Claims vs. Beliefs

[stvdv]

@Trailblazer

Yes, it can be interpreted in both ways because both of the following statements are true:

Aha, good to know. Thank you for confirming. A great example that proves how easily we can interpret the same words differently

1. "their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation. As in 'accept my explanation is true'."
*** But I would qualify that and say their egos will not allow them to accept that my explanation is true for me.

That way you covered quite a few Atheistic debate entrances. They do keep us sharp, and v.v.

I see even 4 interpretations now:
1)Accept it's true for me
2)Accept it's true for them
3)Accept it's a gift I share; take it or leave it
4)Accept it's my non-debatable opinion

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I find plenty of evidence for a divine designer. .

The issue would be on how you got from that evidence to your conclusion that a divine designer was necessary. You didn't rule out naturalistic explanations accounting for that evidence. You just simply dropped them from you list of candidate explanations for that evidence.

The multiverse doesn't explain anything. It just kicks the can up the road. You still don't have a naturalistic explanation for the universe.

You haven't addressed the rebuttal of why what you call evidence of a divine designer is not also equally evidence for any other logically possible interpretation of that evidence such as a multiverse.

You also commit a special pleading fallacy by treating the two candidate possibilities differently. You criticize the multiverse hypothesis as just kicking the can up the road, but this doesn't seem to be a problem when you impute a deity. You have already committed an incredulity fallacy by implying that you just don't see how reality could be as we find it absent an intelligent designer. That's not a valid argument that you are correct, especially to those who can see how the universe could be godless and entirely naturalistic. You imply that you see more than those who consider other logically possible explanations possible, but actually imply that you see less. You don't see what others see.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to theism and assorted other faith-based positions. It's also the kind of thinking that others who value critical thinking and sound conclusions over holding insufficiently supported beliefs take great pains to avoid indulging in.

Two different methods for evaluating evidence produce two different, mutually exclusive conclusions: reality is evidence of a divine designer, and reality is evidence of reality but not its origin, which may be naturalistic. They aren't both correct. One follows a sound argument, the other follows fallacies.

If you can't see how unpersuasive your position is, consider our discussion in reverse:

• Me: "I find plenty of evidence for a multiverse."
• You: "How did you decide that it wasn't evidence for a divine designer? You seem to have ruled that possibility out without cause."
• Me: "A divine designer doesn't explain a thing. It just kicks the can up the road. You still don't have a supernaturalistic explanation for the universe."

Is this a good argument to you? It's as good as yours, complete with the same two fallacies: reality is what I find believable, and my preferred belief is better than your theistic belief because yours (but not mine) is just kicking the can.

 

[ElishaElijah]

View attachment 62450

How is that ironic?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is this a good argument to you? It's as good as yours, complete with the same two fallacies: reality is what I find believable, and my preferred belief is better than your theistic belief because yours (but not mine) is just kicking the can.

How it it better? And how did you decide what reality is? Of course we both have to appeal to what can't be proven beyond doubt but the whole multi verse is really just a wishful fantasy for those looking for a natural explanation. It can't be proven or shown to be correct anymore than a supreme being can be proven. All you have is a belief and an incomplete one at that. Postulating that God exists eternally is a lot more believable than eternal matter creating itself from nothing.

 

[Trailblazer]

False.

Knowledge is a SUBSET of belief.

I believe 2+2 equals 4 ==> a belief that can be demonstrated, aka knowledge.
I believe Jesus never existed ==> a belief that can not be demonstrated, aka not knowledge and instead a baseless belief.

That is what I was trying to say.
I make no claims that my religious belief is true because I cannot demonstrate it is true via knowledge.
Would you claim that 2+2 = 4 if you could not demonstrate it via knowledge?

There is knowledge about my religion, known facts about Baha'u'llah and the history of His life and mission, but that does not prove that God communicated to Him since that can never be proven.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the whole multi verse is really just a wishful fantasy for those looking for a natural explanation. It can't be proven or shown to be correct anymore than a supreme being can be proven. All you have is a belief and an incomplete one at that. Postulating that God exists eternally is a lot more believable than eternal matter creating itself from nothing.

You've misstated my belief. I do not believe that the universe came from a multiverse. Nor do I believe that it didn't. I am agnostic on the matter, just as I am with gods. I believe that the universe either always existed, or that it had a prior source that might be conscious or not. Nor has a belief that matter created itself from nothing been stated, although that is also a logical possibility, even if it seems counterintuitive.

Since you choose to not address them, I'll restate my position again, and consider the discussion over, since it cannot progress further if these ideas aren't rebutted and there is no longer any reasonable expectation that they will be. Remember, a rebuttal is not a mere expression of dissent, but a counterargument that if true, makes the rebutted claim false:

• Considering as fact that which one finds believable based on a limited understanding of what is possible is a logical error leading to an unsound conclusion, and is an concession to knowing less that those with whom you disagree. It's not enough to say what you see

• The multiverse hypothesis is not a wishful fantasy. It is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled out even if not proven. Ruling it out without a sound argument is the wishful fantasy.

• My position is as complete as is possible without committing logical fallacy. One simply cannot go further than to identify all logical possibilities that can neither be ruled in or out and list them as candidate hypotheses. A conclusion that rules any out or in is incomplete if it failed to consider them, and a non sequitur if the argument did but rejected their possibility anyway based on things feel or seem. As I mentioned, Craig's Kalam argument is incomplete for failing to address the logical possibility of a multiverse as the cause of the universe.

You've offered no reasons why these are not correct, presumably because you have no such reasons, and that is presumably because they are correct. They're just not what you have chosen to believe.

How is that ironic?

You wrote, "So, do you accept these scholars or just the ones that support your views? Why would I accept a biblical scholar who wasn’t a believer?"

Did you not just imply that he should consider all views and not just those of people who already agree with him, and then say that you wouldn't accept the opinion of an unbeliever?

The reason you should accept the conclusions of a biblical scholar who was not a theist is because they may be correct. If they are and you never consider them, then your mind is closed to a particular truth. It is unenviable to be in a position where you might be demonstrably wrong and be cut off from the possibility of ever discovering that because you never looked.

Most critical thinkers are only interested in the arguments of other critical thinkers, because they have confidence in that method and no other to produce sound and useful conclusions. When two such people are conversing and discover difference of opinion about what is true in the world, because they share a common means for deciding that, dialectic, or the cooperative effort of two critical thinkers to reconcile differences in opinions of fact, is possible. If one of them is a faith-based thinker, this doesn't happen.

For the empiricist, truth is the correspondence of an idea with experience. Facts are statements that possess this quality, and the collection of them is one's knowledge - the collection of ideas one believes are correct

How it it better? And how did you decide what reality is?

It's not better. It's the same argument mutatis mutandis. The point was to show that it is equally unpersuasive.

And I'm an empiricist. I decide what reality is through the application of reason to the evidence of the senses.

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words, you feel like one can take ANY claim, prefix it with "i believe" and that somehow absolves it from a burden of proof????

I am making no claim. I only have a belief. You are trying to make my belief into a claim. Unless I am "claiming" that my belief is true, I am not making a claim. I am not claiming my belief is true just because I "believe" it is true. I do not claim it is true because it can never be proven to be true. It's that simple.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

 

[Trailblazer]

"To believe X" LITERALLY means that you accept X as being true.

That's right, but accepting something as true is not claiming it is true.

A person can accept that a belief is true and they can even share that belief with others without making a claim that it is true. A claim requires proof and no religious belief can ever be proven true, so Imo religious people should not claim that their religious beliefs are true.

 

[halbhh]

Of course, it would require atheists to think differently than they have always thought about claims and evidence and see another point of view that they had never considered.

Trying to see another point of view from another angle, even trying to see it from someone else's point of view, is such a good habit, and I think it is probably a natural ability that we have, and the only reason it's not more widespread (and it is around, but not as widespread as we would like) may be that many have learned (such as from example in youth) to treat others badly, so that instead of wanting to understand, some are just wanting to 'win' an imagined contest they think they are in, even when no one else is participating.

 

[Trailblazer]

If all Theists did was believe what (so called) messengers of God tell them, I doubt atheists would be insisting they provide the burden of proof. In my experience with Theists, they not only say they believe, but they also try to insist I need to believe also! When they do that, they need to give a reasonable explanation of why I should believe these people, and that usually involves providing evidence that what these messengers say is true.

That is all I am doing, saying that I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. I certainly do not insist that anyone else believes what I believe or even expect them to and I have said that numerous times.

I have said I cannot prove what I believe is true, that all I have is evidence that indicates that, but nevertheless I am told that I am making a claim and that I have the burden of proof. This is unfair.

I provide the only evidence I have and if people do not consider it evidence they are free to reject it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now... even in the event that her CLAIM that "[this] is logic 101 stuff" is correct, the statement that "An Almighty God, the creator of the universe, needs no excuses for what He chooses not to do" is STILL A CLAIM MADE. This was stated definitively, and in the form of "UFOs are real." NOT in the form "I believe UFOs are real."

"An Almighty God, the creator of the universe, needs no excuses for what He chooses not to do" is my personal opinion and what I consider logical according to what I believe about God. It is not a claim because I never CLAIM things I cannot prove.

And again, the presence of the "That is logic 101 stuff" qualifier, even further demonstrates that not only does she believe this, but she literally expects the reader to believe it as well.

"That is logic 101 stuff" is just my personal opinion but I do not expect anyone else to agree with me.

I make a lot of statements and these are statements of my belief and what I consider logical, they are not claims. The REASON I make no claims is because I cannot prove my religious beliefs are true. Imo, religious people should never make claims about what cannot ever be proven true, such as claiming Jesus rose from the dead or God created the universe. These are only beliefs, not facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

E) Do not look a gift horse in the mouth

Thanks.....
Shoot.... I should have known that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The multiverse hypothesis is not a wishful fantasy. It is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled out even if not proven. Ruling it out without a sound argument is the wishful fantasy.

You have not demonstrated that to be true. It's not science if it can't be observed. It's guessing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As I mentioned, Craig's Kalam argument is incomplete for failing to address the logical possibility of a multiverse as the cause of the universe.

Lol, that's circular reasoning. The multiverse can not be shown to exist but let's pretend it caused our universe.? And if it does exist it makes no difference to the discussion because it still doesn't explain what the first cause is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You've offered no reasons why these are not correct, presumably because you have no such reasons, and that is presumably because they are correct. They're just not what you have chosen to believe.

So I have to rebut something that has no basis in reality? All you have offered are maybe this, maybe that with no reason I should believe any of it. Sounds like this is your religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

That way you covered quite a few Atheistic debate entrances. They do keep us sharp, and v.v.

Yes, we can thank them for keeping us on our toes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"An Almighty God, the creator of the universe, needs no excuses for what He chooses not to do" is my personal opinion and what I consider logical according to what I believe about God. It is not a claim because I never CLAIM things I cannot prove.
"That is logic 101 stuff" is just my personal opinion but I do not expect anyone else to agree with me.

I make a lot of statements and these are statements of my belief and what I consider logical, they are not claims. The REASON I make no claims is because I cannot prove my religious beliefs are true. Imo, religious people should never make claims about what cannot ever be proven true, such as claiming Jesus rose from the dead or God created the universe. These are only beliefs, not facts.

Unfortunately, to myself (and I am sure to others as well) this all appears as you wanting to "have your cake and eat it too." You want to be able to state things as if they are fact, and imply that they are logically sound, and even imply that it would be ridiculous to state otherwise, and yet you would not like to be asked to justify or provide any backing for those statements, etc. - but would instead like us to take up our complaints with your "statements" with "the messengers" (whoever those happen to be).

In other words, you want to try and say things in a convincing manner, and let others be swayed to your ideas or not as they will, but you also want to state, unequivocally, that this is NOT what you are doing.

This seems to me either highly disingenuous of you, or that you have deluded yourself into this strange quasi-position where you think you can just state whatever you want as if it were fact, but face none of the repercussions for doing so. Not really good things for others to be thinking of you in either case.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. "their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation. As in 'accept my explanation is true'."
*** But I would qualify that and say their egos will not allow them to accept that my explanation is true for me.

Let's try something different here:

Trailblazer's ego will not allow her to accept that my position (that is - the position that asserts she is making claims) is TRUE FOR ME.

What I see when I read many of your posts is a claim being made. You refuse to allow me this interpretation... and if I just follow your example, I can simply call you arrogant and egotistical because you just keep denying me my interpretation. You can't see your words through my eyes! You don't know what I am thinking as I read something written by you! Therefore it is ARROGANT for you to tell me what it is I should be thinking! You don't know anything about me!

What is good for the goose...

 

[Sheldon]

Trailblazer ↑
I am not claiming that my beliefs are true
Trailblazer ↑
I believe my beliefs are true.

Well, quite...I'm glad you share my sentiments at such an obvious contradiction.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe they are true

but I do not claim they are true