Richard Dawkins's definition of "Faith" ....

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Further, I would argue that, used in the appropriate philosophical manner, the physical evidence for the existence of God is more convincing than that for your existence.

Whoop-tie-doo ... please elaborate! This is the single boldest statement I have ever read.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
If you don't mind, since you have brought it up, I would like to see you present the physical evidence for the existence of God that is more convincing than that for the existence of Agerg.

It's not so much specific pieces of physical evidence that come into play for an argument towards God's existence (as it would for Agerg's) as the nature of physical evidence (or reality) -- any physical evidence -- itself. EDIT: This goes back to my original point that, since God is ontologically fundamentally different from us, the manner in which evidence is used to deduce or demonstrate His existence is also quite different from the way it is used to demonstrate ours.

For instance, I cannot doubt that causality is real. Even if everything my senses perceive is an illusion due to Descartes's demon or brains in vats or people in the Matrix or whatever (which, btw, would render any physical evidence presented to me as to the existence of Agerg meaningless), I still cannot doubt causality (after all, my doubting would be the effect of some cause).

But knowing that causality is is quite different from knowing what it is. To proceed further, I need a [philosophical] account of causality. The one we seem to take for granted (at least in the last 300 years or so) is the Humean account or some similar regularity theory. I won't go into the problems with such theories in general (I believe philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright had a lot to say about the subject -- I suppose you could look her up if you want), suffice to say one needs a different account of causation.

The alternative is the Aristotelian account aka agent causation. Once one adopts this view, Aquinas's First Cause argument for the existence of God comes into play.

So, since I cannot philosophically argue convincingly for the existence of Agerg (even if I were given specific physical evidence like his passport or even were he put in front of me), whereas I can for God (even in the absence of something specific like a miracle or revelation or whatever), it's reasonable to conclude that the evidence for God's existence is more convincing than that for Agerg.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not so much specific pieces of physical evidence that come into play for an argument towards God's existence (as it would for Agerg's) as the nature of physical evidence (or reality) -- any physical evidence -- itself. EDIT: This goes back to my original point that, since God is ontologically fundamentally different from us, the manner in ...[text shortened]... o conclude that the evidence for God's existence is more convincing than that for Agerg.

But that's just an argument that 14 billion years ago there was an effect that had no cause. That is not evidence for the Christian God any more than it is evidence for any other kind of God including the FSM or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Most peoples' faith in God is exactly as Dawkins describes: blind belief in whatever you have been bought up to believe by your parents / peers / society in spite of the lack of any real objective evidence.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
But that's just an argument that 14 billion years ago there was an effect that had no cause. That is not evidence for the Christian God any more than it is evidence for any other kind of God including the FSM or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Most peoples' faith in God is exactly as Dawkins describes: blind belief in whatever you have been bought up ...[text shortened]... parents / peers / society in spite of the lack of any real objective evidence.

--- Penguin.

I don't dispute that most people believe what was taught to them by parents/teachers/peers. But that in itself does not make either the act of believing or the content of those beliefs unreasonable. Nor does it mean, as Dawkins's strawman suggests, that those beliefs are made in spite of available evidence to the contrary. When people (even kids) believe something, they do so because they have some reason to do so. It could be as simple as trusting your parents/teachers/peers/society/liberal advocacy groups to say the truth. That is not, generally, an unreasonable thing to do.

But that's just an argument that 14 billion years ago there was an effect that had no cause.

No, it isn't. Your counter-argument assumes the flawed Humean theory of causation I was talking about earlier.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/mcgrath/lecture.html#_edn2

by Alister McGrath

Let's begin by looking at that definition of faith, and ask where it comes from. Faith `means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.' But why should anyone accept this ludicrous definition? What is the evidence that this is how rel ...[text shortened]... usion over which is the conclusion and which the presupposition of an argument.

Man Alister McGrath is an intellectual blowhard. He's been knocking down strawmen atheists since his book "The Twilight of Atheism." Just another theologian living the pipedream that is rabblings are more than professional paddy cake.

Originally posted by Penguin
But that's just an argument that 14 billion years ago there was an effect that had no cause. That is not evidence for the Christian God any more than it is evidence for any other kind of God including the FSM or fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Most peoples' faith in God is exactly as Dawkins describes: blind belief in whatever you have been bought up ...[text shortened]... parents / peers / society in spite of the lack of any real objective evidence.

--- Penguin.

It's amusing when a non-theist brings up the supposed 'objective evidence' they apparently are employing in making their faith decisions. Do tell. By what objective standards are you determining--- let's say--- biblical histrocity?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not so much specific pieces of physical evidence that come into play for an argument towards God's existence (as it would for Agerg's) as the nature of physical evidence (or reality) -- any physical evidence -- itself. EDIT: This goes back to my original point that, since God is ontologically fundamentally different from us, the manner in ...[text shortened]... o conclude that the evidence for God's existence is more convincing than that for Agerg.

This is pure rubbish. It's merely the anthropic principle again. Existence proves only that we exist, and says nothing about how we got here. Penguin is completely correct, you say it was God, ahosyney says Allah, I say it was the Big Bang, who is right? The evidence is not equal for them all though. On my side is the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the bang. You have a book.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is pure rubbish. It's merely the anthropic principle again. Existence proves only that we exist, and says nothing about how we got here. Penguin is completely correct, you say it was God, ahosyney says Allah, I say it was the Big Bang, who is right? The evidence is not equal for them all though. On my side is the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the bang. You have a book.

On my side is the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the bang.
Currently being revised in, um, books.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not so much specific pieces of physical evidence that come into play for an argument towards God's existence (as it would for Agerg's) as the nature of physical evidence (or reality) -- any physical evidence -- itself. EDIT: This goes back to my original point that, since God is ontologically fundamentally different from us, the manner in o conclude that the evidence for God's existence is more convincing than that for Agerg.

Perhaps we could agree that Agerg physically exists and God philosophically exists, according to Aquinas.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
On my side is the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the bang.
Currently being revised in, um, books.

Yes, that's what we do in science when new information comes along - we don't stick our head in the sand.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, that's what we do in science when new information comes along - we don't stick our head in the sand.

The point was lost on you, apparently. Your claim to surety is your analysis of physical pbservations which are constantly revised owing to their wrongness. The Bible has suffered no such setback, despite multiple claims otherwise. Must have been the sand in your proverbial ears which kept you from hearing the point.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, that's what we do in science when new information comes along - we don't stick our head in the sand.

"We" ? ... and who are "they" ? .... again this silly American dichotomy. It apparently made it across the Big Pond.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The point was lost on you, apparently. Your claim to surety is your analysis of physical pbservations which are constantly revised owing to their wrongness. The Bible has suffered no such setback, despite multiple claims otherwise. Must have been the sand in your proverbial ears which kept you from hearing the point.

The fact that you won't concede that the bible is internally inconsistent and, in fact, wrong on several key points doesn't make it any less wrong.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The fact that you won't concede that the bible is internally inconsistent and, in fact, wrong on several key points doesn't make it any less wrong.

I don't remember I have ever made those claims. Please, give the relevant quotes.

You are not talking to a group here, you are talking to individuals.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The fact that you won't concede that the bible is internally inconsistent and, in fact, wrong on several key points doesn't make it any less wrong.

Someday, you'll see.