Should Theists Demand Evidence?

[lightgigantic]

“Q"

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
evidence is a contribution to discerning truth
”
And it should play the primary role while supporting said claim.

probably as primary a role as personal qualification is in the matter of discerning evidence, don't you think?

“
and if the scriptures offer indications of how to arrive at the position of being able to discern evidence, what then?
”
Scriptures ARE those claims that lack evidence or have anything to do with evidence, therefore cannot be used to support theists claims. A very common misconception amongst theists who often turn to scriptures for supporting evidence.

its not clear how this bears a relation to what I posted
true, scripture does make some claims, but I was bringing to your attention that aside from those claims, scripture also provides indication of what qualification is required to perceive those claims

eg

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

in other words if an individual is entangled by issues of attachment, fear, anger, etc, its not clear why we would expect them to be in a position to validate or invalidate the nature of God's existence

“
I'm yet to meet an atheist who doesn't balk at the prospect of explaining how the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause (noumenal), which is the basis behind holding empirical claims as absolute
”
You are mistaken. Claims are not held as absolutes.

then its not clear exactly what you are standing on when you use words such as "delusional" "fantasy" etc in relation to theistic claims

If empirical evidence is constant and relevant to what is measured by our senses, we hold a better understanding of the phenomena as it pertains and affects us and our surroundings.

so that means you can't pass value judgments on anything beyond your sense perception without entering into the realm of intellectual dishonesty

Whatever may be "outside" our senses, if such a concept existed, wouldn't affect us nor have any relevance.

so if I fired a gun that you couldn't see or hear the bullet wouldn't kill you?

“
it appears that atheists are doing just that
”
You've been here long enough to know atheists make tremendous demands for evidence of theists claims and take very little on faith alone.

as already indicated, if atheists think that the senses (phenomanal) can reveal the cause (noumena) they already have a crisis of faith on their hands


******medicine woman*******

M*W: But you know, they're not going to do that! Theists, in factuality, don't want to know the evidence. All they need is their own questionable faith.

and the notion that empiricism (phenomena) has the ability to penetrate cause (noumena) isn't an issue of faith?

Anything that proves theists might have any microcosmal ideal of being wrong will fight with all might to prove it wrong.

ironically, the same scenario is encountered when you begin to discuss the foundations of empiricism with atheists

 

[SnakeLord]

an obvious indication the the whole Lenny thing is merely a device of rhetoric, I guess

You 'guess' wrong. Is there a specific reason you mock my knowledge, (or 'belief' if you prefer)?

more rhetoric ....

Actually it was a valid question that clearly you couldn't answer. You were the one that espoused 'authority' -> "we listen to a mechanic with issues concerning cars" etc. Surely from your own statement you should listen to me because I am the authority on Lenny?

so if I fired a gun that you couldn't see or hear the bullet wouldn't kill you?

You can be quite sure he'd feel it.

 

[(Q)]

probably as primary a role as personal qualification is in the matter of discerning evidence, don't you think?

Nope. An experiment can be conducted in which anyone can view the results, regardless of their qualifications.

its not clear how this bears a relation to what I posted
true, scripture does make some claims, but I was bringing to your attention that aside from those claims, scripture also provides indication of what qualification is required to perceive those claims

Since anyone can observe evidence, that's a moot point.

eg

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

in other words if an individual is entangled by issues of attachment, fear, anger, etc, its not clear why we would expect them to be in a position to validate or invalidate the nature of God's existence

It's all about faith, anyone can have faith. Many theists who claim the existence of god have issues with fear and anger. But, they still have faith. Just look around this forum for evidence of that.

then its not clear exactly what you are standing on when you use words such as "delusional" "fantasy" etc in relation to theistic claims

Because theistic claims ARE absolutes. And when those claims are different even between theists, they can't possibly be absolutes, can they?

so that means you can't pass value judgments on anything beyond your sense perception without entering into the realm of intellectual dishonesty

Hence, scientists have the peer-review process to weed out intellectual dishonesty. What process do theists have for the same?

so if I fired a gun that you couldn't see or hear the bullet wouldn't kill you?

Uh, the firing of a gun IS within our senses. It CAN be detected. It DOES have an effect. Bad example.

as already indicated, if atheists think that the senses (phenomanal) can reveal the cause (noumena) they already have a crisis of faith on their hands

Sorry, but you need to back that up with something other than opinion. And of course, you'll need to apply that statement to theists claims, as well.

 

[SkinWalker]

Oh yeah, BTW, your argument is non-sequitur, and 100% illogical and irrational, the existence or non-existence of "Lenny the Leprechaun", FSM, an INvisible Pink Unicorn, etc...tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, and does not the existence or non-existence less likely....typical atheistic argument "Even though the existence or non-existence of FSM, Thor, Zeus, Lenny the Leprechaun, an Invisible Pink Unicorn has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God/karma/heaven/hell/soul, we can just pretend it does...checkmate!!!"

Actually, it's an argument from analogy. He made an analogous comparison of another un-evidenced claim, one that we can all generally agree is false and inserted your argument in it to see if it held. It didn't. Making your argument the non-sequitur. This is because it doesn't follow that because atheists are unable to provide you with evidence that would prove the existence of your god, your god, therefore, exists.

Your argument is equivalent to someone asknig

NO... his argument was equivalent to yours.

 

[lightgigantic]

Q

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
probably as primary a role as personal qualification is in the matter of discerning evidence, don't you think?
”
Nope. An experiment can be conducted in which anyone can view the results, regardless of their qualifications.

like say a carpenter bereft of any knowledge of physics can determine electron density provided he has the right equipment in his tool box?

“

its not clear how this bears a relation to what I posted
true, scripture does make some claims, but I was bringing to your attention that aside from those claims, scripture also provides indication of what qualification is required to perceive those claims
”
Since anyone can observe evidence, that's a moot point.

to say the least, notion sof higher education tend to indicate otherwise.

For instance there are very good reasons why legal courts call on forensic scientists to ascertain certain truths as opposed to janitors (even if the hourly wage for janitors is considerably less)

“
eg

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

in other words if an individual is entangled by issues of attachment, fear, anger, etc, its not clear why we would expect them to be in a position to validate or invalidate the nature of God's existence
”
It's all about faith, anyone can have faith.

no its about being entangled in attachment, fear, anger etc

Many theists who claim the existence of god have issues with fear and anger. But, they still have faith. Just look around this forum for evidence of that.

then I guess it requires a further analysis of what is meant by these terms - all of which can be discerned by further scriptural investigation

“
then its not clear exactly what you are standing on when you use words such as "delusional" "fantasy" etc in relation to theistic claims
”
Because theistic claims ARE absolutes.

if you make statements about delusion etc, then you are also in the same catagory - the difference is however that you are making absolute negative claims - in other words if you don't have absolute knowledge that a claim is incorrect, why on earth do you use words like 'delusional" (unless of course, you are deluded)

And when those claims are different even between theists, they can't possibly be absolutes, can they?

once again, by scriptural investigation one can determine who is actually in a position of knowledge (for instance persons entangled in issues of attachment, anger and fear are not included).

If we were to just suddenly include the views of any person (regardless of qualification) with an opinion on genetics into the knowledge base of genetics
we would also have an identical conundrum on our hands
“

so that means you can't pass value judgments on anything beyond your sense perception without entering into the realm of intellectual dishonesty
”
Hence, scientists have the peer-review process to weed out intellectual dishonesty. What process do theists have for the same?

science has normative descriptions and so does theism. Of course determining the relevance of these normative descriptions is the business of practitioners (hence janitors are not called on to peer review the claims of physics)

“
so if I fired a gun that you couldn't see or hear the bullet wouldn't kill you?
”
Uh, the firing of a gun IS within our senses. It CAN be detected. It DOES have an effect. Bad example.

if you don't see the gun and don't hear the firing mechanism, how is it within yours senses?

(in other words our senses are obviously phenomenal)

I'm not sure where you would go from here to discuss how noumena bears no relevance to the senses

“
as already indicated, if atheists think that the senses (phenomanal) can reveal the cause (noumena) they already have a crisis of faith on their hands
”
Sorry, but you need to back that up with something other than opinion.

its logic actually - and what gives rise to statements like this from Karl Popper (who bears a closer position to your "camp" than mine)

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

do you understand what is meant by the words "phenomena

In general, apart from its original use as a term in philosophy, phenomenon stands for any observed event. Some observable events are commonplace, while others require delicate manipulation of expensive and sensitive equipment. Phenomena make up the raw data of science, and are often exploited by technology.

and "noumena"?

The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses.

And of course, you'll
need to apply that statement to theists claims, as well.

theistic claims do not operate on the platform of empiricism (phenomena) - they operate on the platform of noumena.

I elaborated on this in a respose to Supe

 

[SnakeLord]

My apologies Q, I don't mean to jump in your boots...

if you don't see the gun and don't hear the firing mechanism, how is it within yours senses?

One can presumably feel the impact of the bullet, measure air displacement etc?

I'm not sure where you would go from here to discuss how noumena bears no relevance to the senses

Noumena: something that can be the object only of a purely intellectual, non-sensuous intuition.

I think the "non-sensuous" will explain how noumena bears no relevance to the senses.

Of course it's hard to see where you would go from here to discuss how something that bears no relevance to the senses can be shown as true.

 

[Cyperium]

Why is that theists demand evidence? They never offer evidence themselves for ANY claims they make, other than the usual reference to scriptures.

And of course, when the evidence IS produced for them, they balk at it.

Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?

They simply demand evidence because lack of evidence is the reason the atheist don't believe - a counter attack so to speak. What's not working for the atheist doesn't work for the theist, so they are barking like dogs at eachother.

We are both as convinced that our beliefs have all the arguments to convince the other person (as we are convinced). It's even simple, when we think about it. But when we talk about it, it seems that it wasn't watertight after all, or there were details that we missed.

The bottom line is; we must understand that we are merely human beings, with limited capacity to make others understand what we do. What we believe does not necessarily hold all the arguments, and even if it did, it all depends on if the other person is willing to believe what you do.

Your opening post was blind to this fact (Q).

 

[lightgigantic]

Q or Snakelord

My apologies Q, I don't mean to jump in your boots...

“

if you don't see the gun and don't hear the firing mechanism, how is it within yours senses?
”
One can presumably feel the impact of the bullet, measure air displacement etc?

thus Q's statement doesn't appear to hold

Whatever may be "outside" our senses, if such a concept existed, wouldn't affect us nor have any relevance.

“
I'm not sure where you would go from here to discuss how noumena bears no relevance to the senses
”
Noumena: something that can be the object only of a purely intellectual, non-sensuous intuition.


I think the "non-sensuous" will explain how noumena bears no relevance to the senses.

I'm not sure if you understand the usage of the word noumena - basically noumena means cause and phenomena means effect - of course the discipline of empiricism is to perceive an effect and determine the cause. Given the scope of empiricism (ie the senses) the whole issue becomes problematic.

Of course it's hard to see where you would go from here to discuss how something that bears no relevance to the senses can be shown as true.

its hard to see how you could reference any phenomena that doesn't have a noumena

(do people get struck down by bullets that have no cause?)

 

[(Q)]

thus Q's statement doesn't appear to hold

Whatever may be "outside" our senses, if such a concept existed, wouldn't affect us nor have any relevance.

Utter nonsense. Bullets are NOT outside of the senses. They have an effect and can be measured. You're chasing a red herring.

 

[(Q)]

The bottom line is; we must understand that we are merely human beings, with limited capacity to make others understand what we do. What we believe does not necessarily hold all the arguments, and even if it did, it all depends on if the other person is willing to believe what you do.

Your opening post was blind to this fact (Q).

No, that's exactly what I've been saying, what theists are willing to believe, which is anything to do with the supernatural. Theists aren't "willing" to believe in reality, that's where they make the stand for evidence.

 

[Cyperium]

No, that's exactly what I've been saying, what theists are willing to believe, which is anything to do with the supernatural. Theists aren't "willing" to believe in reality, that's where they make the stand for evidence.

First of all theists are not willing to believe anything to do with the supernatural, sure, in a way all theist believes in the supernatural, but not anything! Also there are atheists that will believe in anything supernatural, but just won't believe in God for whatever reason.

Also, if you want to believe what I say, there are also atheists that don't go near science (even finds it goofy!), wow, a real eye-opener ha?

Also, we all live in the same reality, but we all see it in our own way, and to us theists reality includes God.

If you don't follow what you say, what you say will have little bearing for me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Utter nonsense. Bullets are NOT outside of the senses. They have an effect and can be measured. You're chasing a red herring.

how is a gun that is fired from a point beyond your sense of hearing and sight within your senses?

 

[lightgigantic]

No, that's exactly what I've been saying, what theists are willing to believe, which is anything to do with the supernatural. Theists aren't "willing" to believe in reality, that's where they make the stand for evidence.

and empiricists have an identical crisis of faith on their hands if they regard reality (noumena) as capable of being delineated by the senses (phenomenal). So even if your statements about theism are correct, its not clear why you have a bias.

 

[VitalOne]

Actually, it's an argument from analogy. He made an analogous comparison of another un-evidenced claim, one that we can all generally agree is false and inserted your argument in it to see if it held. It didn't. Making your argument the non-sequitur. This is because it doesn't follow that because atheists are unable to provide you with evidence that would prove the existence of your god, your god, therefore, exists.

First off, ROFL...looks like I can teach you somethings about logic...

Do you even know what an argument from analogy is? Your FSM or Lenny the Leprechaun analogy would fall under a bad argument from analogy...the reason its non-sequitur is because it has no connection to existence or non-existence of God doesn't show how the existence of God is less likely, rather all it is is another lame attemp to ridicule religion...

Its like saying "Well if the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, then Aliens don't exist either" or "Well if I don't believe in the geocentric theory, the theory of relativity must be false, they're both theories, so all the differences are irrelevant"...just the same as saying "Well if Lenny the Leprechaun doesn't exist, then God must not exist either"

My argument isn't non-sequitur, my argument is simply that if atheists can't tell us what can even be CONSIDERED empirical evidence of God/soul/karma/heaven/hell, then there question of "where's your evidence?" is effectively USELESS...just like how someone saying "there's no evidence of the many-worlds interpretation" is useless because right now nothing can be considered evidence and there's no way to gather evidence...

My argument is 100% logical and rational where as the atheistic argument is 100% illogical and irrational

NO... his argument was equivalent to yours.

No it wasn't...how so?

 

[shaman_]

My argument isn't non-sequitur, my argument is simply that if atheists can't tell us what can even be CONSIDERED empirical evidence of God/soul/karma/heaven/hell,

You have been given answers in several different threads now VitalOne. Perhaps you could stop being dishonest?

 

[SkinWalker]

Not likely.

 

[SnakeLord]

Lenny the Leprechaun analogy would fall under a bad argument from analogy...

This is the last time I want to have to ask you to stop mocking my knowledge, (belief if you prefer).

 

[(Q)]

First of all theists are not willing to believe anything to do with the supernatural, sure, in a way all theist believes in the supernatural, but not anything!

Selectively believing in the supernatural is intellectually dishonest.

Also there are atheists that will believe in anything supernatural, but just won't believe in God for whatever reason.

Such as what?

Also, if you want to believe what I say, there are also atheists that don't go near science (even finds it goofy!), wow, a real eye-opener ha?

So what?

Also, we all live in the same reality, but we all see it in our own way, and to us theists reality includes God.

If you don't follow what you say, what you say will have little bearing for me.

Your selective beliefs will make sure there is much that will have little bearing for you.

Realities that include the supernatural are fantasies, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[(Q)]

how is a gun that is fired from a point beyond your sense of hearing and sight within your senses?

You need not be dishonest to make your point, lg.

So, from your worldview, nothing exists outside of YOUR own senses?:bugeye:

 

[(Q)]

and empiricists have an identical crisis of faith on their hands if they regard reality (noumena) as capable of being delineated by the senses (phenomenal). So even if your statements about theism are correct, its not clear why you have a bias.

That would then be the same crisis of faith that created your computer, internet connection, medicine, air conditioning, etc.? And, that's somehow biased? :shrug: