Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 535
  1. #461
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    to your diqualification of parental teaching- I see no reason to justify the prejudice against parents as proper authority to derive beliefs from
    I'll focus on this, for now. I'm of the opinion that accepting a claim because an authority tells you it's true (or simply tells you to accept the claim), does not rationally justify the belief. Sure, you could say it justifies the belief for the authority, and even for you, and the claim may even turn out to be correct, but none of that qualifies as rational justification for believing the claim.

    On what basis do you say that coming from an authority serves as rational justification for belief in a claim, since this is clearly not a reliable pathway to truth?

  2. #462
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,563
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    I'll focus on this, for now. I'm of the opinion that accepting a claim because an authority tells you it's true (or simply tells you to accept the claim), does not rationally justify the belief.
    I think we are using "authority" different here?

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    On what basis do you say that coming from an authority serves as rational justification for belief in a claim, since this is clearly not a reliable pathway to truth?
    You will have to support that it is "clearly" not a reliable pathway to truth. It seems to me that in regards to things like history authorities are almost our exclusive access to knowledge.
    We rely on authorities all the time, and are perfectly rational to do so.
    It may not be the maximum possible on a reliability scale, however it is not only the maximum that qualifies as rational to believe.

    Your argument is from the position of a negative and inferring that it is irrational to believe a less than maximally reliable path to truth.
    You need to support that. Given how many pay for an education, I think you have an uphill climb in your argument against authorities.
    To serve man.

  3. #463
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    574
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this thread is specifically about whether or not a broad, theistic belief is rational. This argument is presented in that context here, and in no other.
    I have said this before in this thread but feel it needs repeating. I am only arguing against beliefs in a specific religion, not theism as a whole.

    ---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    To reiterate, I'm using the term "fine-tuning" in the same manner as physicists and astrophysicists use the term. Do you disagree with their use or my definition of their use? If so, please detail how their usage, or my understanding of their usage is incorrect.
    This sounds fine. Now can you show they think this was because of intent and not just saying the parameters for our universe to exist in it's current form are very limited?

    ---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Define fantastic in a measurable sense. I think when we use subjective discriptors of that nature we end up just enshringing out initial conclusions against the argument. Perhaps all the answers are "fantastic" it doesn't mean that one of them isn't the most likely.
    I see no reason to do that.
    Since you agree that "perhaps all of these answers are fantastic", even your "most likely" just doesn't sound very likely.

    The fact you think "God" cares what I think on the matter and won't allow me to know the truth, even though "He" wants me to fallow the truth actually makes it seem a less likely possibility...

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    By reading the Constitution? By reading the 16th Amendment a person could clearly answer the question of whether or not the government is allowed to levy an income tax without once appealing to understanding about the IRS.
    HUH? You said a person with no knowledge of Gov't! By reading/learning before making a proper decision you have rendered your point to irrelevance.

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Right, we can rule out chance because a chance event resulting in a 787 is statistically less likely than other explanations. But your response skipped a step. When you say that no one doubts that it was made by man, you are right, artificial creation by humans is a category of explanation.

    If you were to offer that category to me, I wouldn't be justifid in saying, "but you don't know each step in a 787's creation, therefore we can't rule out chance." That would be absurd. That is the exact form of your objection here. You are saying we can't rule out an entire category of options because we can't detail the specific steps on another category.

    To employ an argument ad absurdum rebuttal, your argument could be applied to say "we can't reject the widely discredited primeval atom theory of the origin of the universe because we don't understand the full model of the universe." Clearly that isn't the case, we have rejected that particular theory, despite our understanding.
    Um, no.
    My point was/is, one is obvious, the other is not at all.

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In statistical terms, yes it is actually a very big deal. That is why there are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on these subjects, why it is a perenial discussion in the physics community, and why it is discussed at conferences.

    Regardless of however you want to subjectively assess it, we have to deal with the premise offered. "The fine-tuning of the universe is explainable through either necessity, chance, or design."

    What it means is other universes may exist but they would not be like ours at all...

    To support the universe was indeed "fine tuned" you would have to show intent ie a consciousness that purposefully did this.

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Oh? Can you detail which part of the nicene creed requires that life be present in all parts of the universe?

    I think it, more accurately, would counter some inferences that people have about Christian teaching (including some Christians to be fair) rather than any core doctrine or theology.
    I said no such thing for goodness sake.
    Unless humans travel faster than light safely, almost all of the universe is out of our reach (assuming humans won't survive for billions of years). That and the fact that most of the universe is deadly to humans leads me to believe it wasn't "made just for us".

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, why would I need to propose a universe God resides in? What rule have I proposed that God is exempt from?
    To the first:
    ok, you are saying God resides "where" since he can not be a part of our universe?

    To the latter:
    God needs no cause.
    God IS an actual infinity.
    God need fallow no natural law.
    God is conscious but has no physical presence and is timeless etc (how could such a being even be said to exist?).
    God need not have existed in another universe prior (or even now) to creating this one.

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The first statement is correct. That there is no temporally prior moment to T=0 in the big bang. The second statement is correct, that there is a causal prior to the big bang. The third statement is not correct. The causal prior didn't happen "when" anything since time is not related, dimensionally, to that prior. Rather, I would say, that the cuasal prior exists absent time.
    You change my words all the time but usually fail to show a significant difference. I would rather focus on my ideas than semantics, though I appreciate your thoroughness...

    So the "causal prior" exists when time does not.
    We define time as only applying to our universe.
    Correct?

  4. #464
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think we are using "authority" different here?
    Please explain - this is quite vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will have to support that it is "clearly" not a reliable pathway to truth.
    Well, assuming, for the sake of argument, that only one theistic belief system is true - let's say yours. All the people in the world who believe in the wrong deity because a person of authority (their parents) told them it's true, do not have the true belief. Therefore, this method is not a reliable pathway to truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We rely on authorities all the time, and are perfectly rational to do so.
    Please give an example where we take an authority's word on a claim simply because they are an authority and without any further support which that authority can provide to back up their claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It may not be the maximum possible on a reliability scale, however it is not only the maximum that qualifies as rational to believe.
    I'd argue that an authority that expects someone to believe their claims just because they're the authority (and not even an authority on the field in question, in the case of parents presenting theistic claims to their children), is quite low on the reliability scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your argument is from the position of a negative and inferring that it is irrational to believe a less than maximally reliable path to truth.
    No, I not saying anything about varying scales of reliability. Either a pathway is reliable or it isn't. If it isn't, then believing in the claim via such a pathway is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You need to support that. Given how many pay for an education, I think you have an uphill climb in your argument against authorities.
    Comparing the expertise professors and teachers have in their fields with parents claiming to their kids that a deity exists is simply absurd. Academia has a sound foundation of support for the claims they make. This is not the case with the theistic claims which parents make.

  5. #465
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,563
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    -partial answer for .. time permitting--

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Please explain - this is quite vague.
    I am not using "authority" in the sense that one is in charge or in control of another.
    Just so we are on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Well, assuming, for the sake of argument, that only one theistic belief system is true - let's say yours. All the people in the world who believe in the wrong deity because a person of authority (their parents) told them it's true, do not have the true belief. Therefore, this method is not a reliable pathway to truth.
    This is an arbitrary declaration on your part.
    First of all(given your assumptions here), by your standard the fact that the vast majority of the world believe that God exists in some way (theistic) then it is very reliable. So you ignore that part.
    Second, suppose that Christianity represents 1/3 of the worlds population. Then how much consensus is required before an "authority" is trustworthy? .. any example or reasoning you can offer for clarification?
    Third, Reliability is important.. but the bar is a little different then that, and that is "reason-ability". Can a reasonable person accept the authority, and I think that answer is yes when it comes to parents and their kids.
    A reasonable child will believe their parents, and they are not being unreasonable in doing so, nor are parents an unreasonable source. Even if it is not the most accurate source possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Please give an example where we take an authority's word on a claim simply because they are an authority and without any further support which that authority can provide to back up their claims.
    So that little "can provide to back up their claims" is rejected.
    Because it is not that an authority CAN it is if you expect it to be offered or not. You have in this thread demanded that they offer the support, so you can't compare it to any situation where you don't demand support.

    So an example would be something like who your parents are. You accept that your mom is your mom and your dad is your dad, based only on their word. Sure they "could" in most cases provide a birth certificate, but lets not pretend that you demanded a birth certificate before you believed them, or even really questioned it when you first got your birth certificate.
    So the point is we do this all the time in our daily life with all sorts of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I'd argue that an authority that expects someone to believe their claims just because they're the authority (and not even an authority on the field in question, in the case of parents presenting theistic claims to their children), is quite low on the reliability scale.
    Maybe, but I'm only arguing that it isn't so low that a person is irrational to believe it. I have supported this by showing rational people regularly accept the standard I am offering.

    ... got to go.. more soon hopefully.
    To serve man.

  6. #466
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,563
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    -partial answer for .. time permitting--

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Please explain - this is quite vague.
    I am not using "authority" in the sense that one is in charge or in control of another.
    Just so we are on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Well, assuming, for the sake of argument, that only one theistic belief system is true - let's say yours. All the people in the world who believe in the wrong deity because a person of authority (their parents) told them it's true, do not have the true belief. Therefore, this method is not a reliable pathway to truth.
    This is an arbitrary declaration on your part.
    First of all(given your assumptions here), by your standard the fact that the vast majority of the world believe that God exists in some way (theistic) then it is very reliable. So you ignore that part.
    Second, suppose that Christianity represents 1/3 of the worlds population. Then how much consensus is required before an "authority" is trustworthy? .. any example or reasoning you can offer for clarification?
    Third, Reliability is important.. but the bar is a little different then that, and that is "reason-ability". Can a reasonable person accept the authority, and I think that answer is yes when it comes to parents and their kids.
    A reasonable child will believe their parents, and they are not being unreasonable in doing so, nor are parents an unreasonable source. Even if it is not the most accurate source possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Please give an example where we take an authority's word on a claim simply because they are an authority and without any further support which that authority can provide to back up their claims.
    So that little "can provide to back up their claims" is rejected.
    Because it is not that an authority CAN it is if you expect it to be offered or not. You have in this thread demanded that they offer the support, so you can't compare it to any situation where you don't demand support.

    So an example would be something like who your parents are. You accept that your mom is your mom and your dad is your dad, based only on their word. Sure they "could" in most cases provide a birth certificate, but lets not pretend that you demanded a birth certificate before you believed them, or even really questioned it when you first got your birth certificate.
    So the point is we do this all the time in our daily life with all sorts of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I'd argue that an authority that expects someone to believe their claims just because they're the authority (and not even an authority on the field in question, in the case of parents presenting theistic claims to their children), is quite low on the reliability scale.
    Maybe, but I'm only arguing that it isn't so low that a person is irrational to believe it. I have supported this by showing rational people regularly accept the standard I am offering.

    ... got to go.. more soon hopefully.
    To serve man.

  7. #467
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First of all(given your assumptions here), by your standard the fact that the vast majority of the world believe that God exists in some way (theistic) then it is very reliable. So you ignore that part.
    "In some way theistic" doesn't make their specific beliefs true. Again, not having a true belief makes the method by which one came to that belief unreliable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, suppose that Christianity represents 1/3 of the worlds population. Then how much consensus is required before an "authority" is trustworthy? .. any example or reasoning you can offer for clarification?
    A method of acquiring the truth which is only right 33% of the time (again, only assuming that Xtianity is true) cannot be called a reliable pathway to truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Third, Reliability is important.. but the bar is a little different then that, and that is "reason-ability". Can a reasonable person accept the authority, and I think that answer is yes when it comes to parents and their kids.
    Children cannot reason in the way a fully-developed mind can. Which is why, when you think about it, they need to be able to rely on authorities to give them information on how to act and live.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A reasonable child will believe their parents
    Yes, a child, who cannot reason fully, needs to rely on an authority. This does not make the method a reliable pathway to truth. Luckily, for most mundane daily things, this method serves quite well. However, for claims like an invisible man in the sky and life after death, it is notoriously unreliable (only 33% accuracy).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    they are not being unreasonable in doing so, nor are parents an unreasonable source.
    The parents are the only source for a mind which cannot reason by itself. Once it can, the authority is no longer reasonable as a source by itself without any support.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Even if it is not the most accurate source possible.
    Hence it is not a reliable pathway to truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So that little "can provide to back up their claims" is rejected.
    Because it is not that an authority CAN it is if you expect it to be offered or not. You have in this thread demanded that they offer the support, so you can't compare it to any situation where you don't demand support.
    I'm not sure I get your point here. What I'm saying is that, if we are going to use an authority as a pathway to truth, then the authority needs to be able to backup their claims. If we don't expect the authority to do so, then it's our own fault for not being rational and ending up believing something incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So an example would be something like who your parents are. You accept that your mom is your mom and your dad is your dad, based only on their word.
    Well, I've seen my birth certificate, so your example doesn't really apply to me. But, by the time the child is able to reason fully, it's not just the parent's word that is offered. There's other family members' word, there's photographs - much much more than just the parent's word. As a child grows older and is able to reason better, the supporting evidence piles on so thick that it would be silly to think that the only reason they accept the people are their parents simply based on their word. Do you honestly claim that the only reason you, still to this day, believe that the people calling themselves are your parents, is simply because they say they are? Your example fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the point is we do this all the time in our daily life with all sorts of things.
    The only example you provided was one where a child-mind, which is not able to reason fully, accepts that the people in a position of authority are their parents based solely on their word, before any other support is offered and the child no longer needs to accept it solely on the word of the authority. Please give an example where we (meaning people who are able to reason fully - not a child) take an authority's word on a claim simply because they are an authority and without any further support which that authority can provide to back up their claims.

  8. #468
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,563
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    "In some way theistic" doesn't make their specific beliefs true. Again, not having a true belief makes the method by which one came to that belief unreliable.
    Their specific belief here is that God exists. Given your assumptions this gives the form a 90% accuracy rate vs the 33 you are trying to use.
    My point is that your being arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    A method of acquiring the truth which is only right 33% of the time (again, only assuming that Xtianity is true) cannot be called a reliable pathway to truth.
    you are still cherry picking. Your not taking all the truth claims gained through this, your cherry picking specific one.
    So the simplist "God exists" claim is agreed upon by just about everyone. Given the assumption you agree to (for sake of argument I know) it follows that it is 90% accurate in that intance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Children cannot reason in the way a fully-developed mind can. Which is why, when you think about it, they need to be able to rely on authorities to give them information on how to act and live.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Yes, a child, who cannot reason fully, needs to rely on an authority. This does not make the method a reliable pathway to truth. Luckily, for most mundane daily things, this method serves quite well. However, for claims like an invisible man in the sky and life after death, it is notoriously unreliable (only 33% accuracy).
    33% Is not agreed upon. You did not answer the question regarding how accurate is "reasonable". I'm assuming it isn't 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The parents are the only source for a mind which cannot reason by itself. Once it can, the authority is no longer reasonable as a source by itself without any support.
    When it comes to Christianity, personal experience eventually is involved, and so it is no longer "because my mom said so".
    So I don't see this as particularly relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Hence it is not a reliable pathway to truth.
    Not MOST accurate =/= not accurate, and no reasonable person would accept it.
    Which is the bar you have to reach..a nd your not.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I'm not sure I get your point here. What I'm saying is that, if we are going to use an authority as a pathway to truth, then the authority needs to be able to backup their claims. If we don't expect the authority to do so, then it's our own fault for not being rational and ending up believing something incorrect.
    Your not describing irrationality. .. your calling it that, but none of what you said here leads to "irrational to belive".

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Well, I've seen my birth certificate, so your example doesn't really apply to me. But, by the time the child is able to reason fully, it's not just the parent's word that is offered. There's other family members' word, there's photographs - much much more than just the parent's word. As a child grows older and is able to reason better, the supporting evidence piles on so thick that it would be silly to think that the only reason they accept the people are their parents simply based on their word. Do you honestly claim that the only reason you, still to this day, believe that the people calling themselves are your parents, is simply because they say they are? Your example fails.
    Your saying. that personal experience comesinto play? Hey.. that is what I said above.
    Great we agree.

    So.. my example doesn't fail, your just shifting the frame of referance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The only example you provided was one where a child-mind, which is not able to reason fully, accepts that the people in a position of authority are their parents based solely on their word, before any other support is offered and the child no longer needs to accept it solely on the word of the authority. Please give an example where we (meaning people who are able to reason fully - not a child) take an authority's word on a claim simply because they are an authority and without any further support which that authority can provide to back up their claims.
    Well, basically in all the examples that don't have access or ability to have the kind of "evidence" that you saw.
    Like places that don't have cameras (like anything pre 1600s) or birth certificats as I am sure you wouldn't hold a family tree drawing on the same par as a gov issued birth certificate.

    As to other examples, I wasn't trying to limit to child mind stuff. You do it every time you ask someone "what did you do today", and then don't follow that up with a demand for some sort of documentation.
    To serve man.

  9. #469
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Their specific belief here is that God exists. Given your assumptions this gives the form a 90% accuracy rate vs the 33 you are trying to use.
    My statement was "[it] doesn't make their specific beliefs true". That's "beliefs", plural. Sure if you focus on just a single aspect of their belief system, that of there being some type of deity, then they all share that ambiguous belief. However, we're not talking about deists here, and the moment you start looking at the collection of their "specific beliefs", you get a wide variety of conflicting beliefs. The 33% comes from your statement that 1/3 is Xtian.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you are still cherry picking. Your not taking all the truth claims gained through this, your cherry picking specific one.
    As I explained above, I'm indeed looking at all the truth claims - you're the one who wants to focus simply on a single specific one, that there exists some deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the simplist "God exists" claim is agreed upon by just about everyone. Given the assumption you agree to (for sake of argument I know) it follows that it is 90% accurate in that intance.
    Again, as you yourself stated: we shouldn't be cherry-picking a specific claim. 90% believing that some type of deity exists doesn't mean that we can say they actually "agree upon" anything. Again, we're not talking about nebulous deism here. When you make the claim "God exists", you have a specific deity in mind, and when someone hears that claim, they also have a specific deity in mind, likely not the same as you. The likelihood of disagreement increases exponentially the moment you narrow down to more specific beliefs about that deity. If you were to ask that 90% what it thought about the specific beliefs of the others, they'd tell you that, while they're right about there being a deity, they're wrong about which deity it is, and also wrong about most of their other specific beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    33% Is not agreed upon.
    This is from your own statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You did not answer the question regarding how accurate is "reasonable". I'm assuming it isn't 100%
    Please clearly indicate the question you are referring to which I didn't answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    When it comes to Christianity, personal experience eventually is involved, and so it is no longer "because my mom said so".
    Is it involved 100% of the time? Are you claiming that every single Xtian has had personal experience of the Xtian deity? But this only raises another issue. Why do you think that the claimed 1st person experience most often mirrors the beliefs which were inculcated into the young mind? How many times has someone, who has had absolutely no religious influence of any kind from their parents or society around them, had a specific 1st person experience of a deity?
    It is literally no different than someone believing in the same specific things as their parents, and then later in their life, attempting to justify those specific beliefs with arguments which don't support any specific belief. This is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not MOST accurate =/= not accurate, and no reasonable person would accept it.
    Again, my statement is that it is not a reliable pathway to truth if it can be used to lead to the wrong answer 66% of the time. Being an unreliable pathway to truth makes it irrational to base a belief on. Belief should instead be withheld until it can be justified by methods which are demonstrably reliable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your not describing irrationality. .. your calling it that, but none of what you said here leads to "irrational to belive".
    By definition, believing a claim made by someone which has not met its burden of proof and is backed up only by the fact that they are an authority over you, is irrational. Do you disagree?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your saying. that personal experience comesinto play? Hey.. that is what I said above.
    No, I'm saying that actual evidence which backs up the claims made by the one who has authority over you comes into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You do it every time you ask someone "what did you do today", and then don't follow that up with a demand for some sort of documentation.
    If you're honestly comparing someone's mundane claim of what they did today with the supernatural claim that an invisible man in the sky exists, then I honestly don't know how to continue the discussion with you.

    Bottom line: Someone who believes in the same specific things as their parents without support, and then later in their life attempts to justify those specific beliefs with arguments which don't necessarily support any specific belief, hasn't magically obtained rational justification for their beliefs. Hence believing specific theistic claims is not rationally justified. They haven't met their burden of proof, and are not supported by arguments like KCA, Fine-Tuning, or Morality.

  10. #470
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Bottom line: Someone who believes in the same specific things as their parents without support, and then later in their life attempts to justify those specific beliefs with arguments which don't necessarily support any specific belief, hasn't magically obtained rational justification for their beliefs. Hence believing specific theistic claims is not rationally justified.
    You seem to use "rational justification" as a synonym for "100% certainty". It isn't. People can rationally believe something without having absolute certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    They haven't met their burden of proof, and are not supported by arguments like KCA, Fine-Tuning, or Morality.
    How does one have a burden of proof, owed to oneself, in order to believe something? This just seems utter nonsense.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #471
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You seem to use "rational justification" as a synonym for "100% certainty".
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    How does one have a burden of proof, owed to oneself, in order to believe something? This just seems utter nonsense.
    Sure, if you don't care whether the claims you believe have met their burden of proof, then no problem. But then don't try to claim that they're rationally justified.

    Again, bottom line: believing in claims which haven't met their burden of proof simply because it's what your parents taught you, and then attempting to support those beliefs with arguments which don't by themselves support any specific theistic claims, doesn't mean that one has magically attained rational justification for their beliefs.

  12. #472
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Nope.
    Well, rational simply means reasoned or logical. A couple of us have given our reasoned or logical positions on belief, and you've rejected them. Bottom line: You're entitle to your beliefs on the subject, but you're not the final arbiter of whether our positions are rational.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #473
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A couple of us have given our reasoned or logical positions on belief, and you've rejected them.
    No, I've provided explanations for why the provided justification fails. Case in point: I previously already responded to your "reasoned logical position", and you attempted to justify your indoctrination by comparing it (and failing) with what you claimed was my indoctrination into the scientific method. You did not continue the discussion following my post # 156.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Bottom line: You're entitle to your beliefs on the subject, but you're not the final arbiter of whether our positions are rational.
    Nor did I say I was. If you want to have a discussion about why your beliefs lack rational justification, fine. But failed tu quoques and ignoring rebuttals just doesn't really cut it.

  14. #474
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Your "rebuttal" in 156 was your opinion. I have mine. You have yours. We disagree. I can live with that. Evidently, you can't live with the way your parents raised you. But here's a news flash: Your parents loved you and did what they thought best for you. If you've left religion and are having trouble getting over that, okay, but that doesn't make our beliefs or those of your parents irrational. But again, you're entitled to your opinion.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #475
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Your "rebuttal" in 156 was your opinion.
    Nope, it was a post containing specific rebuttals to a number of statements you made. If you refuse to respond and address the rebuttals, then your argument is rebutted and any counterarguments stand until you offer a valid rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Evidently, you can't live with the way your parents raised you. But here's a news flash: Your parents loved you and did what they thought best for you. If you've left religion and are having trouble getting over that, okay, but that doesn't make our beliefs or those of your parents irrational. But again, you're entitled to your opinion.
    First of all, you really do assume too much about me. It's incredibly bad form, but it's clear you don't really have anything else of value to offer, as with our other discussions. In any case, I was not raised by my parents to believe in theistic claims. I'm quite proud of the way they raised me: as a rational skeptic making intellectually-honest consideration of any and all claims I am met with, regardless of who makes them.
    Second, whatever you assume is my history or motivation is irrelevant, since I have not expressed it in any way as part of my arguments. This means that your comments about it are nothing more than an ad hominem attempt at avoiding the actual points I've made in response to your arguments. Even if you were right about my upbringing, it wouldn't add one iota of strength to your response, since it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

  16. #476
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    So let me start over by presenting my rational belief in God, setting aside how I was raised, and going on what I believe as an adult.

    The Bible rings true to me.
    I have an inner knowing that God exists.
    On occasions when I have earnestly prayed for guidance, I believe I received it.
    Of the many theories I've read for the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the existence of a Creator makes the most logical sense to me.

    So I believe in God.

    Given what I have provided, how is my belief in God irrational?
    Last edited by evensaul; July 28th, 2018 at 05:16 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #477
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The Bible rings true to me.
    This is an expression of a theistic belief, not justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I have an inner knowing that God exists.
    This is an expression of a theistic belief, not justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    On occasions when I have earnestly prayed for guidance, I believe I received it.
    This is an expression of a theistic belief, not justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Of the many theories I've read for the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the existence of a Creator makes the most logical sense to me.
    This is an expression of a theistic belief, not justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    So I believe in God.
    This is an expression of a theistic belief, not justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Given what I have provided, how is my belief in God irrational?
    You have not provided any rational justification. You have simply expressed various specific theistic beliefs which you hold.

    Further, everything that you said could be said in literally the same way about any other specific theistic belief system and any other deity. Do you think that, if someone were to make the exact same statements as you just did, they'd be rationally justified in believing in their specific theistic claims, which contradict yours?

  18. #478
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    "The Bible rings true to me" is an assessment, not a theistic belief.
    "I have an inner knowing" is a statement of HOW and WHY something is known, not a statement of the belief itself.
    Describing how I received guidance is a statement of experience, not of a theistic belief.
    Explaining that I assessed the validity of universe and life origins is describing a logical process, and reason for a belief, not an expression of a theistic belief.

    Yes, "So, I believe in God" is an expression of theistic belief. You got that one right.

    Further, everything that you said could be said in literally the same way about any other specific theistic belief system and any other deity. Do you think that, if someone were to make the exact same statements as you just did, they'd be rationally justified in believing in their specific theistic claims, which contradict yours?
    Yep. People can rationally come to different conclusions on the same subject. It happens all the time.

    You really need to be able to separate the reasons for a belief from the belief itself. Here's an unrelated example to demonstrate:

    Belief: I believe the Ford Mustang is the absolute best car for me.

    Reasons for the belief:

    1. An Iconic History: The Ford Mustang is a success story through and through. It’s the second-longest-running sports car nameplate in the U.S., after the Chevy Corvette.

    2. Affordable and Reliable: The Mustang is affordable and within reach. Ask me if I think the Ferrari 575M is a nice car and you’ll get a definite “Yes.” I mean come on now, 0-60 in about 4.2 seconds. But let’s be realistic, the chances of this automotive journalist being able to purchase a $246,000 car in his lifetime are slim. The Mustang is, and always has been, a real value in terms of what you get for the price. Is it an exotic supercar? No, but it wasn’t designed to be.

    3. A Vehicle for Many Needs: There’s a Mustang for almost everyone. Some cars are limited to just a few models. The Mustang is full of variety. Do you like to drive with the top down? You can step into a Mustang Convertible. Looking for power on a budget? Opt for a Mustang GT. Want great looks without paying more insurance to own a V-8? There’s the V-6 Mustang. Maybe you’re a collector looking for a serious street machine. Mr. Carroll Shelby, Jack Roush, or even Steve Saleen have a few Mustangs that would be perfect for you. Looking for a race-ready track car? How about a Cobra Jet? The list goes on and on.

    4. Making Friends: I’m constantly amazed at how friendly and enthusiastic Mustang owners are when I’m out on the road in my Ford pony car. Having driven a motorcycle part-time for almost 20 years, I’m used to other cyclists greeting me along my journey. Step into a car and this rarely happens, unless it’s a Mustang. Similar to the motorcycle community, Mustang owners are a tight-knit group. Just ask any Mustang Club of America member. In all, Ford estimates there are more than 250 Mustang enthusiast clubs in the world.

    5. Fully Customizable: The aftermarket community fully embraces all generations of the Ford Mustang. Looking to add some power to your car? Maybe you’d like to modify its exterior. The Mustang is fully customizable, with thousands of aftermarket parts out there to choose from. In a world where standing out can make all the difference, it’s easy with the Mustang.

    6. Fun to Drive: Ever gone cruising in a Mustang convertible? Need I say more? The car is perfect for cruising the strip on a Friday night; even if you graduated from high school long before the creation of the internet.

    7. A Ticket to Car Shows: One of the things I love most about Ford Mustang ownership is all the car shows I get to attend; and not just as a spectator but as a participant. Mustang clubs all over the world host a number of car shows throughout the year. These shows offer up things like good food, prizes, and unlimited networking opportunities. Never been to one? Attend, or even volunteer to judge, a Mustang car show and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

    8. Great Both On and Off the Track: The Ford Mustang has a long-standing history of success on the race track. Does the name Jerry Titus ring a bell? How about Parnelli Jones, Dan Gurney, John Force, or Bob Tasca? Each of these winning race car drivers piloted a Ford Mustang in their career.

    9. Signature trademarks: While some automakers sell out over the years, the Ford Mustang has signature trademarks that have stood the test of time. Take the running horse emblem. Sure, it changed to a trot for a short time in 1974, but when you see one it brings to mind "Ford Mustang". Oh, and there’s the distinct tri-bar tail lamps configuration.

    10. For Nostalgia’s Sake: The Ford Mustang is a time machine of sorts. It’s sure to conjure up many memories. Whether you drove one in high school, owned one in college, or own one now, most Mustang owners have many fond memories of their experiences with the car. From cross-country road trips to cruising the strip, the Ford Mustang has a way of taking us back in time.

    (Full disclosure - the above is stolen from https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-fo...ustang-2465073)

    Another person will use reasoning and personal experiences to rationally believe that a Chevy Camaro is the best car for him. And that's okay.

    I could give you a hundred more examples of how people can rationally disagree on the same issue or subject, but you don't really need them.
    Last edited by evensaul; July 28th, 2018 at 08:15 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  19. Thanks Squatch347, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  20. #479
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    574
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    "The Bible rings true to me" is an assessment, not a theistic belief.
    "I have an inner knowing" is a statement of HOW and WHY something is known, not a statement of the belief itself.
    Describing how I received guidance is a statement of experience, not of a theistic belief.
    Explaining that I assessed the validity of universe and life origins is describing a logical process, and reason for a belief, not an expression of a theistic belief.

    Yes, "So, I believe in God" is an expression of theistic belief. You got that one right.

    Yep. People can rationally come to different conclusions on the same subject. It happens all the time.

    You really need to be able to separate the reasons for a belief from the belief itself. Here's an unrelated example to demonstrate:

    Belief: I believe the Ford Mustang is the absolute best car for me.

    Reasons for the belief:

    1. An Iconic History: The Ford Mustang is a success story through and through. It’s the second-longest-running sports car nameplate in the U.S., after the Chevy Corvette.

    2. Affordable and Reliable: The Mustang is affordable and within reach. Ask me if I think the Ferrari 575M is a nice car and you’ll get a definite “Yes.” I mean come on now, 0-60 in about 4.2 seconds. But let’s be realistic, the chances of this automotive journalist being able to purchase a $246,000 car in his lifetime are slim. The Mustang is, and always has been, a real value in terms of what you get for the price. Is it an exotic supercar? No, but it wasn’t designed to be.

    3. A Vehicle for Many Needs: There’s a Mustang for almost everyone. Some cars are limited to just a few models. The Mustang is full of variety. Do you like to drive with the top down? You can step into a Mustang Convertible. Looking for power on a budget? Opt for a Mustang GT. Want great looks without paying more insurance to own a V-8? There’s the V-6 Mustang. Maybe you’re a collector looking for a serious street machine. Mr. Carroll Shelby, Jack Roush, or even Steve Saleen have a few Mustangs that would be perfect for you. Looking for a race-ready track car? How about a Cobra Jet? The list goes on and on.

    4. Making Friends: I’m constantly amazed at how friendly and enthusiastic Mustang owners are when I’m out on the road in my Ford pony car. Having driven a motorcycle part-time for almost 20 years, I’m used to other cyclists greeting me along my journey. Step into a car and this rarely happens, unless it’s a Mustang. Similar to the motorcycle community, Mustang owners are a tight-knit group. Just ask any Mustang Club of America member. In all, Ford estimates there are more than 250 Mustang enthusiast clubs in the world.

    5. Fully Customizable: The aftermarket community fully embraces all generations of the Ford Mustang. Looking to add some power to your car? Maybe you’d like to modify its exterior. The Mustang is fully customizable, with thousands of aftermarket parts out there to choose from. In a world where standing out can make all the difference, it’s easy with the Mustang.

    6. Fun to Drive: Ever gone cruising in a Mustang convertible? Need I say more? The car is perfect for cruising the strip on a Friday night; even if you graduated from high school long before the creation of the internet.

    7. A Ticket to Car Shows: One of the things I love most about Ford Mustang ownership is all the car shows I get to attend; and not just as a spectator but as a participant. Mustang clubs all over the world host a number of car shows throughout the year. These shows offer up things like good food, prizes, and unlimited networking opportunities. Never been to one? Attend, or even volunteer to judge, a Mustang car show and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

    8. Great Both On and Off the Track: The Ford Mustang has a long-standing history of success on the race track. Does the name Jerry Titus ring a bell? How about Parnelli Jones, Dan Gurney, John Force, or Bob Tasca? Each of these winning race car drivers piloted a Ford Mustang in their career.

    9. Signature trademarks: While some automakers sell out over the years, the Ford Mustang has signature trademarks that have stood the test of time. Take the running horse emblem. Sure, it changed to a trot for a short time in 1974, but when you see one it brings to mind "Ford Mustang". Oh, and there’s the distinct tri-bar tail lamps configuration.

    10. For Nostalgia’s Sake: The Ford Mustang is a time machine of sorts. It’s sure to conjure up many memories. Whether you drove one in high school, owned one in college, or own one now, most Mustang owners have many fond memories of their experiences with the car. From cross-country road trips to cruising the strip, the Ford Mustang has a way of taking us back in time.

    (Full disclosure - the above is stolen from https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-fo...ustang-2465073)

    Another person will use reasoning and personal experiences to rationally believe that a Chevy Camaro is the best car for him. And that's okay.

    I could give you a hundred more examples of how people can rationally disagree on the same issue or subject, but you don't really need them.
    Actually, this sounds exactly like most theists I have known in person. They pick and chose what they like/don't like about Christianity, and still call themselves Christian. Most don't actually do it consciously. They just don't know what is actually in the Bible and just kinda fill in what they think should be right. For instance:
    1. Most Christians talk about the deceased being in Heaven right after death when the Bible says the dead do not rise till the second coming of Christ.
    2. Almost anyone that gets divorced. "Until death do we part" any one?
    And while we are at it, married people aren't still married in Heaven, but Christians talk as if they are "getting back with loved ones" etc.

    Just two examples of the disconnect.
    The Bible just isn't "CLEARLY" the word of God or the majority of Human's that ever lived would have been able to figure it out. That by an enormous margin, most humans that ever lived do not believe in Christianity show conclusively that it is not "clear" at all !!
    This does not reflect the Christian God wanting "all to be saved". For if he did "want all saved" why would he create human's, already knowing most would not be saved?
    I get the "free will" argument that some people will chose unwisely, but God knew before he created humans, MOST, would not be saved and would be condemned to Hell..

    God is said to have created humans for worship and communion. It makes no sense that he created humans knowing full well that nearly all of them were going to Hell (whatever your version of Hell is. Suffice it to say, it just ain't Heaven. But another good point, Christians can not agree on what Hell is....or Heaven for that matter.....).

    (How is God needing "worship" not just a bit narcissistic?? He created the universe after all, what more needs said/done?)
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 28th, 2018 at 10:08 PM.

  21. #480
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    How is any of that rant actually connected to my post?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

 

 
Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •