Would you pay a tax to ISIS to keep your life?

[Traditio]

There is no objective evidence one way or another. So all we have to make the determination of subjective experience. Which is a perfectly reasonable method of determining what to believe, barring objective evidence.

Perfectly reasonable method? It's wholly unreasonable and someone would consider himself utterly foolish for saying such things about absolutely any other case.

"I have no evidence to tell me whether my wife is making pot roast for dinner or not. I really hope she is making pot roast. Believing that she is making pot roast would really make my day go a whole lot better. I believe that she is making pot roast."

The fact that believing that one's wife is making pot roast would make one's day go a whole lot better is not evidence that she is actually making pot roast.

There is no such thing as "subjective evidence." Once again, speculative truth is an adequation or likening of the mind to reality. It's making what we think conform to what actually is the case. "Subjective evidence" might actually be a contradiction of terms.

And you are wrong that there is no objective evidence. There is objective probable evidence based upon which it is not unreasonable to have faith. These are:

1. The eye-witness testimony and teachings handed down to us by the bishops of the Catholic Church, of which there is an unbroken succession from the time of Jesus even to the present day.

2. The Magisterial Teaching of the Church

3. The Scriptures

Ultimately, 3 and 2 depend upon 1, which constitutes at least some degree of probable evidence (personally, I think that the degree of probability is at least "slighter more likely than not"). Nonetheless, once 1 is accepted, 2 and 3 must be accepted and extend our knowledge.

This is why I say that protestants have poor evidence in favor of their doctrines. I didn't say "no" evidence; I said "poor" evidence. They have a book. The fact that the book says that Jesus said and did these things, even by itself, is at least prima facie reason to believe that he said and did those things. But then, if someone read Harry Potter without an understanding of the historical context in which it was written, he would have prima facie evidence...

Also, we humans are capable of holding more than one idea at a time. (At least I am.) So I can remain aware that I simply don't know if God exists, while choosing to believe that a God of my understanding does exist. Especially when doing so works for me.

I am absolutely certain that God exists (vis-a-vis Thomistic metaphysics). That tells me virtually about the truth of Christianity.

I believe "X" because believing "X" works, and there is no evidence to believe otherwise. It's perfectly reasonable.

It's fallacious. You're arguing ad ignorantiam.

What facts? There are no objective facts about Jesus. We can't even be certain he existed.

If that's what you think, then your belief in Christianity is utterly foolish. There is no objective evidence available to me whether there is a tea cup orbiting jupiter. How silly would it be if I asserted, rather emphatically, that I believe that there is? The practical presumption is that there isn't.

There is none to be had. So it becomes a matter of faith.

Faith is always in an authority, the testimony of which constitutes at least some degree of objective evidence. I have faith that my mother is not lying to me when she says that she gave birth to me. I have faith that the persons who wrote my birth certificate were not in error when they wrote down the names, dates, etc.

Likewise, I have faith in the testimony of the Catholic bishops, in the credibility of the eye witnesses, the testimony of whom has been preserved by the succession of Catholic bishops, etc. This belief is corroborated, let us note, by the fact that the Catholic mass has been celebrated for roughly the past 2000 years.

As St. Augustine says: Unless the Catholic bishops, with their unbroken succession, had commanded me to believe, I would not have faith in Jesus Christ or in the gospel.

You foolishly have faith in your own authority. Well, let me tell you. You shouldn't. You have none. Your claims are even less credible than the claims of the muslim "prophet," who asserted that God revealed to him x, y and z about Jesus.

 

[PureX]

Originally Posted by PureX:

There is no objective evidence one way or another. So all we have to make the determination is our subjective experience. Which is a perfectly reasonable method of determining what to believe, barring objective evidence.

Perfectly reasonable method? It's wholly unreasonable and someone would consider himself utterly foolish for saying such things about absolutely any other case.

I really wish you would think before you respond to my posts. Because this "reaction" is blatantly automatic and unconsidered. C'mon, you can do better than this!

"I have no evidence to tell me whether my wife is making pot roast for dinner or not. I really hope she is making pot roast. Believing that she is making pot roast would really make my day go a whole lot better. I believe that she is making pot roast."

Do you really think the question of whether or not a woman is making a pot roast is analogous to the question of the existence of God? First of all, the pot roast is an object that can be objectively verified. God is an idea that cannot be objectively verified. Secondly, even as an idea, the pot roast can be objectively defined, while even as an idea, God can only be subjectively defined. So I would like to know on what basis you imagined that a pot roast and God are even remotely analogous. Because otherwise, it's clear to me that you gave no thought whatever to this choice of analogy, except that you figured the absurdity of it would somehow reflect on me, instead of back on you.

The fact that believing that one's wife is making pot roast would make one's day go a whole lot better is not evidence that she is actually making pot roast.

Believing that probably would make one's day better if one really liked her pot roast. But what you're failing to recognize is that I can call her to find out what she's making for dinner. I can call her to suggest that she make a pot roast. And I can surrender the hope of a pot roast upon discovering that no pot roast will be forthcoming. Because the pot roast is an object that i can objectively verify.

Now, imagine that the pot roast were not an object that could be verified. And that would never objectively manifest in my reality in any other way but through my imaging it, and hoping for it. And yet my doing so would still brighten my day. Then why not imagine it, and hope for it, anyway? After all, there is no evidence that it will not manifest, and after all, imagining that it will does make my day a better day. The hope itself is what makes the day better, and there is no reason not to hope, in this case. So why do you think it's NOT reasonable to hope in this case? Either answer this question logically and reasonably, or … admit that you can't, and shut up.

There is no such thing as "subjective evidence."

Of course there is. Maybe you need to go look up the definition of "evidence", because if you do, you will see that personal experience is considered to be "evidence" by a great many people. In fact, a lot of people even go so far as to call it "knowledge". And personal experience is subjective.

Once again, speculative truth is an adequation or likening of the mind to reality. It's making what we think conform to what actually is the case. "Subjective evidence" might actually be a contradiction of terms.

Only in your own confused mind. The rest of us have no problem accepting our personal experience of an idea applied to reality as "evidence" for the truth of reality. Your really big mistake is that you don't understand the difference between reality, and what you think is real. Once you understand that these are not the same, and that they never will be, you will realize the "subjective evidence" is all you ever really get. "Objectivity" is the illusion.

And you are wrong that there is no objective evidence. There is objective probable evidence based upon which it is not unreasonable to have faith. These are:

1. The eye-witness testimony and teachings handed down to us by the bishops of the Catholic Church, of which there is an unbroken succession from the time of Jesus even to the present day.

This doesn't exist. There are no eye-witness testimonies to Jesus life. None. Nada. Zippo. There are only copies of the story, and we don't know who wrote the original, or who wrote the copies, or how many missing copies there were in between. That's it.

2. The Magisterial Teaching of the Church

All interpretations based on all sorts of agendas.

3. The Scriptures

Same.

Ultimately, 3 and 2 depend upon 1, …

Which doesn't actually exist.

Nonetheless, once 1 is accepted, 2 and 3 must be accepted and extend our knowledge.

Yes, but there are no eye-witness testimonies to Jesus' life, words, or deeds, that we know of. There are only copies of the story. And most stories read like "eye-witness" accounts, but aren't, really. So we have no reason to assume this story is any different.

I am absolutely certain that God exists (vis-a-vis Thomistic metaphysics). That tells me virtually about the truth of Christianity.

Human certainty is a classic contradiction in terminology. Because we cannot logically be absolutely certain of anything, and certainty by definition implies the absolute. So all we're really saying that we're "relatively certain", which is clearly self-contradictory.

If that's what you think, then your belief in Christianity is utterly foolish. There is no objective evidence available to me whether there is a tea cup orbiting jupiter. How silly would it be if I asserted, rather emphatically, that I believe that there is? The practical presumption is that there isn't.

Then why ARE you emphatically asserting that God exists, when you have no objective evidence that God exists. You are arguing against yourself.

I clearly admit that I do not know that God exists. I simply choose to believe that God does exist, because I can. And I can choose to believe it because there is no objective evidence to the contrary, and because there is SUBJECTIVE evidence (for me) that believing in God works well for me in my experience of life. So I choose to do what works for me.

Faith is always in an authority, the testimony of which constitutes at least some degree of objective evidence.

If I had objective evidence that God exists, I wouldn't need faith … because I'd have evidence.

I have faith that my mother is not lying to me when she says that she gave birth to me. I have faith that the persons who wrote my birth certificate were not in error when they wrote down the names, dates, etc.

But you also have plenty of objective evidence that these things are true. So you don't really need much faith to trust that evidence. Do you.

Likewise, I have faith in the testimony of the Catholic bishops, in the credibility of the eye witnesses, the testimony of whom has been preserved by the succession of Catholic bishops, etc. This belief is corroborated, let us note, by the fact that the Catholic mass has been celebrated for roughly the past 2000 years.

Except that there is no objective evidence to back up their assertions, as there are the assertions of your mother. So you do need more faith to believe them. OR, you just irrationally pretend they have objective evidence. Which is apparently what you're doing.

You foolishly have faith in your own authority.

I really couldn't care less about anyone's presumptions of "authority". Not even my own. What I respect is my own autonomy, which I will not willingly cede to any human "authority". Especially not any that has no objective evidence to substantiate their claim of authorization!

Well, let me tell you. You shouldn't. You have none. Your claims are even less credible than the claims of the muslim "prophet," who asserted that God revealed to him x, y and z about Jesus.

And you have put your faith in a religious pretense of "authority", not in God. Which is why you have to argue with people like me; to maintain that pretense.

 

[Traditio]

I really wish you would think before you respond to my posts. Because this "reaction" is blatantly automatic and unconsidered. C'mon, you can do better than this!

Simply think about what you are saying. What you are saying is that if there is no objective evidence (i.e., mentally independent reality which points to some given state of affairs being real or being the case or being true), then we should be able to decide for ourselves, based on our own whim, what we want to be true.

That's just stupid. In such a case, the appropriate thing to do, speculatively speaking, is to suspend judgment.

Do you really think the question of whether or not a woman is making a pot roast is analogous to the question of the existence of God?

Why do you insist on conflating the Christian faith with the simple belief that God exists? They are completely different things. The Jew believes in the One God. He is not a Christian.

First of all, the pot roast is an object that can be objectively verified. God is an idea that cannot be objectively verified.

The existence of God can be "verified" through philosophical reasoning. I'd like to point out, before you object, that you probably simply don't know enough to reply to this. Your education is in art. Just saying.

Recommended reading:

On Being and Essence by St. Thomas Aquinas
An Elementary Christian Metaphysics by Fr. Joseph Owens.

Secondly, even as an idea, the pot roast can be objectively defined, while even as an idea, God can only be subjectively defined.

I'm not entirely sure what those words mean, but whatever you mean, I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. We can say, e.g., "By 'God,' let us understand the first efficient cause of all finite beings." Once we have established a definition, even putatively, it has ceased to be "subjective."

It makes little sense to say: "I feel like there should be such a thing, and therefore there is." Er, no. Either there is such a thing or there isn't, and this is true independently of what you think.

So I would like to know on what basis you imagined that a pot roast and God are even remotely analogous.

This is a massive red herring. I wasn't talking about the existence of God. This simply isn't at issue.

Believing that probably would make one's day better if one really liked her pot roast. But what you're failing to recognize is that I can call her to find out what she's making for dinner. I can call her to suggest that she make a pot roast. And I can surrender the hope of a pot roast upon discovering that no pot roast will be forthcoming. Because the pot roast is an object that i can objectively verify.

We can alter the image any way you like. Suppose that you have absolutely no way of knowing or checking until you get home. That doesn't change the fact that it's utterly silly to attempt to determine whether or not some state of affairs is true or is the case or is real simply because of your personal preferences.

That's not how reality works. You're not God. The world doesn't revolve around you, PureX. That's a fact, jack.

Now, imagine that the pot roast were not an object that could be verified. And that would never objectively manifest in my reality in any other way but through my imaging it, and hoping for it. And yet my doing so would still brighten my day. Then why not imagine it, and hope for it, anyway?

It's one thing to say: "I hope that there is pot roast."

It's another thing to say: "It would be good for me if there were pot roast; therefore, I shall believe that there is pot roast."

The former might be reasonable. The latter is just ridiculous. You can't make up reality by fiat.

After all, there is no evidence that it will not manifest, and after all, imagining that it will does make my day a better day. The hope itself is what makes the day better, and there is no reason not to hope, in this case. So why do you think it's NOT reasonable to hope in this case? Either answer this question logically and reasonably, or … admit that you can't, and shut up.

You've changed the terms of discussion. I'm not talking about "hoping." I'm talking about "believing." I might very well have grounds to hope (albeit in a very vague and weak sense) that there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter. I have no grounds to believe that there is such a teacup.

Of course there is. Maybe you need to go look up the definition of "evidence", because if you do, you will see that personal experience is considered to be "evidence" by a great many people. In fact, a lot of people even go so far as to call it "knowledge". And personal experience is subjective.

Possible equivocation on "experience." You have absolutely no personal experience (in the sense that an eye witness has personal experience) which testifies to the truth of Christianity insofar as it is an historical fact.

Only in your own confused mind. The rest of us have no problem accepting our personal experience of an idea applied to reality as "evidence" for the truth of reality. Your really big mistake is that you don't understand the difference between reality, and what you think is real. Once you understand that these are not the same, and that they never will be, you will realize the "subjective evidence" is all you ever really get. "Objectivity" is the illusion.

No, no. PureX. You are the one who are confusing "reality" with "what I think is reality," and you are compounding this error with modern solipsism.

In point of fact, I am quite sure, e.g., that I am sitting in front of my computer at the moment (pace Descartes).

This doesn't exist. There are no eye-witness testimonies to Jesus life. None. Nada. Zippo.

Were the Apostles eye witnesses? How about St. Paul (not directly of Jesus' life prior to the ascension; nonetheless, still, in some sense, he was a certain kind of "eye" witness)?

If you say "no," then I'll tell you that your "Christianity" is an ahistorical fable of your own imagination. Your Jesus never existed. The mystery of the Incarnation is this: God, becoming a man, took on the limitations of space and time. He entered, qua man, into temporal, sensible, physical reality. (Thus the reason that I can't help but be perplexed by your insistence on talking about the existence of God instead of what's peculiar to Christianity, i.e., the belief in the Incarnate Word.)

If you say "yes," then I'll tell you that the apostles were the first bishops of the Catholic Church, and that the subsequent bishops have handed on their witness from them to their successors, and so forth and so on, even to the present day.

You wish to contest this? Then show me a point in time in between the apostles and the present day in which there were not bishops of the Church, or in which there was the opinion that the existence of Catholic bishops was something novel.

Hint: you can't.

Again, show me, I say, some point in time in between the first apostles and the present day in which the Catholic mass either did not exist or otherwise was considered something novel.

Again, hint: you can't.

All of that is probable evidence in favor of what I am saying.

Human certainty is a classic contradiction in terminology. Because we cannot logically be absolutely certain of anything

Are you certain of that?

I could answer the rest of your post, but it's just more of the same, and I feel as though what I've said already suffices. If this is not the case, feel free to repost any unanswered points of debate. :idunno: