Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

stuartcr wrote:"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.

stuartcr wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

stuartcr wrote:"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.

I was actually asking you to tell me who you believe determines the difference.

Again, how is this justification determined?

stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.

Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.

Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

Then using that same reason, at least one of us is wrong. But everyone has the same evidence to go by. Maybe one of us isn't seeing all the evidence. Maybe we both see the same evidence, but one of us doesn't understand it.

Of course, I'd submit that if your belief in God isn't along the lines of this, then your belief is wrong.

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Not at all. What happens when one person's pisteuō differs from anothers? How is justification determined??

I'm not sure I'm following you. Pisteuō has a meaning. It's trust based on evidence or reason. Not blind trust.

Otherwise,

I'm not getting what your point is.

Yes, trust based on evidence or reason. What happens when 2 people interpret the same evidence or reason differently? My belief in God is different than yours, but we both base our belief on different evidence or reason and we both trust in our evidence and reasoning.

Then using that same reason, at least one of us is wrong. But everyone has the same evidence to go by. Maybe one of us isn't seeing all the evidence. Maybe we both see the same evidence, but one of us doesn't understand it.

Of course, I'd submit that if your belief in God isn't along the lines of this, then your belief is wrong.

I will avoid the obvious, by not asking for proof that I am wrong. I do not believe that God presents the same evidence to each of us.

stuartcr wrote:Would you mind explaining to me in lay terms why this evidence is the same for everyone?

stuartcr wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

stuartcr wrote:"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.

I was actually asking you to tell me who you believe determines the difference.

Again, how is this justification determined?

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

You might want to cool down.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up PN relating to science. I questioned that and asked for one example. In the topic you referenced from 2 years ago, I (and PerciFlage) asked basically the same important and relevant question multiple times, without you addressing the question. Show one use of PN for establishing or inhibiting any finding in any field of science.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

Not sure to whom you're addressing - I'm not an atheist.

In any event, I already had a draft to your things-that-you-believe question. But you first placed PN and science together on the "table" in this topic. And with my being stupid and all, adding another item on the "table" to think about would be too complicated for me.

I don't believe anyone is truly Atheist, so you can call yourself Agnostic, Atheist-Agnostic, weak Atheist, or unsure...
Your "Pastafarianism" and higher than thou scientific pretence insults my intelligence and is therefore extremely off-putting.
That, Morny, is uncharitable stupidity. If that's you being stupid, then that's a connection you've made.

Treat me and my beliefs as stupid and with disdain and disrespect, and I'll do the same.
ABL and others may take it (and I'm not really just talking about you here), but I will not.
That's all I want to say really.

RickD wrote:

stuartcr wrote:Would you mind explaining to me in lay terms why this evidence is the same for everyone?

This link shows it in argument form from logic.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... alysis.htm

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

You might want to cool down.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up PN relating to science. I questioned that and asked for one example. In the topic you referenced from 2 years ago, I (and PerciFlage) asked basically the same important and relevant question multiple times, without you addressing the question. Show one use of PN for establishing or inhibiting any finding in any field of science.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

Not sure to whom you're addressing - I'm not an atheist.

In any event, I already had a draft to your things-that-you-believe question. But you first placed PN and science together on the "table" in this topic. And with my being stupid and all, adding another item on the "table" to think about would be too complicated for me.

I don't believe anyone is truly Atheist, so you can call yourself Agnostic, Atheist-Agnostic, weak Atheist, or unsure...
Your "Pastafarianism" and higher than thou scientific pretence insults my intelligence and is therefore extremely off-putting.
That, Morny, is uncharitable stupidity. If that's you being stupid, then that's a connection you've made.

Treat me and my beliefs as stupid and with disdain and disrespect, and I'll do the same.
ABL and others may take it (and I'm not really just talking about you here), but I will not.
That's all I want to say really.

Now you're pouting? There's no pouting in baseball or science.

Methodological Naturalism along with the Scientific Method is by far the most reliable tool we have for understanding the natural world. Science textbooks are replete with examples, and devoid of counterexamples.

If you or Plantinga have something better for correcting or adding to science textbooks, give one example, just one. Otherwise, hand-waving only provides evidence in the minds of those doing the hand-waving.

You were doing well explaining the EAAN
I dare say that you still do not get Plantinga's argument.

Palntinga neither says one way or another whether our cognitive faculties are reliable??
It also doesn't matter that you or I think we're correct in our opinion whether or not we have beliefs correct or not.

If you lay out the argument in formal logic, then that would be better I think.
Then you can say which premise you disagree with, and why... rather than talking off-the-cuff if you will.
It'd certainly make whatever your argument is more clear. Because right now, I'm scratching my head [about your refutation, if one is being offered or merely side commentary?].