Scientific evidence depends entirely on repetition in controlled environments where particular experiences composed of beliefs, desires, motivations and various subjective phenomena are neutralized. — JuanZu
Subjective experiences and scientific evidence are not the same thing. — JuanZu
In subjective experience that which validates a belief does not escape the particular subjective experience. — JuanZu
In scientific evidence that which validates theory necessarily escapes particular subjective experience. — JuanZu
When we compare both types of validation we realize how poor is the validation of beliefs on the religious plane — JuanZu
It is your job to say what you are talking about. — I like sushi
There is no argument. — I like sushi
When I look outside my house I experience seeing my car for "biological reasons," but this doesn't undermine my claim that my car is "really there." — Count Timothy von Icarus
There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.
Are you saying anything else other than this? — I like sushi
You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof. — Lionino
Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof. — Lionino
And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious. — Lionino
The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not. — Lionino
Well, this is like saying
'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.' — 180 Proof
Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical. — Sam26
You first need to distinguish evidence of Christianity from interpretations of "Christianity" — sime
Do you really wish to argue that mystical visions are externally related to Christian concepts and present inferential evidence that those Christian concepts denote 'facts'? — sime
If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith. — Lionino
It is comical that God intentionally bothers to mysteriously appear to random people at random times — Lionino
yet stays quiet when a little Nepali child is being ripped to shreds by a Bengali tiger. — Lionino
Curing children from cancer is somehow a violation of free will — Lionino
You are scurrying through abstracts like a politician to find convenient statements — Lionino
“Prayer induced experiences” - what is that to you? — Fire Ologist
I’d like to see how you distinguish “prayer induced experiences” from “experiences of observations”. — Fire Ologist
“Bible-specific propositions” - probably just need an example, one that cashes out with the other terms using an example would help. — Fire Ologist
“Christianity is true”. Do you mean objectively, verifiably true, like the earth revolves around the sun type truth? — Fire Ologist
I think I need to see an example that shows how a person’s prayers are answered so to speak in a way that verifies a connection between the prayer and the observable experiences of that person — Fire Ologist
Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work. — Fire Ologist
Yes, because a logical argument has to show something multiple third parties can use to see the same thing, to see whatever is the conclusion of the argument — Fire Ologist
I’m saying to the third party scientists running tests on believers and taking as objects things like Christian propositions, and prayer-induced experiences, all the scientists are left with (if they believe in the honesty of the test subject) is someone who is demonstrating faith. — Fire Ologist
They don’t see the reason that test subject sees a reason to connect the Christian proposition to the prayer. You don’t see the reasons as a third party, you just see their reasons (that the scientific observer didn’t directly access) — Fire Ologist
and would be better to call this evidence of what faith is, namely, someone in the act of believing something) rather than any proof about Truth of the thing they believe (how the christian proposition relates to their own prayer.) — Fire Ologist
You are not saying any of this is about what's true, it's merely evidence for the person having the experience. — Tom Storm
People believe all kinds of absurdities based on bad evidence. — Tom Storm
Is this intended to be an argument? — bert1
Is (4) an assumption? — bert1
Granting (4), doesn't this apply to other religions as well? — bert1
Are you as happy for this line of thinking to support other religions than Christianity? — bert1
Perhaps you think that all religions are culture-specific approaches to one spiritual reality? — bert1
Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum? — Tom Storm
I am wondering if you are arguing that all religions are equally proven true if followers have specific religious experiences? — Tom Storm
It would be far more convincing if those people had visons or experiences of a god outside of their cultural expectations — Tom Storm
like Kali or an Australian Aboriginal creator spirit. — Tom Storm
The fact that someone in a Christian country sees Christian vision just taps into expectations. Hallucinations or psychological experiences tend to be tied to the culture you know. — Tom Storm
Can you cite reputable studies? — Tom Storm
My argument is about gathering evidence for a religion, not proving God.“because I experienced God, I know God is true.” — Fire Ologist
Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world.That argument only works for that one person. — Fire Ologist
For those of us who haven't had such experiences, one could build a model from the internally-consistent religious experiences other people have had. All of them seem to involve a metaphysical basis of life, certain metaphysical operations such as prayer, a distinction between good and evil, and so on. This permits us to build a global model.but without firsthand experience of this prayer induced evidence, the praying one is asking the other scientist/logicians to take his word on it. — Fire Ologist
I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean to contradict the argument?Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work. — Fire Ologist
Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model.But the link between Christianity and prayer-induced experiences is as invisible to the scientist — Fire Ologist
We can meet people who have had direct experiences (during prayer) of Mohammad and Allah. Are they true too? — Tom Storm
All religions contain people convinced they have had direct and personal experiences of gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc. All religions also have their miracle stories. — Tom Storm
, from such disparate and contradictory sources — Tom Storm
How exactly do we determine which of these stories (...) are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications? — Tom Storm
This is equivalent to saying what I was saying before: according to you, to rationally believe X, one must know X (saying it is a fact is redundant). — Bob Ross
I don’t think one needs to know X to believe X — Bob Ross
I was giving you an example of atemporal dependency, not telling you what is sufficient for rational belief. Knowing what X means is required for rational belief in X, but it is obviously not sufficient. It doesn't establish that an agnostic atheist can rationally believe that God doesn’t exist without knowing God doesn’t exist, only that they can't without knowing what it means. The connection between rational belief and knowledge is just the connection between mental representation and informational content. For some kinds of information, there's a temporal dependency, but there are always atemporal dependencies (rationality itself, semantics etc)."To rationally believe X, I have to know what X means"
This is perfectly compatible with agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist knows what it means for god(s) not to exist, so they can “rationally” believe that god(s) don’t exist without knowing god(s) don’t exist. — Bob Ross
Your OP was attacking agnostic atheist in the sense that one needs knowledge of X to believe X — Bob Ross
I don’t see how any of that is atemporal. In order to know what “becoming president in the future” means to believe Bob is going to be the next president, I need to know the former before the latter. — Bob Ross
Is believing a ridged state for you? Are you equally sure about all your beliefs? — mentos987
how do I non-temporally acquire knowledge of X and then a belief in X without that inevitably being a temporal process? — Bob Ross
"No, I can have an irrational belief that turns out to be incorrect, based on fallacy or just lack of knoweldge, or I can have a rational belief that turns out to be correct based on knowledge."
That’s not what you implied thought with:
"I have to know what the president of the United States is in order to have a belief about who will become president in the future." — Bob Ross
This implies that one only needs some knowledge which is not the thing about to be beleived for that belief to be rational — Bob Ross
Which one seems more relevant to philosophy of religion's terminology? — Lionino
Correct me if I am wrong, but the OP mentions dictionaries and definitions at many points — Lionino
and some arguments seem to be based on these definitions — Lionino
This whole argument references the sourced definition of atheism you used. — Lionino
Let's see what the relevant dictionaries say:
A Dictionary of Atheism Stephen Bullivant and Lois Lee: "A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence".
A Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.) Simon Blackburn: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none."
A Dictionary of Psychology (4 ed.) Andrew M. Colman: "Rejection of belief in God. atheist n. One who rejects belief in God."
The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World: "The Greek for atheism is ‘not to recognize the gods’ or ‘deny that the gods exist’ or, later, ‘to remove the gods’." — Lionino
Let's see what the relevant dictionaries say: — Lionino
This sort of “logical dependency” you described is not atemporal. — Bob Ross
Exactly, so you could believe that the next president will be Bob without knowing it: — Bob Ross
that’s exactly how agnostic atheism works. — Bob Ross
You have now conflated the knowledge used to formulate the belief in X with the need for knowledge of X to formulate the belief in X. — Bob Ross
Every object is a being. — Lionino
'Anti-' means opposition, that is what the dictionary says. You ascribe this "morally" adverb to the word opposition when it is not there. There are countless examples of 'anti-' prefixed words without moral meaning.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-ageing
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-id
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-romantic
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anti-aircraft
The word anti-matter itself indicates reverse, instead of moral stance or counter-action. — Lionino
I believe it will snow because I believe someone said so to me earlier. Knowing is not a requirement for believing. — mentos987
Experience is not the same as knowing. In my experience, the earth is flat. — mentos987
No, in this case, the beliefs derived from knowledge does not refer to the same thing. — mentos987
Uncertainty and certainty are the scales themselves. Being certain and being uncertain, those are the actual levels of certainty, and they are separate. However, being certain can still contain a degree of uncertainty (0-5%). — mentos987
This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be saying that we must have knowledge of X before we can believe X; but then you say it is atemporal: can you give an example? — Bob Ross
"Beliefs that we formulate without knowledge are usually predictions or estimations"
Isn’t this a temporal dependency? — Bob Ross
This also seems like you are saying that we just need to have knowledge of Y (as opposed to X) to believe X, which is compatible with the etymological schema. — Bob Ross
Not necessarily, I can be unsure about it. — mentos987
However I probably have some experience that suggests that it will snow. — mentos987
But yes, I can know some things and use that to form beliefs about something else. The belief is weaker than the knowledge though. — mentos987
My bad, it is supposed to read "Being uncertain indicates that you are not certain". — mentos987
If someone asks me "Do you believe you need oxygen to survive?" then I answer, "No, I know I need oxygen to survive". — mentos987
"I believe it will snow". — mentos987
Being certain is a step on the Certainty scale: 95-100% — mentos987
Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — mentos987
"I am opposed to the pilot-wave", everybody understands that as thinking that pilot-wave is a bad theory — Lionino
Opposition to the existence of something is clearly denial of existence. — Lionino
Opposition shouldn't be read to mean "denial of" — Hallucinogen
Well, you said it yourself:
Antitheism means opposition to the existence of a God — Hallucinogen — Lionino
No, to me you either believe it or you know it. Knowing is stronger than believing. — mentos987
Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — mentos987
There's a binary distinction between certainty and uncertainty — Hallucinogen
Not to me. The term “uncertain” would indicate 5-95% certainty. — mentos987
And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen
Antitheist. — Lionino
. If you see any logical fallacies in the way I use my definitions, feel free to point them out. — mentos987
Certainty in X cannot coincide with uncertainty in X, so suggesting that they're not disjoint is a fallacy.Not to me. — mentos987
But not between belief and knowledge (they can coincide, — Hallucinogen
Not to me, knowledge is a step above believing. — mentos987
I think that knowledge can contain a small degree of uncertainty. — mentos987
Likewise, if we only have uncertainty at our disposal, then we don't have belief in it. We would just have lack of belief. — Hallucinogen
I don't follow. — mentos987
Lack of belief can come from contradictions, no? — mentos987
5-50% certainty would indicate disbelief.
0-5% certainty would indicate knowing that something is not true.
The term “uncertain” would indicate 5-95% certainty. — mentos987
you have the relation backwards between beliefs and knowledge. Knowledge, traditionally, is a true, justified, belief. A belief is not determined after one recognizes they have knowledge — Bob Ross
The etymological schema is going to say that we formulate beliefs, which are not yet knowledge — Bob Ross
e.g., I believe that the tree I walked passed 3 days ago is still there even though I have little justificatory support for it, etc — Bob Ross
then there is a meaningful difference between those who claim to only believe something and those who believe it and know. — Bob Ross
Knowing something indicates a certainty of 95-100%
Believing something indicates a certainty of 50-95% — mentos987
Having faith in something is when you simply choose to add a percentage of certainty. E.g. 55% belief + 41% faith = knowing that God exist.
How do you feel about this? — mentos987