Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Just to repeat what you actually said: "You will not get a logical answer from a christian if asked why they believe; for no logical answer exists."
I did explain quite logically why people believe. Now you are arguing whether what they believe is logical, and not whether the reason why they
believe is logical.
It was meant to show that belief isn't logical. If absolute proof is not part of the equation no amount of logical steps will make belief logical.
I agreed that the steps (by themselves) were logical. But that doesn't make why you believe logical.
That being said, taking the statement...
Evidence -> Burden of Proof -> Belief
How do you jump from Burden of Proof to Belief? Burden of Proof is not verifiable proof. Therefore the way you got to belief is not logical.
In context: "You will not get a logical answer from a christian if asked why they believe; for no logical answer exists."
I say to you quite plainly, I, as a Christian believe because the level of evidence I aquired met or surpassed my own personal "burden of proof".
I don't find the leap from burden of proof to belief logical. I don't find belief logical. Burden of proof is a logical step but not when going
directly to belief. When I reach burden of proof it goes to "more probable given personal experiences". Then there is more probable based on
personal and others' experiences. More probable based on visual evidence. Seeing that I can only see a small portion of the light spectrum even the
last statement isn't enough for complete belief.
You were not clarifying the context, you were adding to the context.
I did not add to the context. It was a general statement that you have not disproven. Again, I agreed that the steps given were logical. Given what
I know about your way of arguing I should've added "were logical by themselves" just as walking up the steps of a building is a logical step in
Placed in the context of society, an accurate statement would read: You will not get a logical answer from a christian if asked why they believe
because many/most have not logically considered why they believe.
It seems that your complaint is that I made the statement absolute. Fine, the statement shouldn't be absolute because there are always exceptions.
"Burden of Proof -> Belief" is not a logical jump. So the statement still stands.
Belief is what you attributed to it. I deal in relative probability. My posts do not represent belief. They represent different planes of
understanding based on the subject matter and the general audience.
www.m-w.com - belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
No trust or confidence is placed. Why would these be necessary? They are necessary if I want to get my car fixed and don't know how and don't feel
like learning. But I have all the faculties necessary to learn without placing trust or confidence in some person or thing. Granted, it's easier.
But it's not required.
That you chose a method of assigning probabilities to give your belief more structure is moot.
Your continued labelling of my thought process as belief does not make it so.
Defensive because they weren't rebuffed based on verifiable experience or evidence. It was based on feeling.
There are 3 ways of assigning probabilities. The classical approach, the relative frequency approach, and the subjective approach. You discount the
third as viable because it relies on personal judgement. But, personal judgement does not make it less viable, simply less verifiable.
But I do understand what you saying.
Who's 3 ways are these? I'm not necessarily being argumentive here just think about it? Are there only 3 ways? Are these 3 ways completely
correct? I'm responsible so I'm not going to take the chance believing it to be so. I may not follow everything up because it doesn't always
interest me. Doesn't mean I believe it.
It's all viable. Still doesn't make it logical. What if you find your belief is wrong? What if important things you need to know were left out or
twisted in some way? Would your belief allow you to see it? And there in lies my issue with belief. My issue is not with you or christians or
Actually, it is not off target. This one statement gives the rest of your argument the link between correlation and causation. If there were no other
cause, then the correlation is more likely to be the true cause.
In effect, you use a false premise to further obscure your "Correlation implies causation" fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).
Nice try. My experiences are not an argument. They are simply experiences. The first two paragraphs can be completely removed and nothing is taken
from it. Try it.
When it was noted that my experiences didn't hold outside the U.S., I asked for clarification. I've yet to see a post that gives the steps of a
Also to note, you failed to take into account Roman Catholic Mass, which from my memory does not fit your model and Roman Catholics account for more
than half of the Christians.
I didn't fail. I've never attended mass. Therefore, I can't give a first hand account. You have failed to provide your personal experiences in a
church service. If you've gone to any why not give your personal experience to give a contrast to mine?