Contrary evidence

@divegeester said
Kellyjay, defend from whom?

Anyone you make the claim, it is your claim, your words, your thoughts, not mine.

@kellyjay said
Anyone you make the claim, it is your claim, your words, your thoughts, not mine.

He must "defend" his belief from "anyone"?

You don't do that.

@kellyjay said
Anyone you make the claim, it is your claim, your words, your thoughts, not mine.

But no one is challenging my claim so there is no need to defend it, is there?

Do you feel that you need to defend your claims from “anyone”?

@bigdogg said Let's say, a voice said, "BigDogg, I grow tired of your skepticism. Let us see how you explain THIS!" and next thing I know, I was teleported to a faraway city on top of a very tall building, and allowed to walk around and see, touch and smell that I really was in that environment, and not dreaming.

I think that would make me much more open to supernatural possibilities.

I'm a late comer to contrary evidence, and I do my best coming during REM sleep, when it comes to dreaming. But are you really convinced that you are awake, to begin with? Bodily senses, all 5 of them, can be deceiving of themselves. People have been known to dream that they were awake during the process of dreaming. Perhaps we are all dreaming our lives away. There is a difference between a skeptic and a cynic. For the true, and diehard cynics, no amount of evidence will ever convince because they will always invent for themselves some other excuse for not wanting to believing what they refuse to believe.

Quoting: "A question which I think that you must often have heard persons
ask:–How can you determine whether at this moment we are sleeping, and
all our thoughts are a dream; or whether we are awake, and talking to one
another in the waking state?"

@fmf said
As for "evidence that might cause [me] to reconsider", it would be something that demonstrated that believers in the Abrahamic God were more morally sound in their actions than those who don't believe in the Abrahamic God.

It's not relative to the evidence, since the Hebrews were represented as a stiff-necked people, who, in general, would not do as commanded, by the morally based 10 big ones. But since the Hebrews were chosen, as a sample, from the total human race population, it's no wonder that humans, in general, are represented as being not morally motivated, instinctively. Because, instinctively, some "good" evidence has been presented on Evolution, and the survival of the fittest....me first, you second. The similar moral codes are common to all, and not just to the Chosen ones. The "Abrahamic" God is represented as the God and judge for all, in the end. But, as clearly seen today, it's still the same old same....no general justice for the weak, the poor, the orphan, the widow, the defenseless. We are all, generally speaking, stiff-necked and looking out for number one, "me," the survival of our ego, and at the cost of other egos, if need be.

The biblical Exodus is a literal representation of God's displeasure with human physical bondage by other humans. God, as our only Master, is the ulterior literal representation. What does God want from any of us? What can we possibly give God that he already does not have? Recognition! That's the name of this game of life, and which we are, collectively, dreaming.

@fmf said
Please show me how a mindless, goalless, uncaring process that could do all of this through chance and necessity.

Aside from finding out if your belief is true or false when you die, what evidence might cause you to reconsider it while still living?

You probably like to look at belly-dancers, I'll bet.

Your proposition on finding out is half true, and half false. When the scarecrow dies, and there is nothing beyond physical death, he will not be able to establish the false. But if there is something in the beyond, he will, indeed find out that it is true, in deeds. He'll have you, in deed, dead to rights.

You must not be familiar with the eternal dilemma of not being able to prove what is false. Although it is said, "can't prove a negative." Which, this too is false, logically speaking. When absolute proof cannot be given, then we must think on or feet, and stand on a more stable argument.

Quoting a wise head: "Why, my dear boy, you are young, and therefore your ear is quickly caught and your mind influenced by popular arguments. Protagoras, or some one speaking on his behalf, will doubtless say in reply,–Good people, young and old, you meet and harangue, and bring in the gods, whose existence or non-existence I banish from writing and speech, or you talk about the reason of man being degraded to the level of the brutes, which is a telling argument with the multitude, but not one word of proof or demonstration do you offer. All is probability with you, and yet surely you and Theodorus had better reflect whether you are disposed to admit of probability and figures of speech in matters of such importance. He or any other mathematician who argued from probabilities and likelihoods in geometry, would not be worth an ace.

@bigdogg said
Who here is actually open to evidence that contradicts their current beliefs?

If you are, please give an example of one current belief you hold, and the evidence that might cause you to reconsider.

I'll start. I currently do not believe in the supernatural. However, I believe I would convinced otherwise if something naturally impossible was done. Let's say, a voice said ...[text shortened]... nment, and not dreaming.

I think that would make me much more open to supernatural possibilities.

Who here is actually open to evidence that contradicts their current beliefs?

If you are, please give an example of one current belief you hold, and the evidence that might cause you to reconsider.


I am very much "open" to evidence that contradicts their current beliefs. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that contradicts my current beliefs.

Example: With all the wars, murders, famine, and shady dealings in the world, how can Christians make a case that God is a "loving" God?" I've reconsidered these things many times and have concluded that God is allowing these things to happen for a reason, and that reason is NOT for us to know at this time. As scripture says:

For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Corinthians 13:12-13 King James

To “see through a glass, darkly” is to have a distorted or incomplete perception of reality. The phrase is taken from the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who emphasizes that while we do not currently see clearly, we will do so at the end of time.

Just another example of something we must take on faith...

@pettytalk said
The biblical Exodus is a literal representation of God's displeasure with human physical bondage by other humans.

I don't believe this.

@pettytalk said
Your proposition on finding out is half true, and half false. When the scarecrow dies, and there is nothing beyond physical death, he will not be able to establish the false. But if there is something in the beyond, he will, indeed find out that it is true, in deeds. He'll have you, in deed, dead to rights.

KellyJay believes that there is life after death.

I believe death is the end.

So, KellyJay often asserts - in discursive desparation, because he only has ancient Hebrew mythology to go on - that I will find out that he was right all along when I die.

I believe that death will be the end for the both of us and we won't be conscious of having found out anything. We will simply be dead.

@pettytalk said
You must not be familiar with the eternal dilemma of not being able to prove what is false. Although it is said, "can't prove a negative." Which, this too is false, logically speaking. When absolute proof cannot be given, then we must think on or feet, and stand on a more stable argument.

I am not trying "to prove what is false". I am simply talking about what I am not convinced of.

Feel free "to think on your feet, and stand on a more stable argument" that makes whatever it is you believe [or don't believe] convincing.

@pettytalk said
What does God want from any of us? What can we possibly give God that he already does not have? Recognition!

If by "God", you mean a creator entity - if there is one - I don't see any persuasive evidence that he "wants" anything.

More broadly, I don't see any persuasive evidence that it helps to us in our understanding of the universe - and all its contents - if we insist on anthropomorphize such an entity.

@divegeester said
There is also zero evidence that the book called the bible is the complete, exclusive and inherent word of God.

We are probably incapable of determining that absolutely, but otherwise I agree.

@pettytalk said
You probably like to look at belly-dancers, I'll bet.

How so?

@fmf said
He must "defend" his belief from "anyone"?

You don't do that.

KellyJay is clearly the Saint Sebastian of this sub-forum.

Why do you, FMF, and your lesser half Dive continue to fire your little verbal barbs at KellyJay, a devout practitioner of Christianity?

Is it because if you tried that with Muslims you might be risking your lives?

Cowards.

@fmf said

I believe death is the end.

You had better hope that it is.