"You have set the bar too high."
Replies
-
Soldier, I've made this point with you before. Belief comes before fact. Even in science, a scientist must hypothesize the possibilities before he can generate an experiment that might prove his hypothesis. Faith works the same way as a hypothesis.
No one is aking you to have faith in God in order for it to be proven to you. But you do have to have faith that the existence of God is a possibility before evidence of His existence will become apparent to you.
Let me just say that "apparent" is an extremely subjective word, and gets back into the argument of praying for keys is enough evidence for some and not others. God's existence may be "apparent" to some in the sun setting behind snow capped mountains while a deer grazes in the foreground from a crystal clear lake, but to say that faith will make that into evidence for everyone is really a stretch.0 -
.
[I thought I had something to contribute. On second thought, I decided differently. Carry on. Nothing to see here!]0 -
If when you say absolute proof you are referring to the kind of certainty that Renee Descartes and other philosophers mean then I would say there are only a few things that we can have certainty about. Such as the fact that I exist. I can't know that you exist but I can know that I exist with absolute certainty.Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Personally I do not see absolute proof as necessary or even useful in that context. If the assertion that God exists could meet the same level of proof that radio waves meet then I would become a theist on the spot.
If we are suspending the philosophical definition of certainty and we are using more pragmatic definitions then yes we would have to have evidence first and then we could justify our belief in. If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
What place would skepticism even have if your world?0 -
Soldier, I've made this point with you before. Belief comes before fact. Even in science, a scientist must hypothesize the possibilities before he can generate an experiment that might prove his hypothesis. Faith works the same way as a hypothesis.
No one is aking you to have faith in God in order for it to be proven to you. But you do have to have faith that the existence of God is a possibility before evidence of His existence will become apparent to you.
Let me just say that "apparent" is an extremely subjective word, and gets back into the argument of praying for keys is enough evidence for some and not others. God's existence may be "apparent" to some in the sun setting behind snow capped mountains while a deer grazes in the foreground from a crystal clear lake, but to say that faith will make that into evidence for everyone is really a stretch.
Fair enough. What might be evidence for some, may not be for others.0 -
If when you say absolute proof you are referring to the kind of certainty that Renee Descartes and other philosophers mean then I would say there are only a few things that we can have certainty about. Such as the fact that I exist. I can't know that you exist but I can know that I exist with absolute certainty.Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Personally I do not see absolute proof as necessary or even useful in that context. If the assertion that God exists could meet the same level of proof that radio waves meet then I would become a theist on the spot.
If we are suspending the philosophical definition of certainty and we are using more pragmatic definitions then yes we would have to have evidence first and then we could justify our belief in. If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
What place would skepticism even have if your world?
You said in an earlier post that you do not believe God exists. By accepting this belief without any evidence, you have already accepted tross0924's line of thinking.0 -
You are incorrect.
If when you say absolute proof you are referring to the kind of certainty that Renee Descartes and other philosophers mean then I would say there are only a few things that we can have certainty about. Such as the fact that I exist. I can't know that you exist but I can know that I exist with absolute certainty.Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Personally I do not see absolute proof as necessary or even useful in that context. If the assertion that God exists could meet the same level of proof that radio waves meet then I would become a theist on the spot.
If we are suspending the philosophical definition of certainty and we are using more pragmatic definitions then yes we would have to have evidence first and then we could justify our belief in. If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
What place would skepticism even have if your world?
You said in an earlier post that you do not believe God exists. By accepting this belief without any evidence, you have already accepted tross0924's line of thinking.
Saying "I do not believe God exists." is not the same as saying "I believe God does not exist."
"I do not believe God exists." = I reject your assertion that god exists.
"I believe god does not exist." = I am asserting that god does not exist.
In the second one a positive claim is being made which carries with it a burden of proof. I am not making a positive claim. I am rejecting a positive claim that is being made by others that claim god does exist. I do not have a burden of proof.
I have already explained this. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if god exists or not but I do not believe in god.
I really wish I could get this point across. I feel like I am in the middle of a crowded room shouting but nobody can hear me.0 -
I have always been an atheist, some of my earliest childhood memories are of going to church and not believing. I wanted to believe,everyone in my family did. I spent a good chunk of my early years keeping my mind open. it would come to me I was sure of it. Needless to say it never did. I couldn't understand what was wrong with me, being so young I didn't know what an atheist was, I prayed and waited, and got good at pretending. Then I got older and started reading everything I could the Old Testament. The New Testament everything I could find. The loving god everyone had talked to me about wasn't so loving, the bible did nothing but contrdict itself. At this point there is nothing anyone could point me to that would make me believe because all anyone has is the bible , and times when they had a feeling that something had to have happened for a reason.0
-
You are incorrect.
Saying "I do not believe God exists." is not the same as saying "I believe God does not exist."
"I do not believe God exists." = I reject your assertion that god exists.
"I believe god does not exist." = I am asserting that god does not exist.
In the second one a positive claim is being made which carries with it a burden of proof. I am not making a positive claim. I am rejecting a positive claim that is being made by others that claim god does exist. I do not have a burden of proof.
I have already explained this. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if god exists or not but I do not believe in god.
I really wish I could get this point across. I feel like I am in the middle of a crowded room shouting but nobody can hear me.
You completely lost me here. Both those statements are exactly the same. Neither carries a burden of proof. Neither are a positive claim in any way. You cannot insert the word "not" in a sentence in any position and then, declare it to be a positive claim of anything. Technically, it is not a "claim" at all. You are stating your belief, and both statements have exactly the same meaning.0 -
Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?0
-
Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?
My own personal philosophy is as follows:
I think that I run into some severe issues when I act as if I am god -- by attempting to control things that are going on around me, push and prod things in the way I want them to be, and engineer situations in ways that are favorable to me. When things don't work out, I get frustrated and angry -- if I control the variables, then any failure is a personal failure. I didn't do something correctly.
That's a pretty negative space for me to be in, because in life, more often than not, things don't always work out the way you anticipate them to. So I made the decision to focus on the things I can control, my actions and reactions to things, and attribute the rest of the stuff to other people's actions and a higher power. Sometimes, when I'm feeling down and/or conflicted, and I don't have anyone to talk to, I pray to a specific mental image of that higher power (whatever it may be at that given point). Then I feel better. Do I feel better because there's an actual higher power, or does the act of praying make you feel better? Who knows? The end effect is the same, and I'm comfortable with that.
I try to live a moral life and make good decisions. Belief in some form of higher power (and trust me, it changes frequently depending on my mood) helps me be happy in my day to day interactions with others. I figure, if I die, and there is a God, then he should be OK with the "moral life and good decisions" stuff. If I die, and there's no God, then I tricked myself into living a happy life, and I should be happy with that, too.0 -
I do not believe there is a god.Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?
Since I know you are going to leap to the conclusion that it must mean I believe there is no god even though I have explained this a couple times already I will attempt to preemptively address that with an analogy.
================================================================================================
Lets say I have a jar of gum balls on my desk. We don't know the number of gum balls in the jar. We do know that it is either an odd or even number.
Person A: The number of gum balls is even.
Person B: I don't believe you because you don't have the information necessary to draw that conclusion.
Person A: That may be but I still believe it.
Person B: Then your conclusion that there is and even number of gum balls lacks rational justification.
Person A: Prove that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I don't have to prove the number of gum balls is odd. I am saying I don't believe you have sufficient rational justification for your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
Person A: You have a burden of proof to support your claim that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I am not claiming the number of gumballs is odd. I am saying that we don't know the number of gumballs so we have no reason to be claiming that the number is odd or even.
================================================================================================0 -
I do not believe there is a god.Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?
Since I know you are going to leap to the conclusion that it must mean I believe there is no god even though I have explained this a couple times already I will attempt to preemptively address that with an analogy.
================================================================================================
Lets say I have a jar of gum balls on my desk. We don't know the number of gum balls in the jar. We do know that it is either an odd or even number.
Person A: The number of gum balls is even.
Person B: I don't believe you because you don't have the information necessary to draw that conclusion.
Person A: That may be but I still believe it.
Person B: Then your conclusion that there is and even number of gum balls lacks rational justification.
Person A: Prove that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I don't have to prove the number of gum balls is odd. I am saying I don't believe you have sufficient rational justification for your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
Person A: You have a burden of proof to support your claim that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I am not claiming the number of gumballs is odd. I am saying that we don't know the number of gumballs so we have no reason to be claiming that the number is odd or even.
================================================================================================
Either way, it's one person's opinion versus another.
If you believe there is no justification to prove that God exists, then that is what you should say. The statement "I do not believe there is a god" is the same statement as "I do not believe that God exists."0 -
'There is no justification to believe that god exists."
"I do not believe there is a god"
"I do not believe that God exists."
All three of these statements are equivalent and these statements express the position that I have always had since the beginning.
So many people keep trying to equivocate my position with things like:
"I know that there is no god."
"God does not exist"
"There is no god."
All three of these statements are saying the same thing also but none of them are saying the same thing as the first three statements. More importantly none of them are saying what I am saying.0 -
I do not believe there is a god.Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?
Since I know you are going to leap to the conclusion that it must mean I believe there is no god even though I have explained this a couple times already I will attempt to preemptively address that with an analogy.
================================================================================================
Lets say I have a jar of gum balls on my desk. We don't know the number of gum balls in the jar. We do know that it is either an odd or even number.
Person A: The number of gum balls is even.
Person B: I don't believe you because you don't have the information necessary to draw that conclusion.
Person A: That may be but I still believe it.
Person B: Then your conclusion that there is and even number of gum balls lacks rational justification.
Person A: Prove that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I don't have to prove the number of gum balls is odd. I am saying I don't believe you have sufficient rational justification for your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
Person A: You have a burden of proof to support your claim that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I am not claiming the number of gumballs is odd. I am saying that we don't know the number of gumballs so we have no reason to be claiming that the number is odd or even.
================================================================================================
You say "I do not believe there is a god."
Earlier you said "The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before."
What evidence do you have to prove there is no god?0 -
You say "I do not believe there is a god."
Earlier you said "The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before."
What evidence do you have to prove there is no god?
I am not going around believing that there is no god. I am going around not believing that there is a god. I have explained this over and over again and yet you can still type a sentence like "What evidence do you have to prove there is no god?"
Are you not reading what I am writing are you not understanding it? I honestly don't know how else I can put it.
"The time to believe in something is after you have evidence and not before."
So prior to having that evidence you can be "NOT BELIEVING" and if you do not believe something it does not mean that you inherit the burden of proof. It means that the burden of proof has still not yet been met.0 -
Believing there is no God is an action.
Not believing there is a God is a lack of action.
Two completely different things. That's clear enough to me, Soldier4242.0 -
Thank you treetop57. Your post is a breath of fresh air.Believing there is no God is an action.
Not believing there is a God is a lack of action.
Two completely different things. That's clear enough to me, Soldier4242.0 -
I think the distinction that soldier is trying to make is the certainty that is inherent inside the statement "I believe god does not exist"
That sentence is spoken by the peron who *knows* they're right. Their mind is made up, they believe the answer is fixed and undeniable.
The position he is coming from could be described as, "Well, I have not yet seen anything that would say there is a god, so on that basis, so far, my answer is I don't think so" There's a lot less certainty in that position. He is open to further evidence, and would adjust his opinion accordingly if he were presented evidence that satisfied his benchmark.0 -
Exactly. To say "I believe there is no God" requires convincing evidence that God doesn't exist.
To say "I do not believe there is a God" only requires a lack of convincing evidence that God does exist.0 -
Semantics. Either way... the individual cannot be convinced because God does not work in absolutes or concretes. Whether the individual feels that they *know* that God does not exist or that the have never had evidence of his existence or non-existence, it does not matter because what Soldier wants is for spirit to have substance, and by nature, that is not possible without damaging consequences.0
-
Soldier,
I believe there is a god. You do not believe there is a god. Why is the burden of proof on me to prove there is a god and not on you to prove there is not a god? You will have to pardon my inability to fully understand what you are trying to convey since it all appears to be semantics IMHO.0 -
I do not believe there is a god.Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?
Since I know you are going to leap to the conclusion that it must mean I believe there is no god even though I have explained this a couple times already I will attempt to preemptively address that with an analogy.
================================================================================================
Lets say I have a jar of gum balls on my desk. We don't know the number of gum balls in the jar. We do know that it is either an odd or even number.
Person A: The number of gum balls is even.
Person B: I don't believe you because you don't have the information necessary to draw that conclusion.
Person A: That may be but I still believe it.
Person B: Then your conclusion that there is and even number of gum balls lacks rational justification.
Person A: Prove that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I don't have to prove the number of gum balls is odd. I am saying I don't believe you have sufficient rational justification for your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
Person A: You have a burden of proof to support your claim that the number of gum balls is odd.
Person B: I am not claiming the number of gumballs is odd. I am saying that we don't know the number of gumballs so we have no reason to be claiming that the number is odd or even.
================================================================================================
I see what you're saying. There is a difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god."
But what I'm saying is that after Person A counts the gumballs and proves to you that there 468, you don't believe they are even, you know they are even. So, again, yes, you have set the bar too high. You will never believe in God.If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
Totally untrue. First, you are not required to believe anything. You can live your life in complete skepticism and doubt everything ever said to you. You can doubt gravities existence until you conduct your own experiments and discover the truth of it's existence or lack thereof. You can doubt 2 + 2 = 4 until you do the pages of math that prove it. But you will never believe anything. If you do believe something it must be without sufficient evidence to know. Once you know, you can not believe.0 -
I see knowledge as a subset of belief. If I drew a circle of all the things I believe the circle for all the things I know would be inside that circle. Your belief circle would be larger than your knowledge circle. In this scenario belief would simply be a reaction to evidence.Totally untrue. First, you are not required to believe anything. You can live your life in complete skepticism and doubt everything ever said to you. You can doubt gravities existence until you conduct your own experiments and discover the truth of it's existence or lack thereof. You can doubt 2 + 2 = 4 until you do the pages of math that prove it. But you will never believe anything. If you do believe something it must be without sufficient evidence to know. Once you know, you can not believe.
You see belief and knowledge as two circles on completely different sheets of paper and what is on one sheet cannot be on the other sheet. So I have an actual inability to believe something I have learned about because once I have learned about it I have lost the ability to believe in it.
This means that knowledge of god is completely impossible. You are by definition going down a road I am not capable of following. You not only cannot prove the existence of god to me. You have not proven it to yourself and you never will. You will go through your entire life believing in what you want to believe in without any hope of learning about it.
Well in an effort to increase the clarity of our discussions I will endeavor to remember to use the word "accept" where I would use the word "believe" because by the definition that you are using I would believe in nothing or at least as little as possible.0 -
First of all let me assure you that this is not semantics in any respect. There is a very real reason the burden of proof is upon you and it has a lot to do with logic.Soldier,
I believe there is a god. You do not believe there is a god. Why is the burden of proof on me to prove there is a god and not on you to prove there is not a god? You will have to pardon my inability to fully understand what you are trying to convey since it all appears to be semantics IMHO.
Not all statements have a truth value. For example the statement "Make me a sandwich." does not have a truth value, it is simply calling for an action from another party. The statement "I made you a sandwich." does have a truth value because it is making an assertion. Either I did or did not make you a sandwich. It cannot be neither and it cannot be both.
The statement "God exists." has a truth value. Just like the statement,"I made you a sandwich." It can be true or it can be false. It cannot be neither true nor false and it cannot be both true and false. So I have to look at your statement, "God exists." as having two possibilities. Either true or false.
In the case of "I made you a sandwich." there is evidence that I should expect to see that would make it true. If you don't have a sandwich it is false right? Wrong! If you do not have a sandwich I do not yet have enough evidence to conclude that you did not make me one. What I can do is say I do not have rational justification to support the assertion that you made me a sandwich. You never attempt to prove a negative. If you do have a sandwich the statement is true and we go on with out lives.
In the case of "God exists." I have to do much the same thing. I have to see if you have a "God" that you can present which will make the statement true. If you cannot present this god then I cannot conclude that your statement is false on that alone but neither should I try to. That would be attempting to prove a negative. I must instead say that you do not have rational justification to conclude that your statement is true.
The same thing would be true for pretty much any statement with a true/false truth value. The burden of proof always falls upon the one making the positive assertion. It has to be this way as a matter of logical necessity.0
