R
Let's talk about god
- Thread starter Karaka
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It depends on the sort of question being asked. Some questions are not scientific sorts of questions - they can't be tested against alternative hypotheses, analyzed with statistical methods, or replicated in a laboratory environment. So it really depends on what's being asked.
If you accept that knowledge or truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing, as it seems you do, then how do you test the hypothesis that "knowledge and truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing?"
There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, setting up repeatable experiments with control groups and variable groups, and evaluating results using statistical methods compared against some alternative hypothesis. This rigorous method is probably to be preferred if it's sensible to use for a particular question. But any hypothesis testing begins with sets of assumptions, rules and theorems in order to even be able to use this method. Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system. So there appears to be some things that can be known to be true that aren't subject to hypothesis testing.
I take this as a rhetorical question where you indicate you believe that you believe true statements can only be evaluated as true by the existence of sufficient evidence. If so, how do you know it's true that truth can only be evaluated by such a method?
Out of curiosity, how did you come to believe hypothesis testing leads to knowledge? Did you evaluate some set of people to be experts and believe what they told you (in places like school) or did you personally discover and derive the axioms and rules of scientific methodology, statistics, math, etc.. and verify the truth of those things on your own?
Surely like me, you learned these things by believing what the majority of some set of people told you.
The problem is that there is nothing necessarily wrong about believing what the majority of some set of people tell you is true - to think such a thing is a genetic fallacy. Just as the majority of what some set of people say doesn't make it true, nor does it make it false. It has no necessary bearing on it's reliability or unreliability. We ALL believe lots of things based on nothing other than they're something we learned from other people. In fact, nature seems to function this way to some degree - we learn from our parents and surrounding community so that we can function properly as adults. A natural assumption is to believe what people we evaluate to be experts tell us.
I think you should try, and begin with a few of your assumptions that seem to fall victim to self referencing sorts of problems.
I would simply suggest familiarizing yourself with the content in the Bible, getting your hands on some Biblical Archaeology books and Apologetics books, and reading the Bible critically. Look up the dates to the prophecies. Read the objections to those dates, read the counter-objections to those dates, etc. And I'd like to leave you with an example of what I mean by critical reading:
Acts 21:32-38 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. When Paul reached the steps, the violence of the mob was so great he had to be carried by the soldiers. The crowd that followed kept shouting, "Get rid of him!" As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?" "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?"
When I read this I see two things:
1. The passing mention of the Egyptian leader of the terrorists is mentioned by Josephus as an Egyptian false prophet who led 30,000 terrorists into the desert. Josephus, through a misreading of a Greek capital letter, reported the number as 30,000 instead of 4,000 (Archaeological Study Bible, Ayayo, et. al, p. 1818). So what this means is that Josephus likely drew upon a Greek source when he wrote about this Egyptian.
2. Why did the commander think that Paul was this Egyptian? There is no explanation provided in the text, so we must infer one. First off, it's important to know that one of the ways we support the authenticity of a text is by examining whether or not its content is mundane and lacks an agenda that might otherwise influence the author to present facts in a biased way. The text above in Acts records a brief, mundane connection of Paul with the Egyptian outlaw leader (a historical figure) without any background to support this connection. That is, the connection is assumed to be negligible and not important enough to the agenda of the text to warrant explanation, and is therefore not likely to be fabricated. What's more, if we go out of our way to search the text for an explanation, we can find a potential one in Acts 21:34, which has the commander asking the crowd what Paul had done and includes the crowd's response to the commander's question: "Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks." This fits in well with verses 28-29 where there are some false accusations leveled against Paul when the Jews first see him. I propose that one of the accusations of the crowd about who Paul was is that he was the Egyptian outlaw leader. This would explain the commander's question to Paul.
So if this single connection of Paul with the Egyptian is not fabricated (and I think there is a substantial argument in favor of its authenticity), then the events leading up to his connection with the Egyptian are not likely to be fabricated either. And what got Paul into this mess to begin with? He was a preacher - specifically of The Way (i.e. Christianity). The skeptic must then ask, "Why did a historical figure such as Paul preach what he did to the point of persecution?"
.
.
[video=youtube;r6w5szlpedY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w5szlpedY[/video]
I once was blind but now I see, we get it... if anything you have proved us right, we called it
pride from the get go and you have shown yourself to have no less pride than any other
non-believer, thinking your studies and papers can magically erase our first hand experience
LOL. You listen to people with no empirical evidence over those who have experience, that
is plain confirmation bias and lack of logic right there. Go in peace
If you want to know the
Truth, ask Him! Seek and you shall find. Pray, on your knees, daily, sincerely. God bless you!
.
[video=youtube;r6w5szlpedY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w5szlpedY[/video]
I don't think anyone has misrepresented you, we understand your position quite well, after all,
I once was blind but now I see, we get it... if anything you have proved us right, we called it
pride from the get go and you have shown yourself to have no less pride than any other
non-believer, thinking your studies and papers can magically erase our first hand experience
LOL. You listen to people with no empirical evidence over those who have experience, that
is plain confirmation bias and lack of logic right there. Go in peace
If you want to know the Truth, ask Him! Seek and you shall find. Pray, on your knees, daily, sincerely. God bless you!
Regarding the first question, 1 Peter 3:19-20 is a passage in the Bible that seems to convey the message that after Jesus died and was resurrected (and his body became transmuted into a spiritual body) he preached to the spirits "in prison". I take this preaching to mean that he preached the Gospel, because of the surrounding context in which the passage appears. It's an odd verse in the Bible and leaves us much to contemplate. The most obvious is whether or not the dead, who have died outside of Christ, will hear or have heard the Gospel message.
Your second question seems less about truth and more about our version of morality. People have had different versions of morality throughout history. How is your human version of morality superior to God's when humans can't even agree on what constitutes a superior code of morality?
And I don't really hold to the popular view of hell. I think there are varying punishments for varying levels of sin just as there are varying gifts for varying levels of good. I believe that most who die without accepting or hearing the Gospel message will be judged according to their sins and after receiving their punishment will cease to exist. Those who have heard and accepted the Gospel will be judged according to their good deeds. But I think it's important to understand that from a Christian's perspective, humans really don't deserve life. And that's not a harsh thing to say, because we haven't done anything before we were born to deserve being born and given life. I hope that makes sense. And I hope you see that if there is a God who has given us life, he also has the right to take that life away regardless of the reason. From a philosophical perspective, life is a gift. It can't be earned, and it's not deserved. (Human society just can't take that approach to human life, because in most cases we don't have a right to take another's life. We'd need a darn good reason to do so.)
But doesn't this make him somewhat responsible for his Creation's choices since he created them? That depends on your view of free will. If humans have no free will and cannot be held responsible for their actions, then there's no reason that God should have free will either. The Biblical God is portrayed as giving humans free will. But if free will doesn't exist, then God doesn't have free will and he never gave us free will. So why blame him for our actions or for his? Either we have free will and are responsible for our actions or God is neither responsible for our actions nor for his.
Your third question is probably based on some faulty atheistic propaganda. Hitler was not a Christian in his later life. His closest staff were well aware of this and one even acknowledged that he was not a Christian but rather a theist of indeterminate beliefs. Hence the Nazi party's support of neo-paganism. For more on his religious beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
It's my personal belief that Hitler, when speaking of God, used rhetoric that appealed to Christians/Catholics because they made up the bulk of Germany's population and he needed their support. So like a good politician, he gave God lip service in public while working solely for his own ideals when the Christians' backs were turned. I don't think it's a stretch, given the amount of evidence and the logic behind it. Even Alexander the Great adopted Persian dress and customs after conquering the Persians to show his support for his new citizens and to unify his empire. It's just the language of politics. Don't be deceived by it. The whole "Jews are evil, because they crucified Jesus"? Why then ally with the Italians whose ancestors were the instruments of Jesus' death? And what did the Gypsies have to do with Jesus? I simply think he used emotional rhetoric to fire up the religious masses and get them to work toward his dream of a genetically superior race, Jews and Gypsies being those he viewed as unworthy of living. Don't ask me why. Racism doesn't make a lot of sense.
P
pottersclay
Guest
Karaka.. I will address your reply to me tomorrow Lord willing ..had a late day need sleep....if by chance the Lord returns the directions are in the bible on where you can reach me..lol.....had to do it
Another big batch of stuff to answer, man, we'll need to publish this as a book... hopefully you are not put off by the bulk of it.
I'm sorry bikerbaz thinks this is useless, I would like to know what he thinks of what I say today. I am also wondering if he feels threatened by all this and why he considers me the enemy. In which case I appologise, this is not my intent.
So let's go into it and please forgive me for almost losing my temper the other night, there are so many things being thrown at me, I find it slightly overwhelming. There are also some contradiction in what each of you is saying, you apparently do not all agree with each other... I feel like I'm playing chess with a dozen opponents at the same time. And it is none of your concern but I also have a life which keeps me busy... anyway, here goes, please do not hold back your punches :
Miri says :
« You know what, it sounds that instead of trying to convince yourself God does
exist, you are trying to convince yourself God doesn't exist. »
That's right, glad you realized it, thanks for the compliment... what I don't get is why you think I should be doing anything different. The way you find out if something is probably true, like in science for example, is that you take an hypothesis, «evolution by natural selection produces new species» for example, and you try to test it. If after an honnest attempt at disproving your hypothesis it still seems like a possibility, then that hypothesis stands a chance to be true.
It is easier to instead attempt to confirm an hypothesis, (the way which you seem to favor), but unfortunately that doesn't help you find out if it is true or not. The classic illustration is the white swan hypothesis. It goes: All swans are white.
What do you do to find out if it is true? You look for white swans? You could do that and find quite a few, but will that tell you if all swans are white? No, you would have to check every single swan and that is impossible, you could never know if you missed one. To find out how probable it is that all swans are white, you need to do your utmost to find a NON white swan. If you can't, then you can accept that very probably, all swans are white. But if one day you spot a black swan, then your hypothesis is disproved and you can formulate a theory that says a minority of swans are black. You can never be sure your theory is correct but you can raise the level of probability it is by trying to convince yourself it is incorrect. That's how science works. That's how you find out if something is likely to be true or not. It is all a matter of how probable or improbable it is. That's the best we, as humans, can do.
If you ask me how probable it is that the sun rises in the East tomorrow, I'd say 99.99999999 %. That's how confident I am in the theory that the sun always rises in the east. But I wouldn't say 100% because, well, what do I know? I can imagine a scenario where the Sun doesn't rise tomorrow and so it is a possibility. I need to account for it. We test that theory every morning. And guess what, even if I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn't mean it will for sure.
Are you trying to imply you do not agree with this and that you do not do this when you try to find if something is true? If so, wow.
So if I want to know if God exists, or if evolution is true, or if my girlfriend is cheating on me, or if my mum is delusional, or if the computer I want to buy is a good one for me, I apply this method, because that is the best one we have. It has been refined over the ages and what works has been kept and what hasn't has been discarded and now we have hypothesis testing and nothing seems to beat it to find out if something is likely to be true or not.
And you'll have to take note that I'm not testing atheism here, we're talking about God so atheism being an abscence of belief in God, I have nothing to test since I'm not saying «God doesn't exists», that's not my position, the only thing I can test is the affirmative, whether god exists or not, because you say he does. So it is legitimate to put the god hypothesis to the question, not atheism.
Another important point about the scientific method to find if something is true or not, is that your hypothesis needs to be failible, meaning that is is conceivably disprovable. Otherwise you can't find out if it is true or not because you have nothing to look for that would repudiate your hypothesis, you cannot test it and go on to form a theory upon the results.
A classic example from Bertrand Russel is the tea pot hypothesis.
It goes: there is an invisible teapot orbiting the moon.
How can we find out if it is true? Difficult? No, damn near impossible. That hypothesis is not failible so we can't test it. For all we know, there is an actual invisible teapot orbiting the moon. Seems utterly improbable, granted, but if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit we don't know for sure how probable or improbable it is and we have no way to tell. So when we form hypothesis with the intent of finding if they are likely to be true or not, for them to be useful, we need to make sure they are failible. That's how we determine what's worth investigating. Anybody can make any wild claim like the teapot, but if they are not testable, then their are just wild claims and will never be confirmed or refuted. Maybe Russell has faith in his teapot, but we can safely ignore the whole thing. I think we would agree on that.
This brings me to a question for you:
Is our hypothesis that God exists failible? What could prove it wrong? How can we test it?
If we cannot answer that, then our hypothesis is not testable, and so how can we determine whether it is true or not without being merely believing or guessing? What distinguish it from any wild claim? What distinguish it from Russell's teapot?
So since you are the once convinced God exists and I'm at a loss, please let me know how you test the God hypothesis and how it could be shown to be wrong.
Miri also says:
Come on, admit it, part of you is worried He does exist and you are trying to
find a way around that in your own mind.
B1Davanda said the same thing, that's funny because that's not true at all. You guys just don't have a clue. I'm actually excited by the possibility God exists, I mean, good news, right, eternity in heaven sounds more fun than nothingness in the grave. A loving God instead of a purposeless universe? Give me the loving God any day! But the fact that I feel that way about it means I need to be extra careful about confirmation bias when trying to find out if it is true. I can be too easily mislead. As it is, I'm just not convinced and I do my best to find out if he exists or not. I don't want to merely believe, I want to find out if he exists for real. If God exists and gave me a brain, I would imagine he'd want me to use it for that very purpose.
You know what? Same with UFOs for me. I don't think they visit earth in flying saucers and kidnap people, but man, do I wish it were so! But my integrity will not let me beleive in UFOs without proper evidence and evidence is lacking despite what believers say. To me there is very little doubt, say 99% probablity, that the UFO believers are delusional.
Now as regard to God, I'll say I'm on the 25% probability mark, agnostic with atheistic tendencies, remember? Don't know one way or another but think most probably not. As to Jesus being God, I'm closer to the 5% probability mark (he's got a lot of competition). That's how it works for me. I have a skeptical scientific mind. (and before everybody screams at me to read the bible, the last time I read the bible it actually lowered my belief that Jesus exists, thank you). And to push things further, you people seem to be at the 100% probability mark, maybe some will say 150% mark, that Jesus saves. Is that correct?
Well, to me that's a sign that you haven't really done your homework as to how we believe and how we know anything is true, you blur the difference between believing and knowing, you are not using your brain, you are using your heart, and are being quite vocal about it to boot. But faith is pretending you know something you don't know, faith doesn't lead to knowing, it is about believing. It's what you do when your hypothesis is like the teapot and you can't test it. If you knew God existed you would be able to demonstrate it, you wouldn't need to say you have faith in God or in the bible, don't you think?
By the way, note to Magenta : You mention a lot of scientists, nobel prizes and such who are christians. Good for them. I'm ready to bet that a very small proportion of them believe in God with a 100% probability. John Lennox doesn't for example. I'm also ready to bet that a big proportion of those people do not believe exactly the same things you do (granted, with more than 30 000 different christians denominations I'm not taking a huge risk here) so how is that supporting your case? And in any case, even a nobel prize winning scientist can be wrong about God, I mean, the argument from authority is not a very compelling one, is it? No more than the argument from popularity. And it is undeniable that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in God, so I don't think you want to go there, really.
My questions were more to try to find out if you understood what the scientific method was. I guess I got my answer: no.
More from Miri :
I still throw down the challenge I gave you earlier to seek Him with all your heart, get
out that bible, pray, read, ask God to reveal a Himself to you. Do the seeking and
finding for yourself.
She is not the only one telling me this, so I take it most of you think it is very good advice. I'm grateful that you care enough to say it to me over and over again despite my stubborness, but I have a real problem with it. Your seeking method might be what Jesus wants us to do, maybe, but in that case we can not tell if we really find Jesus or not. Let me explain.
I mentioned confirmation bias before. This bias is when you form a theory, and then try to confirm it by isolating confirming evidence. It is a very powerful bias, we all do it. But it's like looking only for white swans to prove that all swans are white. It doesn't work. You are telling me to start with the conclusion that Jesus exists, and then wait for confirming evidence. That if I truly seek I will find. But in that case anything can become spiritual evidence for Jesus, even a delusion.
If Jesus was a human living in town, that would be a valid approach maybe. (reminds me a joke : the evangelist travels to mexico ; stops a man and ask him if he knows Jesus, the man answers « sure, he lives down the road next to the post office... ») anyway the point is, Jesus is not a human living in town, he is supposedly a supernatural being, when you talk to him and have contact with him, it is spiritually, subjectively, in your head, in your heart, however you want to describe it. You can be talking to Jesus and the person next to you will not notice. So it is a subjective experience. I'm sure it can feel very real. As real as the guy who thinks he has been abducted by aliens. See my point ? We know the brain does us some weird tricks now and then, making us believe things are real when they aren't, it happens all the time, there is no denying it. So my spiritual evidence for Jesus could be a delusion. The same kind of delusion you probably think affects the muslim when he thinks he is talking to Allah. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But doing what you advise me to do will not enable me to make the difference. That's my problem. How do I make sure I am not delusional if after seeking him I get in contact with Jesus ?
I can't. I just have my subjective experience to work with, and they are notoriously unreliable. Do any of you deny that subjective experiences are notoriously unreliable ?
So what can I do ? Since the beginning of this thread I gave this a lot of thought. I think it is important to look at the other religions too, to try to disprove the Jesus hypothesis you are pushing at me, to find out how probable it is that it is true. Standard scientific procedure.
I have to ask the question : what is so special about christianity's spiritual experiences that show they can't be delusions ?
Well, I'm affraid the answer is : nothing. People from other religions claim the same spiritual experiences than you do, and I mean, the same. Look it up if you don't believe me, talk to people from other religions, ask them directly like I have. What tips me off that delusion is extremely probable is that the religions advocating personal experiences as a way to « know » their God, like you do, are making otherwise wildy contradictory metaphysical claims. They just can't all be right. So some of them are, in fact, wrong. Maybe it is the hindoos who are right, maybe it's you, maybe it's Russell with his teapot, who knows? We have no way to tell except personal experiences and unfortunately personal experiences can only convince the person having it. So maybe there is some kind of god, but the likelyhood that it is Jesus I do not find very high, because the majority of the people on the planet do not believe in Jesus and think they have serious evidence for THEIR God in THEIR revealed book, which they quote at me like if it was any kind of authority, just like you do.
So none of this means Jesus is not real, but it give me doubts. It makes me think that having spiritual experiences is maybe something human brains do regardless of religion and that could be evolved. And I wonder if that in turn could explain the « god sense » most people seem to have. Some respected scientist are definitely testing that hypothesis and claim to have serious evidence in favor of it. Probability for me ? I'll say 70%.
(ahah ! You think, he is missing 4% ! well no, I just keep an open mind for other alternatives, I already gave 1% to aliens abductions after all. Who is the more open minded ? The person who keeps a small percentage available to alternative explanations or the person who thinks she has reached 100% knowledge?)
So I consider seriously the option that what you describe as talking to Jesus and that feels very real to you is the same as what the muslim describes as submitting to Allah, and is the same as what the weirdo from New mexico describes as being abducted by aliens, and is the same as what neurologists and psychologists describe has having a brain disfunctions.
And maybe it is not a disfunction at all, it is just more proof that God exists, that's how he does it, that's why people feel it everywhere ! Well maybe but then that is another circular argument that accepts God in its premise to prove that God exists and so we still need to prove God exists... (sorry for knocking down strawmen like that but I could just see it coming so like that it is out of the way).
And so maybe we're just apes with unperfect brains because we've evolved them. At least that hypothesis is testable and we have evidence for it.
A word about scripture :
Which book should I trust, if any ? That's another relevant question with the same answer : I can't tell. I can't rely on the bible to tell me whether the bible is right, that's too obviously circular. If you can do it with the bible then you can do it with the quran as well, and then we'll have a problem.
So what else is special about the bible ? I don't know, I don't see anything special about it. I haven't had time yet to look into the prophecy the aristocrat has provided me, but since I have already looked into the matter of prophecies in the past, I doubt there will be something really new there. Only checking can tell... The question remain : if there is uncontroversial evidence in the bible, why isn't the majority of the human population believing in the christian God ? Pride seems like a thin explanation to me. Especially when they also claim to have prophecies in their holy books.
Another problem is that despite what Magenta seems to think, a little hindoo girl in Mumbai does not have the same access to Jesus that a little girl in Texas has. Surely you recognize that. And lo and behold, there are more christians in Texas than hindoos, and there are more hindoos in Mumbai than christians. Where you are born matters and what religion impregnates the culture you belong to influences which God you are talking to in your spiritual experience. And it goes further. The people who do not have a strong religious influence in their life but are exposed to science and the media, when they have a spiritual experience, what do they believe happened ? That they talked with aliens. What do you make of that?
Note to B1Davanda : I do not really want to debate about the resurection here. I have read what I consider quite a lot of the apologist literature on the subject, as well as the scripture themselves, and have compared the views from both sides of the debate, and weighted the evidence, and then looked up some more into what I didn't understand, and read more books about the subject, and finally, came to the conclusion, about which even a William Lane Craig or a John Lennox agrees, that the resurection can only be accepted if you already believe in a creator god. It's a late show argument.
If it puts me in the position that I need to find out if any gods exist or not first, then I can't accept that a creator god exists as a premise to an argument that I'm trying to use to determine whether any gods exist, that would be circular. So the resurrection as described in the bible doesn't help me much. End of the debate about the resurrection for now, and back to the question : does any gods exist ?
Miri says :
I would just say that all other religions are counterfeit, a copy of the
Christians belief. They all believe elements of the bible but twist them a round.
I see how a christian would believe that, but try to put yourself in the shoes of a non christian and analyse what you are really saying. This is another fairly obvious circular argument : you could not reach that conclusion if you were not taking for granted that christianity is the one true faith. Don't take my word for it, ask them yourself, but muslim and hindoo and jews and mormons and all the other do think the exact same thing, only for them christianity enters the « other religions » category. So if it works for everybody it doesn't work for anybody.
So we haven't really answered the question of why is christianity special.
Also can you explain how the jewish torah is a copy of the bible ? It was written earlier, the bible is actually the copy in that particular case, isn't it ?
Magenta
I'd like to return the favor with this other interesting debate between Lennox and a man called Michael Shermer, who's views I find closer to mine than Dawkins. I have to say that while I disagree with Lennox, I find him articulate and well worth listening to as well. I wish more christians were like him.
Nayborbear :
Can't you make an effort at spelling ? I'm not trying to ignore your points but I can't read what you write, sorry.
I'm sorry bikerbaz thinks this is useless, I would like to know what he thinks of what I say today. I am also wondering if he feels threatened by all this and why he considers me the enemy. In which case I appologise, this is not my intent.
So let's go into it and please forgive me for almost losing my temper the other night, there are so many things being thrown at me, I find it slightly overwhelming. There are also some contradiction in what each of you is saying, you apparently do not all agree with each other... I feel like I'm playing chess with a dozen opponents at the same time. And it is none of your concern but I also have a life which keeps me busy... anyway, here goes, please do not hold back your punches :
Miri says :
« You know what, it sounds that instead of trying to convince yourself God does
exist, you are trying to convince yourself God doesn't exist. »
That's right, glad you realized it, thanks for the compliment... what I don't get is why you think I should be doing anything different. The way you find out if something is probably true, like in science for example, is that you take an hypothesis, «evolution by natural selection produces new species» for example, and you try to test it. If after an honnest attempt at disproving your hypothesis it still seems like a possibility, then that hypothesis stands a chance to be true.
It is easier to instead attempt to confirm an hypothesis, (the way which you seem to favor), but unfortunately that doesn't help you find out if it is true or not. The classic illustration is the white swan hypothesis. It goes: All swans are white.
What do you do to find out if it is true? You look for white swans? You could do that and find quite a few, but will that tell you if all swans are white? No, you would have to check every single swan and that is impossible, you could never know if you missed one. To find out how probable it is that all swans are white, you need to do your utmost to find a NON white swan. If you can't, then you can accept that very probably, all swans are white. But if one day you spot a black swan, then your hypothesis is disproved and you can formulate a theory that says a minority of swans are black. You can never be sure your theory is correct but you can raise the level of probability it is by trying to convince yourself it is incorrect. That's how science works. That's how you find out if something is likely to be true or not. It is all a matter of how probable or improbable it is. That's the best we, as humans, can do.
If you ask me how probable it is that the sun rises in the East tomorrow, I'd say 99.99999999 %. That's how confident I am in the theory that the sun always rises in the east. But I wouldn't say 100% because, well, what do I know? I can imagine a scenario where the Sun doesn't rise tomorrow and so it is a possibility. I need to account for it. We test that theory every morning. And guess what, even if I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn't mean it will for sure.
Are you trying to imply you do not agree with this and that you do not do this when you try to find if something is true? If so, wow.
So if I want to know if God exists, or if evolution is true, or if my girlfriend is cheating on me, or if my mum is delusional, or if the computer I want to buy is a good one for me, I apply this method, because that is the best one we have. It has been refined over the ages and what works has been kept and what hasn't has been discarded and now we have hypothesis testing and nothing seems to beat it to find out if something is likely to be true or not.
And you'll have to take note that I'm not testing atheism here, we're talking about God so atheism being an abscence of belief in God, I have nothing to test since I'm not saying «God doesn't exists», that's not my position, the only thing I can test is the affirmative, whether god exists or not, because you say he does. So it is legitimate to put the god hypothesis to the question, not atheism.
Another important point about the scientific method to find if something is true or not, is that your hypothesis needs to be failible, meaning that is is conceivably disprovable. Otherwise you can't find out if it is true or not because you have nothing to look for that would repudiate your hypothesis, you cannot test it and go on to form a theory upon the results.
A classic example from Bertrand Russel is the tea pot hypothesis.
It goes: there is an invisible teapot orbiting the moon.
How can we find out if it is true? Difficult? No, damn near impossible. That hypothesis is not failible so we can't test it. For all we know, there is an actual invisible teapot orbiting the moon. Seems utterly improbable, granted, but if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit we don't know for sure how probable or improbable it is and we have no way to tell. So when we form hypothesis with the intent of finding if they are likely to be true or not, for them to be useful, we need to make sure they are failible. That's how we determine what's worth investigating. Anybody can make any wild claim like the teapot, but if they are not testable, then their are just wild claims and will never be confirmed or refuted. Maybe Russell has faith in his teapot, but we can safely ignore the whole thing. I think we would agree on that.
This brings me to a question for you:
Is our hypothesis that God exists failible? What could prove it wrong? How can we test it?
If we cannot answer that, then our hypothesis is not testable, and so how can we determine whether it is true or not without being merely believing or guessing? What distinguish it from any wild claim? What distinguish it from Russell's teapot?
So since you are the once convinced God exists and I'm at a loss, please let me know how you test the God hypothesis and how it could be shown to be wrong.
Miri also says:
Come on, admit it, part of you is worried He does exist and you are trying to
find a way around that in your own mind.
B1Davanda said the same thing, that's funny because that's not true at all. You guys just don't have a clue. I'm actually excited by the possibility God exists, I mean, good news, right, eternity in heaven sounds more fun than nothingness in the grave. A loving God instead of a purposeless universe? Give me the loving God any day! But the fact that I feel that way about it means I need to be extra careful about confirmation bias when trying to find out if it is true. I can be too easily mislead. As it is, I'm just not convinced and I do my best to find out if he exists or not. I don't want to merely believe, I want to find out if he exists for real. If God exists and gave me a brain, I would imagine he'd want me to use it for that very purpose.
You know what? Same with UFOs for me. I don't think they visit earth in flying saucers and kidnap people, but man, do I wish it were so! But my integrity will not let me beleive in UFOs without proper evidence and evidence is lacking despite what believers say. To me there is very little doubt, say 99% probablity, that the UFO believers are delusional.
Now as regard to God, I'll say I'm on the 25% probability mark, agnostic with atheistic tendencies, remember? Don't know one way or another but think most probably not. As to Jesus being God, I'm closer to the 5% probability mark (he's got a lot of competition). That's how it works for me. I have a skeptical scientific mind. (and before everybody screams at me to read the bible, the last time I read the bible it actually lowered my belief that Jesus exists, thank you). And to push things further, you people seem to be at the 100% probability mark, maybe some will say 150% mark, that Jesus saves. Is that correct?
Well, to me that's a sign that you haven't really done your homework as to how we believe and how we know anything is true, you blur the difference between believing and knowing, you are not using your brain, you are using your heart, and are being quite vocal about it to boot. But faith is pretending you know something you don't know, faith doesn't lead to knowing, it is about believing. It's what you do when your hypothesis is like the teapot and you can't test it. If you knew God existed you would be able to demonstrate it, you wouldn't need to say you have faith in God or in the bible, don't you think?
By the way, note to Magenta : You mention a lot of scientists, nobel prizes and such who are christians. Good for them. I'm ready to bet that a very small proportion of them believe in God with a 100% probability. John Lennox doesn't for example. I'm also ready to bet that a big proportion of those people do not believe exactly the same things you do (granted, with more than 30 000 different christians denominations I'm not taking a huge risk here) so how is that supporting your case? And in any case, even a nobel prize winning scientist can be wrong about God, I mean, the argument from authority is not a very compelling one, is it? No more than the argument from popularity. And it is undeniable that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in God, so I don't think you want to go there, really.
My questions were more to try to find out if you understood what the scientific method was. I guess I got my answer: no.
More from Miri :
I still throw down the challenge I gave you earlier to seek Him with all your heart, get
out that bible, pray, read, ask God to reveal a Himself to you. Do the seeking and
finding for yourself.
She is not the only one telling me this, so I take it most of you think it is very good advice. I'm grateful that you care enough to say it to me over and over again despite my stubborness, but I have a real problem with it. Your seeking method might be what Jesus wants us to do, maybe, but in that case we can not tell if we really find Jesus or not. Let me explain.
I mentioned confirmation bias before. This bias is when you form a theory, and then try to confirm it by isolating confirming evidence. It is a very powerful bias, we all do it. But it's like looking only for white swans to prove that all swans are white. It doesn't work. You are telling me to start with the conclusion that Jesus exists, and then wait for confirming evidence. That if I truly seek I will find. But in that case anything can become spiritual evidence for Jesus, even a delusion.
If Jesus was a human living in town, that would be a valid approach maybe. (reminds me a joke : the evangelist travels to mexico ; stops a man and ask him if he knows Jesus, the man answers « sure, he lives down the road next to the post office... ») anyway the point is, Jesus is not a human living in town, he is supposedly a supernatural being, when you talk to him and have contact with him, it is spiritually, subjectively, in your head, in your heart, however you want to describe it. You can be talking to Jesus and the person next to you will not notice. So it is a subjective experience. I'm sure it can feel very real. As real as the guy who thinks he has been abducted by aliens. See my point ? We know the brain does us some weird tricks now and then, making us believe things are real when they aren't, it happens all the time, there is no denying it. So my spiritual evidence for Jesus could be a delusion. The same kind of delusion you probably think affects the muslim when he thinks he is talking to Allah. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But doing what you advise me to do will not enable me to make the difference. That's my problem. How do I make sure I am not delusional if after seeking him I get in contact with Jesus ?
I can't. I just have my subjective experience to work with, and they are notoriously unreliable. Do any of you deny that subjective experiences are notoriously unreliable ?
So what can I do ? Since the beginning of this thread I gave this a lot of thought. I think it is important to look at the other religions too, to try to disprove the Jesus hypothesis you are pushing at me, to find out how probable it is that it is true. Standard scientific procedure.
I have to ask the question : what is so special about christianity's spiritual experiences that show they can't be delusions ?
Well, I'm affraid the answer is : nothing. People from other religions claim the same spiritual experiences than you do, and I mean, the same. Look it up if you don't believe me, talk to people from other religions, ask them directly like I have. What tips me off that delusion is extremely probable is that the religions advocating personal experiences as a way to « know » their God, like you do, are making otherwise wildy contradictory metaphysical claims. They just can't all be right. So some of them are, in fact, wrong. Maybe it is the hindoos who are right, maybe it's you, maybe it's Russell with his teapot, who knows? We have no way to tell except personal experiences and unfortunately personal experiences can only convince the person having it. So maybe there is some kind of god, but the likelyhood that it is Jesus I do not find very high, because the majority of the people on the planet do not believe in Jesus and think they have serious evidence for THEIR God in THEIR revealed book, which they quote at me like if it was any kind of authority, just like you do.
So none of this means Jesus is not real, but it give me doubts. It makes me think that having spiritual experiences is maybe something human brains do regardless of religion and that could be evolved. And I wonder if that in turn could explain the « god sense » most people seem to have. Some respected scientist are definitely testing that hypothesis and claim to have serious evidence in favor of it. Probability for me ? I'll say 70%.
(ahah ! You think, he is missing 4% ! well no, I just keep an open mind for other alternatives, I already gave 1% to aliens abductions after all. Who is the more open minded ? The person who keeps a small percentage available to alternative explanations or the person who thinks she has reached 100% knowledge?)
So I consider seriously the option that what you describe as talking to Jesus and that feels very real to you is the same as what the muslim describes as submitting to Allah, and is the same as what the weirdo from New mexico describes as being abducted by aliens, and is the same as what neurologists and psychologists describe has having a brain disfunctions.
And maybe it is not a disfunction at all, it is just more proof that God exists, that's how he does it, that's why people feel it everywhere ! Well maybe but then that is another circular argument that accepts God in its premise to prove that God exists and so we still need to prove God exists... (sorry for knocking down strawmen like that but I could just see it coming so like that it is out of the way).
And so maybe we're just apes with unperfect brains because we've evolved them. At least that hypothesis is testable and we have evidence for it.
A word about scripture :
Which book should I trust, if any ? That's another relevant question with the same answer : I can't tell. I can't rely on the bible to tell me whether the bible is right, that's too obviously circular. If you can do it with the bible then you can do it with the quran as well, and then we'll have a problem.
So what else is special about the bible ? I don't know, I don't see anything special about it. I haven't had time yet to look into the prophecy the aristocrat has provided me, but since I have already looked into the matter of prophecies in the past, I doubt there will be something really new there. Only checking can tell... The question remain : if there is uncontroversial evidence in the bible, why isn't the majority of the human population believing in the christian God ? Pride seems like a thin explanation to me. Especially when they also claim to have prophecies in their holy books.
Another problem is that despite what Magenta seems to think, a little hindoo girl in Mumbai does not have the same access to Jesus that a little girl in Texas has. Surely you recognize that. And lo and behold, there are more christians in Texas than hindoos, and there are more hindoos in Mumbai than christians. Where you are born matters and what religion impregnates the culture you belong to influences which God you are talking to in your spiritual experience. And it goes further. The people who do not have a strong religious influence in their life but are exposed to science and the media, when they have a spiritual experience, what do they believe happened ? That they talked with aliens. What do you make of that?
Note to B1Davanda : I do not really want to debate about the resurection here. I have read what I consider quite a lot of the apologist literature on the subject, as well as the scripture themselves, and have compared the views from both sides of the debate, and weighted the evidence, and then looked up some more into what I didn't understand, and read more books about the subject, and finally, came to the conclusion, about which even a William Lane Craig or a John Lennox agrees, that the resurection can only be accepted if you already believe in a creator god. It's a late show argument.
If it puts me in the position that I need to find out if any gods exist or not first, then I can't accept that a creator god exists as a premise to an argument that I'm trying to use to determine whether any gods exist, that would be circular. So the resurrection as described in the bible doesn't help me much. End of the debate about the resurrection for now, and back to the question : does any gods exist ?
Miri says :
I would just say that all other religions are counterfeit, a copy of the
Christians belief. They all believe elements of the bible but twist them a round.
I see how a christian would believe that, but try to put yourself in the shoes of a non christian and analyse what you are really saying. This is another fairly obvious circular argument : you could not reach that conclusion if you were not taking for granted that christianity is the one true faith. Don't take my word for it, ask them yourself, but muslim and hindoo and jews and mormons and all the other do think the exact same thing, only for them christianity enters the « other religions » category. So if it works for everybody it doesn't work for anybody.
So we haven't really answered the question of why is christianity special.
Also can you explain how the jewish torah is a copy of the bible ? It was written earlier, the bible is actually the copy in that particular case, isn't it ?
Magenta
I'd like to return the favor with this other interesting debate between Lennox and a man called Michael Shermer, who's views I find closer to mine than Dawkins. I have to say that while I disagree with Lennox, I find him articulate and well worth listening to as well. I wish more christians were like him.
Nayborbear :
Can't you make an effort at spelling ? I'm not trying to ignore your points but I can't read what you write, sorry.
And now a few more important things to help us dig deeper, thanks to JimmieD
I have to admit yours were challenging questions...
you asked :
If you accept that knowledge or truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing, as it seems you do, then how do you test the hypothesis that "knowledge and truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing?"
Well, first, I wouldn't say that, I would say that « knowledge and truth evaluation are best obtained via hypothesis testing », notice the difference, it is crucial.
Now, to test that, well, we can try other ways and see if they work better. None that I know or heard about does so far. So my hypothesis is failible in the sense that this is a challenge : produce a better way and you've not only made my day, you have revolutionised science. Show that through faith you make more sense for example, and my hypothesis fails.
It is important to understand that the scientific method can be applied to itself, to philosophy, to critical thinking, to God, to what people believe, to anything. It is a method, a process, a tool, not an opinion. Critical thinking is not solely for the things you don't like, it applies also to itself. Logic is not a set thing, it is no more that the totality of what makes sense at this stage. It can be refined and it is refined all the time. Logic is nothing else than what makes sense. If something makes more sense than what we previously thought as logic, then that becomes logic, it grows.
What we accept as axioms is what can not be avoided, what might not be proven or provable, but that affects us in such a way that we just have to accept it anyway, there is no way around it if we want to function in this world, if we want to avoid delusion. « Truth needs to be logical » is an axiom for the simple reason that if you try to pretend it is not the case, then you have to try to make sense of that logically and that refutes your point. So we can't avoid it, we have no known way around it, we have to take it for granted. For now.
Naturalism is another such axiom most people agree upon. It is the position that the natural world exists objectively. Most christians are naturalists, but they include naturalism in a higher spectrum context that also includes supernaturalism, which together makes dualism. Most atheists prefer materialism, or monism, the concept that only the natural exists, that there is only one realm and that anything supernatural is just something natural we haven't understood yet or is just subjective and thus dependent upon the objective to exists( i.e : the mind is what the brain does, just like the smile is what your lower face does). Independant to the truth of supernaturalism, naturalism is rarely disputed. The debate is about whether nature is all there is, not whether it exists or not. Mostly we agree about the axiom that nature exists, because, well, it has a tendency to let us know it exists when we challenge its existence (something God is not so obvious in doing, by the way, which is why it is easy to agree about naturalism but not about God).
So basically the hypothesis that "knowledge and truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing" is incorrect as you probably know (trying to trick me, weren't you?), but the proposition « knowledge and truth evaluation are best obtained via hypothesis testing » can be tested by trying other ways, and is being tested every day by a lot of people, Magenta's esoterica is a case in point, but also the paranormal, conspiracy theorists, and yes, UFO believers, and hypothesis testing stands extremely strong for now with virtually no rivals as a way to make sense of the world we live in. Maybe one day we'll find a better way but I'm betting that it would most likely include hypothesis testing because it worked so well for us so far.
There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, setting up repeatable experiments with control groups and variable groups, and evaluating results using statistical methods compared against some alternative hypothesis. This rigorous method is probably to be preferred if it's sensible to use for a particular question. But any hypothesis testing begins with sets of assumptions, rules and theorems in order to even be able to use this method. Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system. So there appears to be some things that can be known to be true that aren't subject to hypothesis testing.
I don't think there are. I challenge your premise that « Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system ». You sound very articulate and educated so you probably understand that in science we are not talking about certainty, but about levels of probability. Axioms achieve an extremely high level of probality of truth, nothing more, and we have to be content with that, but as such they are testable. They are not accepted « a priori », they are accepted because they withstood a test of some kind, they withstood challenge. Nobody who understand the concept say axioms are absolutely true. There are no absolute truth available to us, except maybe Descarte's « cogito ergo sum » and I would argue that even that is an axiom. I do believe there are absolute ultimate truths, but I am aware that I can not prove them conclusively and that we talk about « axioms » and « truths » specifically to make the difference. An axiom is as close to truth as it gets but it is not quite there. An absolute truth is an ideal concept, not a certitude.
I'm getting aware that lack of certainty is disturbing for christians, « a priori » absolute truth seem to be not only okay for you but necessary, and I realize thanks to our discussion that it is yet one more reason why I'm dubious about christianity. Basically we are all agnostics because there is nothing else we can be, really. That is why the term agnostic doesn't mean much by itself. You have to precise what you tend to believe as well for others to understand your position, you have to give through words or through numbers at what level of probability you situate yourself, but 0 and 100 are apparently inachievable.Believers or atheists who claim NOT to be agnostics, who claim absolute knowledge, are very likely misinformed or dishonest or mistaken, take your pick or try to refute that. That reminds me Richard Dawkins once wrote that his position was 99.99999999% sure there is no god. Notice he didn't say 100%. That's him admitting he is an agnostic atheist. Dawkins is open minded, not much, but more than the person who says she is 100% sure God exists. I personally doubt that any atheist would claim absolute certitude that god doesn't exists and that makes me think they have the philosophical high ground over believers who almost unvariably take the absolute certitude position. It is more probable atheists are correct, they are the more rational ones. That doesn't mean they are correct about God, but that's something.
Thanks for making me reflect on all this, it made me connect some dots. And please rip into it if you find any flaws in my reasoning, that's the purpose of this exchange remember, hypothesis testing...
Out of curiosity, how did you come to believe hypothesis testing leads to knowledge?
I was trained as an engineer, and basically I have been shown it is useful and it works and nothing beats it. I have also been told quite clearly that not to use it is foolish and unprofessional and I have experienced that it is quite so. Also I understand the philosophy behind it, I use it everyday, I'm using it right now in this post, it never failed me yet. The beauty of it is that you do not have to take anybody's word for it, you can check by yourself. I do on a regular basis when I realize I didn't use it properly and subsequently find myself in error, as do countless other people, of course. When you actually check and also think about it, you realize that nothing else works quite as well. It is as simple as that. So I wouldn't actually say I believe in it. I'd say I'm 99.99999999% sure it is true it is the best way. Because after all it could just be confirmation bias, right? I could be wrong about it.
Tintin :
you say :
You have no foundation for reasoning anything UNLESS the God of the Bible is true.
Can you elaborate ? I don't see it and maybe you are unto something. That's something new to me.
I have to admit yours were challenging questions...
you asked :
If you accept that knowledge or truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing, as it seems you do, then how do you test the hypothesis that "knowledge and truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing?"
Well, first, I wouldn't say that, I would say that « knowledge and truth evaluation are best obtained via hypothesis testing », notice the difference, it is crucial.
Now, to test that, well, we can try other ways and see if they work better. None that I know or heard about does so far. So my hypothesis is failible in the sense that this is a challenge : produce a better way and you've not only made my day, you have revolutionised science. Show that through faith you make more sense for example, and my hypothesis fails.
It is important to understand that the scientific method can be applied to itself, to philosophy, to critical thinking, to God, to what people believe, to anything. It is a method, a process, a tool, not an opinion. Critical thinking is not solely for the things you don't like, it applies also to itself. Logic is not a set thing, it is no more that the totality of what makes sense at this stage. It can be refined and it is refined all the time. Logic is nothing else than what makes sense. If something makes more sense than what we previously thought as logic, then that becomes logic, it grows.
What we accept as axioms is what can not be avoided, what might not be proven or provable, but that affects us in such a way that we just have to accept it anyway, there is no way around it if we want to function in this world, if we want to avoid delusion. « Truth needs to be logical » is an axiom for the simple reason that if you try to pretend it is not the case, then you have to try to make sense of that logically and that refutes your point. So we can't avoid it, we have no known way around it, we have to take it for granted. For now.
Naturalism is another such axiom most people agree upon. It is the position that the natural world exists objectively. Most christians are naturalists, but they include naturalism in a higher spectrum context that also includes supernaturalism, which together makes dualism. Most atheists prefer materialism, or monism, the concept that only the natural exists, that there is only one realm and that anything supernatural is just something natural we haven't understood yet or is just subjective and thus dependent upon the objective to exists( i.e : the mind is what the brain does, just like the smile is what your lower face does). Independant to the truth of supernaturalism, naturalism is rarely disputed. The debate is about whether nature is all there is, not whether it exists or not. Mostly we agree about the axiom that nature exists, because, well, it has a tendency to let us know it exists when we challenge its existence (something God is not so obvious in doing, by the way, which is why it is easy to agree about naturalism but not about God).
So basically the hypothesis that "knowledge and truth evaluation are only obtained via hypothesis testing" is incorrect as you probably know (trying to trick me, weren't you?), but the proposition « knowledge and truth evaluation are best obtained via hypothesis testing » can be tested by trying other ways, and is being tested every day by a lot of people, Magenta's esoterica is a case in point, but also the paranormal, conspiracy theorists, and yes, UFO believers, and hypothesis testing stands extremely strong for now with virtually no rivals as a way to make sense of the world we live in. Maybe one day we'll find a better way but I'm betting that it would most likely include hypothesis testing because it worked so well for us so far.
There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, setting up repeatable experiments with control groups and variable groups, and evaluating results using statistical methods compared against some alternative hypothesis. This rigorous method is probably to be preferred if it's sensible to use for a particular question. But any hypothesis testing begins with sets of assumptions, rules and theorems in order to even be able to use this method. Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system. So there appears to be some things that can be known to be true that aren't subject to hypothesis testing.
I don't think there are. I challenge your premise that « Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system ». You sound very articulate and educated so you probably understand that in science we are not talking about certainty, but about levels of probability. Axioms achieve an extremely high level of probality of truth, nothing more, and we have to be content with that, but as such they are testable. They are not accepted « a priori », they are accepted because they withstood a test of some kind, they withstood challenge. Nobody who understand the concept say axioms are absolutely true. There are no absolute truth available to us, except maybe Descarte's « cogito ergo sum » and I would argue that even that is an axiom. I do believe there are absolute ultimate truths, but I am aware that I can not prove them conclusively and that we talk about « axioms » and « truths » specifically to make the difference. An axiom is as close to truth as it gets but it is not quite there. An absolute truth is an ideal concept, not a certitude.
I'm getting aware that lack of certainty is disturbing for christians, « a priori » absolute truth seem to be not only okay for you but necessary, and I realize thanks to our discussion that it is yet one more reason why I'm dubious about christianity. Basically we are all agnostics because there is nothing else we can be, really. That is why the term agnostic doesn't mean much by itself. You have to precise what you tend to believe as well for others to understand your position, you have to give through words or through numbers at what level of probability you situate yourself, but 0 and 100 are apparently inachievable.Believers or atheists who claim NOT to be agnostics, who claim absolute knowledge, are very likely misinformed or dishonest or mistaken, take your pick or try to refute that. That reminds me Richard Dawkins once wrote that his position was 99.99999999% sure there is no god. Notice he didn't say 100%. That's him admitting he is an agnostic atheist. Dawkins is open minded, not much, but more than the person who says she is 100% sure God exists. I personally doubt that any atheist would claim absolute certitude that god doesn't exists and that makes me think they have the philosophical high ground over believers who almost unvariably take the absolute certitude position. It is more probable atheists are correct, they are the more rational ones. That doesn't mean they are correct about God, but that's something.
Thanks for making me reflect on all this, it made me connect some dots. And please rip into it if you find any flaws in my reasoning, that's the purpose of this exchange remember, hypothesis testing...
Out of curiosity, how did you come to believe hypothesis testing leads to knowledge?
I was trained as an engineer, and basically I have been shown it is useful and it works and nothing beats it. I have also been told quite clearly that not to use it is foolish and unprofessional and I have experienced that it is quite so. Also I understand the philosophy behind it, I use it everyday, I'm using it right now in this post, it never failed me yet. The beauty of it is that you do not have to take anybody's word for it, you can check by yourself. I do on a regular basis when I realize I didn't use it properly and subsequently find myself in error, as do countless other people, of course. When you actually check and also think about it, you realize that nothing else works quite as well. It is as simple as that. So I wouldn't actually say I believe in it. I'd say I'm 99.99999999% sure it is true it is the best way. Because after all it could just be confirmation bias, right? I could be wrong about it.
Tintin :
you say :
You have no foundation for reasoning anything UNLESS the God of the Bible is true.
Can you elaborate ? I don't see it and maybe you are unto something. That's something new to me.
oups, everything went in italycs, i need to precise that
There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, setting up repeatable experiments with control groups and variable groups, and evaluating results using statistical methods compared against some alternative hypothesis. This rigorous method is probably to be preferred if it's sensible to use for a particular question. But any hypothesis testing begins with sets of assumptions, rules and theorems in order to even be able to use this method. Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system. So there appears to be some things that can be known to be true that aren't subject to hypothesis testing.
was jimmieD's question
There's nothing wrong with making a hypothesis, setting up repeatable experiments with control groups and variable groups, and evaluating results using statistical methods compared against some alternative hypothesis. This rigorous method is probably to be preferred if it's sensible to use for a particular question. But any hypothesis testing begins with sets of assumptions, rules and theorems in order to even be able to use this method. Some of these things cannot be verified or tested within the system. So there appears to be some things that can be known to be true that aren't subject to hypothesis testing.
was jimmieD's question
Aristocrat,
i'll get into morality and prophecies later, but i have to rephrase my hitler question after what you wrote :
On the same token, can you morally accept that the nazi personel in charge of Auswitz are presumably in heaven since they were christians and thus presumably repented before their death, while Ann Franck is in hell because she was a jew and was thus never saved ?
i'll get into morality and prophecies later, but i have to rephrase my hitler question after what you wrote :
On the same token, can you morally accept that the nazi personel in charge of Auswitz are presumably in heaven since they were christians and thus presumably repented before their death, while Ann Franck is in hell because she was a jew and was thus never saved ?
Hello Karaka. Well, I was simply pointing out to you that there is not necessarily a great divide between scientists and theists, that many scientists are in fact Christians, there is no lack of logic or rationality or intelligence among Christians, it was no appeal to authority, just showing that some of the greatest most brilliant minds celebrated in humanity throughout history have been people you might want to call delusional, in need of meds etc, whatever, maybe you could stop your appeals to authority and arguments from popularity, stop with your citing this or that study and holding up this person or that person as an authority on subjects, and go investigate for real, not reading about something, go do it. You can read all about love, read any number of treatises on it and exposes etc, how would you be any more knowledgeable on what it really is? God loves you! Read other people's opinions about it forever and you may not know it until you experience it. That is all. As to whether or not I understand what the scientific method is? I did not even see you ask that question. I brought to your attention, after all, that it was Christians who developed it.
Last edited:
Hitler was a manipulator and liar, why anyone would believe he was a Christian simply because he was brought up in a Christian home is beyond me; he used religion to manipulate the masses... it just goes to show how gullible people are, how willing to believe that which aligns with their existent bias. I find that non-believers often will bring Hitler into the conversation to say, yuck! You will be in heaven with him, as if we should recoil in horror that Jesus is so forgiving. Hitler could indeed have been forgiven, but there is no evidence to suggest he repented when he committed suicide, after all. Maybe some day Karaka will be grateful that Jesus is so forgiving. We can only hope....
In fact your question was, Is science any good at telling us what is objectively true?
That was when I brought the scientific method into the conversation. You did not ask about the scientific method, so why do you say now that you wanted to know if I understood it? This is a major problem with atheists: You rearrange the facts to suit yourselves. You asked a whole series of questions, only some of which dealt with science, others showed you believed you knew better than God, and some you presented false premises. You also conveniently ignored my answers.
M
MaggieMye
Guest
T
Tintin
Guest
This is all the thread needs.
Karaka, you have no foundation for reasoning anything UNLESS the God of the Bible is true.
Karaka, you have no foundation for reasoning anything UNLESS the God of the Bible is true.
P
pottersclay
Guest
And here you are karaka.... chased into the corner of your little box, taking the sides of the great thinkers of our time. The same thinkers that once thought the earth was flat. That there was life on other planets. That thought they could rule the world and all its inhabitants. That thought that if they put this Christ and his followers to death it would stop this insane notion that the God of Israel exist. If they could only find that missing link that would prove man came from apes. If only they can produce that negative power that would prove the big bang theory. You sit in the seat of the scornful and say I will put my trust in the failures of others.
You think you are wise but you keep company with fools who change their truth daily.
As we know the truth which has never changed from the beginning till now and even the end. Don't you see the folly of your way? You search for a answer that has been answered but are blinded by its light. Your heart is a stone because the truth you except gives you no life, no love, no hope only a burden that tells you of no purpose was your birth. That this is life and that is all. My gosh man how long will you except a lie that has changed its words time after time?? Thinking you were wise you have become a fool. This is not to offend you but it is a plea a concern for your very soul.
Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,[b] lest [c] He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
You think you are wise but you keep company with fools who change their truth daily.
As we know the truth which has never changed from the beginning till now and even the end. Don't you see the folly of your way? You search for a answer that has been answered but are blinded by its light. Your heart is a stone because the truth you except gives you no life, no love, no hope only a burden that tells you of no purpose was your birth. That this is life and that is all. My gosh man how long will you except a lie that has changed its words time after time?? Thinking you were wise you have become a fool. This is not to offend you but it is a plea a concern for your very soul.
Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,[b] lest [c] He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
pottersclay , seriously?
are you saying that ALL I wrote is wrong?
have you even read it? have you even understood it?
are you really taking the position that science is entirely wrong and that nothing it says makes any sense? don't you drive a car, don't you watch TV, don't you go to the doctor? how do you go through life man?
Please, this man needs help, can any of you christians tell him he is being unreasonable? if it comes from me he will never even consider it.
Last edited: