If you do not require evidence for your belief, therefore you do not care about the truth... Don't you want to destroy as false theories you have as possible? (Or you consider yourself perfect?) If you possess false theories about the world, do you have method to discern which is true and which isn't? I assume you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have believed in God, prior to the evidence if its existence. Please, do not answer me. I can't change you. Study science, please.
@lachezar43 - Of course I care about the truth, but (1) what true proposition demands that I need evidence for all of my beliefs, and (2) what is your definition of truth?
@SFofGSO Look, I respect you have your belief system which make sense to you. I do not consider you stupid. I think you do not understand what harm you may afflict to society and yourself by believing unfounded claims (especially religious ones). It is pointless to argue with a religious person on any matter related with his religion. I apologize but I do not wish to discuss anything with you, because you don't even have the ability to be open minded. I'll only answer these last questions.
(1) I explained - If you do not need evidence therefore you do not care about the truth! Why? Because you may be wrong.
(2) A claim concerning reality can only be true if it can be tested. If it cannot be tested, it cannot affect our reality in no away and therefore it doesn't exist. If one assumes other realities exist outside our Universe, but cannot be tested, I can only say that this is not falsifiable and believing in such a reality is equivalent to believe without evidence.
@lachezar43 - Your answer to (1) doesn't answer the question, it skirts it. Perfectly sane people (including skeptics) hold many beliefs without rational proof or empirical evidence (logical and mathematical truths and the existence of other minds would be a few examples). In so doing, they are perfectly within their epistemic "rights" for doing so. Thus, there is no reason for you or anyone else to *demand* that I provide evidence for God, Jesus, or any other metaphysical truth.
I'm afraid you are making logical fallacy - shifting the burden of proof. I have told you - we assume that other minds exist based on the evidence - we observe the behavior of the others - does it proof the existence 100%? Of course not. The nature of the evidence is that it can never be 100 % certain! Therefore we only create a model of the Universe!! This is science - a model, which isn't 100 % true but it is useful. Have a nice day!
@lachezar43 - I have no burden of proof since I wasn't the one claiming that I need evidence for my beliefs. Since you never provided the foundation for your foundationalism, you have no grounds for demanding evidence of anyone since the very thing you require of others you don't demand for yourself.
@lachezar43 - Moreover, what's wrong with logical fallacies in a world without God? After all, you just admitted that scientific models may *not* be true but because they work we are justified in believing them. That's great, because you just proved that I can make fallacious arguments that may not be true but because they work, I can believe them. You might want to try that one again my friend.
@lachezar43 - Re: your answer to (2), you demonstrate that you hold to a long-debunked brand of foundationalism. You demand evidence for my beliefs yet you can't provide evidence for **your belief** that you need evidence to substantiate beliefs. Thus, you are philosophical hypocrite. You demand of me what you don't require for yourself. In so doing, you show that you're just as "religious" as the next man in that you have beliefs that are assumed and not proven.
Again. Evidence. While I will freely admit that you cannot make the claim that an idea is true just because an important figure said so, I take problem in the fact that you seem to only point to scientists and atheist for making these claims when the reality is that most theists are the ones who do this fallacy. Most christians seem to quote Pastor Anderson or Ray Comfort to support their ideas, despite not demonstrating what their point or idea is. "This is true, because Ray comfort said it".
@dkdj12 - I used the unbelieving scientists and atheists as appropriate examples because the series was designed for Christians. As you have noted, people of all persuasions can commit this fallacy as well.
If facts are important why then believe in Jesus Christ? Where is the evidence?
lachezar43 3 weeks ago
@lachezar43 - //If facts are important why then believe in Jesus Christ?// Who says that facts are contrary to belief in Jesus Christ?
//Where is the evidence?// Where is the evidence that I need evidence for my beliefs?
SFofGSO 3 weeks ago
@SFofGSO
Seriously?
If you do not require evidence for your belief, therefore you do not care about the truth... Don't you want to destroy as false theories you have as possible? (Or you consider yourself perfect?) If you possess false theories about the world, do you have method to discern which is true and which isn't? I assume you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have believed in God, prior to the evidence if its existence. Please, do not answer me. I can't change you. Study science, please.
lachezar43 3 weeks ago
@lachezar43 - Of course I care about the truth, but (1) what true proposition demands that I need evidence for all of my beliefs, and (2) what is your definition of truth?
SFofGSO 3 weeks ago
@SFofGSO Look, I respect you have your belief system which make sense to you. I do not consider you stupid. I think you do not understand what harm you may afflict to society and yourself by believing unfounded claims (especially religious ones). It is pointless to argue with a religious person on any matter related with his religion. I apologize but I do not wish to discuss anything with you, because you don't even have the ability to be open minded. I'll only answer these last questions.
lachezar43 3 weeks ago
@SFofGSO
(1) I explained - If you do not need evidence therefore you do not care about the truth! Why? Because you may be wrong.
(2) A claim concerning reality can only be true if it can be tested. If it cannot be tested, it cannot affect our reality in no away and therefore it doesn't exist. If one assumes other realities exist outside our Universe, but cannot be tested, I can only say that this is not falsifiable and believing in such a reality is equivalent to believe without evidence.
lachezar43 3 weeks ago
@lachezar43 - Your answer to (1) doesn't answer the question, it skirts it. Perfectly sane people (including skeptics) hold many beliefs without rational proof or empirical evidence (logical and mathematical truths and the existence of other minds would be a few examples). In so doing, they are perfectly within their epistemic "rights" for doing so. Thus, there is no reason for you or anyone else to *demand* that I provide evidence for God, Jesus, or any other metaphysical truth.
SFofGSO 3 weeks ago
@SFofGSO
I'm afraid you are making logical fallacy - shifting the burden of proof. I have told you - we assume that other minds exist based on the evidence - we observe the behavior of the others - does it proof the existence 100%? Of course not. The nature of the evidence is that it can never be 100 % certain! Therefore we only create a model of the Universe!! This is science - a model, which isn't 100 % true but it is useful. Have a nice day!
lachezar43 3 weeks ago
@lachezar43 - I have no burden of proof since I wasn't the one claiming that I need evidence for my beliefs. Since you never provided the foundation for your foundationalism, you have no grounds for demanding evidence of anyone since the very thing you require of others you don't demand for yourself.
SFofGSO 3 weeks ago
@lachezar43 - Moreover, what's wrong with logical fallacies in a world without God? After all, you just admitted that scientific models may *not* be true but because they work we are justified in believing them. That's great, because you just proved that I can make fallacious arguments that may not be true but because they work, I can believe them. You might want to try that one again my friend.
SFofGSO 3 weeks ago
@lachezar43 - Re: your answer to (2), you demonstrate that you hold to a long-debunked brand of foundationalism. You demand evidence for my beliefs yet you can't provide evidence for **your belief** that you need evidence to substantiate beliefs. Thus, you are philosophical hypocrite. You demand of me what you don't require for yourself. In so doing, you show that you're just as "religious" as the next man in that you have beliefs that are assumed and not proven.
SFofGSO 3 weeks ago
wow. explain the fallacy, then commit it. impressive/
neomp5 2 months ago
@neomp5 - //wow. explain the fallacy, then commit it. impressive//
Wow, you didn't listen to the video very well. Impressive.
SFofGSO 2 months ago
@SFofGSO
i did in fact. that's why i commented on it.
neomp5 2 months ago
@SFofGSO Neomp5 is right. In short you say, "Don't trust authority, except the authority I say so". Nice going, genius, now please get a clue.
thelordmemnoch 2 months ago
Again. Evidence. While I will freely admit that you cannot make the claim that an idea is true just because an important figure said so, I take problem in the fact that you seem to only point to scientists and atheist for making these claims when the reality is that most theists are the ones who do this fallacy. Most christians seem to quote Pastor Anderson or Ray Comfort to support their ideas, despite not demonstrating what their point or idea is. "This is true, because Ray comfort said it".
dkdj12 7 months ago
@dkdj12 - I used the unbelieving scientists and atheists as appropriate examples because the series was designed for Christians. As you have noted, people of all persuasions can commit this fallacy as well.
SFofGSO 7 months ago