planet is going to stop believing in these fairy tales.

Of course a catastrophic event which would stop this information stream could reverse that trend but I really hope that doesn't happen.

There is a difference between spirituality and religion. How come you won't go to Jesus in prayer?

 

[jmdrake]

jmdrake you are right about what I asked, but your answer to my question is flawed which is what reillym correctly pointed out as did I try to already explain to you in the other thread.

Translation: I (hazek) know I'm wrong so I'll just withdraw my initial question and go with whatever insults reillym slings which he pretends are honest debate.

There is no difference between the stories in The Bible and any other childrens book with fairy tales. None what so ever. It's your choice to have faith in what The Bible says or any religious book for that matter that makes it real in your reality just like it's a child choice to believe in Santa that makes it real in his reality until of course he grows up and catches his parents buying the presents he wishes.

Sure there is. Fairy tale books in general cannot be used as a guide for archeology. The Bible can be. Fairy tale books don't make accurate predictions. The Bible does. Fairy tale books in general don't lay down principles of science and health that later are proven to be true. The Bible does. You can choose not to believe that all you want, but you aren't really fooling anyone but yourself.

Of course a catastrophic event which would stop this information stream could reverse that trend but I really hope that doesn't happen.

Should that happen people would have to figure out again on their own that animal fat wasn't good for you or that certain archeological sites actually did exist or that you really shouldn't have open sewage running through your campsite. Sure that seems like "common sense" to everyone now. But for a while it wasn't...even though the information was right there in the Bible.

 

[jmdrake]

There is a difference between spirituality and religion. How come you won't go to Jesus in prayer?

1 Cor 2:14

 

[YumYum]

1 Cor 2:14

Good scripture, John. Sometimes Paul gets it right. Are there any other scriptures that teach that it is between me and Jesus? I think this is a very critical point the atheists need to see.