Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
your God?
If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
judgment about reality?
Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?
On Jul 19, 2:47 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Theists:
> Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> your God?
Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the current
standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
utterly irrelevant.
It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief. The O.J. Simpson
case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.
So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems of
the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise?
> If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
> it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
> judgment about reality?
> Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
> of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?
I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
of evidence that I merely believe in God. But criminal convictions
are not based on mere belief ...
> On Jul 19, 2:47 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Theists:
> > Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> > of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> > your God?
> Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the current
> standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
> decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
> utterly irrelevant.
> It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
> standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
> than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
> are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief. The O.J. Simpson
> case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
> killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
> responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
> but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
> for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.
> So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
> the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
> applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems of
> the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise?
> > If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
> > it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
> > judgment about reality?
> > Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
> > of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?
> I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> of evidence that I merely believe in God.
Observer
Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
existence of any god. Second when you refer to god you refer to the
hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
myths.
That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
god. Partly because of the 1000 or more hypothesized gods worshiped by
untold millions of other people . Making it necessary to disqualify
each of them for cause beefer establishing the validity of what you
think to be the only true god. Remember all this after proving or at
least giving compelling reasons to believe that any god exists.
No one has ever been able to do either. Now to rely on the bible,
which is the only source of this myth , makes any argument thereof
circular.
The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
someone I trust told me to believe the bible.
There has never been offered any compelling argument for the belief in
ghosts, demons, a devil , angels , this hypothetical god thing, (or
any god for that matter) a heaven, a hell, or any of the so-called
metaphysical nonsense.
If i am wrong please supply a clear and persuasive argument to the
contrary. Such argument to contain exactly why you believe this
metaphysical clap trap .
> On Jul 19, 2:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 2:47 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Theists:
> > > Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> > > of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> > > your God?
> > Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the current
> > standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
> > decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
> > utterly irrelevant.
> > It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
> > standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
> > than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
> > are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief. The O.J. Simpson
> > case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
> > killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
> > responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
> > but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
> > for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.
> > So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
> > the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
> > applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems of
> > the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise?
> > > If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
> > > it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
> > > judgment about reality?
> > > Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
> > > of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?
> > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
> Observer
> Just what standards might those be.
The standard epistemological standards FOR BELIEF.
There is exactly no concrete
> evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> existence of any god.
Do you only believe things that are scientifically verified? So when
you believe -- or even know -- that you like a certain dish, did you
go through any scientific justification for it, or do you believe it
without that?
> Second when you refer to god you refer to the
> hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
> myths.
Yes.
> That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
> of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
> god.
Yep. That's why it's a belief, and not knowledge.
Partly because of the 1000 or more hypothesized gods worshiped by
> untold millions of other people . Making it necessary to disqualify
> each of them for cause beefer establishing the validity of what you
> think to be the only true god. Remember all this after proving or at
> least giving compelling reasons to believe that any god exists.
> No one has ever been able to do either. Now to rely on the bible,
> which is the only source of this myth , makes any argument thereof
> circular.
Um, no. To reference the source of the concept is in no way circular
in determining why you are considering believing in the concept in the
first place. If that was true, then someone telling you that they
hate hot weather and you replying, when someone asks you why you
believe that they hate weather your replying that they told you would
be equally circular.
> The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
> Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
> someone I trust told me to believe the bible.
I'll go with that one. And it's a perfectly justifiable reason for
belief. We do it all the time. If my parents, for example, tell me
that there is a special on pork chops at the grocery store, I don't
have to examine the flyer or go there and check before I can believe
it. And, in fact, should I get there and not find that special I am
totally justified in asking the store where they are, and not
immediately forced to doubt what my parents told me. And this even
applies for people that we don't necessarily trust; if a stranger on
the street tells me that there's an accident just out of sight, and I
should take another route, it is, in fact perfectly reasonable for me
to believe him and take the other route, despite my not having
verified that.
> There has never been offered any compelling argument for the belief in
> ghosts, demons, a devil , angels , this hypothetical god thing, (or
> any god for that matter) a heaven, a hell, or any of the so-called
> metaphysical nonsense.
> If i am wrong please supply a clear and persuasive argument to the
> contrary. Such argument to contain exactly why you believe this
> metaphysical clap trap .
I refuse to provide compelling evidence because if I had compelling
evidence, I'd KNOW that God exists, since knowledge is the only thing
that can compel belief. I categorically deny that I -- or anyone --
KNOWS that God exists. I actually even deny that anyone CAN know that
God exists. But you are demanding -- it seems -- that in order for me
to be able to BELIEVE that God exists, I have to be able to KNOW that
God exists. If I take this as a general standard -- and you seem to
be applying it as such - - then you seem to be saying that before I
can BELIEVE something, I must KNOW it. Flipped around, this means
that I can only believe that which I know. And that's a very, very
risky proposition, since there's a whole heck of a lot that we don't
know, and yet believe anyway.
> Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you > of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for > your God?
> If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is > it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive > judgment about reality?
> Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions > of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?
On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
> Observer
> Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
> evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> existence of any god.
This is in fact, more of an indication of the limitation of the
scientific method, than it is an indictment against Christianity:
"In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge')
refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect
accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a
way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative
predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by
experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of
acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the
organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
So the scope of science is knowledge through reason - and the scope of
earth science is knowlege of earth systems through the study od
combined sceinces.
As for limitations - well it's in the answer for scope - Reason.
Science is bounded by reason and argument and proof - it doesn't step
into the realm of belief systems."[1]
Very well, but have you considered all the implications of what you
are saying here?
You're implying there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
Christianity is true. Doesn't that mean that Christianity cannot be
used as a basis to delcare a person be a criminal, either explicitly
or de facto?
Suppose a young woman wants to take a morning-after pill to avoid a
possible pregnancy, but the law prohibits her doing so. It is a very
stern legal sanction to prohibit her from doing this. An unwanted
pregnancy can destroy a woman's plans, hopes and dreams. So this law,
de facto, declares the woman to be a criminal deserving a stern
punishment (to say nothing of the innocent child-to-be). How can it
be proper to vote for this law based on Christianity? If Christianty
cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no one should be punished
like a criminal based on Christianity.
On Jul 19, 5:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2:47 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Theists:
> > Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> > of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> > your God?
> Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the current
> standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
> decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
> utterly irrelevant.
> It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
> standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
> than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
> are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief. The O.J. Simpson
> case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
> killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
> responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
> but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
> for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.
> So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
> the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
> applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems of
> the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise?
> > If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
> > it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
> > judgment about reality?
> > Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
> > of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?
> I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> of evidence that I merely believe in God. But criminal convictions
> are not based on mere belief ...
> On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> > > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> > > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
> > Observer
> > Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
> > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> > existence of any god.
> This is in fact, more of an indication of the limitation of the
> scientific method, than it is an indictment against Christianity:
> "In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge')
> refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect
> accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a
> way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative
> predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by
> experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of
> acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the
> organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
> So the scope of science is knowledge through reason - and the scope of
> earth science is knowlege of earth systems through the study od
> combined sceinces.
> As for limitations - well it's in the answer for scope - Reason.
> Science is bounded by reason and argument and proof - it doesn't step
> into the realm of belief systems."[1]
This point of view is the bedrock of anti-theism. If religious belief
is no way shaped by reason/observation, the anti-theists are correct
that there is no way one can say that Al Qaeda's murderous Takfiri
Wahabbism is less valid than Methodism.
My point of view is that there is no clear boundary between knowledge
and belief, that knowledge is a word for strong belief. People use
some combination of reason/observation and intuition to form beliefs.
Physics is based purely on reason/observation. Psychology involves
significant intuition (thus the many competing theories). Political
philosophies involve so much intuition they are not generally called
scientific. Mainstream Christianity uses common-sense principles like
reciprocity (do onto others as you would have them do onto you), a
little weak one-source history and gobs of intuition to form beliefs
that can neither be proven nor disproven by Science. Christians who
believe in Creation "Science" actually override the results of Science
with intuition-based religious beliefs. (It should be noted that much
Christian belief comes from intuitive trust in the witness born by
other Christians, rather than direct intuition about the existence and
nature of God.)
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 1:14 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my > > > > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard > > > > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
> > > Observer > > > Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete > > > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the > > > existence of any god.
> > This is in fact, more of an indication of the limitation of the > > scientific method, than it is an indictment against Christianity:
> > "In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') > > refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect > > accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a > > way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative > > predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by > > experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of > > acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the > > organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
> > So the scope of science is knowledge through reason - and the scope of > > earth science is knowlege of earth systems through the study od > > combined sceinces.
> > As for limitations - well it's in the answer for scope - Reason. > > Science is bounded by reason and argument and proof - it doesn't step > > into the realm of belief systems."[1]
> This point of view is the bedrock of anti-theism. If religious belief > is no way shaped by reason/observation, the anti-theists are correct > that there is no way one can say that Al Qaeda's murderous Takfiri > Wahabbism is less valid than Methodism.
> My point of view is that there is no clear boundary between knowledge > and belief, that knowledge is a word for strong belief.
And, of course, no surprise here ... but you would be wrong.
> People use > some combination of reason/observation and intuition to form beliefs. > Physics is based purely on reason/observation. Psychology involves > significant intuition (thus the many competing theories). Political > philosophies involve so much intuition they are not generally called > scientific. Mainstream Christianity uses common-sense principles like > reciprocity (do onto others as you would have them do onto you), a > little weak one-source history and gobs of intuition to form beliefs > that can neither be proven nor disproven by Science. Christians who > believe in Creation "Science" actually override the results of Science > with intuition-based religious beliefs. (It should be noted that much > Christian belief comes from intuitive trust in the witness born by > other Christians, rather than direct intuition about the existence and > nature of God.)
