Christian 'Mythology'.

[torridon]

Which is fair enough SusanDoris, but then there is an inconsistency in that one rule is being applied in science and another for religious belief. Science cannot offer 100% proof, but wants 100% proof from religious belief.

I haven't that noticed that. 

By and large non-theists tend to claim 'where is the evidence', rather than 'I'm not going to believe this without 100% incontrovertible certainty'.  Non-theists tend to disavow 100% certainty anyway in principle in all things, recognising that this is a foundational virtue in scientific enquiry.  No, rather than certainty, we ask where is the balance of evidence pointing, and the problem with theist beliefs is that there isn't any to go on. All you have is faith supported at best perhaps by a few arcane philosophical arguments like Kalam.

[SusanDoris]

Which is fair enough SusanDoris, but then there is an inconsistency in that one rule is being applied in science and another for religious belief. Science cannot offer 100% proof, but wants 100% proof from religious belief.

No they don't, as they know that it would be an incorrect question. They would however like one fact, one observation which, if independently and objectively  repeated could form the basis for a hypothesis. Religions cannot come up with even one fact, let alone one fact resulting from an observation so there is no basis for anything further to be done.

[Sassy]

Science requires more faith than belief in Jesus Christ.

[floo]

Science requires more faith than belief in Jesus Christ.

Garbage!

[Dicky Underpants]

#137
Then you would be wrong.

You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.

You need a method to establish what the bloody phrase 'Son of God' means to start with.

[Nearly Sane]

#137
Then you would be wrong.

You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.

Nope, that would be your job because it it is your claim.

[Shaker]

Nope, that would be your job because it it is your claim.

If any of this lot understood the concept of the burden of proof we wouldn't have the negative proof fallacy all over the forum like the white on rice, although I like rice (though logical fallacies especially when repeated ad nauseam by the uneducable are a colossal arse-ache in the extreme).

[Walter]

If any of this lot understood the concept of the burden of proof we wouldn't have the negative proof fallacy all over the forum like the white on rice, although I like rice (though logical fallacies especially when repeated ad nauseam by the uneducable are a colossal arse-ache in the extreme).

Its a major problem on here and elsewhere , its a simple concept but strangely difficult for many to accommodate.
I think I may have reached a point where continuing to post on here is likely to affect my sanity very soon .
Its the same thing every day!

[Rosindubh]

..........    They would however like one fact, one observation which, if independently and objectively  repeated could form the basis for a hypothesis. Religions cannot come up with even one fact, let alone one fact resulting from an observation so there is no basis for anything further to be done.

Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.

Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels.  Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction).   Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are.   This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking

Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence.   But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research.   So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.

That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.

If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty.   The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.

God bless

[Shaker]

Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.

Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels.

The world's biggest exercise in question-begging, in other words.

That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.

"Understandable universe"?

I can only assume you've never heard of quantum mechanics. I think the same of every person who spouts the slogan that the universe is a comprehensible, knowable place.

It isn't.

Your idea of mathematics as an externally and objectively, eternally true realm of eternal Platonic truth is held by many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose).

Unfortunately for you, "many" does not equal "all" - there are plenty of mathematicians and/or mathematical physicists who take the opposite view that mathematics is a human construct, i.e. something that human brains make and impose upon the cosmos (e.g. Michael Rowan-Robinson).

In short, opinion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't that noticed that. 

By and large non-theists tend to claim 'where is the evidence', rather than 'I'm not going to believe this without 100% incontrovertible certainty'.  Non-theists tend to disavow 100% certainty anyway in principle in all things, recognising that this is a foundational virtue in scientific enquiry.  No, rather than certainty, we ask where is the balance of evidence pointing, and the problem with theist beliefs is that there isn't any to go on. All you have is faith supported at best perhaps by a few arcane philosophical arguments like Kalam.

And yet we have at least three enforcers of dogmatic agnosticism among non theists. Russell and Dawkins who hold very much a don't go there approach to questions on the origin of the universe...although I understand Dawkins bent his objection to advocate someones theory about a Darwinian multiverse and Krauss who IMHO attempts to shut down any investigation on origins or otherwise about the universe with his statements on nothingness.

You are doing it again, Cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments are not arcane or limited to Kalam as you seemingly keep trying to churn up.....but then I suppose it's a short cut to Lane Craig who is apparently in your circles some kind of Panto villain.

I also wondered if you noticed you and others are comparing methodological materialism (science) with cosmological argument. That is a category buggerization of monumental proportions since one is a philosophy and the other is,er, a method.

That in a nutshell is the house of cards on which the antitheist residency on this forum rests on

[Walter]

Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.

Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels.  Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction).   Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are.   This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking

Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence.   But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research.   So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.

That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.

If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty.   The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.

God bless

do you also write speeches for Deepak Chopra?
Introducing scientific terms into what is mainly nonsense does not make it more credible. And using the bible as verification of its own evidence is ridiculous.

As for the universe being understandable, please explain quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment findings (but don't look)

[Walter]

E T m

ill tell you what I rest on , EVIDENCE.

All you have is wishing, n hoping, n praying. are you not ashamed and embarrassed to keep repeating the same old tut in the vain hope that if you say it often enough I might start to believe you. Its not going to happen.
Produce your evidence and ill change my mind immediately .
happy new year .

[SusanDoris]

Shaker and Walter

Thank you for responding to #158! I have just read it, and it all comes from a make-believe world, doesn't it? There must be few humans who do not know what it is to spend moments imagining a fantasy world, a place where the 'what ifs'  might be realised, but the only way life can really be lived and experienced  is with a clear, unblinkered  knowledge of reality.  - in my strongly held opinion, anyway!

[Walter]

Shaker and Walter

Thank you for responding to #158! I have just read it, and it all comes from a make-believe world, doesn't it? There must be few humans who do not know what it is to spend moments imagining a fantasy world, a place where the 'what ifs'  might be realised, but the only way life can really be lived and experienced  is with a clear, unblinkered  knowledge of reality.  - in my strongly held opinion, anyway!

SusanDoris
you are very welcome ,
happy new year

[Gordon]

Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.

Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels. Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction).   Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are.   This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking

This is just a mix of fallacies: special pleading, reification and authority being the most obvious.

Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence.   But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research.   So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.

I think you'll find that both legal processes and academic historians would just disregard these anecdotal accounts of both Jesus and claimed miracles.

That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.

If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty.   The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.

God bless

Which is an argument from personal incredulity.

[Walter]

This is just a mix of fallacies: special pleading, reification and authority being the most obvious.

I think you'll find that both legal processes and academic historians would just disregard these anecdotal accounts of both Jesus and claimed miracles.

Which is an argument from personal incredulity.

Gordon
you have far more patience than I, well said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Winter's Tale by William Vladspeare

Torridon: (Representing a febrile scientism) ''Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.
Walter: (representing antitheist Alf Garnettism) Alright theists where's your proof?
Torridon:( as an aside) Oh dear.....I hope Walter hasn't noticed what I just said?
Vlad: Don't worry... would he let on even if he did?

[2Corrie]

The Winter's Tale by William Vladspeare

Torridon: (Representing a febrile scientism) ''Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.
Walter: (representing antitheist Alf Garnettism) Alright theists where's your proof?
Torridon:( as an aside) Oh dear.....I hope Walter hasn't noticed what I just said?
Vlad: Don't worry...He wouldn't let on even if he did.

Encore

[Anchorman]

The Winter's Tale by William Vladspeare

Torridon: (Representing a febrile scientism) ''Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.
Walter: (representing antitheist Alf Garnettism) Alright theists where's your proof?
Torridon:( as an aside) Oh dear.....I hope Walter hasn't noticed what I just said?
Vlad: Don't worry... would he let on even if he did?
[/quote






Y'know, this is better than that stuff from the Brummie bard........

[Enki]

Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.

Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels.  Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction).   Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are.   This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking

Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence.   But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research.   So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.

That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.

If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty.   The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.

God bless

Christians might believe in the goodness of Jesus. No problem with that. However I am at a loss as to why this should mean that he was God/son of God.

Christians believe in the miracles of Jesus as set forth in the gospels. They could be, of course, just as they could also be exaggerated anecdotal stories, or misinterpreted stories of a person with the qualities of a Derren Brown.

Hence I would say that neither of these qualities are 'primary empirical evidence for God'.

Obviously the claim that Jesus was God/son of God, based upon the gospels cannot fulfill a scientific requirement for 'objectively' repeated observations because it is based upon historical documents which can't be falsified. However the paucity of other evidence from that period, and  taking into account the anecdotal evidence of others of that period who were committed to the idea that Jesus was God/the son of God, I think that it would be highly unlikely that a jury would be able to come to a decision that Jesus was God/the son of God.

So, in my opinion your 'primary empirical evidence' fails abysmally.

Your statement then follows that science points to an 'understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.' Science suggests that we do have some understanding of our universe, but there are many questions for which we have no answer as yet. We seek to understand our universe with the aid of mathematics, true, but we also seek to verify our findings by experimentation and observation, with the understanding that ideas may be modified or rejected. In other words science says only that our understanding is provisional. As to the idea that science points to an intelligent force, it would depend on what you mean by intelligent. If you mean that this force is a conscious force then I would have to take issue with you. I would suggest that science has nothing to suggest that such a force exists. If by 'intelligent force' you mean that certain fixed laws of physics apply to our universe, then I would wonder why you would call them 'intelligent', which suggests, at the very least, some sort of mind(which doesn't have to be conscious) actually running things. You can believe it if you want, but science has nothing of importance to say on the matter.

Finally I don't see mathematics in your terms whatsoever. If there is a tree on top of a rock, by using language I can make the position of the tree in relation to the rock have a certain clarity to myself and others. I can then extend this idea of relative position to all sorts of other things. However If I have no language that doesn't make any difference to the tree or the rock's relative position at all.
I rather see mathematics as a language(albeit a complicated one) that we use to make the workings of the universe become, to some extent, accessible to human beings. In many ways it describes what is going on, rather than is the reason for it. I am of course open to other explanations.

So my feeling is that you haven't answered Susan's challenge in any way.

Happy New Year.

[Shaker]

What a magnificent post.

[SweetPea]

........ As to the idea that science points to an intelligent force, it would depend on what you mean by intelligent. If you mean that this force is a conscious force then I would have to take issue with you. I would suggest that science has nothing to suggest that such a force exists. If by 'intelligent force' you mean that certain fixed laws of physics apply to our universe, then I would wonder why you would call them 'intelligent', which suggests, at the very least, some sort of mind(which doesn't have to be conscious) actually running things. You can believe it if you want, but science has nothing of importance to say on the matter.

............

Thus, you are making science a god. In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out. Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If by 'intelligent force' you mean that certain fixed laws of physics apply to our universe, then I would wonder why you would call them 'intelligent', which suggests,

I think you misunderstand here. Christians do not say that the laws individually or collectively are intelligent rather than the idea that where there is law there is a lawgiver.

[Maeght]

Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels.  Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction).   Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are.   This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking

The miracles are reported in the Bible as having happened but this does not make them facts.