Comments on: Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence

By: A month at The Aristophrenium : thoughts out !oud

A month at The Aristophrenium : thoughts out !oud — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:25:43 +0000

[...] Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence ~ David (Ryft) [...]

By: Rick Baskett

Rick Baskett — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:31:58 +0000

My point was that there comes a time where once all the evidence is piled up for both world views that you need to make a choice, a “step”, into that world view. Both can not be proven without a shadow of a doubt.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:11:00 +0000

Rick:rnrnThis probably isn’t the correct thread, but I can give you some recommendations if you want to get better acquainted with evolution. For essays there’s “On Being the Right Size” by J. B. S. Haldane, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” by Stephen Jay Gould, and “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” by Theodosius Dobzhansky (which is a classic). All can be found easily with Google.rnrnBut if you want the evidence for evolution, and if you don’t want to buy books, there’s talk.origins, which I heartily recommend (I spent several days there in my HS years).rnrnAlthough if you want evolution demonstrated to you, alas, it takes too long. Way longer than the average human life-span.

By: Rene Mulder

Rene Mulder — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:52:14 +0000

I think step is a better word for it, because 'leap' might suggest you don't know what you're getting into, but here it goes anyway. With Christianity, you should know what you're getting into, seeing how you can read it in the Bible.

Sometimes evidence comes before a choice, and sometimes a choice comes before the evidence. It always begins with hearing the message.

By: Duane

Duane — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:26:02 +0000

I don't know if you meant that as a rhetorical question, but perhaps this thread is a little too abstract for discussing something as specific as evolutionary proofs? It's Ryft's post though, so if he wants to allow that diversion I guess it's up to him.

By: Rick Baskett

Rick Baskett — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:51:47 +0000

Faith is based on evidence. Maybe leap was a bad word.. step is better? Prove to me that macroevolution is true, please demonstrate it for me?

By: Rene Mulder

Rene Mulder — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:08:35 +0000

I think I get what you're saying. I don't think the leap of faith is true for everyone either. There are many ways that might lead one to a certain belief, there is no one way, which is what we see in the Bible. In the case of Christianity, it's not a special trick that works for everyone, it's usually very personal and always adequate.

We believe that God knows what people need. He can see in our hearts and minds, and knows our thoughts as well as the thoughts behind our thoughts. The thoughts behind our thoughts can betray us, and God will always find the truth. So even when we say "I'll do this when God proves Himself doing that", if there is an impure thought behind that thought, it's not likely going to happen. It's not real.

Knowing this, people are not likely to come to belief because what they think will convince them, but rather what God KNOWS will convince them.

I myself have been forced to go to church during my younger years, but I did not receive my personal adequate "evidence" untill a year and a half ago. (am 25 this year)

I believe God knew what I needed to convince me, and He gave that to me. :) My faith has never been stronger than it is today.

I think everyone has a personal obstacle that might keep them from seeing the truth (about anything really, not just religion). The obstacle needs to be shattered first, if that doesn't happen, you can hear the truth a thousand times, it'll never hit its target.

That's what I think anyway.

By: Hermiene

Hermiene — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:56:37 +0000

Rick:

I'm on board with you when it comes to evidence for or against God being a matter of probability. As for the leap of faith, I don't think atheists need to take a leap at all. If we visualize the metaphor as two people standing at the edge of a chasm, you seem to think that the rock they're standing on is crumbling, and they need to take a leap of faith either to the close rock of theism, or the equally close rock of atheism before the foundation crumbles. I think the foundation is pretty solid, and if a leap is to be taken at all, it is “towards” Christianity. (That's all assuming that it IS a leap of faith at all, which I don't think is necessarily true of all Christians.)

By: Rick Baskett

Rick Baskett — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:38:46 +0000

Hi Hermiene, Im not an atheist, but I would go about the process of trying to explain something the same way that you outlined. I think the big difference is that just because I tripped over a tiny rock in the street and barely missed getting hit by a bus and could explain it away it doesn't mean that there wasn't a supernatural force involved in that whole event. It doesn't mean that there was either, but I don't count it out right off the bat just because I can explain it away.

I do think that's an excellent question to begin with, what WOULD be good evidence? I've gone back and forth and looked at evidence, looked at the arguments, and Im realizing there is not going to be 100% evidence for God or against God. There is a leap that needs to be done on both sides of the camp. I personally believe that there is a God due to the evidence that I have seen. Can I prove it without a shadow of a doubt.. no I can't, just like there is no proof without a shadow of a doubt against God. It comes down to.. what WOULD be good enough evidence to be an atheist or to believe in God? Great question that every person needs to answer for themselves.

By: Hermiene

Hermiene — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:36:52 +0000

This is something I've thought about a lot (I'm an atheist, by the way).

To start on a slightly digressive preamble, my father and my (crazy, in my opinion) uncle (who is a Jehovah's Witness) often discuss religious topics, and once when I was very little and overheard one such discussion, I jumped in and wanted to know from my uncle why God didn't reveal Himself if He wanted us to believe in him. "Why doesn't God just levitate this bottle on the table?" I innocently inquired.

That was then. At the time I obviously didn't know about David Hume, but if I'd known a little about him and his philosophy I would have cited him. Moses had a visit from God in the form of a burning bush that wasn't consumed by the flames, but I actually don't think I would be convinced by levitating bottles, or writings on the wall (ahem...), or burning bushes. For one thing, first I'd have to be sure that it couldn't be explained by natural phenomena. If I'd failed to do that, and if, further, I could find no evidence of someone putting on a hoax, then I'd have to seriously consider if I were hallucinating (which could be a very real possibility).

I must admit that I haven't given much thought to what WOULD be good evidence. I call myself an atheist because it simply is true that I don't believe in gods, in this point in time. (I'll probably be an atheist tomorrow, and for the rest of my life, but who knows?)