In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
My opinion of true evidence of God's existence can be found in understanding Love. However, how vague and how to approach this is quite beyond me.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, I believe/hope there will be one thing, one word you will hear, that will re-ignite your faith.
I sure hope and pray that you get the answer you seek.
[quote author=ShareTheLord link=topic=13328.msg156133#msg156133 date=1338228291] Can you prove using science that Love exists?
In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
Hmm...what's your take on people who experience love and yet don't believe in God? (I ask strictly out of curiosity).
Also, we can't prove other abstract concepts like "justice" or "fairness" using science either, precisely because they are abstract concepts. Though, in the specific case of love, we do understand a lot of the biochemistry behind it (i.e. oxytocin) (but I recognize that this is not equivalent to proving it exists).
But God is not supposed to be some abstract concept. He is supposed to be real, in the sense that you and I and the trees in my yard and my house is real (probably even realer than that, since all existence is supposed to come from Him). I know the Bible says that "God is love", but by reducing Him to strictly that definition, you are reducing Him to the level of an abstraction, which is not what what I have been taught He is.
My opinion of true evidence of God's existence can be found in understanding Love. However, how vague and how to approach this is quite beyond me.
I think it's beyond me as well.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, I believe/hope there will be one thing, one word you will hear, that will re-ignite your faith.
I sure hope and pray that you get the answer you seek.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13328.msg156136#msg156136 date=1338232323] God is not real like a tree in your garden. Ill say it again you are trying to put God under a microscope. He will not fit.
Can you please explain the first sentence of this?
Ill say it again you are trying to put God under a microscope. He will not fit.
Hmm....
And is this also true of the Bible itself?
If you have stopped praying then you will never discover him. He makes himself known to those who seek him with perseverance.
If a person no longer has hope that this will work, what then? Will God then not make Himself known, despite knowing what is in that person's heart? (I'm not asking this one to debate, this is a very serious question)
[quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg156134#msg156134 date=1338229381] [quote author=ShareTheLord link=topic=13328.msg156133#msg156133 date=1338228291] In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
Hmm...what's your take on people who experience love and yet don't believe in God? (I ask strictly out of curiosity).
In my opinion, belief in God does not mean God wants no part in you. That is what is so amazing. God loves each and everyone of us and wants to share Himself with all. Those who don't believe and unfortunetly eventually reject His Kingdom, are still loved by God and He seems to share Himself with all. In His wisdom, He might belief that if He share who He is with all, those who experience it so much might ask themself one day where this truly comes from. God reveals Himself to all. To me, it is truly amazing.
But God is not supposed to be some abstract concept. He is supposed to be real, in the sense that you and I and the trees in my yard and my house is real (probably even realer than that, since all existence is supposed to come from Him). I know the Bible says that "God is love", but by reducing Him to strictly that definition, you are reducing Him to the level of an abstraction, which is not what what I have been taught He is.
I will let Father Peter explain more as he seems to want to address this point. I could give my opinion, but it would be an uneducated opinion.
[quote author=ShareTheLord link=topic=13328.msg156140#msg156140 date=1338240021] [quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg156134#msg156134 date=1338229381] [quote author=ShareTheLord link=topic=13328.msg156133#msg156133 date=1338228291] In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
Hmm...what's your take on people who experience love and yet don't believe in God? (I ask strictly out of curiosity).
In my opinion, belief in God does not mean God wants no part in you. That is what is so amazing. God loves each and everyone of us and wants to share Himself with all. Those who don't believe and unfortunetly eventually reject His Kingdom, are still loved by God and He seems to share Himself with all. In His wisdom, He might belief that if He share who He is with all, those who experience it so much might ask themself one day where this truly comes from. God reveals Himself to all. To me, it is truly amazing.
[quote=(Sirach 3:22-26)]"Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=13328.msg156194#msg156194 date=1338333158] [quote=(Sirach 3:22-26)]"Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."
You seem to be choosing to accept your perception of the universe in one way, but without any evidence it is the right way, especially if you are not at peace and 'working properly' as some perceiving being. It would make more sense to consider how the universe could be perceived in some other way that did seem to work better.
I don't think I understand. I thought the premise was that I can never know if my senses themselves could be feeding me illusions (i.e. I have no way of proving to myself that I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere). Altering my perceptions of the illusion wouldn't change its status as an illusion.
Also, I suspected above, and now here, that we might be using different levels of definition of the word "work"...? K-man and all, I was preparing a detailed discussion on epistemology to have working foundation for responses to any doubts. Much of what has been discussed here comes down to a question of what is truth or knowledge and what is not. After much thought, I feel it may be better to offer a brief discussion on epistemology and establish a mutually agreed epistemic creed.
Knowledge that any preposition (p) is true if 1. we have justified true belief (JTB). 2. This JTB must also be reliable. 3. This p must be JTB by truth and not luck or chance. 4. All prepositions (Pn) are conceived as web (like the internet). In order for any preposition to be true, it must be contextually coherent (cc) within the web. 5. Fallibility is a function of ambiguity. (See below for an explanation) 6. Therefore, ambiguity can be resolved, not eliminated, by an analysis of reliable contextual coherentism (rcc). 7. rcc includes prepositions of spiritualism, metaphysics, and abstract philosophy. 8. Above physical evidence (spirituality, theology), higher truths must fall outside rcc. Skeptical hypothesis does not apply.
Don't worry if you're confused. It'll make sense in a minute. I'll try to introduce the subject with simple examples. If anyone has any questions, let me know.
Let's say I came with the preposition, "The sky outside is red". In order for this to be truth (or in order to make this claim), I need justified true belief. I believe the sky is red. I need to justify it. If you ask me, "Why do I believe the sky is red?", I can't say, "No reason." Or "Because I said so" Or because "The sky is always red". None of these are justifiable responses. Without justification, any preposition cannot be considered truth or knowledge. (This is #1 above)
Justification comes in many forms. It can be external, like DNA testing of blood spatter. It can be internal, such as knowing what love is. One condition. It must be reliable. Unreliable DNA evidence does not make a truth out of a lie. (This is #2 in my list above) Good so far?
Let's look at Gettier's case. Suppose you were driving in the country and you saw 20 barns in a neighborhood. They all look identical. Let's say you stopped at one barn and said, "That's a barn." Now let's say 19 of the 20 barns are actually barn facades. Is the statement "That's a barn" true? No because 19 of the 20 look like barns and you can't tell the difference between a barn facade and a real barn. Let's say you happened to pick the 1 barn that was not a barn facade. Can you say with certainty that "You know what barns look like?" No because you did not have any justified reason to pick that real barn over the others. You just picked one by chance, not knowledge.
This brings me to the first important point. Knowledge and truth cannot be a product of luck or chance. Even science agrees. All scientific studies must find a cause and effect with a statistical significance that the results did not occur by chance. The problem with atheism, in my opinion, is that the main postulate is "Since God doesn't exist, all things happen by natural science, randomness and chaos." But claiming any science happens because of chance and randomness is antithetical to scientific philosophy. In other words, the absence of evidence to justify a truth (i.e., the universe operates because of God) is not evidence to justify the alternative (the universe operates because of randomness) because chance may have simply occurred. So in order to have any truth, you need justified belief that excludes pure luck and chance. (That's #3 on my list)
Now we need to explore the interconnectivity of any preposition. Let's say I have reliable evidence that the sky is red. I have another eyewitness who says the sky is red. Does that make the preposition, "The sky is red" true? At face, yes because you have satisfied the first 3 items on my list above. But, prepositions build on each other for truth. There are some prepositions that are fundamental, basic truth. There are other prepositions that build off fundamental truth. In order to have truth and knowledge, all prepositions need to be coherent (as much as possible) in context with each other. So the preposition "The sky is red" needs to "coincide" with all prepositions in its vicinity. Is there light spectroscopy that says red light is the only visible light in the sky? Is there solar eclipse causing a change in visible light? Is there a black hole developing in the sun that is changing light? And most importantly, is there reliable evidence that says "the sky is not red". If the evidence to say the preposition #1, "sky is not red", outweighs the evidence that the preposition #2, "The sky is blue", then preposition #1 can't be true. (This is #4 on my list)
I'm going to stop here for now. I'm going to let you all digest this information. I don't want the post to get so long that one can't focus on the content. I'll be back with part 2 soon.
"The problem with atheism, in my opinion, is that the main postulate is "Since God doesn't exist, all things happen by natural science, randomness and chaos.""
Thought I'd chime in... Atheism is not naturalism, nor a theory of cosmology, nor a claim to knowledge. Its the rejection of god claims, i.e. non-belief. Thats all.
Non-belief is not justified true knowledge. Non-belief, by definition, justifies lack of knowledge. Non-belief becomes a claim to ignorance.
Look at the Gettier case I used. If someone said, "That's a barn" and I say, "why do you believe it's a barn?", you can't say "because it's not a barn facade". That's not justification. There is no justification to say it's not a barn, there is no justification to say it is a barn facade, and there is no justification to say it is not a barn facade. You're back to lack of justified true belief. Lack of justified true belief is equal to lack of knowledge which is equal to ignorance.
Or put another way, a negative justification cannot prove truth. It can disprove a preposition or truth, but it cannot prove a truth. This is how science works. When a negative result is found in a scientific experiment (assuming it's a reliable experiment), the negative result only disproves the hypothesis but never proves an alternative hypothesis. In addition, that negative result has to be proven that it is not a matter of luck or chance even before the original hypothesis is rejected.
The rejection of a claim is a claim to knowledge if it a justifiable claim. Non-belief is a claim to lack of knowledge and ignorance. These two are different. A claim that rejects the existence of God that has justification becomes knowledge. A claim that rejects the existence of God with no justification becomes invalid. The lack of any claim becomes ignorance.
Atheism is invalid firstly because it fails to identify a cause and effect void of chance. Secondly, it is invalid because it does not validate or contribute any knowledge. And thirdly, it is invalid because atheism brings ignorance.
I would wish that atheism was about naturalism or cosmology because it would add something good to our lives. Instead it only adds ignorance which will never be good.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg156220#msg156220 date=1338398917] Non-belief is not justified true knowledge. Non-belief, by definition, justifies lack of knowledge. Non-belief becomes a claim to ignorance.
Nonbelief can be justified true knowledge or not depending on the claim being made. If someone tells me “the sky is bright green!” and I look up and see a normal sky, I’m not going to believe their claim, and I would be justified in doing so. Or does this not work?
Further, I don’t claim to know whether there is or is not a God. I just regard it as being highly unlikely. Or, if there is one, I regard it as highly unlikely that He is the one I have been taught He is. Hmm…Perhaps it would be best stated a different way:
Person A comes up to me and makes the positive claim that Muhammed was the last prophet of God. He provides reasons X, Y, and Z as justification. I reject his claim as being highly improbable (but not impossible), and justify my rejection with reasons D, E, and F, and G, which, while unable to disprove anything in and of themselves, manage to show that two of his arguments, X and Z, are unjustified (let’s say Y was necessary but not sufficient).
The outcome of this case is that I still have non-belief that Muhammed is the last prophet of God. However, in this case, my non-belief is not a claim to ignorance, as I have provided justification. It is just a rejection of his claim regarding Muhammed as being highly unlikely to be true.
Does that work?
Secondly, does nonbelief have to be justified true knowledge in order to be valid? I don't see this as necessarily being the case.
Let's say I am walking on the beach. Someone comes up to me and makes the claim that China has suddenly decided to dislodge itself from the planet and is currently heading into space. To support this, he tells me that the reason the tides are receding because the seawater is going to fill the hole that China used to occupy. I look, and the tides are indeed receding. But since his claim sounds completely ridiculous, I reject it anyway, without bothering to verify it. Of course, he could be right, but it is way more likely that he is not. Am I unjustified in doing so?
Look at the Gettier case I used. If someone said, "That's a barn" and I say, "why do you believe it's a barn?" You can't say "because it's not a barn facade". There is no justification to say it's not a barn, there is no justification to say it is a barn facade, and there is no justification to say it is not a barn facade. You're back to lack of justified true belief. Lack of justified true belief is equal to lack of knowledge which is equal to ignorance.
Yes, but I don’t understand how the two situations are equivalent.
Or put another way, a negative justification cannot prove truth.
Absolutely.
It can disprove a preposition or truth, but it cannot prove a truth.
Isn’t this all we need? My current position does not claim to know the truth, there are just things I'm fairly confident are not the truth.
However, in this case… is it even possible for the preposition ”God exists” to be disproven? I don’t think it is (though I think it can be done for the preposition “He is the God of [specific religion]”, but I’m getting way ahead of myself here). In the Gettier case you use above, all that would be needed to have justified true belief regarding the barn is to go closely examine it. But can a similar thing be done in this case?
This is how science works. When a negative result is found in a scientific experiment (assuming it's a reliable experiment), the negative result only disproves the hypothesis but never proves an alternative hypothesis.
Right, right. But what if no alternative hypothesis has been proposed? Wouldn’t you go back to collecting more data?
Also in science, a positive result only supports your hypothesis – nothing is ever proven (unless we’re talking math, but anyway). There are sets of observations that seem to hold indefinitely in certain conditions, and we take these to be “true”.
In addition, that negative result has to be proven that it is not a matter of luck or chance even before the original hypothesis is rejected.
Right, otherwise you accept the null hypothesis. But can we even apply that to this question?
The rejection of a claim is a claim to knowledge if it a justifiable claim. Non-belief is a claim to lack of knowledge and ignorance. These two are different. A claim that rejects the existence of God that has justification becomes knowledge. A claim that rejects the existence of God with no justification becomes invalid. The lack of any claim becomes ignorance.
What about a position that is uncertain about the existence of God because it rejects the justifications given for belief in His existence, and without these justifications, has no reason to assume it to be true?
Atheism is invalid firstly because it fails to identify a cause and effect void of chance.
Atheism isn’t a science though. And how would that even be possible?
Secondly, it is invalid because it does not validate or contribute any knowledge.
From their point of view, this is not the case though. Their contribution would be the knowledge that “All religions are false”, or something along those lines. (I’m playing devil’s advocate for this and the one below it).
And thirdly, it is invalid because atheism brings ignorance.
What if ignorance is all we have to begin with, and all that the atheism does is reveal it for what it is?
Again, for the record, my current position is not one of atheism. It is agnosticism that is fairly confident (with justification) that certain options are highly unlikely to be true.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=13328.msg156215#msg156215 date=1338391395] "The problem with atheism, in my opinion, is that the main postulate is "Since God doesn't exist, all things happen by natural science, randomness and chaos.""
Thought I'd chime in... Atheism is not naturalism, nor a theory of cosmology, nor a claim to knowledge. Its the rejection of god claims, i.e. non-belief. Thats all.
That is all.
~Gabe
I do not agree with this statement in the slightest. When there are debates called "Does God exist?" the two sides are "No" and "Yes." Not "Yes" and "Not Yes." This game is a game of words. Fine, don't call it a belief because that word throws atheists into a frenzy, call it an assertion. The theist asserts that God exists. The atheist asserts that God does not exist. When I see "I don't believe in Gabe," I must mean at the same time "I believe Gabe is incapable." There is no way to separate the two in practice except in the mind of the atheist. Yes, on paper, where you put the "not" is very important, but in practice, it is the same. Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief."
The reason atheists put forth this idea, is because it relieves them from a burden of proof. The moment they say, "I don't believe in God," they expect a response back with the reasons, but like Remnkemi said above, that is not justifiable. For example, if I was eating a burger (which I am) and I said, "This is a burger" and you said it is not, the onus is on both of us to explain our perspectives. I may begin to say "this is a bun and burgers have buns." You may respond "Haven't you ever seen a ham sandwich in a burger bun." You have not given me reason to believe that it is not a burger. After that, it is only a matter of what you would or would not be convinced with. You "believe it is not a burger." You do not "not believe it is a burger." Like I said, in any case, it is irrelevant in practice.
Atheism has no reasons as to why God does not exists except "you have not proven that he does." Realizing that their own evidence does not meet the burden of proof which they seek to place on religion, they claim one of two things:
1)That they do not need to prove anything because they are not asserting anything. 2)I am an agnostic (like Richard Dawkins said on his 1-7 scale.)
#1 is bogus. The moment you disbelieve the truth of something you assert that lack of its existence. Relating to the burger, if you say it is not a burger, you do not "not assert that it is a burger" but you "assert that it is not a burger." Atheism is not the negative acceptance of a claim, it is the positive denial of that claim.
#2 is just silly. The agnostic is an atheist who doesn't like the word.
K-man, Most of what you are describing will be addressed in part 2 of my introduction. But let me respond to something we already discussed.
I think we need a little more definitions. If someone says, "The sky is bright green" and I look and I have reliable justification (I'll get to that in a minute), then I have disproved the initial preposition "the sky is bright green." but I have not proven "the sky is blue". Non-belief is not the same as disproof. Disproof means I've proven something is wrong or something is a lie. I can not intelligibly believe a lie or false knowledge. Therefore, non-belief can never be justified true knowledge. Non-belief, or maybe we should call it false belief, means I believe without justification. I believe something that is neither true or something I have not justified. It is illogical to continue to believe a lie and it is illogical to believe without justification.
Secondly, personal experiences may be justification for a belief, but it is not usually enough. Look at the barn example. One can argue the person who was driving down the street, who personally experience seeing barns in the past, was not justified to pick a random barn and say "That's a barn." because of personal experience. In other words, personal experience may not satisfy the reliable requirement. Put another way. If I say "the sky is green" and you say "the sky is blue", with both of us using personal experience only, how is that any different from a he said/she said argument? You need additional justification to prove or disprove opposite prepositions.
I'll address more parts of your response in another post.
Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief."
Interesting. In my mind there is a distinction between the two.
The reason atheists put forth this idea, is because it relieves them from a burden of proof. The moment they say, "I don't believe in God," they expect a response back with the reasons, but like Remnkemi said above, that is not justifiable. For example, if I was eating a burger (which I am) and I said, "This is a burger" and you said it is not, the onus is on both of us to explain our perspectives. I may begin to say "this is a bun and burgers have buns." You may respond "Haven't you ever seen a ham sandwich in a burger bun." You have not given me reason to believe that it is not a burger. After that, it is only a matter of what you would or would not be convinced with. You "believe it is not a burger." You do not "not believe it is a burger." Like I said, in any case, it is irrelevant in practice.
Right, but there's an important element missing from this analogy. Both of you at least agree that there exists a thing that may or may not be a burger. But for the topic at hand, we do not agree even on that much.
1)That they do not need to prove anything because they are not asserting anything. 2)I am an agnostic (like Richard Dawkins said on his 1-7 scale.)
#1 is bogus. The moment you disbelieve the truth of something you assert that lack of its existence. Relating to the burger, if you say it is not a burger, you do not "not assert that it is a burger" but you "assert that it is not a burger." Atheism is not the negative acceptance of a claim, it is the positive denial of that claim.
I think this depends on whether you consider the religious position or the areligious position to be the "default" position. If the religious position is the default position, then yes what you say is correct. If being nonreligious is the default, then atheism is indeed the negative acceptance of the claim that God exists.
In my specific case, as of right now, I see no compelling reason to believe in a God, and thus I take this as the default position, until shown something to indicate otherwise. Where is the requirement of burden of proof for my side? On the other hand, someone trying to show me that there is indeed a God would have to provide something to back up that claim. It could be the case that they are right. It could also not be the case. So unless they provide something to back up the assertion, the default position is what stands.
It's like saying there's a Disneyland on the other side of the moon. I see no reason to believe it, so my default position will be to assume it isn't true. If someone pulls out some pictures of them chilling with Space-Mickey (which would be an awesome concept, btw), that's when I'd start to question my position.
#2 is just silly. The agnostic is an atheist who doesn't like the word.
No, they are not the same thing. An atheist is generally certain of his position. An agnostic does not even know if we can know.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg156232#msg156232 date=1338411513] K-man, Most of what you are describing will be addressed in part 2 of my introduction. But let me respond to something we already discussed.
I think we need a little more definitions. If someone says, "The sky is bright green" and I look and I have reliable justification (I'll get to that in a minute), then I have disproved the initial preposition "the sky is bright green." but I have not proven "the sky is blue". Non-belief is not the same as disproof. Disproof means I've proven something is wrong or something is a lie. I can not intelligibly believe a lie or false knowledge. Therefore, non-belief can never be justified true knowledge. Non-belief, or maybe we should call it false belief, means I believe without justification. I believe something that is neither true or something I have not justified. It is illogical to continue to believe a lie and it is illogical to believe without justification.
Ok, good so far I think.
Secondly, personal experiences may be justification for a belief, but it is not usually enough. Look at the barn example. One can argue the person who was driving down the street, who personally experience seeing barns in the past, was not justified to pick a random barn and say "That's a barn." because of personal experience. In other words, personal experience may not satisfy the reliable requirement. Put another way. If I say "the sky is green" and you say "the sky is blue", with both of us using personal experience only, how is that any different from a he said/she said argument? You need additional justification to prove or disprove opposite prepositions.
If you define your life by your ego then you will follow it. If I define my life by my soul then I follow God.
You can argue all that is in this world and even the universe and it may or may not be true. But it will not move me or shake a believe I have and what I know to be true in my soul. That is God.
Before I begin with part 2, is there anything you were confused about in part one? Did I satisfactorily respond to the difference of disproof and non-belief? Is there anything else in part 1 that you (or anyone) may have a question about?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg156237#msg156237 date=1338414385] Before I begin with part 2, is there anything you were confused about in part one? Did I satisfactorily respond to the difference of disproof and non-belief? Is there anything else in part 1 that you (or anyone) may have a question about?
I think part 1 makes sense.....and if that turns out not to be the case I'll pm you so as to not cause confusion.
Would you mind re-explaining why nonbelief is not justified true knowledge? I still don't quite have a handle on it.
'The form of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen with the eyes of flesh. He is in glory incontainable, in greatness incomprehensible, in loftiness inconceivable, in strength incomparable, in wisdom inaccessible, in love inimatible, in beneficence inexpressible. Just as the soul of man is not seen, since it is invisible to men, but we know of its existence through the movements of the body, so God cannot be seen by human eyes, but He is seen and known through His providence and His works.' Theophilus of Antioch
'God cannot be grasped with the mind. If He could be grasped He would not be God.' Evagrus of Pontus
'And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.' Jeremiah 29:13
i read ur first post and wanted to share my ideas here is my perspective, perhaps it will help..
scientific evidence though powerful has its limitations. e.g. it is useful in determining facts which can be observed, measured. It is useful in understanding processes that are repeated or repeatable. This makes it an incredible resource but i would say limits it to things which are observable, measurable and repeatable. God is immeasurable, unique and is not generally observable like matter or laws (except when He subjects Himself out of humility to them e.g. in the Incarnation). He is the Potter and we the pots, He is the Composer and we are music, He is an artist and we are a painting. Out of love, He makes Himself visible to us and enters our lives but we cannot expect Him to leave footprints like ours. Like human emotions and thoughts He cannot be pinned down or described so simply. If human (like myself) is difficult to describe/explain/define then how much more God.
- science is not very able to discern single events.. it is always based on experiments and repeatable things, processes and cycles. if something were to be completely unique and happen just once, science would have a lot of trouble in learning about it. Science bases its interpretations on things it has seen. i believe this is partly why science is unable to explain creation or the big bang or however everything started. or if there is no start then where will time end, or what does infinity really mean if there is no end of time..
- scientific theories and truths change.. this is a historical fact, powerful theories that many generations believed were undisputed fact have crumbled away and been disproved and superseded with newer theories.
- science is subject to error and bias. 2 very bright and intelligent scientists can observe the same thing and come to very different conclusions (even if they r being objective). Things that scientists observe are then interpreted with hypotheses and theories.. this is what makes scientists thinkers not just observers.
- science is limited my the human mind.. if we cannot imagine or grasp a reality then we will not be able to describe it or hypothesis about it, even if it is real and truth.
- science can miss things. Not everything leaves evidence. i can have a thought. No one can prove it existed, describe its substance or its content, but nevertheless it existed. An observer would deny its existence. However, my thoughts are in a dimension or a language which cannot be measured or interpreted by an external observer. Thus, things may exist but have no scientific proof for there existence.
- science is not able to disprove or prove God. evidence that tries to do so must always be taken with a pinch of salt, because the existence or non-existence of God is a mindblowing and life changing truth with massive consequences.. and this makes it near to impossible for scientists to discuss His existence objectively (even with the best intentions). u weigh up the evidence and conclude there is no God, whilst the more science i learn the more i conclude there is a God..
Scientific evidence has its faults and limitations, be careful to remember this.. it should not be placed on a pedestal.
i see u have a good heart and i pray that ur questions may be answered and that u might find truth and peace :)!
Thought I"d chime in once more, though I'm unsure as to why there is a discussion about epistemology - theory of knowledge- when this is a discussion regarding belief...anywho...
"atheism is invalid firstly because it fails to identify a cause and effect void of chance. Secondly, it is invalid because it does not validate or contribute any knowledge. And thirdly, it is invalid because atheism brings ignorance."
Again, atheism doesn't have to account for anything, its is merely the position regarding god claims, that is all. I think you're second point is silly, atheism isn't an attempt to edify, although it does edify people in the sense that it informs other people of the position one has concerning god claims. These arguments are invalid because they are irrelevancies. Its like trying to blame a 40 cm ruler for not being able to measure the the length of the Eiffel tower. How does Atheism bring ignorance? What does that even mean?
"Non-belief is not the same as disproof. Disproof means I've proven something is wrong or something is a lie. I can not intelligibly believe a lie or false knowledge. Therefore, non-belief can never be justified true knowledge. Non-belief, or maybe we should call it false belief, means I believe without justification. I believe something that is neither true or something I have not justified. It is illogical to continue to believe a lie and it is illogical to believe without justification. "
This paragraph is a tad confusing so I'm going to begin with the definition of "belief". Belief is accepting a statement as true. Belief doesn't tell us why someone has accepted a statement, it just means someone has. Likewise non-belief is the non acceptance of a statement. So to argue that non-belief is ' believing without whatever..' is contradictory and is not what I meant by "non-belief".
"The rejection of a claim is a claim to knowledge if it a justifiable claim. Non-belief is a claim to lack of knowledge and ignorance"
Rejection of a claim and non-belief are the same thing. And neither of them has to be based on knowledge if they are justified, as you mentioned earlier someone may be said to know something if they believe X, believe it for good reasons and where X has to be true but not coincidently. If X isn't known to be true then you're left with justified belief, not even justified true belief. Same thing for non-belief: I don't accept X, I don't accept it for good reasons (e.g X hasn't met its burden of proof). Here we have justified non-belief, but we still don't know whether X is true, so non-belief isn't necessarily a claim to knowledge.
When you refer to a 'claim to a lack of knowledge and ignorance', you're referring to agnosticism which says nothing about whether one is convinced of a statement or not. Agnosticism and gnosticism go to what you know, and atheism and theism go to what you believe/don't believe.
"I do not agree with this statement in the slightest. When there are debates called "Does God exist?" the two sides are "No" and "Yes." Not "Yes" and "Not Yes." This game is a game of words. Fine, don't call it a belief because that word throws atheists into a frenzy, call it an assertion. The theist asserts that God exists. The atheist asserts that God does not exist. When I see "I don't believe in Gabe," I must mean at the same time "I believe Gabe is incapable." There is no way to separate the two in practice except in the mind of the atheist. Yes, on paper, where you put the "not" is very important, but in practice, it is the same. Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief."
I wouldn't call atheism a belief or an assertion, mainly because an assertion is a statement about a fact or a belief. Atheism is a non-belief, and I have to ask you what you mean by 'they are the same in practice' regarding strong atheism and atheism? Do you mean that if you were to observe the lifestyle of the person who believes there is no god and the person who does not believe in god you would not find a difference? Well I put it to you that atheism isn't a lifestyle and that you wouldn't be able to distinguish the deist from the atheist either, or an atheist from a non-practicing christian.
Also your argument, "Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief." I don't think this is valid, while you may not have thought about the difference, evidently other people have and do understand the distinction.
I'm going to chime in with a modest explanation of the Orthodox approach to knowledge of God. There is a key supposition which must be accepted before we can begin.
The first is that God is a personal God and if He is known, He is known like the way that one person relates to another. I am going to take this for granted as I begin, without offer proof. What I will say is that the basis my acceptance of this is the revelation of God in the scriptures Who has granted us sonship through adoption. We are granted to know God as adopted sons and daughters after the Image of the Only Begotten Son of God.
If we take the approach of rationalism and dialogue we can dance around the topic of personal relations with God but we cannot enter into the matter itself.
It is a bit like how a person can be an expert on Abraham Lincon by finding many historical resources and dedicating his life to this work. At the end of the day this person can say many enlightening things about that person. His deepest regret would most likely be that for all he knows about Abraham Lincon, he doesn't actually know Abraham Lincon. You could also never say that a person specialising in this kind of study and research knows Abraham Lincon as well as his wife, parents or siblings.
To speak of what a relationship with God is like, is like describing the taste of honey to someone who has never experienced this in their food palate before. This knowledge cannot be communicated as a verbal description. We can talk about it, we can send proofs back and forth as to why honey exists or that sweetness exists or that sweetness is good. Most likely the person with the honey would say back to such a self important scholar who demands such conviction "Shut it dummy and just taste the honey already, see it is good!"
The Bible should be viewed in this context, its not a head book, its a heart book. Its not intended to increase this endless banter of things we have to talk about on the topic of God in the fashion of the scholar who studies Abraham Lincon. It is meant to introduce us to the sweetness of the character of God who is our Father. It's not meant to describe how but Who, to give us access to a relationship with Him, to have our own experience.
In the end the knowledge of the date Abraham was born, where he went to university and how he composed an English thesis in high school one day are to a certain extent irrelevent facts to Mrs. Lincon. Mrs. Lincon married Mr. Lincon because he was a good man and she enjoyed his company. These kinds of details are in a way unimportant because they don't add or take anything away for the relationship which she has with Him where she knows them or not.
The problem with much of Western Christianity today is that they confuse the scholar as the one who knows Mr. Lincon when really that knowledge belongs to Mrs. Lincon. God is to be experienced, not debated or studied. He is there waiting for a relationship with each one of us and if we are to know Him we won't find Him in a text book, we'll find Him on our knees and in prayer. Prayer has this power because when we pray we become what we are and God becomes what He is. If there is something which we need to gain access to a relationship with Him, God will provide it, if we are to seek it on these terms.
If a person wants to know God they must understand that once they discover God, and His presence, things change. This knowledge isn't like discovering there is life on Mars, it has immediate implications here and now. If we're honest enough with ourselves, and brave enough to take this step, we go to the hardest frontier of human discover, our own hearts. We discover a world which wasn't visible to us before and now is.
<b>Edit:</b> To make a circular point which answers the premise you made right at the beginning. God fashioned many people including intellectuals and He granted each of them knowledge of Himself. For the intellectual the first thing you must understand is that we cannot (in absoluteness) understand who God is, His nature and His work in creation. This however is not an admission of ignorance as much as it is accepting the richness of the subject we wish to understand. One of the primary differences between an Atheist and an Agnostic is that the Agnostic has a reverent acceptance that they cannot possibly know all that there is to know. They embrace this ignorance because an unlimited depth of knowledge is still out there, undiscovered, possibly out of reach. We need to approach God in the same way.
The acquisition of what can be known, and of this there is more than enough to satisfy the most inquisitive mind comes in the form of face to face meeting.
In Orthodox terms a person who knows God is a Theologian which roughly translates to someone who knows God. In our crusty western understanding of the word a theologian is someone who reads a lot of books. In Orthodox terms it is someone who is granted to see God personally and with the richness of this experience is granted to share what he has learned with those who cannot see. More often than not a theologian is a poet or an artist rather than a scholar. They are charged with the responsibility of taking what cannot be expressed and trying somehow to put it into words. The best Biblical example of this are the depictions of God found in the book of Revelations. In the same why that it took a theologian to compose, it similarly takes a theologian to understand, and they understand because what they see in the revelation is consistent with their own experience.
I have perhaps said to much but I hope if you're earnest in what you're looking for that is finds a ready and willing ear.
I was raised in the Coptic church for the vast majority of my life. It was all I ever knew and all I ever needed. There was nothing this world could offer me that could even try to compare to Christ.
I thought for sure you had some kind of relationship with God. I do not understand how God could be 'all' to you and then just because of a biology degree totally change??? Thats why I said I do not think you really knew God personally. When one knows Christ as a personal Savior....it's real; not that one understands His mysteries all the time, but having meager understanding does not make Him less real.
Look, 2Timothy 4:3-4 states.......[glow=red,2,300]For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables[/glow]
why don't you look up proof of the existence of the flood, I know its out there. God is science. K-man, your just choosing to believe other teachings than Biblical teachings, its not that 'science' books have more proof of their validity than the Holy Bible does. Have you ever prayed to Pope Kyrillos VI about this matter?
Comments
In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
My opinion of true evidence of God's existence can be found in understanding Love. However, how vague and how to approach this is quite beyond me.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, I believe/hope there will be one thing, one word you will hear, that will re-ignite your faith.
I sure hope and pray that you get the answer you seek.
Can you prove using science that Love exists? Hmm...what's your take on people who experience love and yet don't believe in God? (I ask strictly out of curiosity).
Also, we can't prove other abstract concepts like "justice" or "fairness" using science either, precisely because they are abstract concepts. Though, in the specific case of love, we do understand a lot of the biochemistry behind it (i.e. oxytocin) (but I recognize that this is not equivalent to proving it exists).
But God is not supposed to be some abstract concept. He is supposed to be real, in the sense that you and I and the trees in my yard and my house is real (probably even realer than that, since all existence is supposed to come from Him). I know the Bible says that "God is love", but by reducing Him to strictly that definition, you are reducing Him to the level of an abstraction, which is not what what I have been taught He is. I think it's beyond me as well. Thank you. I hope so too.
http://danielayad.wordpress.com/?s=evolution&searchbutton=go!
If you have stopped praying then you will never discover him. He makes himself known to those who seek him with perseverance.
God is not real like a tree in your garden. Ill say it again you are trying to put God under a microscope. He will not fit.
Can you please explain the first sentence of this?
Hmm....
And is this also true of the Bible itself? If a person no longer has hope that this will work, what then? Will God then not make Himself known, despite knowing what is in that person's heart? (I'm not asking this one to debate, this is a very serious question)
[quote author=ShareTheLord link=topic=13328.msg156133#msg156133 date=1338228291]
In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
Hmm...what's your take on people who experience love and yet don't believe in God? (I ask strictly out of curiosity).
In my opinion, belief in God does not mean God wants no part in you. That is what is so amazing. God loves each and everyone of us and wants to share Himself with all. Those who don't believe and unfortunetly eventually reject His Kingdom, are still loved by God and He seems to share Himself with all. In His wisdom, He might belief that if He share who He is with all, those who experience it so much might ask themself one day where this truly comes from. God reveals Himself to all. To me, it is truly amazing. I will let Father Peter explain more as he seems to want to address this point. I could give my opinion, but it would be an uneducated opinion.
[quote author=K-man link=topic=13328.msg156134#msg156134 date=1338229381]
[quote author=ShareTheLord link=topic=13328.msg156133#msg156133 date=1338228291]
In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
Hmm...what's your take on people who experience love and yet don't believe in God? (I ask strictly out of curiosity).
In my opinion, belief in God does not mean God wants no part in you. That is what is so amazing. God loves each and everyone of us and wants to share Himself with all. Those who don't believe and unfortunetly eventually reject His Kingdom, are still loved by God and He seems to share Himself with all. In His wisdom, He might belief that if He share who He is with all, those who experience it so much might ask themself one day where this truly comes from. God reveals Himself to all. To me, it is truly amazing.
I see. Thank you.
[quote=(Sirach 3:22-26)]"Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."
So I should stop asking these questions entirely?
Also, I suspected above, and now here, that we might be using different levels of definition of the word "work"...?
K-man and all,
I was preparing a detailed discussion on epistemology to have working foundation for responses to any doubts. Much of what has been discussed here comes down to a question of what is truth or knowledge and what is not. After much thought, I feel it may be better to offer a brief discussion on epistemology and establish a mutually agreed epistemic creed.
Knowledge that any preposition (p) is true if
1. we have justified true belief (JTB).
2. This JTB must also be reliable.
3. This p must be JTB by truth and not luck or chance.
4. All prepositions (Pn) are conceived as web (like the internet). In order for any preposition to be true, it must be contextually coherent (cc) within the web.
5. Fallibility is a function of ambiguity. (See below for an explanation)
6. Therefore, ambiguity can be resolved, not eliminated, by an analysis of reliable contextual coherentism (rcc).
7. rcc includes prepositions of spiritualism, metaphysics, and abstract philosophy.
8. Above physical evidence (spirituality, theology), higher truths must fall outside rcc. Skeptical hypothesis does not apply.
Don't worry if you're confused. It'll make sense in a minute. I'll try to introduce the subject with simple examples. If anyone has any questions, let me know.
Let's say I came with the preposition, "The sky outside is red". In order for this to be truth (or in order to make this claim), I need justified true belief. I believe the sky is red. I need to justify it. If you ask me, "Why do I believe the sky is red?", I can't say, "No reason." Or "Because I said so" Or because "The sky is always red". None of these are justifiable responses. Without justification, any preposition cannot be considered truth or knowledge. (This is #1 above)
Justification comes in many forms. It can be external, like DNA testing of blood spatter. It can be internal, such as knowing what love is. One condition. It must be reliable. Unreliable DNA evidence does not make a truth out of a lie. (This is #2 in my list above) Good so far?
Let's look at Gettier's case. Suppose you were driving in the country and you saw 20 barns in a neighborhood. They all look identical. Let's say you stopped at one barn and said, "That's a barn." Now let's say 19 of the 20 barns are actually barn facades. Is the statement "That's a barn" true? No because 19 of the 20 look like barns and you can't tell the difference between a barn facade and a real barn. Let's say you happened to pick the 1 barn that was not a barn facade. Can you say with certainty that "You know what barns look like?" No because you did not have any justified reason to pick that real barn over the others. You just picked one by chance, not knowledge.
This brings me to the first important point. Knowledge and truth cannot be a product of luck or chance. Even science agrees. All scientific studies must find a cause and effect with a statistical significance that the results did not occur by chance. The problem with atheism, in my opinion, is that the main postulate is "Since God doesn't exist, all things happen by natural science, randomness and chaos." But claiming any science happens because of chance and randomness is antithetical to scientific philosophy. In other words, the absence of evidence to justify a truth (i.e., the universe operates because of God) is not evidence to justify the alternative (the universe operates because of randomness) because chance may have simply occurred. So in order to have any truth, you need justified belief that excludes pure luck and chance. (That's #3 on my list)
Now we need to explore the interconnectivity of any preposition. Let's say I have reliable evidence that the sky is red. I have another eyewitness who says the sky is red. Does that make the preposition, "The sky is red" true? At face, yes because you have satisfied the first 3 items on my list above. But, prepositions build on each other for truth. There are some prepositions that are fundamental, basic truth. There are other prepositions that build off fundamental truth. In order to have truth and knowledge, all prepositions need to be coherent (as much as possible) in context with each other. So the preposition "The sky is red" needs to "coincide" with all prepositions in its vicinity. Is there light spectroscopy that says red light is the only visible light in the sky? Is there solar eclipse causing a change in visible light? Is there a black hole developing in the sun that is changing light? And most importantly, is there reliable evidence that says "the sky is not red". If the evidence to say the preposition #1, "sky is not red", outweighs the evidence that the preposition #2, "The sky is blue", then preposition #1 can't be true. (This is #4 on my list)
I'm going to stop here for now. I'm going to let you all digest this information. I don't want the post to get so long that one can't focus on the content. I'll be back with part 2 soon.
Thought I'd chime in... Atheism is not naturalism, nor a theory of cosmology, nor a claim to knowledge. Its the rejection of god claims, i.e. non-belief. Thats all.
That is all.
~Gabe
Look at the Gettier case I used. If someone said, "That's a barn" and I say, "why do you believe it's a barn?", you can't say "because it's not a barn facade". That's not justification. There is no justification to say it's not a barn, there is no justification to say it is a barn facade, and there is no justification to say it is not a barn facade. You're back to lack of justified true belief. Lack of justified true belief is equal to lack of knowledge which is equal to ignorance.
Or put another way, a negative justification cannot prove truth. It can disprove a preposition or truth, but it cannot prove a truth. This is how science works. When a negative result is found in a scientific experiment (assuming it's a reliable experiment), the negative result only disproves the hypothesis but never proves an alternative hypothesis. In addition, that negative result has to be proven that it is not a matter of luck or chance even before the original hypothesis is rejected.
The rejection of a claim is a claim to knowledge if it a justifiable claim. Non-belief is a claim to lack of knowledge and ignorance. These two are different. A claim that rejects the existence of God that has justification becomes knowledge. A claim that rejects the existence of God with no justification becomes invalid. The lack of any claim becomes ignorance.
Atheism is invalid firstly because it fails to identify a cause and effect void of chance. Secondly, it is invalid because it does not validate or contribute any knowledge. And thirdly, it is invalid because atheism brings ignorance.
I would wish that atheism was about naturalism or cosmology because it would add something good to our lives. Instead it only adds ignorance which will never be good.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13328.msg156220#msg156220 date=1338398917]
Non-belief is not justified true knowledge. Non-belief, by definition, justifies lack of knowledge. Non-belief becomes a claim to ignorance.
Nonbelief can be justified true knowledge or not depending on the claim being made. If someone tells me “the sky is bright green!” and I look up and see a normal sky, I’m not going to believe their claim, and I would be justified in doing so. Or does this not work?
Further, I don’t claim to know whether there is or is not a God. I just regard it as being highly unlikely. Or, if there is one, I regard it as highly unlikely that He is the one I have been taught He is. Hmm…Perhaps it would be best stated a different way:
Person A comes up to me and makes the positive claim that Muhammed was the last prophet of God. He provides reasons X, Y, and Z as justification. I reject his claim as being highly improbable (but not impossible), and justify my rejection with reasons D, E, and F, and G, which, while unable to disprove anything in and of themselves, manage to show that two of his arguments, X and Z, are unjustified (let’s say Y was necessary but not sufficient).
The outcome of this case is that I still have non-belief that Muhammed is the last prophet of God. However, in this case, my non-belief is not a claim to ignorance, as I have provided justification. It is just a rejection of his claim regarding Muhammed as being highly unlikely to be true.
Does that work?
Secondly, does nonbelief have to be justified true knowledge in order to be valid? I don't see this as necessarily being the case.
Let's say I am walking on the beach. Someone comes up to me and makes the claim that China has suddenly decided to dislodge itself from the planet and is currently heading into space. To support this, he tells me that the reason the tides are receding because the seawater is going to fill the hole that China used to occupy. I look, and the tides are indeed receding. But since his claim sounds completely ridiculous, I reject it anyway, without bothering to verify it. Of course, he could be right, but it is way more likely that he is not. Am I unjustified in doing so?
Yes, but I don’t understand how the two situations are equivalent. Absolutely. Isn’t this all we need? My current position does not claim to know the truth, there are just things I'm fairly confident are not the truth.
However, in this case… is it even possible for the preposition ”God exists” to be disproven? I don’t think it is (though I think it can be done for the preposition “He is the God of [specific religion]”, but I’m getting way ahead of myself here). In the Gettier case you use above, all that would be needed to have justified true belief regarding the barn is to go closely examine it. But can a similar thing be done in this case? Right, right. But what if no alternative hypothesis has been proposed? Wouldn’t you go back to collecting more data?
Also in science, a positive result only supports your hypothesis – nothing is ever proven (unless we’re talking math, but anyway). There are sets of observations that seem to hold indefinitely in certain conditions, and we take these to be “true”. Right, otherwise you accept the null hypothesis. But can we even apply that to this question? What about a position that is uncertain about the existence of God because it rejects the justifications given for belief in His existence, and without these justifications, has no reason to assume it to be true? Atheism isn’t a science though. And how would that even be possible? From their point of view, this is not the case though. Their contribution would be the knowledge that “All religions are false”, or something along those lines. (I’m playing devil’s advocate for this and the one below it). What if ignorance is all we have to begin with, and all that the atheism does is reveal it for what it is?
Again, for the record, my current position is not one of atheism. It is agnosticism that is fairly confident (with justification) that certain options are highly unlikely to be true.
"The problem with atheism, in my opinion, is that the main postulate is "Since God doesn't exist, all things happen by natural science, randomness and chaos.""
Thought I'd chime in... Atheism is not naturalism, nor a theory of cosmology, nor a claim to knowledge. Its the rejection of god claims, i.e. non-belief. Thats all.
That is all.
~Gabe
I do not agree with this statement in the slightest. When there are debates called "Does God exist?" the two sides are "No" and "Yes." Not "Yes" and "Not Yes." This game is a game of words. Fine, don't call it a belief because that word throws atheists into a frenzy, call it an assertion. The theist asserts that God exists. The atheist asserts that God does not exist. When I see "I don't believe in Gabe," I must mean at the same time "I believe Gabe is incapable." There is no way to separate the two in practice except in the mind of the atheist. Yes, on paper, where you put the "not" is very important, but in practice, it is the same. Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief."
The reason atheists put forth this idea, is because it relieves them from a burden of proof. The moment they say, "I don't believe in God," they expect a response back with the reasons, but like Remnkemi said above, that is not justifiable. For example, if I was eating a burger (which I am) and I said, "This is a burger" and you said it is not, the onus is on both of us to explain our perspectives. I may begin to say "this is a bun and burgers have buns." You may respond "Haven't you ever seen a ham sandwich in a burger bun." You have not given me reason to believe that it is not a burger. After that, it is only a matter of what you would or would not be convinced with. You "believe it is not a burger." You do not "not believe it is a burger." Like I said, in any case, it is irrelevant in practice.
Atheism has no reasons as to why God does not exists except "you have not proven that he does." Realizing that their own evidence does not meet the burden of proof which they seek to place on religion, they claim one of two things:
1)That they do not need to prove anything because they are not asserting anything.
2)I am an agnostic (like Richard Dawkins said on his 1-7 scale.)
#1 is bogus. The moment you disbelieve the truth of something you assert that lack of its existence. Relating to the burger, if you say it is not a burger, you do not "not assert that it is a burger" but you "assert that it is not a burger." Atheism is not the negative acceptance of a claim, it is the positive denial of that claim.
#2 is just silly. The agnostic is an atheist who doesn't like the word.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Most of what you are describing will be addressed in part 2 of my introduction. But let me respond to something we already discussed.
I think we need a little more definitions. If someone says, "The sky is bright green" and I look and I have reliable justification (I'll get to that in a minute), then I have disproved the initial preposition "the sky is bright green." but I have not proven "the sky is blue". Non-belief is not the same as disproof. Disproof means I've proven something is wrong or something is a lie. I can not intelligibly believe a lie or false knowledge. Therefore, non-belief can never be justified true knowledge. Non-belief, or maybe we should call it false belief, means I believe without justification. I believe something that is neither true or something I have not justified. It is illogical to continue to believe a lie and it is illogical to believe without justification.
Secondly, personal experiences may be justification for a belief, but it is not usually enough. Look at the barn example. One can argue the person who was driving down the street, who personally experience seeing barns in the past, was not justified to pick a random barn and say "That's a barn." because of personal experience. In other words, personal experience may not satisfy the reliable requirement. Put another way. If I say "the sky is green" and you say "the sky is blue", with both of us using personal experience only, how is that any different from a he said/she said argument? You need additional justification to prove or disprove opposite prepositions.
I'll address more parts of your response in another post.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13328.msg156231#msg156231 date=1338410522]
Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief."
Interesting. In my mind there is a distinction between the two. Right, but there's an important element missing from this analogy. Both of you at least agree that there exists a thing that may or may not be a burger. But for the topic at hand, we do not agree even on that much. I think this depends on whether you consider the religious position or the areligious position to be the "default" position. If the religious position is the default position, then yes what you say is correct. If being nonreligious is the default, then atheism is indeed the negative acceptance of the claim that God exists.
In my specific case, as of right now, I see no compelling reason to believe in a God, and thus I take this as the default position, until shown something to indicate otherwise. Where is the requirement of burden of proof for my side?
On the other hand, someone trying to show me that there is indeed a God would have to provide something to back up that claim. It could be the case that they are right. It could also not be the case. So unless they provide something to back up the assertion, the default position is what stands.
It's like saying there's a Disneyland on the other side of the moon. I see no reason to believe it, so my default position will be to assume it isn't true. If someone pulls out some pictures of them chilling with Space-Mickey (which would be an awesome concept, btw), that's when I'd start to question my position. No, they are not the same thing. An atheist is generally certain of his position. An agnostic does not even know if we can know.
K-man,
Most of what you are describing will be addressed in part 2 of my introduction. But let me respond to something we already discussed.
I think we need a little more definitions. If someone says, "The sky is bright green" and I look and I have reliable justification (I'll get to that in a minute), then I have disproved the initial preposition "the sky is bright green." but I have not proven "the sky is blue". Non-belief is not the same as disproof. Disproof means I've proven something is wrong or something is a lie. I can not intelligibly believe a lie or false knowledge. Therefore, non-belief can never be justified true knowledge. Non-belief, or maybe we should call it false belief, means I believe without justification. I believe something that is neither true or something I have not justified. It is illogical to continue to believe a lie and it is illogical to believe without justification.
Ok, good so far I think. I'm with you.
If I define my life by my soul then I follow God.
You can argue all that is in this world and even the universe and it may or may not be true.
But it will not move me or shake a believe I have and what I know to be true in my soul. That is God.
Before I begin with part 2, is there anything you were confused about in part one? Did I satisfactorily respond to the difference of disproof and non-belief? Is there anything else in part 1 that you (or anyone) may have a question about?
I think part 1 makes sense.....and if that turns out not to be the case I'll pm you so as to not cause confusion.
Would you mind re-explaining why nonbelief is not justified true knowledge? I still don't quite have a handle on it.
'God cannot be grasped with the mind. If He could be grasped He would not be God.' Evagrus of Pontus
'And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.' Jeremiah 29:13
i read ur first post and wanted to share my ideas
here is my perspective, perhaps it will help..
scientific evidence though powerful has its limitations. e.g. it is useful in determining facts which can be observed, measured. It is useful in understanding processes that are repeated or repeatable. This makes it an incredible resource but i would say limits it to things which are observable, measurable and repeatable. God is immeasurable, unique and is not generally observable like matter or laws (except when He subjects Himself out of humility to them e.g. in the Incarnation). He is the Potter and we the pots, He is the Composer and we are music, He is an artist and we are a painting. Out of love, He makes Himself visible to us and enters our lives but we cannot expect Him to leave footprints like ours. Like human emotions and thoughts He cannot be pinned down or described so simply. If human (like myself) is difficult to describe/explain/define then how much more God.
- science is not very able to discern single events.. it is always based on experiments and repeatable things, processes and cycles. if something were to be completely unique and happen just once, science would have a lot of trouble in learning about it. Science bases its interpretations on things it has seen. i believe this is partly why science is unable to explain creation or the big bang or however everything started. or if there is no start then where will time end, or what does infinity really mean if there is no end of time..
- scientific theories and truths change.. this is a historical fact, powerful theories that many generations believed were undisputed fact have crumbled away and been disproved and superseded with newer theories.
- science is subject to error and bias. 2 very bright and intelligent scientists can observe the same thing and come to very different conclusions (even if they r being objective). Things that scientists observe are then interpreted with hypotheses and theories.. this is what makes scientists thinkers not just observers.
- science is limited my the human mind.. if we cannot imagine or grasp a reality then we will not be able to describe it or hypothesis about it, even if it is real and truth.
- science can miss things. Not everything leaves evidence. i can have a thought. No one can prove it existed, describe its substance or its content, but nevertheless it existed. An observer would deny its existence. However, my thoughts are in a dimension or a language which cannot be measured or interpreted by an external observer. Thus, things may exist but have no scientific proof for there existence.
- science is not able to disprove or prove God. evidence that tries to do so must always be taken with a pinch of salt, because the existence or non-existence of God is a mindblowing and life changing truth with massive consequences.. and this makes it near to impossible for scientists to discuss His existence objectively (even with the best intentions). u weigh up the evidence and conclude there is no God, whilst the more science i learn the more i conclude there is a God..
Scientific evidence has its faults and limitations, be careful to remember this.. it should not be placed on a pedestal.
i see u have a good heart and i pray that ur questions may be answered and that u might find truth and peace :)!
"atheism is invalid firstly because it fails to identify a cause and effect void of chance. Secondly, it is invalid because it does not validate or contribute any knowledge. And thirdly, it is invalid because atheism brings ignorance."
Again, atheism doesn't have to account for anything, its is merely the position regarding god claims, that is all. I think you're second point is silly, atheism isn't an attempt to edify, although it does edify people in the sense that it informs other people of the position one has concerning god claims. These arguments are invalid because they are irrelevancies. Its like trying to blame a 40 cm ruler for not being able to measure the the length of the Eiffel tower. How does Atheism bring ignorance? What does that even mean?
"Non-belief is not the same as disproof. Disproof means I've proven something is wrong or something is a lie. I can not intelligibly believe a lie or false knowledge. Therefore, non-belief can never be justified true knowledge. Non-belief, or maybe we should call it false belief, means I believe without justification. I believe something that is neither true or something I have not justified. It is illogical to continue to believe a lie and it is illogical to believe without justification. "
This paragraph is a tad confusing so I'm going to begin with the definition of "belief". Belief is accepting a statement as true. Belief doesn't tell us why someone has accepted a statement, it just means someone has. Likewise non-belief is the non acceptance of a statement. So to argue that non-belief is ' believing without whatever..' is contradictory and is not what I meant by "non-belief".
"The rejection of a claim is a claim to knowledge if it a justifiable claim. Non-belief is a claim to lack of knowledge and ignorance"
Rejection of a claim and non-belief are the same thing. And neither of them has to be based on knowledge if they are justified, as you mentioned earlier someone may be said to know something if they believe X, believe it for good reasons and where X has to be true but not coincidently. If X isn't known to be true then you're left with justified belief, not even justified true belief. Same thing for non-belief: I don't accept X, I don't accept it for good reasons (e.g X hasn't met its burden of proof). Here we have justified non-belief, but we still don't know whether X is true, so non-belief isn't necessarily a claim to knowledge.
When you refer to a 'claim to a lack of knowledge and ignorance', you're referring to agnosticism which says nothing about whether one is convinced of a statement or not. Agnosticism and gnosticism go to what you know, and atheism and theism go to what you believe/don't believe.
"I do not agree with this statement in the slightest. When there are debates called "Does God exist?" the two sides are "No" and "Yes." Not "Yes" and "Not Yes." This game is a game of words. Fine, don't call it a belief because that word throws atheists into a frenzy, call it an assertion. The theist asserts that God exists. The atheist asserts that God does not exist. When I see "I don't believe in Gabe," I must mean at the same time "I believe Gabe is incapable." There is no way to separate the two in practice except in the mind of the atheist. Yes, on paper, where you put the "not" is very important, but in practice, it is the same. Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief."
I wouldn't call atheism a belief or an assertion, mainly because an assertion is a statement about a fact or a belief. Atheism is a non-belief, and I have to ask you what you mean by 'they are the same in practice' regarding strong atheism and atheism? Do you mean that if you were to observe the lifestyle of the person who believes there is no god and the person who does not believe in god you would not find a difference? Well I put it to you that atheism isn't a lifestyle and that you wouldn't be able to distinguish the deist from the atheist either, or an atheist from a non-practicing christian.
Also your argument, "Trust me, I have been there, and if I am going to be intellectually honest, I never, for a second, thought that there is a difference between "non-belief" and "against-belief." I don't think this is valid, while you may not have thought about the difference, evidently other people have and do understand the distinction.
Thought I'd add my 2 cents, hope it makes sense.
~Gabe
Even the nonOrthodox inquiries section says these must be "genuine"
I would appreciate it if those wishing to continue pick it up on FB or by email.
The first is that God is a personal God and if He is known, He is known like the way that one person relates to another. I am going to take this for granted as I begin, without offer proof. What I will say is that the basis my acceptance of this is the revelation of God in the scriptures Who has granted us sonship through adoption. We are granted to know God as adopted sons and daughters after the Image of the Only Begotten Son of God.
If we take the approach of rationalism and dialogue we can dance around the topic of personal relations with God but we cannot enter into the matter itself.
It is a bit like how a person can be an expert on Abraham Lincon by finding many historical resources and dedicating his life to this work. At the end of the day this person can say many enlightening things about that person. His deepest regret would most likely be that for all he knows about Abraham Lincon, he doesn't actually know Abraham Lincon. You could also never say that a person specialising in this kind of study and research knows Abraham Lincon as well as his wife, parents or siblings.
To speak of what a relationship with God is like, is like describing the taste of honey to someone who has never experienced this in their food palate before. This knowledge cannot be communicated as a verbal description. We can talk about it, we can send proofs back and forth as to why honey exists or that sweetness exists or that sweetness is good. Most likely the person with the honey would say back to such a self important scholar who demands such conviction "Shut it dummy and just taste the honey already, see it is good!"
The Bible should be viewed in this context, its not a head book, its a heart book. Its not intended to increase this endless banter of things we have to talk about on the topic of God in the fashion of the scholar who studies Abraham Lincon. It is meant to introduce us to the sweetness of the character of God who is our Father. It's not meant to describe how but Who, to give us access to a relationship with Him, to have our own experience.
In the end the knowledge of the date Abraham was born, where he went to university and how he composed an English thesis in high school one day are to a certain extent irrelevent facts to Mrs. Lincon. Mrs. Lincon married Mr. Lincon because he was a good man and she enjoyed his company. These kinds of details are in a way unimportant because they don't add or take anything away for the relationship which she has with Him where she knows them or not.
The problem with much of Western Christianity today is that they confuse the scholar as the one who knows Mr. Lincon when really that knowledge belongs to Mrs. Lincon. God is to be experienced, not debated or studied. He is there waiting for a relationship with each one of us and if we are to know Him we won't find Him in a text book, we'll find Him on our knees and in prayer. Prayer has this power because when we pray we become what we are and God becomes what He is. If there is something which we need to gain access to a relationship with Him, God will provide it, if we are to seek it on these terms.
If a person wants to know God they must understand that once they discover God, and His presence, things change. This knowledge isn't like discovering there is life on Mars, it has immediate implications here and now. If we're honest enough with ourselves, and brave enough to take this step, we go to the hardest frontier of human discover, our own hearts. We discover a world which wasn't visible to us before and now is.
<b>Edit:</b> To make a circular point which answers the premise you made right at the beginning. God fashioned many people including intellectuals and He granted each of them knowledge of Himself. For the intellectual the first thing you must understand is that we cannot (in absoluteness) understand who God is, His nature and His work in creation. This however is not an admission of ignorance as much as it is accepting the richness of the subject we wish to understand. One of the primary differences between an Atheist and an Agnostic is that the Agnostic has a reverent acceptance that they cannot possibly know all that there is to know. They embrace this ignorance because an unlimited depth of knowledge is still out there, undiscovered, possibly out of reach. We need to approach God in the same way.
The acquisition of what can be known, and of this there is more than enough to satisfy the most inquisitive mind comes in the form of face to face meeting.
In Orthodox terms a person who knows God is a Theologian which roughly translates to someone who knows God. In our crusty western understanding of the word a theologian is someone who reads a lot of books. In Orthodox terms it is someone who is granted to see God personally and with the richness of this experience is granted to share what he has learned with those who cannot see. More often than not a theologian is a poet or an artist rather than a scholar. They are charged with the responsibility of taking what cannot be expressed and trying somehow to put it into words. The best Biblical example of this are the depictions of God found in the book of Revelations. In the same why that it took a theologian to compose, it similarly takes a theologian to understand, and they understand because what they see in the revelation is consistent with their own experience.
I have perhaps said to much but I hope if you're earnest in what you're looking for that is finds a ready and willing ear.
Please pray for me,
LiD
liked yr post
:)
Dear K-man
Since you said: I thought for sure you had some kind of relationship with God. I do not understand how God could be 'all' to you and then just because of a biology degree totally change??? Thats why I said I do not think you really knew God personally. When one knows Christ as a personal Savior....it's real; not that one understands His mysteries all the time, but having meager understanding does not make Him less real.
Look, 2Timothy 4:3-4 states.......[glow=red,2,300]For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables[/glow]
why don't you look up proof of the existence of the flood, I know its out there.
God is science.
K-man, your just choosing to believe other teachings than Biblical teachings, its not that 'science' books have more proof of their validity than the Holy Bible does.
Have you ever prayed to Pope Kyrillos VI about this matter?