Did God really write a book?

[Moonjuice]

So are you saying if I gave you a fact about science that is shown to be true in the Bible but which was not confirmed until modern times, would that cause you to believe the Bible accurately reflects God’s message to mankind therefore cause you to choose to follow Jesus?

No, that's not what I said. A scientific fact that was not known at the time, later proven to be true could simply be an educated guess by a human. Darwin did it MANY times, he was not your God I presume.

I am asking if there are any verses in any of the books of the bible that make it clear that the verse came from God, because it could only have come from a God. I gave a really good example of the kind of verse that could only come from an actual God (or a time traveler).I'm looking for evidence that the all knowing creator of the universe wrote something.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If there was sufficient evidence to prove it without any doubt, then the evidence would force me to know there is a real God. I'm not saying god would force me, the evidence would.

The nature of the question reveals to me that you're confusing too many versions of God. The reason it would be pointless I think is that the God you found would not be God that "Dwells in inapproachable light," is invisible and is airy.

Can anyone in the world deny that we are compelled very gently, very gradually through conscience to grudgingly make changes and improvements in ourselves, in our governments, in our attitudes? Why, if God can so inspire, would God need or desire to prove anything with a book?

According to the Christian canon which is part of my background, God This invisible and airy God is cemented into the canon and cannot be removed. It is a God who inspires rather than conscripts. I'm not saying that Christian canon is the last word on all descriptions of God, either; but I am arguing the Christian canon talks about inspiration of scripture which seems to contraindicate against God writing it. Therefore it would be pointless, in my opinion, for God to prove to you that God had written a book. Wouldn't your conscience, instead, tell you what scripture God wanted you to read (assuming God wanted you to read something)?

 

[Moonjuice]

The nature of the question reveals to me that you're confusing too many versions of God. The reason it would be pointless I think is that the God you found would not be God that "Dwells in inapproachable light," is invisible and is airy.

Can anyone in the world deny that we are compelled very gently, very gradually through conscience to grudgingly make changes and improvements in ourselves, in our governments, in our attitudes? Why, if God can so inspire, would God need or desire to prove anything with a book?

According to the Christian canon which is part of my background, God This invisible and airy God is cemented into the canon and cannot be removed. It is a God who inspires rather than conscripts. I'm not saying that Christian canon is the last word on all descriptions of God, either; but I am arguing the Christian canon talks about inspiration of scripture which seems to contraindicate against God writing it. Therefore it would be pointless, in my opinion, for God to prove to you that God had written a book. Wouldn't your conscience, instead, tell you what scripture God wanted you to read (assuming God wanted you to read something)?

Ahh, then we are simply in agreement that god didn’t write anything in the Bible. I was looking for the evidence that shows he did write it (directly or indirectly).

 

[Brickjectivity]

Ahh, then we are simply in agreement that god didn’t write anything in the Bible. I was looking for the evidence that shows he did write it (directly or indirectly).

The difference between 'It is inspired' and 'God wrote it' is vast. If I say that scripture is inspired, it means that its worth reading. If I say that God wrote it I'm exaggerating, dangerously exaggerating.

The (non empirical) evidence of inspiration is that the scriptures are wisdom scriptures that reflect principles extracted from experience and from thought. They are considered 'Inspired' when they prove to be effective guides, and in this word 'Inspired' is an assumption that experience and wisdom come from a higher plain, perhaps a conceptual plain or some other invisible plain. That assumption also means that this is not empirical evidence that God wrote it, just evidence that it is inspired.

 

[metis]

Does this exist in any text that is supposedly gods word?

The early Church did not believe that what eventually became the New Testament was written by God or that it's inerrant. It's about God.

Sorry to cut this short.

 

[pearl]

The early Church did not believe that what eventually became the New Testament was written by God or that it's inerrant. It's about God.

I'm sure you are not discounting God inspired human word.

 

[metis]

I'm sure you are not discounting God inspired human word.

Correct. But as you assuredly are aware of, the extent of Divine inspiration has always been a matter of debate.

One of the best books on this that I read several decades ago was William Barclay's [Anglican] "Introduction to the Bible", whereas he briefly covers this controversy. A much lengthier account is James Hitchcock's "History of the Catholic Church", whereas he spends an entire chapter on the Council of Nicea, much of it dealing with the selection of the canon.

 

[Rise]

No, that's not what I said. A scientific fact that was not known at the time, later proven to be true could simply be an educated guess by a human. Darwin did it MANY times, he was not your God I presume.

You didn't actually answer the question but contradicted yourself.

You said originally that if there was something in the Bible about the natural world which ancient man could not possibly have known, then that would be proof to you that the information in the Bible came from God to man.

Is there a single verse in that book that proves it had to be written by a God, because it could only have come from a God? If so, the evidence will force me to at least accept that a God does exist.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that the entire world would probably find convincing: A verse in the bible that includes anything factual about the natural world, that could not be known by a human at that time, and is too detailed to be a guess. It could have only come from an actual creator of the entire universe.

So I asked you, if I could point to something in the Bible that is said about reality (ie. a scientific fact), which could not have been known (and my statement presumes, not even guessed at in an educated way either) at the time, but which science has now shown to be true, would that prove the Bible's information came from God?

And my question obviously assumes any such example would not involve something that we should have any reason to believe the writers could have even guessed at based on what they knew - otherwise I wouldn't presume to claim it's evidence that the information could have only come from God.

Then you appear to backtrack and say "no, no, I didn't mean that, because anything you did find would have to just be an educated guess".

Well, "educated guess' implies you have to have some kind of foundational knowledge that allows you to make a leap of logic from one conclusion to another.

So your answer appears to be s presupposing that there could be nothing I present to you as evidence of the Bible showing understanding of reality that predates modern science's ability to know it.

Which means you must also be presupposing that there is nothing in the Bible which couldn't be written based on what was known to the writers at the time.

It therefore appears you are engaging in a type of fallacious circular reasoning.

You appear to presume it is impossible for anything in the Bible about the natural world to be capable of coming from only God. And you then want to use that presumption to label any evidence of such a thing happening as "it must have just been an educated guess" before you've even seen any examples.

So you appear to be concluding the Bible can't have such information, no matter what is presented to you, because you start from the unproven premise that the Bible can't have such information - that's the fallacy of circular reasoning.

In which case, you're not actually open to the evidence and letting it speak for yourself. You've already prejudged the evidence before it is presented and concluded that nothing could disprove your conclusion.


I suspect, based on your response, that even if you didn't have an logical reason to conclude that ancient people had the information to make such an educated guess and can't give any explanation for how they could make that guess in any kind of educated way - that you would still nonetheless conclude it must have been an educated guess but we just don't know how they did it.

If that is the case then your claim would actually be false: That is, you claim that you can be convinced if only the evidence were presented in the Bible. But yo seem to set up your criteria for judging the evidence based on the presumption that it can't be true, therefore any appearance of it being true must be explained away somehow (regardless of whether or not you actually can reasonably explain it away).

I am asking if there are any verses in any of the books of the bible that make it clear that the verse came from God, because it could only have come from a God. I gave a really good example of the kind of verse that could only come from an actual God (or a time traveler).I'm looking for evidence that the all knowing creator of the universe wrote something.

The problem with your claim is that you appear to have no clear criteria for what constitutes showing whether or not knowledge about some aspect of reality in the Bible could have only come from God and not merely been deducted logically by man via an educated guess.

You don't appear to have any objective standard or criteria, but have set the stage to merely write off any evidence as just being an educated guess because you never define what that means to you.

As far as I can tell, you define "probably just an educated guess" as "whether or not I am personally convinced this could only come from God'. But your subjective opinion doesn't determine what is true from what is false. There appears to be no objective logical criteria you would use to judge the conclusion of the evidence.

 

[Moonjuice]

You said originally that if there was something in the Bible about the natural world which ancient man could not possibly have known, then that would be proof to you that the information in the Bible came from God to man.

Not exactly what I said, the details make a difference. This is a actually a good exercise. Like the bible, sometimes the context of the verse before and after the quoted verse will help understand the context. I won't take the time to respond to the rest of your post, since your arguments were all a strawman.

Is there a single verse in that book that proves it had to be written by a God, because it could only have come from a God? If so, the evidence will force me to at least accept that a God does exist.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that the entire world would probably find convincing: A verse in the bible that includes anything factual about the natural world, that could not be known by a human at that time, and is too detailed to be a guess. It could have only come from an actual creator of the entire universe.

So a scientific fact alone wouldn't do the trick. Just like a single incorrect fact wouldn't mean that an all-knowing God didn't write it, or that he didn't write some of the other verses. I suppose it would mean he didn't really care if the information was accurate or if that incorrect information would cause some issues 2,000 years later from people asking if God actually wrote it or not. I'm looking for a statement that could only have come from the creator of the universe. I've read the bible all the way through, I didn't see it. I'm convinced its because humans wrote every word of it, without any divine intervention.

 

[Rise]

Not exactly what I said, the details make a difference. This is a actually a good exercise. Like the bible, sometimes the context of the verse before and after the quoted verse will help understand the context. I won't take the time to respond to the rest of your post, since your arguments were all a strawman.

So a scientific fact alone wouldn't do the trick. Just like a single incorrect fact wouldn't mean that an all-knowing God didn't write it, or that he didn't write some of the other verses. I suppose it would mean he didn't really care if the information was accurate or if that incorrect information would cause some issues 2,000 years later from people asking if God actually wrote it or not. I'm looking for a statement that could only have come from the creator of the universe. I've read the bible all the way through, I didn't see it. I'm convinced its because humans wrote every word of it, without any divine intervention.

You have not addressed the fatal flaw underlying your proposition. And rather than point out why you think what I said was in error, you only repeat the fault. I will try to explain why a second time for you in an effort to bring clarity. And,in the process, I believe you will see I did not actually commit a strawman at all - but I think I am more accurately summing up your position than you even realize because I don't think you have clarity about what you are actually claiming and what the full implications of that claim are.

Let's start with the claims you make in your latest post:
1. That there is something you are looking for in the Bible that would prove it is relevation from God and God alone.
2. That there is a very specific type of information you are looking for where the details and context matter.
3. That a scientific fact by itself does't qualify.

You also added:
1. That you do not see any such information in the Bible.
2. That you aren't convinced it contains revelation from God

So, what is missing here?
a) Any qualification of what exactly you are looking for.
b) Any specification of what context and details matter and why they matter.
c) Any qualification of how this thing you are looking for differs from scientific fact.

So there are two obvious problems and questions that arise from what is lacking in your position:
1. How can you challenge someone to provide evidence that there is information in the Bible that only God could reveal to man if you have given us no specific standard by which to judge what qualifies as evidence?
2. How can you yourself even judge what you are reading if you don't even have a clear standard by which you are judging what you are reading?

Without any kind of clear, specific standard to judge the information by, what this really comes down to is just a statement of your opinion about whether or not you have been convinced of what is true.

And since your only standard seems to be your subjective opinion about whether you personally think the evidence is good enough or not, there is nothing stopping you from just deciding that all the evidence is never good enough no matter how ironclad the logic and evidence in opposition to your opinion are.

But, logically and factually, your ability to be convinced or persuaded about the truth of something based on ironclad logic and evidence does nothing to disprove the truth of that conclusion just because you decide you aren't convinced by the logical argument and evidence.

Objectively true logical arguments remain objectively logically true regardless of whether or not you want to be convinced by them.

So your opinion and state of persuasion is not a valid standard by which to judge what is true, as your opinions are subject to error and preference that don't correspond to objectively logically judging what is true.

 

[Moonjuice]

Let's start with the claims you make in your latest post:
1. That there is something you are looking for in the Bible that would prove it is relevation from God and God alone.
2. That there is a very specific type of information you are looking for where the details and context matter.
3. That a scientific fact by itself doesn't qualify.

Okay, so far we are on the same page. Yes. The purpose of this post is very simple. Do you think god actually wrote the words? If you do, I'm looking for words that come directly from the creator of the universe. I expect they will look different than the words that come from barbaric human minds. Something profound? If you do know of some verses that could only come from god, I'd like to see it. Maybe I'll be convinced as well? That is the entire purpose of the post, sorry if that is unclear to you. If you do not think god wrote anything, then you can skip this entire post. If you do, then please show me the words that only god could have delivered. You won't need to convince me, it will be obvious.

So, what is missing here?
a) Any qualification of what exactly you are looking for.
b) Any specification of what context and details matter and why they matter.
c) Any qualification of how this thing you are looking for differs from scientific fact.

I spell it out for you again.

A) If the creator of the universe was going to write something for all of humanity to read, why does it include idiotic ideas that only a bronze aged human could possibly come up with? Where is the infinite wisdom on display that you would expect to see on display if an OMNI-style god wrote a book for all of humanity. I'm looking for that god given wisdom. Something that could only be uttered by an all knowing being. You can qualify it for yourself. You tell me what you think proves the words could only have come from a real god.

B) If an all knowing being has a message to deliver, the context should appear to come from an all knowing being, not a bronze age man. The details do matter because there are competing claims regarding what God wants you to know. Bible, Q'ran, Book of Morman Etc. Which is actually the word of god and which is just crap humans wrote about the gods they believed existed? Again, you tell me what context matters to you. Maybe it will convince me? It convinced you evidently.

C) If you make a prediction about an unknown scientific fact that eventually comes true, that doesn't make you an all knowing God. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Or do you think that anyone that makes a prediction that comes true must be God? This is why a single science fact uttered, that was later proven to be true does not prove that the person who uttered it is god or god told them. If you want, feel free to share the scientific fact you think god revealed that was later proven to be true. Even if I agree with it, there is no way to know if God wrote that or if a human got lucky with a guess. Nostradamus predicted things accurately a few times. He was not god, right?

So there are two obvious problems and questions that arise from what is lacking in your position:
1. How can you challenge someone to provide evidence that there is information in the Bible that only God could reveal to man if you have given us no specific standard by which to judge what qualifies as evidence?
2. How can you yourself even judge what you are reading if you don't even have a clear standard by which you are judging what you are reading?

Okay, so there are two problems that arise when you do not understand the challenge; Did God write this book?
1. You are the one who is convinced that god wrote it, not me. How can I spell out what convinced you? You tell me. The standard is the creator of the universe is smarter than bronze aged humans. If the creator of the universe is inserting his own thoughts into a bronze age book, then I'm expecting it to be profound. Aren't you? I suppose I'll recognize it when I see it, like you did.
2. I speak English. I can read. I judge what I read based on whether or not it makes sense. Is there any other way to judge? If I read something in the bible that someone says is "Gods word" I can decide for myself if I think that is something only a god could say, or if that sounds like something a human would say.
I'll give you an example:
Numbers 31:13-18
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Does this sound like a story God told Moses to write down, or is this what Moses wrote down on his own, or some other person writing down the story they heard verbally passed down? That verse literally has Moses telling these people to kill the male children and all the women except the virgins...keep them for yourselves. That is an example of a verse clearly written by men. Men who like to win by force, kill children, and rape virgins. That's what I get when I read that verse. If you were to show me that verse and try to convince me a god wrote that, I'd call BS. Sounds like something a horny, power hungry man would write in the bronze age middle east.

But, logically and factually, your ability to be convinced or persuaded about the truth of something based on ironclad logic and evidence does nothing to disprove the truth of that conclusion just because you decide you aren't convinced by the logical argument and evidence.

Totally agree. Still waiting for you to produce the logical argument and evidence that god wrote the book. You are not providing anything, and instead arguing about how I will dismiss what you provide. Try providing something you think is "ironclad logic and evidence" and I'll decide if I agree or not. You are arguing with my disagreement, without me disagreeing yet.


If you still do not understand the question, then I suggest stop trying to answer. Move on to another post, there are hundreds to choose from.

 

[Rise]

Do you think god actually wrote the words? If you do, I'm looking for words that come directly from the creator of the universe.

What I think about the matter is not relevant to providing evidence to you that the words in the Bible come from God. Ether the evidence is valid or it isn't. Since you're asking for evidence then my opinion isn't a factor in that equation.

I expect they will look different than the words that come from barbaric human minds. Something profound?

There are two problems underlying your statement:

1. You need to check your presuppositions.
What makes you think your presuppositions are true about what the words of God have to look like or say?
Your opinion about how you think God needs to talk doesn't necessarily mean it's true.


2. You give no qualifying standards by which you think we could judge God's words from man's. "profound" as an adjective has no objective measuring value, but is a relative term and subject to your opinion of what constitutes profound.

"different" is again another standard you throw out without any qualifiers - Different in what way? How different? And why do you think it needs to be different in such a way to be God?

If you do know of some verses that could only come from god, I'd like to see it.

As I have been pointing out: You have given no objective standard by which one could judge whether or not the words would come from God.

Your question can't be answered because you haven't done a good enough job outlining the parameters of the question first so we know what would constitute a valid answer to your question.

The reason you haven't done this is because you don't even know what the parameters to your own question are. So how can you even determine whether or not the answer will be valid when you don't even know what you're looking for specifically?

"I'll just know if its true" doesn't solve the problem for you: because you are illogically and falsely presuming your sense of knowing is beyond fault. It does not answer the question of how you would know or how we can assume your personal truth detector is accurately calibrated to discern truth from falsehood.

Maybe I'll be convinced as well?

As I already pointed out, your level of persuasion is not relevant to determining what is true from what is false.

So why are you trying to introduce that standard of judgement into the equation of whether or not the Bible has evidence that it's words come from God?

That is the entire purpose of the post, sorry if that is unclear to you.

You are confused. The purpose of your post is not unclear. The problem with your post is that the method by which you seek to establish your purpose is completely non-existent.

You have no idea what specifically you would expect to see if God's words were in the Bible and you have no objective standard by which to judge those words to determine if they are from God.

The best you can offer is just to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno, I suppose if it really were God's words then I’d just be convinced when I read it".

And, as I said, your viewpoint is based on the fallacious assumption that your own ability to be convinced that something is true is a reliable measure for determining if something is true or not.

But you logically can't assume you'd believe truth if you saw it. Lots of people reject obviously true realities about a great many things - what makes you think you're so special that your opinion about what is true is beyond question so that it becomes the plumb line by which things are determined to be true?

If you do not think god wrote anything, then you can skip this entire post.

I do believe words in the Bible are given to man by God, so I guess I don't need to skip this post.

If you do, then please show me the words that only god could have delivered. You won't need to convince me, it will be obvious.

Woah, hold on right there. Major red flag.

Who says the words of God in the Bible will be obvious?
And obvious to who?
And by what standard is it obvious or not?

You have a lot of unchecked assumptions operating here. Assumptions which you have no reason to believe are true.

Who judges whether or not it's obvious? You, presumably.

What standard do you use to determine if it is obvious? Presumably it's just your opinion. Whatever seems obvious to you, subjectively, according to a standard you haven't even defined.

So that's just setting yourself up to be the judge of whether or not the words are from God based on nothing more than own your personal subjective opinion.

That is not a sound logical basis to make objective judgements about whether or not any word in the Bible came from God.

You are effectively deifying your own mind and thinking you are all knowing and error-less enough to be able to be the decider of what is truth from false simply by looking at it and just knowing somehow.

You have no objective logical standards which would act as a check against your capricious whims of mental fancy.

A) If the creator of the universe was going to write something for all of humanity to read, why does it include idiotic ideas that only a bronze aged human could possibly come up with?

Your question is not relevant to the original question you posed, or relevant to the issues of inadequacy present in your question's parameters.

You are not answering the question of what you would consider evidence of God's words in the Bible by asking me to explain why certain things are in the Bible.

Where is the infinite wisdom on display that you would expect to see on display if an OMNI-style god wrote a book for all of humanity. I'm looking for that god given wisdom. Something that could only be uttered by an all knowing being.

You have still failed to give us any objective qualifying measurements of standards by which you would expect to judge whether or not something is the wisdom of God vs man's wisdom.

How can you expect people to provide you evidence of something if you can't even define what the something is you're looking for?

Who are you to say that the wisdom in the Bible is not the wisdom God would give us?

How would you know what God would or would not want to communicate?

You're making a lot of assumptions which you have no proof could be true.

Where are your standards and measurements coming from? Just your own opinion about the way you think things should be?

You see you're setting up a fallacy of circular reasoning. You're essentially positing the problem with the Bible is that it isn't what you think it should be. Then you're challenging people to prove it is from God by demanding they show you how the Bible actually is what you think it should be.

But you haven't recognized the fallacious assumption underlying the premise of your position; which is the presumption that the Bible should be the way you imagine it should be - and if it's not then that's proof that it's not from God.

You're committing the fallacy of begging the question by using your conclusion as part of your premise.

You can qualify it for yourself. You tell me what you think proves the words could only have come from a real god.

My own qualifications would not be relevant to your original question - since you were the one who claimed you were looking for something specific and you set yourself up as the judge of whether or not that something met your criteria.

If I gave you my own definition of what God's words should look like in the Bible, and an objective standard by which to judge if they are, then you could simply dismiss those examples as failing to meet your challenge because it doesn't meet your personal subjective definition and your criteria. And you have set yourself up as subjective judge of whether or not the criteria are met without regard to any objective measurements.

This is why I have tried to show you the error of the way in which you are posing the question; You have established no common ground or objective measure by which your question could be answered. You have already decided you think the Bible doesn't meet your standard but you won't tell us what that standard is specifically.

So there's no way of disproving your claim because you can't provide the necessary criteria by which the truth or falseness of your claim could be judged.

B) If an all knowing being has a message to deliver, the context should appear to come from an all knowing being, not a bronze age man.

There are two problems with your statement:
1. You are again stating criteria with no qualifiers.
How specifically should it look if it comes from God?
How would you know it if you saw it?

2 You are operating from unproven assumptions.
Who says God's words have to look the way you personally think they should?
What makes you think you can state that as an objective truth rather than just your subjective opinion?

The details do matter because there are competing claims regarding what God wants you to know. Bible, Q'ran, Book of Morman Etc. Which is actually the word of god and which is just crap humans wrote about the gods they believed existed?

You claimed to have a method for determining whether or not writings came from God, but you have refused to give any specifics about how the method would work.

Ie. What are you looking for specifically?
And by what measure will you judge whether or not those specifications have been met?

You challenged us to meet those specifications but haven't been willing to tell us what those specifications actually are and how one would objectively judge them.

 

[Rise]

Again, you tell me what context matters to you. Maybe it will convince me? It convinced you evidently.

This goes back to what I already explained to you:

1. The context that matters to me is not relevant to your original claim wherein you claimed to have a standard by which you thought God's words could be judged. How I judge, and by what standard, would not be relevant to answering your question of whether or not your standard can be met.


2. You are operating out a horrendously fallacious assumption that truth is determined by it's ability to convince you of it's truth. You are making no provision for the possibility that you could deny what is true just because you don't want to accept the truth.

C) If you make a prediction about an unknown scientific fact that eventually comes true, that doesn't make you an all knowing God.

That's all well and good - the problem is it just contradicts what you originally claimed:

A verse in the bible that includes anything factual about the natural world, that could not be known by a human at that time, and is too detailed to be a guess.

So you're asking for :
1. A fact about the natural world.
2. That could not be known by a human at the time.
3. That could not just be a guess.

But then you say scientific facts aren't valid forms of this even though they could easily meet all three of your original criteria if we are talking about the right kinds of scientific facts.

So on what basis do you say a scientific fact that meets all three of those criteria would not be sufficient to prove to you the Bible contains God's words?

Is there some unspecified difference in your mind between a "fact about the natural world" and a "scientific fact"?

If that is the case then again the problem is you provide no specifications or qualifications that would give us any clear idea of what exactly you are looking for - therefore we can't go looking for anything that would meet a criteria if you are unable to provide a criteria to look for.

"just something that would convince me" isn't a criteria because you have never defined what exactly it would take to convince you.

It is reasonable to conclude that because you yourself don't even know what would convince you that you simply aren't willing or ready to be convinced regardless of whatever would be presented.

Or do you think that anyone that makes a prediction that comes true must be God? This is why a single science fact uttered, that was later proven to be true does not prove that the person who uttered it is god or god told them.

You again seem to be contradicting your original claim that if a "natural fact about the world" were in the Bible which mankind could not have possibly known at that time, but which we know to be true today, then that would serve as conclusive proof to you that the Bible contain's God's words.

That's why I am asking you to clearly define what your standard actually is. Because it seems to shift as you post.

If your standard is shifting before I have even offered any evidence then who is to say you wouldn't just shift your standard after I, or others, offered any evidence? That would be the logical fallacy of "Moving the goalposts".

We can avoid that if you are upfront with what your expectations and standards are for proving God's word is in the Bible.

If you want, feel free to share the scientific fact you think god revealed that was later proven to be true. Even if I agree with it, there is no way to know if God wrote that or if a human got lucky with a guess. Nostradamus predicted things accurately a few times. He was not god, right?

Why would I spend the time to do that when you've already said it wouldn't do anything in your mind to prove the Bible contains God's word?

Okay, so there are two problems that arise when you do not understand the challenge; Did God write this book?

1. You are the one who is convinced that god wrote it, not me. How can I spell out what convinced you? You tell me.

You are engaging in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and red herring.

You are the one who claimed you would believe the Bible contained God's word if someone could show you verses that met a certain standard - That is the claim we are dealing with here.

You are engaging in a red herring fallacy by trying to shift the topic onto something else about what convinced me the Bible was God's word. Which is not relevant to the issue in contention about you claiming you could be convinced the Bible is God's word if a certain standard were met.

You are also engaging in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof by trying to put it on me to be the one to furnish a standard by which the Bible is proven to be God's word when you were the one who originally claimed to have such a standard and challenged people to meet it - not me.

I have no burden in this debate to provide proof of the Bible being God's word because I did not make that claim as part of this debate.

You, however, have been unable to provide the standard you claim to have. We have seen it revealed that all you are really talking about is just your subjective opinion about what you think God's words should look like and your subjective opinion about how you will be the judge of whether or not Bible verses meet that subjective standard you invented.

The standard is the creator of the universe is smarter than bronze aged humans.

Is that the only standard by which you judge the words of God in the Bible vs the words of man?

What do you mean by smarter? In what way? What criteria are you looking for to judge the smartness of the words to show they are God's instead of man's?

Just saying you're looking for "smarter" words is wildly open to interpretation about what you think qualifies as evidence of being smarter.

If the creator of the universe is inserting his own thoughts into a bronze age book, then I'm expecting it to be profound.

You are again using words you fail to define. Saying you are looking for something profound is not an objective measurement but merely comes down to your subjective opinion about what you personally consider to be a profound experience of reading.

Someone could read the same passage as you and come away thinking it is incredibly profound even though you didn’t - then what are you going to do with that? Just assume you are always right? That’s no basis for arriving at the truth about anything.

You have given no objective standard by which to determine whether or not your feeling of profoundness is more right than their's or vise versa.

 

[Rise]

I suppose I'll recognize it when I see it, like you did.

That is the fatal assumption underlying what is wrong with your original challenge.
You aren't asking for objective logic and fact based evidence to prove God's word is in the Bible.
You're just judging the truth of the Bible based off of nothing but your own subjective opinion.

That's why your challenge could never be met because it's not based on any real standards - its just your opinion.

You're demanding people convince you while you yourself can't even define what it would take to convince you. Obviously if you can't even define what would convince you then we have no reason to think you can be convinced by anything.

2. I speak English. I can read. I judge what I read based on whether or not it makes sense.

Makes sense according to what standard? Just your subjective opinion? Or objective logical sense?

Because there's a difference - and you're not operating out of the later.

Which is why your challenge was a false challenge to begin with. You aren't asking for logical evidence that proves the Bible has God's word. You're just saying you're not convinced and demanding people furnish something that will make you want to change your opinion - even though you can't even specify what would change your opinion other than just to shrug and say "I dunno, I guess I'll just know it when I see it".

What makes you assume you are capable of just knowing truth by seeing it?
What makes you assume you are beyond fault in your sense of knowing?

What makes you assume that you would accept and want to believe in the truth just because you sensed it was true? People lie to themselves all the time about what they deep down know is true just because they want to believe something else is true. That's why nigerian princes make a good living off people wanting to believe something is true so badly that objective reason can't override what they probably know deep down isn't true.

Is there any other way to judge?

Yes. It's called objective logic.

You originally tried to imply you had some kind of objective logical standard by which to judge God's word by (Ie. Some objective fact that is in the Bible which could not have been known by the people at the time or guessed at).

But then you backtracked and now just admit that there is no objective standard by which you would judge - it just comes down to your subjective opinion.

It seems to me the reason you backtracked is because you were afraid the challenge as you stated it could actually be met - so you had to weasel away from it lest you be forced to admit that the Bible is contain's God's words by your own standards for judging it.
You therefore are firmly holding to the subjective opinion standard of whether or not you are convinced because it gives you the freedom to dismiss any thing for any reason you can concoct, thereby allowing you to never have to admit that you reasonably should believe the Bible is true according to any objective standard for determining what is true.

If you had an objective standard that was met then you'd be forced to come to terms with the fact that your objection to the Bible is not based in logical reason but in simply your personal subjective emotion and preference. Admitting that would make it harder for you to tell yourself you don't have to believe the Bible is true because you would be admitting you have no logically valid reason for doing so.

If I read something in the bible that someone says is "Gods word" I can decide for myself if I think that is something only a god could say, or if that sounds like something a human would say.

What makes you qualified to know what God would or would not say?
What makes you think you can assume God has to sound a certain way?

Logically your objections are baseless with no grounding in reason or evidence but are just your personal opinions.

Your subjective opinion doesn't determine whether or not something is objectively true or false.

That is an example of a verse clearly written by men.

Says who?
Upon what basis do you claim it can't be God?

Again we're just back to your opinion, not factual statements of objective logical truth.

You haven't provided any reason why it couldn't be God, you're just asserting it can't be. But you have no reason why it can't.

That's what I get when I read that verse.

Who says your opinion of a verse determines what is true or false about that verse?

That is logically not how truth is established.

The problem is you aren't talking about these verses like they are just your opinion, but you are trying to smuggle in your opinion and speak of it as though it were an objective fact.

Totally agree.

If you agree with me that your opinion is of no value in determining whether or not something is true, then why do you keep trying to insist on declaring that your opinion is a valid way of determining what is true about the Bible?

Still waiting for you to produce the logical argument and evidence that god wrote the book. You are not providing anything,

Logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

I never made any argument in this thread which requires me to provide proof that God's words are in the Bible.

You are the one who claimed you would believe the Bible in someone could furnish proof of the words being from God.

I took issue with your claim, on the basis that your claim is false.

Your claim was false because you have no objective standards set up to determine whether or not the words presented could be judged to be God's word or not.

Your challenge is a fraud because you use nothing to judge the verses by other than your subjective opinion.

and instead arguing about how I will dismiss what you provide.

I am not arguing that "instead" of arguing something else.
My original argument dealt only with your ability to receive any evidence presented. So I have stayed on topic and there has been no need for me to argue anything else.

Try providing something you think is "ironclad logic and evidence" and I'll decide if I agree or not.

Your agreement to truth is irrelevant to establishing whether or not something is true.

Which goes back to my original point that your "challenge" is not a legitimate challenge.

You can't legitimately challenge someone to meet criteria you won't specify and then sit in judgement over whether or not they have met the criteria you refused to specify.

It's like challenging someone to a chess match except you say you're using your own house rules, but you wont tell them what those rule are, and you get to decide who won at the end regardless of what the state of the board looks like.

It's logically absurd and just puts you in the position of being able to deny anything that is presented to you without having to give any valid logical objective reason why.

If you still do not understand the question,

It is apparent at this point that you don't even understand your own question. You keep shifting what you claim to be asking.

Your position has evolved over the course of just one page from:
1. Some natural fact about the world that they couldn't have known or guessed at would convince you the Bible has God's word in it.

to:

2. That wouldn't be good enough, because you have a lot of other criteria, but you won't tell us what exactly that criteria is.

to:

3. Admitting it just comes down to your personal subjective opinion about whether or not you think God spoke those words.

and finally to

4. Shifting entirely away from the question of what you would specifically find convincing enough to trying to question me about what I found convincing, which is not relevant to your original challenge.

then I suggest stop trying to answer.

More precisely: if you can't even communicate what you are specifically looking for because you don't even know the answer for yourself, then you can't reasonably expect anyone to answer you.

 

[Magical Wand]

There are, in fact, many objective truths which cannot be proven to be true by logic.

Like:
-You exist.
-You live in a physical reality and not an illusion.
-Time exists and your sense of having had a past isn't just an illusion.
-You have free will.
-You are self aware.
-Objective truth exists.
-Objective morality exists.

These are called self evident truths, You know them to be true but you can't prove they are true using logic.

I know I exist because if I say/think I do not, I unavoidably violate the law of non-contradiction (which is a rule of thought/logic). Something is saying or thinking it does not exist. But just by virtue of saying/thinking, it automatically exists. Ergo, I prove to myself I exist due to the impossibility of the contrary.

I don't know that I have free will (at least not as defined by the minority of philosophers who identify themselves as libertarians).

I don't know that objective morality exists (at least, not in the sense that it exists independently of minds in a way that can be "sensed" or "perceived" by a sixth sense, so to speak). I can subjectively differentiate between the perception of seeing a tree and the feeling of happiness or hatred. Likewise, I can subjectively determine "wrongness" and "rightness" are not perceived, but are concepts associated with feelings in my mind.

Objective truths are justified by the senses (and mental representations -- e.g., mathematical representations -- which correspond to reality, per the correspondence theory of truth).

That I live in a physical reality and not in an illusion is justified by the fact that the senses are reliable and are correctly producing information about how reality is. That's very tricky, but there are non-circular justifications for the reliability of the senses. (The same applies to time).

 

[Rise]

I don't know that I have free will (at least not as defined by the minority of philosophers who identify themselves as libertarians).

When you say you "don't know" you have free will, you're not making a statement based on what you have experienced to be reality but you're making an intellectual rationalization that you can't know your experience is not just an illusion.

You could just as easily make the same argument against your existence by saying you have no way of knowing this isn't all just an illusion in some computer program and everything you associate with who you are as an entity never actually existed - but that intellectual theorizing doesn't change the actual reality of your experience which is that everything in your experience tells you that you do exist.

The same goes for your belief in a past, or your belief in a physical reality that you are a part of.

So, with regards to free will, what is your actual experience of reality? You have the inescapeable experience of knowing that you are, indeed, making conscious choices throughout your life.

Saying your experience might not be valid based on intellectual reasoning of alternatives doesn't change the fact that, as your experience stands, you are in fact making choices - and the alternatives would mean you never were actually making choices. Which makes them a contradiction of what you know from your experience to be true.

So why would you embrace a theory which contradicts everything that has been your experience of reality, when there is not even evidence that the theory must be true? Such theories about the absence of free will are merely just philosophical positions that comes out of a philosophical commitment to a belief in materialism. There is absolutely no reason to think we must conclude there is no free will unless you take an a priori belief in materialism - but materialism as a philosophy has never been proven to be the true way of regarding reality. So you can't just assume it's true just because it's philosophically desirable for some individuals to do so.

I don't know that objective morality exists (at least, not in the sense that it exists independently of minds in a way that can be "sensed" or "perceived" by a sixth sense, so to speak).

I have a two part response to that:

1. We need to be clear about terms and definitions:
Objective morality exists as an abstract concept, similar to how math is an abstract concept. Abstract concepts are not things that can act upon the word but they are merely descriptions of truth about reality.

Because objective morality as a concept can only exist in a mind it can therefore only come from a mind.

The question is simply then whose mind did it come from?

If it only came from man's mind then it's just subjective and therefore it's not even morality by definition. No man's opinion about morality matters with regards to what another man says in that case. There is no way to settle the dispute between who is right because there is no objective standard above them to appeal to. Therefore neither of them objectively is right. And if objective determinations don't exist for what is wrong then you can't say anything is right or wrong hence morality itself doesn't really exist.

Even the term "subjective morality" is a misnomer. Morality can't be subjective and still be true morality. It might give the illusion of being morality to those who believe it, but you can't truly call something morality if you can't appeal to an objective standard - because morality by definition is saying what is right or wrong, which you can't do if two different standards are in conflict with no way to say which one is truly right or wrong. Therefore, the lack of an objective standard means there is no true morality period.

It can only be objectively moral by definition if it comes from the mind of the being that created us as assigned us purpose by his intention.


2. We can prove that you do, in fact, believe in objective morality. Because I guarantee you there is at least one thing you will affirm you believe is objectively morally wrong: Meaning, that it's wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it. That it would continue being wrong even if everyone else decided to say it was good to do it. Think of the most terrible and wrong thing you could imagine and then try to claim it's sometimes ok to do that thing. If you can't do that then you do believe in objective morality as a concept.

And even if you were to intellectually claim that you don't believe in anything being objectively moral (which only an extreme minority of atheists would even try to do), we can point to your life and show that you don't live as though that's actually true. Your actions show what you really believe more than just your intellectual musing about what you postulate could be real.

You might intellectually say you can't know if we can say what we are experiencing is truly objective morality - but based on what you experience you do have an understanding that objective morality exists as a concept, and you believe it's true.

So the question then is: Why would you disregard what you self evidently experience to be true in order to service a philosophical worldview of materialism which has never been proven to be true?

Don't you think that perhaps, if the philosophy of materialism is unable to explain every facet of what we know to be true about reality, that it must be a failed model of reality - and therefore should be abandoned in favor of better models that do a better job of explaining everything we know to be true about reality?

I can subjectively differentiate between the perception of seeing a tree and the feeling of happiness or hatred. Likewise, I can subjectively determine "wrongness" and "rightness" are not perceived, but are concepts associated with feelings in my mind.

Who says your differentiation is merely subjective?

To you it's not subjective. Your experience doesn't tell you it's subjective.

And your experience with reality hasn't given you any reason to think you are at risk of mistaking a physical tree for the concept of hatred.

Objective truths are justified by the senses (and mental representations -- e.g., mathematical representations -- which correspond to reality, per the correspondence theory of truth).

That I live in a physical reality and not in an illusion is justified by the fact that the senses are reliable and are correctly producing information about how reality is. That's very tricky, but there are non-circular justifications for the reliability of the senses. (The same applies to time).

You're making some pretty bold and unjustified assumptions now, aren't you?

Who says your senses are reliable indicators of what reality is?
You can't prove they are.
You just take for granted they are as a self evident truth. Then you reason from what you have decided you know is true to what you think you can deduce is true base don that.

You see, no matter what, if you try to establish anything as true it's going to first require assuming certain things are true based on your self evident experience.

Who says math is true? You can't prove it is. You require at some point starting with self evident axioms as true that you can't prove are true. And ultimately you can't even say you can use math to prove math because that would logically be circular reasoning.

That's another example of a self evident truth you just take on faith based on your experience and the fact that you have no reason to believe there is error in your perception of your experience.

The same standard can apply to other aspects of your experience like free will and objective morality.

This goes back to the philosophical concept Dr. William Lane Craig outlined that proper basic beliefs (ie. self evident experiences) are things which we have no reason to reject as true when there is no evidence to the contrary.

The problem with materialism as a philosophy and worldview is that it is trying to tell people they must reject a whole slew of proper basic beliefs like the self evident experiences of free will, consciousness, objective morality, a sense of there needing to be purpose and meaning to life, etc, without every giving us any reason to believe those things can't be true.

The only reason materialism proponents want you to reject belief in those things is because they want materialism to be true. But materialism proponents have given you no reason to believe your proper basic beliefs can't be true. So why should you abandon what is self evidentially true in order to prop up an inadequate philosophy of materialism?

Have you considered then that maybe materialism isn't true, and instead your proper basic beliefs are valid experiences of truth?

 

[Magical Wand]

When you say you "don't know" you have free will, you're not making a statement based on what you have experienced to be reality but you're making an intellectual rationalization that you can't know your experience is not just an illusion.

I no doubt experience that my brain selects options. If that's how you define free will, then I do experience it. The question is whether I could have done otherwise (metaphysically speaking) given the same external and internal conditions. I don't experience any such a funny stuff. So, free will -- as defined by the minority of philosophers (generally theists, btw) -- is not what I experience.

You could just as easily make the same argument against your existence by saying you have no way of knowing this isn't all just an illusion in some computer program and everything you associate with who you are as an entity never actually existed

Incorrect. Even if I'm just a dream or a computer program, I still exist in some way or another. Again, if the program says/concludes it does not exist, it violates the law of non-contradiction. So, the program knows it exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

We can prove that you do, in fact, believe in objective morality. Because I guarantee you there is at least one thing you will affirm you believe is objectively morally wrong: Meaning, that it's wrong no matter what anyone thinks about it. That it would continue being wrong even if everyone else decided to say it was good to do it. Think of the most terrible and wrong thing you could imagine and then try to claim it's sometimes ok to do that thing. If you can't do that then you do believe in objective morality as a concept.

Well, I can say the same thing about my feeling of profound sadness given an event like the death of a relative. It doesn't matter what others feel in relation to the death of my relative. I feel profoundly it is sad. Therefore, it is sad to me. Likewise, I have the feeling of "wrongness" given the experience of some event which you might consider morally wrong. So, all you have done is proven that the concept of "wrongness" is similar to the feeling of sadness.

So the question then is: Why would you disregard what you self evidently experience to be true in order to service a philosophical worldview of materialism which has never been proven to be true?

No, I don't disregard the experience of wrongness the same way I don't disregard the experience of sadness or hatred. I can't ignore their presence in my mind.

Don't you think that perhaps, if the philosophy of materialism is unable to explain every facet of what we know to be true about reality, that it must be a failed model of reality - and therefore should be abandoned in favor of better models that do a better job of explaining everything we know to be true about reality?

The materialist doesn't have to reject his worldview due to the feeling of wrongness the same way he doesn't have to reject it due to the feeling of hatred or profound sadness.

Who says your differentiation is merely subjective?

To you it's not subjective. Your experience doesn't tell you it's subjective.

And your experience with reality hasn't given you any reason to think you are at risk of mistaking a physical tree for the concept of hatred.

I say it.

Yes, it is subjective. My experience tells me it is subjective just like a feeling.

I do have reasons to think the perception is different from an feeling, even though I can't explain it through words.

And if you argue there isn't any difference, then that means the feeling of hatred or even happiness may actually be perceived instead of felt. But that's clearly absurd. No one in his right mind would try to argue we actually detect happiness or hatred outside of our minds.

Who says your senses are reliable indicators of what reality is?
You can't prove they are.
You just take for granted they are as a self evident truth. Then you reason from what you have decided you know is true to what you think you can deduce is true base don that.

Wrong. I just explained there are non-circular justifications for the reliability of the senses. That means I don't have to take them for granted. Instead of simply asking "What is your justification?" you say "No, you just take them for granted."

You see, no matter what, if you try to establish anything as true it's going to first require assuming certain things

I agree. And this thing is reason itself. Reason is my epistemological starting point which I take for granted.

The same standard can apply to other aspects of your experience like free will and objective morality.

That's only true if you establish that free will and morality are actually properly basic like reason and introspection. As I said, I know the difference between a feeling and perception.

 

[Rise]

I should point out ahead of time: that your disputing of several things on my list of self evident truths doesn't actually change the truth of my conclusion in that thread because I don't need you to agree to all the things on that list in order to demonstrate the fact that self evident truths do indeed exist.

So although I don't need to debate the specific merits of some things on that list in order for my original points to be true, I nonetheless decided to because I thought it would be interesting to delve into some of the specifics.

I no doubt experience that my brain selects options. If that's how you define free will, then I do experience it.

Free will is defined as having the ability to make choices independent of what materialistic determinism would force you to make.

Your brain is not capable of doing that in a materialistic worldview. Therefore, your brain can't be the source of any real choice you make. There has to be a mind of yours not bound by the laws of physics capable in order for you to have a truly free choice.

The question is whether I could have done otherwise (metaphysically speaking) given the same external and internal conditions. I don't experience any such a funny stuff. So, free will -- as defined by the minority of philosophers (generally theists, btw) -- is not what I experience.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying you don't think you have free will and don't think you are making genuine choices, but are just acting out of materialistic predeterminism?

Incorrect. Even if I'm just a dream or a computer program, I still exist in some way or another. Again, if the program says/concludes it does not exist, it violates the law of non-contradiction. So, the program knows it exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

That would depend on how you define "existing" I suppose. I think you are assuming something which I was not.

When I say "exist", I am talking about you are a being with consciousness - because consciousness is the only way you can be aware of existing.

So If I say you were just a computer program done in your likeness then I wouldn't assume you actually had consciousness - which means you wouldn't exist as a being of consciousness anymore than a picture of you could exist as a being of consciousness.

I think you are assuming you would retain your consciousness in whatever form you took, which is kind of begging the question because it assumes you are conscious to begin with - and if you are conscious to begin with then you can't live in a purely materialistic world.

So in the one sense you would be right to say that if we have consciousness then the mere fact that we have consciousness means we exist in some form even if we are deceived about what form that is.

The problem with your position is that consciousness is not something you can get out of a materialistic worldview.
Therefore, we can't say that a computer program ever truly existed as a being. We can't say a drawing of a person ever existed as a being.

Despite all the talk of thinking they will someday make AI self aware - the fact is we have no reason to believe it is actually possible.
We have no experience that tells us inanimate objects can develop self awareness.

Now, if you suppose evolution is true then you might think so - but then you get into a whole other debate about how it's not proven that matter can randomly arrange itself into a living organism and all the evidence in the DNA shows it would be impossible for the information required to build even one cell to just randomly coalescence.

And it doesn't actually matter because it's still a self refuting position to believe free will can't arise out of materialism but that consciousness can - because these are both essentially the same type of problem for materialism. There is no sensible mechanism we know of or can reasonably think of by which consciousness could arise from materialism anymore than we think free will could arise from materialism.
It is merely assumed it happened because we both know we are conscious and it is assumed materialism is true - but no one can give an account for how it actually could happen.

Most evolutionary proponents and materialists don't try to pretend we have true free will for that reason - they understand the logical contradiction.
But they don't seem to understand how us having conscious self awareness makes no more sense in a materialistic worldview than free will does. Because self awareness by definition is a kind of abstract floating sense of what you are that cannot be accounted for by merely the result of the forces that are acting upon you.

We don't believe the robots and computers we create have some unknown consciousness or self awareness. We might believe we one day will create that, but we currently have no reason to believe we could based on what we know.

So the mere fact that we are self aware is itself has to be a refutation of the materialistic worldview.

If you believe you have consciousness you therefore have to believe in the same things that would allow you to also believe in free will - meaning, you have to believe something is allowing you to break free of the bonds of a purely materialistic deterministic universe. Because we have no reason to think you could be self aware without being able to do that. And if you are capable of doing that then we also have no reason to think you can't also have free will that is independent of materialistic determinism.

Well, I can say the same thing about my feeling of profound sadness given an event like the death of a relative. It doesn't matter what others feel in relation to the death of my relative. I feel profoundly it is sad. Therefore, it is sad to me. Likewise, I have the feeling of "wrongness" given the experience of some event which you might consider morally wrong. So, all you have done is proven that the concept of "wrongness" is similar to the feeling of sadness.

You missed the point about the difference between objective morality and subjective opinion. I can illustrate the point again by asking you a question.

Take that thing you feel is wrong. Like, say, torturing a child. Let's assume that's something you feel very strongly and clearly is wrong with no question or doubt about it.

Can you say it is always wrong to torture a child regardless of what you or anyone else feels about it?

Or is it only wrong in your view to torture a child if you feel it's wrong to do so, but you can't tell anyone else it's wrong if they feel otherwise?

If you want to claim it's always wrong, independent of what people think, then you believe objective morality exists.

No, I don't disregard the experience of wrongness the same way I don't disregard the experience of sadness or hatred. I can't ignore their presence in my mind.

The materialist doesn't have to reject his worldview due to the feeling of wrongness the same way he doesn't have to reject it due to the feeling of hatred or profound sadness.

If you want to claim torturing children is always wrong regardless of what any person feels or thinks about it, then you have to believe in objective morality by definition.

And if you experience a belief in objective morality then you have to abandon and disregard that belief in order to be consistent with a materialist philosophy.

Because you cannot have objective morality by definition in a purely materialistic reality.

 

[Rise]

I say it.

Yes, it is subjective. My experience tells me it is subjective just like a feeling.

I do have reasons to think the perception is different from an feeling, even though I can't explain it through words.

And if you argue there isn't any difference, then that means the feeling of hatred or even happiness may actually be perceived instead of felt. But that's clearly absurd. No one in his right mind would try to argue we actually detect happiness or hatred outside of our minds.

You didn't answer the question.
What gives you reason to say there is no self evident difference between looking at a tree and feeling hatred?

From the time you are born it is self evident to you that your five senses are communicating objectively true information about the world around you. You don't have to think about it, you just know it and don't question it. That's why it's called a properly basic belief. It's a belief that is not based on any prior belief.

The problem with your belief that it's just subjective is that's not actually a conclusion that is self evident to you - it's a belief you reason your way to by basing it on other beliefs you acquire later in life.

You don't stop believing that based on your experience.
What in your experience gives you reason to think these aren't objectively different phenomenon you experience?

Just because you claim you think it's subjective doesn't mean you actually experience it as something subjective.

When have you ever thought "oh, that's a giant green tree the size of a building 10ft away from me", only to realize later it was a blue squirrel the size of a rat?

Have you ever looked at a tree and not even seen the tree at all but instead experienced irrational and sudden hatred?

Have you ever looked at a cat that appeared to be striped in color and about a foot tall, only to turn around and later realize the cat was the size of a car with pink spots on it?

The point is: What evidence would lead you to conclude that you can't trust your five senses are giving you true information?

I think the larger problem with your approach here is you are confusing the concept of self evident experience with reasoned belief.

You might reason a belief to convince yourself that maybe you can't trust your senses - but this reasoned belief doesn't come out of your actual experience.

Your actual experience from the time you are born tells you self evidently that your five senses (not talking about your emotions) are an objective experience of reality around you.

You have to talk yourself out of your self evident experience by trying to override it with reasoned conclusions that don't have any bearing on what you know to be true but are purely just speculative.

Wrong. I just explained there are non-circular justifications for the reliability of the senses. That means I don't have to take them for granted. Instead of simply asking "What is your justification?" you say "No, you just take them for granted."

You never gave any reasons for why we should believe your claims are true.

You said:

Objective truths are justified by the senses (and mental representations -- e.g., mathematical representations -- which correspond to reality, per the correspondence theory of truth).

That I live in a physical reality and not in an illusion is justified by the fact that the senses are reliable and are correctly producing information about how reality is. That's very tricky, but there are non-circular justifications for the reliability of the senses. (The same applies to time).

You are claiming:
1. Objective truths exist.
2. You can prove them by the senses .

You go on to claim further:
1. That you live in a physical reality.
2. That it's not an illusion.
3. That you can prove it's not because your senses are reliable to tell you it is true.

You see what's missing here? Logical reasons why your claims should be believed to be true.


This takes us back to the original questions I asked you:
Who says your senses are reliable? How do you prove it?
Who says you aren't just a mass of energy inside of a computer? How do you prove it?
Who says objective truth exists? How do you prove it?

You're engaging in circular reasoning by just taking for granted the premise that your senses are a reliable means of understanding reality and then using an appeal to your senses to prove what you know about reality is true.

You haven't given any reasons for why we should first believe your senses are reliable.

I agree. And this thing is reason itself. Reason is my epistemological starting point which I take for granted.

Who says you are entitled to take that as a self evident truth?
Who says reason is a reliable way to judge truth?
Who says there is even an objective truth you can reason your way to?

If materialism is true then reason isn't real. Reason implies consciousness and choice. Neither o which you have in materialism.
Otherwise you can't truly reason your way from one conclusion to a different one - the laws of physics predetermine what conclusion you are going to draw about anything. And that is even assuming you could have consciousness in a materialistic world but just don't have free will. Nevermind the fact that you wouldn't even have consciousness to begin with so you'd just be a robot mindlessly acting out your program without any self awareness.

You appear to be just picking and choosing which self evident realities you want to deny based on what you need to jettison in order to hold a materialistic worldview - but not realizing that the very things you do take for granted can't exist in a materialistic worldview (consciousness and reason).

That's only true if you establish that free will and morality are actually properly basic like reason and introspection. As I said, I know the difference between a feeling and perception.

We first need to define what a properly basic belief is:
A properly basic belief is that which requires no prior belief for you to come to believe in it.
Ie. You don't need to reason your way to believing you exist and have consciousness. You just believe it as part of your being. No one ever had to tell you to believe in it either.

Morality is a properly basic belief because you don't need to be taught to feel wronged by something bad or even to feel it would be wrong to do certain bad things to others. We know by studies that it is exhibited as a belief from the earliest ages without having to be taught. Sam Harris references these studies in a debate with William Lane Craig as evidence to support his idea that morality is based in evolution (but the problem is he isn't talking about objective morality anymore, but survival instinct. And then you can't ever say anything is truly objectively wrong independent of what people subjectively feel about it).

Likewise, free will is a properly basic belief because it's what you believe to be true about yourself by default just as you believe you have consciousness. No one had to tell you that you were making genuine free choices for you to believe you were doing so. You just believed you were without having to reason yourself to that conclusion.

Your belief that you aren't making free will choices is something that goes against your properly basic belief of free will as a later belief system that comes in to override what you originally believed by default as a self evident truth.

 

[Magical Wand]

Your comments are becoming too lengthy, which means it takes too much time to select and respond to all of your points. So I decided to only address the question of morality. Once we finish talking about it, I'll be more than happy to come back and refute all of your points not related to the topic of morality.

Take that thing you feel is wrong. Like, say, torturing a child. Let's assume that's something you feel very strongly and clearly is wrong with no question or doubt about it.

Can you say it is always wrong to torture a child regardless of what you or anyone else feels about it?

Are you asking me if I feel it is always wrong to torture a child regardless of what I feel about it? That's what your question means in my view since "wrongness" is just a feeling similar to hatred. It is like asking "Can you say you feel hatred towards X regardless of what you feel about X?" Your question doesn't make sense.

Or is it only wrong in your view to torture a child if you feel it's wrong to do so, but you can't tell anyone else it's wrong if they feel otherwise?

I can still tell them it is "wrong" the same way I can tell them it is "sad". The words simply reflect my feelings about it, no matter how strong.

If you want to claim it's always wrong, independent of what people think, then you believe objective morality exists.

The death of my relative is always sad (to me) and this is independent of what other people think about it. Similarly, child torture is always wrong (to me) and this is independent of what people think about it.

If you want to claim torturing children is always wrong regardless of what any person feels or thinks about it, then you have to believe in objective morality by definition.

If I want to claim that I have the feeling of wrongness when I think about child torture regardless of what other people feel or think, then I don't have to believe in objective morality, by definition.

Morality is a properly basic belief because you don't need to be taught to feel wronged by something bad or even to feel it would be wrong to do certain bad things to others. We know by studies that it is exhibited as a belief from the earliest ages without having to be taught.

I can say the same thing about sadness. Nobody had to teach me to feel sadness. So, your argument is not only compatible with my view, but it actually supports it. You made my job easier. Thank you.

Sam Harris references these studies in a debate with William Lane Craig as evidence to support his idea that morality is based in evolution (but the problem is he isn't talking about objective morality anymore, but survival instinct. And then you can't ever say anything is truly objectively wrong independent of what people subjectively feel about it).

That's even better! That means I can explain the non-taught feelings of wrongness and rightness without having to accept your non-material objective morality!

I wrote: "I DO have reasons to think the perception is different from an feeling, even though I can't explain it through words."

You replied: "What gives you reason to say there is no self evident difference between looking at a tree and feeling hatred?"

It seems you misunderstood my response. I do think I have subjective reasons to think there is a difference. And ironically that's how I know the difference between a perception of a tree and the feeling of wrongness, which undermines Craig's axiological argument.

The problem with your belief that it's just subjective is that's not actually a conclusion that is self evident to you

Oh, so now you know my subjective experiences better than myself?! No, it is evident to me that there is a difference between an objective perception and a feeling.

Just because you claim you think it's subjective doesn't mean you actually experience it as something subjective.

That's true. I could be lying. Or maybe I'm so dumb that I also don't know the difference between a thought of a tree and the perception of a tree. No. That's obviously implausible. I know the difference.

The point is: What evidence would lead you to conclude that you can't trust your five senses are giving you true information?

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point.