I don't think faith is a bad thing. I have seen the strength and joy it inspires. But don't pretend it is rational.

"(In mine, I can know things, because God who made my mind also made and sustains the universe, and has revealed Himself and some aspects of His creation, including the fact that it is mostly regular and is made to be known by man)."

Your god is a culturally based folktale, you'd believe in some entirely different god if you lived somewhere else. Nobody outside of the Judeo-Christian milieu has any serious access to 'knowing' your god because is culturally alien to much of the world. Whereas scientific knowledge is universal and culturally transcendent. You do not have to born in a particular area of the world in order to have special access to this 'truth'.

@d31,
"But don't pretend it is rational."

I'm not the one pretending his beliefs are rational. That would be you, with your belief in science, evidence, and order that can't be supported in your own world view.

"I believe in science and its equations"

Then why are you suggesting that such theorizing cannot be trusted?

It requires an assumption sure, but I never said it is wrong to make assumptions. Just that you should make as few as possible, and discard any that are contradicted by observation.

Where does that leave us?

"To you be your Way, and to me mine."
-- Sūrah 109:6

@d31, "Just that you should make as few as possible, and discard any that are contradicted by observation."

Oh, I see. Of course, this last is another bare assumption (since, for example, you're assuming that observation determines what will be true going forward). So, what I'm taking away is that you're OK with constructing a worldview out of whatever bare assumptions or assertions seem good.

....

Then why do you have a problem with anybody? I'm not seeing how you could argue against any worldview on those terms.

Ah, missed your last post d. Looks like you beat me. Well, OK. I can't pretend I'm a fan of your world view, which seems constructed of arbitrary assumptions that don't support even themselves, but.... well, as you say.

"Then why do you have a problem with anybody? I'm not seeing how you could argue against any worldview on those terms."

Are you seriously arguing that a view of the world that uses minimal assumptions, all of which reflect the physical world as we know it, is on par with a worldview that makes a laundry list of assumptions, none of which reflect the physical world as we know it?

Dear Semck, what for you would count as evidence that god doesn't exist?

"Then why are you suggesting that such theorizing cannot be trusted?"

Because mankind is fallible and its observations are limited and incomplete. 'Science' believed for thousands of years that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun and planets revolved around it. There were all these complex mathematical formulas to explain why the motions of the heavenly bodies were so funky. Turns out they were all wrong. Scientists can be just as wrong (or right?) as some 1st century Judean whose third- or fourth-hand accounts state that some anti-government religious nut rose from the dead.

"you're assuming that observation determines what will be true going forward"
Yes. That is precisely the one basic assumption I make. It is what is required for anyone to make sense of the world we live in.

I have no problem with anyone. You may recall this exchange started over whether there was evidence to support something, then you chimed it to challenge whether evidence had any value at all. I feel it does, and that I have explained why. We cannot function without predictions.

Again, to you be your Way, and to me mine.

Dear Putin, if God doesn't exist then the very concept of evidence would make no sense. Therefore, nothing, although I suppose I would say that if the universe were demonstrably absurd and irrational, then the concept of God would seem unsupported (whatever "demonstrably" would mean in that situation). That said, I would probably doubt my own sanity first.
I can see why you'll probably dislike this answer a great deal. It seemed strange to me as well when I first heard it. But if you think about it, well, it's not my fault that this proposition is a precondition to reason. It just is.
Incidentally, you were correct earlier that Christianity, specifically, does make historical claims about the world, such as the resurrection of Christ. Any attempted "disproof" of such a thing, though, could not be on naturalist or neutral grounds. Obviously a naturalist is going to interpret the evidence in light of his naturalist beliefs, just as I interpret the evidence in light of my Christian beliefs.

"Turns out they were all wrong."

Because they were rooted in theism. The right answers had been outlined more or less as early as the Greeks but were ignored thanks to the diktats of unreason and superstition.

Why would evidence make no sense without God? Why is God a necessary part of reality?

@d31,

That's very amicable, and I hope you won't mind another response.

"Yes. That is precisely the one basic assumption I make. It is what is required for anyone to make sense of the world we live in....You may recall this exchange started over whether there was evidence to support something, then you chimed it to challenge whether evidence had any value at all. I feel it does, and that I have explained why. We cannot function without predictions."

I agree that that is necessary to make sense of the world, but I do not agree that it is enough to just assert it bare, as you do. My problem with your worldview, to be clear, is that neither your assumption nor any conclusions you draw from it actually explain how or why it should be likely that you could know or correctly assume such a thing. Nothing in your worldview implies that your brain has access to that kind of knowledge, so it remains, by your own beliefs, a Quixotic assumption in the face of evidence or odds. This is why I feel that on _your_ account, evidence does not consistently have value. You cannot account for how your assumption _could_ be worth taking seriously.

I do agree that evidence has value though. Just not that you should think so with your beliefs.

Semck,

So you deliberately stack the deck to make your worldview the winner, even with regard to the resurrection - > only people who are already believe in resurrection can analyze the evidence for resurrection. Amazing that you can sit here and lecture others about circular logic.

(merely trying to get you to explain your view, not trying to force you to try to fit it into mine)

@d, I hope I have just answered that.

I'm glad Semck offered this answer, it cuts to the chase and makes any discussion with him a complete waste of time.

@Putin, well, I'm just making a basic point. It's a logical one, not deck stacking. People obviously interpret evidence in light of their core beliefs. If you believe that things like resurrections CANNOT happen, then how could you evaluate any evidence to conclude that it had?

But if you have evidence you want to present about the resurrection, by all means, go ahead.

I believe what evidence demonstrates has happened. If there was an evidentiary basis for resurrection, then I would be forced to accept its existence. There is none, not even in the earliest biblical accounts. No resurrection in Paul's account. No resurrection in Mark either. No evidence of any other bodies being resurrected at any other time since either.

Any discussion of this kind is a waste of time if you set out to convert people, because we disagree on the most fundamental issue, what constitutes a reasonable belief. Speaking of which, I feel I have wasted quite enough of it. I was just finally going to bed when I saw this thread at 5AM, and since it is now 8AM I really must leave to resume my studies.

5:50 and 8:16. Same thing, but not quite.

Goodnight d, thanks for talking.

Putin, that's a completely absurd claim. Paul's writings mention the resurrection all over the place. Or perhaps you have a restricted view of which writings really are Paul's? If so, why don't you list them and save us all time.

I'm referring to 1 Cor 15, no mention of resurrection anywhere.

Anyway why does it matter Semck? You assert god is a logical necessity regardless of what the bible says.

Hmm, let's see. Here's what my translation says:

" 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.... But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Seems like it does mention it. But go on, I'm curious what your line is. But please, cut to the chase. It's obvious when you say something like that that I'm going to go ahead and paste the verses where it very clearly does say that, so that you can then make your little argument. I'd appreciate it if we just cut to the reveal right away.