Arrogancy

I see why you think that, given the following quote.


So you just ignore that these claims about the "players in the Bible" were used as a counterargument to the claim that the players within the Bible went on "blind faith?" If you don't understand the context, I see why you think that things are going in circles, especially the tendency I've noticed here here to switch arguments whenever convenient.

It's not apologist because there's no inference. The Bible states that the age of miracles ended with the completion of the Bible. No further explanation is needed because it already covers that poin for itself.

Philosoft

Do yourself a favor and do not go anywhere near the Evolution/Creation forum.

Arrogancy

If the knowledge of the Bible shown here is any evidence (ie. the "days" or "light" basics not being known), I don't have anything to be worried about.

Garbles18

Actually, you didn't start the argument with a counterargument solely against the players within the Bible using blind faith.

Someone said:

You responded with:

You started out by arguing that faith can not be defined as a belief without evidence because "faith is most often based on proof". Everyone here arguing with you is arguing that point. No one is arguing against your assertion that the characters in the Bible used faith based on evidence. You accuse people of switching arguments and you are the only one doing it.

Furthermore, as capnkirk said, every Christian that holds faith in their religion is necessarily holding blind faith because they have no evidence that Jesus really was the son of God or that Jesus really performed miracles. No matter what religious experiences they have had, they have to accept, on blind faith, that those unexplained experiences really are from their God. Therefore, common usage of the word faith has two meanings: faith with evidence and faith without. Christians don't "say" blind faith, but that is exactly the definition they are using when they talk about their faith.

It's not our fault that people use faith to mean two different things. That is just the way it is.

capnkirk

I am saying that drawing distinctions about what kind of faith the players in the bible had is IRRELEVANT. It makes no more difference than whether some character on one of last night's TV sitcoms was ____ (fill in the blank with the trait of your choice.). Why is it irrelevant? Because that consideration is subsequent to acceptance of an article of BLIND FAITH (the spiritual veracity of the Bible). This factor subordinates all subsequent distinctions about the faith of the players to the status of blind faith. In still simpler terms the two positions are:

Arrogancy: The people who lived in biblical times didn't need to have blind faith in the supernatural power of god because they were witness to said power in the form of his miracles.

His opponents: IF the supernatural events of the bible actually happened, Then the people who lived in biblical times didn't need to have blind faith in the supernatural power of god because they were witness to said power in the form of his miracles.

***********

The value of your conclusion concerning the nature of the faith of the biblical players is entirely contingent upon acceptance of the initial premise of belief that said supernatural events did indeed happen. Failure to accept that article of BLIND faith renders your distinction irrelevant.

Quote:

It's not apologist because there's no inference. The Bible states that the age of miracles ended with the completion of the Bible. No further explanation is needed because it already covers that poin for itself.

This statement distills down to: "The bible said it is so; no further proof or explanation is needed." Sorry, but that doesn't carry any weight on this forum.

capnkirk

Garbles18,

I would go a step farther and posit that every theist argument that any of us have encountered claiming that athiests have faith too DEPENDS on confusing the difference in meaning between faith (FAITH: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.) and belief. Here faith is a SPECIFIC KIND of belief, the sans evidence kind.

Since most theists use these words interchangeably, either THEY don't see any difference or they hope that we don't. Nonetheless, such obfuscation is necessary to the argument.

Kuyper

No, but that's the fundamental intuition of what one means by evidence. If you're using the term to include something else, then please elaborate.

Sure. Your belief in your own existence. You can't claim to have any evidence of your own existence for the simple reason that there is no non-circular way for you to acquire the evidence. In order to say you have evidence of your own existence you'd have to assume your existence from the outset in order to believe you were having any of the relevant sensory experiences necessary to ascertain the evidence. It's a hopelessly circular process. Yet you and I and everyone else are perfectly rational to hold belief in our own existence without evidence.

Here's another: belief in the existence of other minds. I don't know of any good argument or experiment thay anyone can use to demonstrate the existence of other minds. Yet we are perfectly rational in believing that minds other than our own exist.

Here's another: belief in the reliability of your memories.

Everyone holds beliefs for which they do not have evidence. So why can't belief in God be one of those? Whence the requirement that belief in God must have evidence to be rational? What justifies that requirement? Who requires it? What does one mean by evidence in this case?

K

Kuyper

Why does it have to be based on anything at all? I have nothing upon which to base the belief that I exist (and neither do you), yet both you and I are perfectly rational in holding that belief to be true. (Incidentally, you introduced the word "faith" into this conversation. I think it has slightly different meaning from belief.
I'm speaking to the issue of beliefs...not faith)



How do you know I have no reason (or evidence) to hold a particular belief? Explain what you mean by evidence in this context. I think I do have reasons aplenty to justify my theistic belief as totally rational. In saying that I don't, you're simply making a judgment call that says "I don't like your reasons". Well, first of all, you don't know what those reasons are, because we haven't discussed any of them and secondly, what difference does it make whether you agree with or like my reasons? Is there an objective standard out there telling us what does and does not constitute a correct set of reasons that one must have before holding theistic belief as justified? If so, who wrote the standard? What makes it true? Why should I pay any attention to it whatsoever?

How do you know whether I've received anything in return or not?
All you can say with any certainty is that perhaps YOU have never received anything in return.

K

Kuyper

If you don't mind, I want to put this question on hold for the moment. Not because I don't have an answer (I do), but because I want to lay some groundwork first, which will become clearer in the other parts of this discussion. Then, I'll come back to this one. It's a good question and perfectly legitimate, so I don't want to ignore it...just table it for the moment. Deal?

(If I should forget...please remind me)

In fact, I think I might carry this entire discussion over to a new thread as it might get confusing here in a hurry.

K

Kuyper

FYI

To keep things from getting too confused, I moved the discussion I was having with some of you regarding evidence and the rationality of theistic belief to a new thread called "Must theistic belief have evidence to be rational?"

Thanks
K