Do you believe; and why?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2019, 01:34 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Having perceived "evidence" that you feel justifies a belief, says nothing about whether you feel the truth of what you believe can be known factually and with certainty, or whether you feel you even have the means to know if said truth can be known.

Offering evidences in support of a claim is not an assertion that you know for a fact, and with certainty, that said claim is true. That claim - that you can know for sure - would be quite a different conversation requiring a explanation of how you can know for sure.

Yet, they still believe with certainty based upon evidence which they believe is a fact and can be known with certainty. Again, we're talking about why someone who believes isn't agnostic because you don't understand why they aren't agnostic.

Quote:Correct. We know there is a gun because the wound and other factors that are all "evidence" demonstrating that it is indeed a gunshot wound, therefore coming from a "gun". Now, what if the body is missing and it can't be examined? The gunshot wound would still exist and the gun is still the murder weapon, but until we find the body, we have no means of making that determination as we currently don't have access to it. 

OMG  The premise is we know the murder weapon exists because we have a dead body with a GSW to examine.  If we don't have a body that is a completely different premise.

Quote:When it comes to a God, my position is that we can't simply dismiss the possibility that there could be one simply because we don't currently have that type of evidence. I would also offer that there is no real justification to actively believe that there is a God until such evidence is available for us to evaluate, just as we should not "believe" there is a gun responsible for a murder if there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. 

In the premise being discussed, there was a body with a GSW so we have every reason to believe that a gun was involved.  If there is not body then that is a totally different premise in which there is no reason to believe a murder was even committed.

Since you picked the murder weapon premise, let's use that again.  Many family members believe they know who killed the victim without sufficient evidence to know "factually and with certainty."  Yet, they still believe.

Let's use another example: you're a parent of 6 year old girl who tells you another student punched in the abdomen at school.  You're not going to have evidence to know "factually and with certainty" if your daughter is telling you the truth.  So you will be faced with a choice: 1) choose to believe her or 2) choose not to believe her.  It's that simple.

Quote:Again, absence of evidence is not demonstrable evidence itself. However, I would offer that it is a rationally valid reason to not actively believe until which time there is evidence to justify that belief.

False.  The fact Andrew Wakefield's research results have never been reproduced IS demonstrable evidence his conclusions were false.

Quote:In the case of the murder weapon, we have demonstrable proof that there must be a gun via the evidence (gunshot wound). To this point, the same doesn't apply to God. However, that doesn't mean the possibility that God exists is automatically eliminated. 

I've never argued against that possibility.

Quote:In the first bold sentence; the lack of an actual murder weapon does not mean we don't know (through demonstrable means) know what the murder weapon was. Therefore, we know it must exist or at the very least, existed at one point (even if it were destroyed).

In the second; it would be difficult to get a conviction based simply on the assertion that is a murder weapon. First, it must be proven that (via the evidence) that the asserted murder weapon is the cause. Once that happens, it's perfectly justifiable to believe that there must be a murder weapon.

Unfortunately, my wife enjoys watching true crime shows. You would be surprised what can get a person convicted of murder.

Quote:Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "tigerblood" meant as a pejorative towards me in some way?

Really? What can you deduce from "Tigerblood is your former screen name"?

Quote:Correct in that I'm not sure if it can be known (agnosticism) and I've yet to be shown that there's a reason to "believe" (atheism).

That does not mean there couldn't be evidence that I'm unaware of, haven't been presented with or might not have access to currently. That is a very audacious claim to make, as I'm not privy to all knowledge that can be known, or even that has been known.

Apart from that point however, my objective is more along the lines of engaging with people as to the why's and what's of their beliefs. People are free to offer any evidences that they may find compelling if they choose to do so. You seem to find my dialogue with believers somehow problematic, but don't seem to share those same concerns with your own exchanges with them. 

1) If anyone had definitive proof that could "be known factually and with certainty" at any point during the history of Christianity of God's existence it would be the single greatest news story ever.  And I believe with 100% certainty (despite a complete lack of evidence) a simple Google search with a smart phone would connect you with that information in less than one second if it existed.

2) If someone as interested in this "growing" debate as yourself was indeed interested in evidence of God's existence you would certainly be aware of it if 1 was true.

I find you and your arguments to be completely disingenuous, at best, if you expect me believe 1 and 2 are false.  And if 1 and 2 were true we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:Again, agnosticism deals with whether you can know and how you can know it. If one says they know for certain that there is or isn't a God, they must demonstrate how they know that for certain and by what means they used to make a factual determination.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition "there is a God" due to not feeling you have a justification for believing it's the case.

To say that I don't know that X is the case or can be known to be the case is admitting that I don't have the factual /certain knowledge to make such a determination.

To say that I reject the claim that X is the case, or even likely to be the case, is to state that I have not yet seen reason to justify actively believing in the claim. 

By the same token, if one says the believe, they can do so while also admitting that they can't know 100% for sure what they're believing is indeed true, which many do.

You wrote, "Agnosticism has zero to do with what they believe and why they believe it."  Except your agnosticism affects your belief because you don't believe because of your agnosticism.  And if you had the evidence you were seeking you would no longer be agnostic or atheist.

Quote:By answering the questions posed, the answer to your question should be provided.

Do you have evidence to support your belief?  Yes or no?

Quote:I have no problem with that at all. Quite the contrary, I encourage it, by all. I don't get offended by questions, nor feel the need to tell others what questions they should or shouldn't ask, what topics of discussion they should be interested in or suggest that I know the intent behind people's curiosity or pursuits of dialogue with those of different perspectives.

If you encourage everyone to ask questions, why are you asking me why I'm asking you questions?  That makes no sense.