Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Here is the basic core of the disagreement.
John M believes that faith is a virtue and requests for evidence are anathema to faith.

This is an absurd. This is not my position.

Faith is more than a virtue, is a necessity. You also need pure faith to accept the axioms of the scientific method, for example. Even Satan has faith.

Do you know how the scientific method was built?

You're the one who demands scientific evidence to a metaphysical discussion. And you think you can deny the existence of God using the scientific method.

He dismisses all challenges to his doctrines by calling them metaphysical and therefore off limits for rational inquiry.

God is a metaphysical entity. But metaphysics is accessible to rational inquiry.

Of course like all theists he will take any shred of evidence available.

What kind of evidence do you mean?

Even if we took the ontological argument seriously and accepted John's personal vision as authentic

The St. Anselm's ontological argument it's not only accepted as authentic by myself but it's accepted as formal logic by everyone in every university in the whole wide world. There's no place for "even if" in this case.

Do you know what formal logic is? I'm not sure if you know logic at all...

it would not begin to answer any of the challenges of the OP.

The very ontological argument is a key to every question you asked in the OP.

The OP simply observes that in many ways the world doesn't actually look the way Christians pretend it does.

I've demonstrated by formal logic that this world is exactly what Christianity teaches. It's the best world possible. It's only temporarily broken.

Proposing other lines of evidence for God doesn't meet the challenge.

Why not? Because your Scientism cult prevents you from other forms of human knowledge?

Attacking atheism as a worldview doesn't either.

Why? Because Atheism and Scientism are your golden calf?

Are you in denial or just dissimulating about your position of Scientism? Just like the Brahma Kumaris dissimulate their position for some obscure purpose?

Are you even aware of being a scientismIST?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

The OP stands unanswered.

You can say you don't agree with my answers but you can't say your OP was not answered. This is denial.

Actually you are running away from several questions (and answers) I did directly to you.

3 days ago

I'd already answered them but let's do it again.

1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.

Why not? CC accepts the ToE and this theory implies death and destruction.

This is how the physical world works. Catholic faith is all about the salvation of the metaphysical soul.

2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.

Our physical bodies and some features of our minds came to existence through natural laws.

Only our immortal soul was made to be an image of God.

3.The bible really would contain prophecies that could be verified using objective historical evidence. It wouldn't be necessary to rip verses out of context and interpret ambiguous phrases to try to make details fit post hoc..

There's historical evidence that the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

In these Gospels its destruction was prophecised by Jesus to be occuring during a biblical generation (40 years).

4.The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.

This is a very subjective statement.

But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.

5.The ethics of scripture would be enlightening and uplifting without exception. It would condemn things like slavery unambiguously and champion the rights and equality of women. It would not advocate moral evils that need to be explained away with appeals to relativism and special pleading.

This statement is based on Sola Scriptura and is very subjective too.

6.Miracles would really happen - even now in the age of CCTV, smart phones and scientific enquiry. It would require stubbornness rather than healthy skepticism to deny them.

I only accept the Catholic definition of miracle. I believe miracles only happen in a Catholic context. Here are some of them:

- Our Lady of Fatima ( the miracle of the sun)

- Our Lady of Zeitoun

- the Eucharist miracles of Buenos Aires and Lanciano.

7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.

Natural disasters are inevitable consequences of natural laws. And natural laws are necessary in a world that harbors free-willed agents limited in a physical world.

8.Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.

This is a very subjective statement.

But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.

9.There is so much more detail I could add to this, but in summary it would be more difficult to reject the claims of christianity than to accept them. It is not too much to expect that this should be so.

(...)

I want to add that there's not a single logical argument to Atheism and Scientism. Both positions are just one single axiom. This is barely a position...

Nothing, nihil...

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

My worldview even has falsifiability and predictability.

My scientific guess is we will be able to recreate a brain from scratch very soon.

Not a biological brain but a virtual brain.

All we need is the exascale and the complete scanning of the brain in a molecular level.

There are ongoing projects about this.

I say that even with a perfect recreation of the brain will not be possible to achieve a consciousness. They will only get a "smart dog" from this empirical experiment. Because brain is physical and consciousness is metaphysical. The brain is not the cause of consciousness, the immortal soul is the source of consciousness.

Consider this as a prophecy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_simulation

13

Reasons to break free from religion

by googleTTATT in

i am compiling my list.

you can add yours if you like to.. 1. the hypocrisy in religion.. 2. religion make good people bad and bad people worse and worse people worst.. 3. the false dates given in religion.. 4. religions use their fundamental books to suit their beliefs.. 5. wrong and distorted views about sexual life.

the list goes on.

John_Mann

Religion can be used for evil.

Science can be used for evil.

Politics can be used for evil.

All these things are neutral human activities that can be used for good and evil.

Religion is the pursuit of greater things and the greatest thing is God.

If someone is searching for perfection so this one are practicing religion. That's why cathedrals are so beautiful.

Maybe some religions are bad in its nature. I have my reservations about Islam and JW's because they can and really change their rules at whim.

"So that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ. "

"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."

- Phillipians 1:10 and 4:8

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

What is known so far is that consciousness is impacted/altered when persons experience brain injury or neurological disorders.
Brain injury and neurological disorders prove that consciousness is fundamentally a physical phenomenon and that the brain mediates and controls all aspects of consciousness; every part of the mind is entirely dependent on and controlled by the brain.

Correlation does not imply causality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Just because you can alter the reception of a radio device by altering it does not mean you affect the broadcasting station in anyway.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

I never said I needed "God in a vial." I just need something that is not as erratic as supposed miracles. If a reliable God produces evidence, does it not make sense that evidence would be reliable? Miracles and all other supernatural events are not repeatable, therefore they are not reliable.

Not repeatable, not reliable.

This is the axiom called "Law of Induction" in the scientific method.

Why do you apply the axiomatic "Law of Induction" to events that you personally defines as not repeatable?

Can't you see the clear contradiction in your position?

Truth can't be contradictory.

Can't you see you have a very bias toward the logically flawed Scientism?

Do you think no repeatable events are inexistent in physical reality?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Why is it possible for us to think and have conscientiousness? Has that aspect of existence been revealed to us by natural science or physical law? I know or assume I have it,and I suspect that most of us in this discussion link think similarly - including Cofty.

I don't know if I understood right but I think you said that you share the same view of Cofty: Scientism.

But I failed to find where did you explained why do you accept this view.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

What is the purpose of a miracle if not to provide physical proof of divinity?

The primary purpose is always metaphysical and usually a mystery.

The "physical" purpose is always to satisfy the physical nature in humans: "there's something really mysterious beyond physical reality".

A reliable witness is one that leaves themselves open to cross-examination. A reliable expert is one with necessary training that produces repeatable results and then allows other experts to check and confirm their findings.

Did you really ruled out all of these from the miracles I've mentioned?

With regards to verifiable evidence, yes.

What you mean by verifiable evidence? Scientism bias?

Christian theology is older but logically that is the only difference I can see in the quality of evidence for both of these topics.

Historical evidence is a convincing one too.

Christian theology (especially Catholicism) is very older but kept the same logical consistency throughout 2000 years.

Buddhism and Judaism are older but evolved a lot with several basic premises.

Catholicism possess much more premises than Buddhism and Judaism combined.

This is a very convincing historical evidence to something very mysterious at least.

Scientism barely has 200 years of formal existence.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't think you addressed my first point. Why would sensory evidence of God's existence, effect whether not worship is done in "spirit and truth?"

Miracles and personal paranormal experiences are sensory evidence.

But you can't have a " God in a vial" evidence. Like Scientism preaches.

This kind of thinking is against the very concept of God and against the very concept of "vial" (empirical) evidence.

It's simply senseless.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

True, which means that our reason must be used to temper faith. Reason tells me that each of the "miracles" you brought up have several warning indicators that they are probably fabrications.

Never forget the act of reasoning can be mislead by following wrong premises.

That's why pure faith precedes the process of reasoning.

Always check your premises.

And you can only deal with premises through pure faith.

Bad premises, false conclusions.

1. They happened a long time ago, or in a far-away land, thus removed from the scrutiny of the first world press. (In some cases both) Which means that they are left open to being wildly over-exaggerated. (Note: First world press coverage doesn't necessarily prevent this, but in my opinion, more coverage and thus more skeptical scrutiny helps reveal the truth.)

True.

It's wise to start with the benefit of the doubt.

Agnosticism is best starting point.

2. The photographic and video evidence is either blurry or non-existent.

Physical world burden.

3. First-hand accounts from reliable witnesses and experts are also non-existent.

How do you know they're not reliable witnesses? What makes you cease your benefit of the doubt? This is the very "cat's jump", be very careful in this moment.

I'm sure I could go on if applied more thought to this but I think my point is clear.

I still have the impression that you tend to accept the position of Scientism.

If I accepted these miracles as true based on the provided evidence, then to remain consistent I would also have to accept Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Alien Abductions as true.

Do you really think these things are exactly the same Christian theology?

Like miracles, however, I choose to simply view those events with skeptical disbelief until I find some evidence that the events in question couldn't easily be a fabrication or a false perception.

My question is: what kind of evidence are you expecting?

You don't need to tell me.

Can you be honest with yourself and say you are not biased to Scientism?

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann

3 days ago