Author Topic: Faith v Knowledge  (Read 632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Faith v Knowledge
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:23:14 AM »
Having spent some time debating with Christians and YECs, I'm thinking of sitting down with them with a piece of paper in front of us. On it will be two columns;
1. 'Things You Know That Are Facts About Your God' and 2. 'Things You Don't Know But Have Faith In.'

So, with regards to Christianity (as that's the belief I seem to debate most), what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2013, 07:47:41 AM »
Does the lack of replies answer the question?
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2013, 07:53:59 AM »
what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.

Just about everything will be put in column 1, because they don't have a clue what a fact is.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2013, 08:36:46 AM »
I'm still amazed that when I first started seriously considering Christianity a few years ago, I had assumed there was a fair bit of evidence or convincing arguments for BibleGod, but just scratching the surface brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.

I refuse to allow Christians now to tell me how wonderful their God is or what aftershave Jesus uses or how great Heaven is until they can give me one speck of evidence that their god exists. I advise you all, if you don't already do it, to interrupt immediately and request proof of the existence of their god first.
I liken it to someone with a 5 foot ladder explaining to me exactly how wonderfully they will decorate the 15 foot ceiling, where the gold leaf will be inlaid, what lamp fittings will be used, how the cornice will be picked out with shades of blues and green, and how majestic the mural of the stars will look, and when I point out to them their ladder won't reach they reply that they'll simply prop it on a block of air to reach up.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 08:46:51 AM »
I'm still amazed that when I first started seriously considering Christianity a few years ago, I had assumed there was a fair bit of evidence or convincing arguments for BibleGod, but just scratching the surface brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
This is a tough one, as it tends to shut down all conversation with believers.  I agree with you mostly, but it seems we will be in the position of having to give them the benefit of the doubt just to be able to converse.  I do think it would be good to have some strong opposition to any conversation beyond the simple existence of their entire basis of belief, that a god exists.

Quote
I refuse to allow Christians now to tell me how wonderful their God is or what aftershave Jesus uses or how great Heaven is until they can give me one speck of evidence that their god exists. I advise you all, if you don't already do it, to interrupt immediately and request proof of the existence of their god first.
I liken it to someone with a 5 foot ladder explaining to me exactly how wonderfully they will decorate the 15 foot ceiling, where the gold leaf will be inlaid, what lamp fittings will be used, how the cornice will be picked out with shades of blues and green, and how majestic the mural of the stars will look, and when I point out to them their ladder won't reach they reply that they'll simply prop it on a block of air to reach up.
I like the ladder analogy - I am going to use it with friends to see how they respond.  I have so often used the analogy that faith is a "gap of emptiness" that I personally cannot cross.  My brain simply will not allow me to ignore the "gap" and leap across to an idea or ideas that are impossible to explain, or that are expected to be accepted without question.

What are some weaknesses to this analogy?  All I've ever heard regarding faith is that you "just have to have it".  Kind of lame for modern humans, if you ask me.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2013, 09:03:47 AM »
So far the only Christians I've debated with have been Young Earthers. I did try the softly softly respect for your god approach and in my opinion that only reinforced to them that their god exists; I was acknowledging their god, any further debate was me denying their god.
So now I will not acknowledge their god unless they can prove it. This has at least made many of them think. I use an initial refusal to acknowledge their god which takes them back a bit, then go a bit softer aiming at 'faith' as described in Manual for Creating Atheists by Shermer and Boghossian.
I question all their statements, I want them to tell me how they know this, I want to show them their house of cards.

Someone (can't remember who you are, but thank you) on here recently posted a link to a lecture by Christine Hayes; I've started watching her series. Some really good stuff here. I'd also swallowed the line about the bible claiming itself to be the word of god; but it doesn't. Something that I and I'm sure many believers aren't aware of.

Huffington post article by Christine Hayes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hayes/5-misconceptions-about-the-bible_b_2173965.html



« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 09:05:59 AM by Ron Jeremy »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2013, 09:13:26 AM »
Thanks for the link, I'll try to watch the video later - trying to catch up on home work.

Here is another angle - you can skip to the bottom half if you're short on time.

http://wayneholland.org/whatdoweknow.htm

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1607
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2013, 09:22:32 AM »
All I've ever heard regarding faith is that you "just have to have it". 
Headbangingly frustrating, that. They can't explain why I "just have to have it" either, nor do they understand when I ask how I'm supposed to do so.

The Nike slogan "Just Do It" seems enough for them, and they can not understand why that's not enough for me.

@Ron Jeremy, thanks for the link - the article was well written and thought provoking. I'll get the video series bookmarked for future viewing.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2013, 09:45:16 AM »
Having spent some time debating with Christians and YECs, I'm thinking of sitting down with them with a piece of paper in front of us. On it will be two columns;
1. 'Things You Know That Are Facts About Your God' and 2. 'Things You Don't Know But Have Faith In.'

So, with regards to Christianity (as that's the belief I seem to debate most), what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.

The Problem with your  demands is anything said will fall on deaf ears. It astonishes me how much people who do not believe in any god would want evidence for a Christian god. It makes no sense to advocate Christianity to someone if they have first not accepted the base conditions that would make Christianity reasonable. If you would want evidence or proof that there is a god we could start with that. Your demanding that Calculus be explained before you know algebra.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1607
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 10:08:07 AM »
The Problem with your  demands is anything said will fall on deaf ears.
It's the old pot/kettle dilemma, isn't it? Accusations of "deafness" are common on both sides of this debate.
Quote
It astonishes me how much people who do not believe in any god would want evidence for a Christian god.
It astonishes ME that anyone would believe in a god without evidence of that god's existence, unless they are indoctrinated from an early age.

Speaking only for myself, of course, I'd be happy to consider evidence of ANY god, not just the christian one - I bet the majority of the atheist members here would as well. Theists continue to insist that a god exists; all I want is proof of that claim. Pick a god, ANY god, and prove it's existence.
Quote
It makes no sense to advocate Christianity to someone if they have first not accepted the base conditions that would make Christianity reasonable.
Please, explain the base conditions that would make christianity reasonable - I've been looking for "reasonable" and "christianity" together for years.
Quote
If you would want evidence or proof that there is a god we could start with that.
Then stop dragging your feet with this sidestepping and give up this evidence or proof you are asking to "start with".
Quote
Your demanding that Calculus be explained before you know algebra.
Theists here are frequently demanding that we ignore the evidence we've seen so far in favor of evidence that no one has been able to produce. If that's your standard for reasonable, this discussion isn't going to go very far.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 10:39:03 AM »
Having spent some time debating with Christians and YECs, I'm thinking of sitting down with them with a piece of paper in front of us. On it will be two columns;
1. 'Things You Know That Are Facts About Your God' and 2. 'Things You Don't Know But Have Faith In.'

So, with regards to Christianity (as that's the belief I seem to debate most), what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.

The Problem with your demands is anything said will fall on deaf ears.
I'm sure it will.
It's like when you ask a theist to pray for a cure for cancer- instead of doing it the first response is usually along the lines of "god does not work like that"or "god has a plan ". The response is an excuse as the theists know full well that prayers have zero effect just as there are zero facts about god (christian or otherwise).
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2013, 10:51:19 AM »
Your demanding that Calculus be explained before you know algebra.
I don't think the above is a correct analogy.

This, I think, get a little closer:
I'm demanding that calculus be explained.  If an understanding of calculus is predicated upon an understanding of algebra, then I would like algebra explained.  If an understanding of algebra is predicated upon an understanding of arithmetic, then I would like arithmetic explained.

I do not understand arithmetic.  An understanding of arithmetic is necessary to understand algebra, which in turn in necessary to understand calculus[1].  Per your analogy, I'm not demanding calculus be explained to me before I know algebra.  I'm demanding that calculus be explained to me - if that understanding depends on me understanding algebra, then you're going to have to explain algebra to me too.

Pretending to understand algebra so that I can have calculus explained to me is silly.  Which, unfortunately, is what your analogy is suggesting that I do:
Quote
It makes no sense to advocate Christianity to someone if they have first not accepted the base conditions that would make Christianity reasonable.
And I cannot accept those base conditions because I do not understand them.
 1. Please note I'm still in analogy land - I don't think those mathematical disciplines truly have such hierarchical dependencies
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 07:09:39 PM »
I found this page quite interesting as well, concerning the Bible and claims to be the word of God

www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=22

Re- Christine Hayes; I think it was Foxy Freedom's link I followed.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 07:28:02 PM by Ron Jeremy »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6128
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2013, 07:47:06 PM »
Faith replaces knowledge when knowledge doesn't match with what one expects their beliefs to provide.

So simple.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2013, 08:10:32 PM »
It astonishes me how much people who do not believe in any god would want evidence for a Christian god.

It astonishes me how much people who do not believe in any Unicorn would want evidence for a Purple Unicorn.

Po-tae-to / Po-tah-to

It makes no sense to advocate Christianity to someone if they have first not accepted the base conditions that would make Christianity reasonable.

This reminds me of someone who proclaims the absurd redundancy "You won't agree with me if you don't agree with me." However, the position is flawed b/c Christianity teaches that Christians are to 'preach the gospel' and 'make disciples of all men'. The way the early Christians did this was by street preaching and proselytizing about Christ - not just about some generic Spinoza type deity thing. This "base condition" in Christianity is Yahweh! The OP is asking for what Christians deem to be facts and how they think they know them. An example of this would be, "Fact one is that we know our god Yahweh is real" to which we would ask "How do you know that?" or "Why are you calling this a fact?"
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 08:12:51 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2013, 03:12:28 AM »
Now, to answer the responses, I believe I am being accused of sidestepping and logical fallacy. This was my point:
An atheist by definition does not believe in God. So then what would be the point of arguing with an Atheist about Christianity, which is not only a belief in god, but a belief in God's nature. Now an argument about the nature of God would make sense if it was between to theists. A more logical discussion to have between an atheist and a theist would be the fact of god's existence. That is a discussion i'm am more than willing to engage in. However, I have found that It is common to be asked to defend my belief in God's nature as opposed to weather God exists. Defending my belief in God's nature as a christian is of course completly futile because nobody would have accepted the base conditions necessary to have the discussion. So then, Can we discuss knowledge of God's existence without involving Christianity?
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2013, 03:19:50 AM »
An atheist by definition does not believe in God. So then what would be the point of arguing with an Atheist about Christianity,

An atheist doesn't believe in any gods he has been presented with, or that have been currently discovered.  An assertion that there is no god is vacuous, without even being able to define god.

You seem to be saying the atheists argue like Christian presuppositionalists. If we did, then God help us; I mean truly, God fucking help us.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 03:28:07 AM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2013, 03:27:16 AM »
Now, to answer the responses, I believe I am being accused of sidestepping and logical fallacy. This was my point:
An atheist by definition does not believe in God. So then what would be the point of arguing with an Atheist about Christianity, which is not only a belief in god, but a belief in God's nature. Now an argument about the nature of God would make sense if it was between to theists. A more logical discussion to have between an atheist and a theist would be the fact of god's existence. That is a discussion i'm am more than willing to engage in. However, I have found that It is common to be asked to defend my belief in God's nature as opposed to weather God exists. Defending my belief in God's nature as a christian is of course completly futile because nobody would have accepted the base conditions necessary to have the discussion. So then, Can we discuss knowledge of God's existence without involving Christianity?

I sympathise with this point of view. I call it the 'partial God problem', where one aspect of God's being is agreed upon for the sake of discussion, but another aspect is not
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2013, 03:29:41 AM »
I sympathise with this point of view. I call it the 'partial God problem', where one aspect of God's being is agreed upon for the sake of discussion, but another aspect is not

If you don't want a partial god problem, you shouldn't worship a partial god.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2013, 07:53:17 AM »
Now, to answer the responses, I believe I am being accused of sidestepping and logical fallacy. This was my point:
An atheist by definition does not believe in God. So then what would be the point of arguing with an Atheist about Christianity, which is not only a belief in god, but a belief in God's nature. Now an argument about the nature of God would make sense if it was between to theists. A more logical discussion to have between an atheist and a theist would be the fact of god's existence. That is a discussion i'm am more than willing to engage in. However, I have found that It is common to be asked to defend my belief in God's nature as opposed to weather God exists. Defending my belief in God's nature as a christian is of course completly futile because nobody would have accepted the base conditions necessary to have the discussion. So then, Can we discuss knowledge of God's existence without involving Christianity?

The original question is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts. Not Christianity; your god. What facts do you know about your god? Because unless we can establish the existence of your god, what he has for breakfast or what songs he likes you to sing are meaningless.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2013, 08:18:52 AM »
Having spent some time debating with Christians and YECs, I'm thinking of sitting down with them with a piece of paper in front of us. On it will be two columns;
1. 'Things You Know That Are Facts About Your God' and 2. 'Things You Don't Know But Have Faith In.'

So, with regards to Christianity (as that's the belief I seem to debate most), what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.

I presume you mean "fact" as an assertion which can be verified independently.  As a theist of the Christian persuasion, I would say that my column 1 is empty.  I know of no way to prove God's existence in a scientific sense.  If that means I am a misguided and/or delusional so be it. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2013, 08:55:13 AM »
Thanks for the honest answer OCG
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2013, 09:44:56 AM »
Now, to answer the responses, I believe I am being accused of sidestepping and logical fallacy. This was my point:
An atheist by definition does not believe in God. So then what would be the point of arguing with an Atheist about Christianity, which is not only a belief in god, but a belief in God's nature. Now an argument about the nature of God would make sense if it was between to theists. A more logical discussion to have between an atheist and a theist would be the fact of god's existence. That is a discussion i'm am more than willing to engage in. However, I have found that It is common to be asked to defend my belief in God's nature as opposed to weather God exists. Defending my belief in God's nature as a christian is of course completly futile because nobody would have accepted the base conditions necessary to have the discussion. So then, Can we discuss knowledge of God's existence without involving Christianity?
Discuss knowledge of god's existence without any discussion on god's nature?  I'm not sure that's possible.  Some aspect of god's nature is going to have to come up in that discussion.  Can you discuss knowledge of an electron's existence without any discussion on the nature of electrons?  Can you discuss knowledge of Pauly Shore's existence without any discussion on Pauly Shore's nature?

Without any considerations for what the nature of <insert label> is, I have no idea how to move forward with the question "Does <insert label> exist?".  Seems impossible to me.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2013, 02:10:52 PM »
Okay, look never mind... The point was that not everything i consider fact is sensible until some of the more basic truths are accepted, So then i will follow with some of what I consider the strongest most basic evidence backed truths. And not worry about any other for the time.
Having spent some time debating with Christians and YECs, I'm thinking of sitting down with them with a piece of paper in front of us. On it will be two columns;
1. 'Things You Know That Are Facts About Your God' and 2. 'Things You Don't Know But Have Faith In.'

So, with regards to Christianity (as that's the belief I seem to debate most), what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.

The facts About God:

There exists one all knowing all powerful God.
God is the embodiment of the good and moral.
God is the creator of the Universe.
Nothing in the physical world happens except for by God's will.

lets start with these...
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2013, 02:28:01 PM »
Okay, look never mind... The point was that not everything i consider fact is sensible until some of the more basic truths are accepted, So then i will follow with some of what I consider the strongest most basic evidence backed truths. And not worry about any other for the time.
Having spent some time debating with Christians and YECs, I'm thinking of sitting down with them with a piece of paper in front of us. On it will be two columns;
1. 'Things You Know That Are Facts About Your God' and 2. 'Things You Don't Know But Have Faith In.'

So, with regards to Christianity (as that's the belief I seem to debate most), what will be entered in column '1' by Christians? That is; Things About Our God We Know Are Facts.

The facts About God:

There exists one all knowing all powerful God.
God is the embodiment of the good and moral.
God is the creator of the Universe.
Nothing in the physical world happens except for by God's will.

lets start with these...

Ok, sounds good. Please show the evidence for these facts.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 02:30:01 PM »
The facts About God:

There exists one all knowing all powerful God.
God is the embodiment of the good and moral.
God is the creator of the Universe.
Nothing in the physical world happens except for by God's will.
lets start with these...
Seeing as you see them as facts, it must be possible to prove them to a non believer like myself.
How can you show them to be facts?

(Sorry Ron, I posted at the same time)
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6448
  • Darwins +465/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 02:54:45 PM »
The facts About God:

There exists one all knowing all powerful God.
There are many more gods. The Bible mentions them. God is not "all knowing", else our future is fixed and He knows our future. Then why would He punish us if He made us that way and gave us that path in life?

Additionally, there is a list somewhere on the site of 5,000 other gods.

Quote
God is the embodiment of the good and moral.
He killed everyone (except 8) on earth in a flood but, more to the point, where is the morality in

Zep:1:1: The word of the LORD which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah.
Zep:1:2: I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD.
Zep:1:3: I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.
Zep:1:4: I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests;
Zep:1:5: And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by the LORD, and that swear by Malcham;
Zep:1:6: And them that are turned back from the LORD; and those that have not sought the LORD, nor enquired for him.
Zep:1:7: Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.


Quote
God is the creator of the Universe.
The Bible does not actually say this, it says that the Earth was "formed" by The Elohim. The Elohim are the council of the Canaanite gods of which Yahweh was one.

Moreover, God cannot have created the earth, as He informs us that rain comes in through the holes in the firmament: if He had made the earth, He would have known this to be untrue.
Quote
Nothing in the physical world happens except for by God's will.
Does this include vile disease, painful and slow deaths, disfigurements, blindness, and mental illness, wars and all evil?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 04:30:44 PM »
The existence of god is demonstrated by the fact that the universe is logical. For a logical statement to be either true or false it's state of truth has to exist somewhere. A truth is not physical so the only place it could exist is inside of a consious mind. Well for any truth to be absolute there would have to be a mind that knows the true nature of all things. In this sense a logical universe requires a all knowing god to by its very existence.  Even the question, Is there a god? implies Gods existence because without one the question could never have a definitive answer.

Now onto God being the embodiment of everything that is good and moral, the idea behind this is that Morality has to be objective in order to exist. People have been advocating Moral Systems for years in which they try and eliminate the objective good. But they all fall on the question: "Why should I do that?" Utilitarianism for example says we should increase utility for all Sentient Creatures, however this is not an elimination of Morals instead it is the forwarding of a system in which there is only one Moral. So then just like truth, for morals to have any validity you need to have some being that is in the state of being truly moral outside of reality, this again then implies a god.


Next lets move on to God as the Creator of the Universe. This can be seen in the fact that everything in the physical universe is based on causation. To say that everything that happens had something that happened before it. Then for the universe to have ever started, for the universe to be here it would have needed an objective creator, an outside cause. This once again arrives at a conscious God.

THe last clams that everything that happens is the physical universe is a result of gods will. This is best shown as a recurrence relation. Given any physical action, the action is defined by the action of its smaller parts. So when a bat hits a baseball, the movement is based on the actions of both object's molecules, which are dependent on the interactions of the atoms wich is based on the interactions of the subatomic particles and so on. Eventually, however the recurrence relation has to reach a base case. Some set of interactions on the tiniest scale that happen arbitrarily. Because they happen for know reason, I am yet to find a reason they could happen outside of the will of an objective being.

Also... Greybeard is a perfect demonstration of what I was talking about earlier...
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Faith v Knowledge
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2013, 05:09:48 PM »
The existence of god is demonstrated by the fact that the universe is logical. For a logical statement to be either true or false it's state of truth has to exist somewhere. A truth is not physical so the only place it could exist is inside of a consious mind. Well for any truth to be absolute there would have to be a mind that knows the true nature of all things. In this sense a logical universe requires a all knowing god to by its very existence.  Even the question, Is there a god? implies Gods existence because without one the question could never have a definitive answer.


If by "definitive answer" you are talking about absolute certainty then this statement is a red-herring b/c you would first have to show that such "absolute" knowledge is possible. Now, just b/c the universe is "logical" (by this I take it to mean you are saying the universe follows specific 'norms') doesn't at all mean that a God 'thing' exists (as it could simply just be the way things are with no deity required). After all, you do believe that your God just is don't you? So obviously, at some point, you think there comes a point where one can do no more explaining. I see no need for an extra assumption of a supernatural deity to explain physical constants or normalities of our local universe.

I further see no reason for thinking there is any ontological "absolute truth". And even if there was, by what means could you claim to know it with "absolute certainty"? These terms are really meaningless, if for no other reason than the fact that human understanding is wholly first person. In short, claiming you have "absolute knowledge" doesn't mean you do. I could just as easily claim that I have absolute knowledge of something contradictory to your claim. Would that make me right?

Now onto God being the embodiment of everything that is good and moral, the idea behind this is that Morality has to be objective in order to exist. People have been advocating Moral Systems for years in which they try and eliminate the objective good. But they all fall on the question: "Why should I do that?" Utilitarianism for example says we should increase utility for all Sentient Creatures, however this is not an elimination of Morals instead it is the forwarding of a system in which there is only one Moral. So then just like truth, for morals to have any validity you need to have some being that is in the state of being truly moral outside of reality, this again then implies a god.

Morality does not "exist" like an atom, quasar, or planet. Morality is the description we put upon the bases of human actions (and whether they are harmful, helpful, and how they pertain to well being). Morality is about well being and the minimization of harm. If you talk about anything else, then you aren't talking about morality.

Regarding your "objective" claim, I have seen no reason for thinking there is some 'standard' that can apply without anyone around. Each of us values life subjectively and this fact doesn't make morality "objective" in the way I think you are using the term.

Next lets move on to God as the Creator of the Universe. This can be seen in the fact that everything in the physical universe is based on causation. To say that everything that happens had something that happened before it. Then for the universe to have ever started, for the universe to be here it would have needed an objective creator, an outside cause. This once again arrives at a conscious God.

Just claiming "conscious God" is ad hoc. You need to demonstrate that claim (provide evidence - not just assert). There are many scientific explanations for the origin of this universe. Why would you just jump to some 'God did it' answer? That is just an argument from ignorance fallacy. Our local universe could have been caused by another universe, or it could have been uncaused (just like this 'God' is allegedly uncaused). Why would you jump to mysteries to explain other mysteries? That is just credulity and gullibility. 

THe last clams that everything that happens is the physical universe is a result of gods will. This is best shown as a recurrence relation. Given any physical action, the action is defined by the action of its smaller parts. So when a bat hits a baseball, the movement is based on the actions of both object's molecules, which are dependent on the interactions of the atoms wich is based on the interactions of the subatomic particles and so on. Eventually, however the recurrence relation has to reach a base case. Some set of interactions on the tiniest scale that happen arbitrarily. Because they happen for know reason, I am yet to find a reason they could happen outside of the will of an objective being.

Huh? This is another Argument from Incredulity fallacy. Because you personally can't see how X happened...therefore God? NO. Who said things happen for "no reason"? You are really stretching here.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan