XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:30:29 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
.
>On 25-November-2014 5:07 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:55:43 +1100, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>
>>> On 22-November-2014 5:04 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:45:03 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova :
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:35:16 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19-November-2014 5:21 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:22:42 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17-November-2014 4:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:41:33 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 16-November-2014 5:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:29:45 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-November-2014 5:23 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:28:47 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14-November-2014 11:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My position is more along the lines that if God exists[*],
then there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is either objective evidence of that existence, or there's not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is objective evidence, I'd like to know what it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's not, then, regardless of whether God actually
exists, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is why you'd believe that He does, given the absence
of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you accept that people may have/have had real experiences of
God, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are empowered by faith to change their life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about Sylvia, but *I* accept that there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who believe they have had such experiences, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith (defined as "belief without proof") can certainly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-changing. Neither of these has anything to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I didn't say ppl who 'believe they have had such experiences'
I said
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'have had'.
>>>>>>>>>>> So they have objective evidence which shows that the
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences were real, and not simply something they believe
>>>>>>>>>>> happened? If not, how is such belief verified?
>>>>>>>>>> how could ppl prove they have had some experience of/from God?
>>>>>>>>> By having objective evidence that they did, perhaps?
>>>>>>>> such as? this is the question that mur keeps asking. what objective
>>>>>>>> evidence would you expect to see/have that someone has had an
experience
>>>>>>>> of God?
>>>>>>> Mur won't provide objective evidence because he presumably
>>>>>>> has none, and tries to shift the burden of proof to his
>>>>>>> opponents; don't sink to mur's level. Objective evidence is
>>>>>>> simply evidence that any disinterested observer can observe.
>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone but the claimant to provide the
>>>>>>> evidence, and once the claimant has what he/she considers to
>>>>>>> be objective evidence it's up to him/her to present it. This
>>>>>>> is pretty basic.
>>>>>> but you're being unrealistic for the simple reason that there would be
>>>>>> no objective/physical evidence of a spiritual encounter. would you
>>>>>> expect the persons face to be glowing? or them to be floating off the
>>>>>> ground? but religious faith has changed ppls lives. that is objective
>>>>>> evidence, is it not?
>>>>> That faith can change peoples' lives is indeed objective
>>>>> evidence, but only that faith can change peoples' lives.
>>>>> It's not evidence that there is any factual basis for that
>>>>> faith.
>>> a changed life is objective evidence that faith can change lives, but it
>>> is also evidence that there is a factual basis producing the result.
>>> that could be just be some psychological mechanism, or it could be that
>>> there is some spiritual force, or other power at work. faith by itself
>>> can't do anything.
>
>so do you agree or not?
>
>>> I could have faith that I won't die from cancer, but
>>> that won't stop me dying unless something happens to prevent me from dying.
>> Bad example; you have no effective control over whether you
>> die of cancer. You *do* have control, however, over how you
>> act, and that can be influenced by what you believe. And
>> without evidence that what you believe is correct that's
>> *all* you have.
>
>the bottom line is that you don't know if someone has/had/can have a
>real experience of God or not. you can only choose to believe that it's
>not possible, but I don't see any sense in doing so
There's certainly no reason to try putting faith in it.
>>>>> *Any* faith can change peoples' lives, even faiths
>>>>> which are contradictory to each other, which would not be
>>>>> possible if one faith were "true" and the others "false",
>>>>> and only the "true" one worked for the change.
>>> I need to know what you're talking about. we need specific examples.
>> Sure. Take any two religions, Catholicism and Islam. Belief
>> in each can affect how their adherents act, and those acts
>> are emphatically *not* identical, just as the tenets of the
>> two religions aren't. Since only one (at most) can be
>> correct, but both cause their respective believers to act in
>> certain *different* ways, at least one of them is causing
>> actions solely on the basis of incorrect belief. Add in
>> every religion over the past 5000 years (Baal worship and
>> practice would be a good additional example, as would the
>> various flavors of animism) and you have a situation in
>> which the overwhelming majority is wrong *by definition*,
>> yet their beliefs affect their actions in effectively
>> identical ways determined by those wrong beliefs.
>
>these discussions do get very confusing, but once again, you cannot know
>that any beliefs associated with any faith are devoid of any efficacy
>regards spiritual revelations, experiences, enlightenment, etc.,
There's certainly no reason to try putting faith in it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
