Soliciting Intellectually Honest Conversations...

[bluegreenearth]

I appreciate having productive and non-confrontational conversations with Christians about the reliability of the reasoning they use to justify their beliefs. The goal of these discussions is not to try and disprove or ridicule Christian beliefs but to honestly consider critical thinking questions about the method that was used to acquire these beliefs. So, I invite Christians to post one of their favorite theological claims along with a description of the method they use to justify belief in the specified claim. I also insist that anyone responding to those posts refrain from engaging in counter-apologetic arguments and ad hominem attacks. Instead, responses should be in the form of critical thinking questions regarding the Christian's specified reasoning process rather than the theological claim.

Note: If it is determined that a Christian's reasoning is unreliable, that result doesn't demonstrate the associated theological claim is false. However, that outcome should hopefully motivate the Christian to search for a more reliable reason to justify the specified belief. At the same time, having a reliable reason for holding a Christian belief does not demonstrate the associated theological claim is true. Nevertheless, having a reliable reason could at least serve as a justification for believing in the specified theological claim.

As an example, consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Christian: I believe Jesus is the one true God because it was only after becoming a Christian that I was able to recover from alcoholism.

Response: Are Christians the only people who recover from alcoholism? Are there Christians who don't recover from alcoholism?

Christian: People from a variety of religious backgrounds are known to recover from alcoholism, and there are also Christians who don't recover.

Response: What does that say about the reliability of your specified reason for belief in Jesus as the one true God?

Christian: As an intellectually honest person, I must acknowledge the specified reason is not very reliable. However, I still believe the claim is true.

Response: Is there another reason you use to justify this belief that we might examine together?

[William]

Not sure you posted this in the best sub-forum...but I will give it a go...I like this kind of thing.

The subject of communicating WITH "The Creator", which in Christian terms is oft referred to as "The Father" and The Father is oft imagined as the Hebrew God of many names - generally known of as "Yahweh" and "Jehovah".

As I understand it, IF there is a Creator of - specifically - the planet Earth and everything upon it, THEN there should be a way in which could be developed in order to provide something of evidence for that, which at least can be measured.

I have developed what I think is possibly such a way.

It has taken years of use to collect enough data to make the call for me as a subjective experiencee to be satisfied with the results that it is bona fide, especially when integrated with other seeming anomalies which serve to bolster the overall idea that, not only is there a Creator , but that the Creation itself is some kind of hologram simulation designed specifically to conceal that fact within it, from most consciousnesses who experience it.
Some eventually "find" themselves whilst within it, assisted by their resolve to uncover what is concealed.

As a Christian, I have also learned to far better understand the 'odd language' of Theology used to conceal -within the framework of mythology - ideas which point to this being the case.

We are in a serious game played on many levels.

[ttruscott]

As I understand it, IF there is a Creator of - specifically - the planet Earth and everything upon it, THEN there should be a way in which could be developed in order to provide something of evidence for that, which at least can be measured.

I submit this IF-THEN syllogism is not a logical conclusion of anything but only an unproven premise.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Please respond to William's post with relevant Socratic questions regarding the method he used to arrive at the specified belief. However, to be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure William described his method in that post.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 2 by William]

Please describe the reasoning you are using to justify belief in that particular theological claim.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 ]

bluegreenearth: Please describe the reasoning you are using to justify belief in that particular theological claim.

William: My reasoning is that observation in relation to subjective experience aligns with the data I am collecting regarding the experience.

The experience I am speaking of, is of course - subjective experience within an apparently objective reality.

The 'belief' - if that is what it might be called - is based upon the idea that IF there is a Creator of - specifically - the planet Earth and everything upon it, THEN there should be a way in which one could develop a method in order to provide something of evidence for that, which at least must be able to be measured.

IF this reality experience I am going through is a Creation of a Creators Mind, and is a simulation in which our minds can experience as real, THEN one should be able to develop ways in which to show that to be the case.

IF - on the other hand, there is no mind involved in the formation of what we call 'Reality' THEN - as a mindless accident with no Creator involved with it, there should be no such thing as 'coincidence' and apparent randomness should not be able to be seen as anything other than accidental.

bluegreenearth:However, to be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure William described his method in that post.

William: Yes. I have not as yet described my methods. I am simply describing the premise the methods are based on.

[William]

[Replying to post 3]

ttruscott: I submit this IF-THEN syllogism is not a logical conclusion of anything but only an unproven premise.

William: I agree that my main premise is unproven - specifically the overarching premise that We exist within a Creation which was Created by a Creator.
But I also submit that the unproven overarching premise should - at the very least - be able to be backed up with evidence from within the reality experience, which I think the OP is asking for...

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 6 by William]

How is a situation where we all possibly exist as minds within a simulation created by a creator different from the philosophical problem of solipsism which has no resolution?

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by ]

bluegreenearth:How is a situation where we all possibly exist as minds within a simulation created by a creator different from the philosophical problem of solipsism which has no resolution?

William: Not sure what you are referring to re "problem" - how does it matter if only - at the source of it all - that it is only the one being experiencing everything?

If a simulation affords the being a myriad of experience, how is that a philosophical problem?
What 'resolution' is required?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by ]

bluegreenearth:How is a situation where we all possibly exist as minds within a simulation created by a creator different from the philosophical problem of solipsism which has no resolution?

William: Not sure what you are referring to re "problem" - how does it matter if only - at the source of it all - that it is only the one being experiencing everything?

If a simulation affords the being a myriad of experience, how is that a philosophical problem?
What 'resolution' is required?

Just watching this conversation I have some questions for William:

Your original argument from post #2 you state:

As I understand it, IF there is a Creator of - specifically - the planet Earth and everything upon it, THEN there should be a way in which could be developed in order to provide something of evidence for that, which at least can be measured.

I have developed what I think is possibly such a way.

But then BlueGreenEarth points out that the philosophical problem of solipsism has no resolution.

I agree with BlueGreenEarth on this point.

You have stated that you believe that your theological hypothesis should be measurable. You even suggested that you have developed a possible way to measure this.

If that's the case, then you will indeed have "resolved" it.

So unless, and until, you can provide this resolution what exactly is it that you have to offer?

This is not intended to be a personal challenge for you to produce said method, but rather in the spirit of intellectual honesty do you have a resolution for this problem or not?

If you do, then perhaps the same resolution could be applied to Solipsism?

In fact, as BlueGreenEarth suggests, your proposal sounds very much like Solipsism. A single entity that is creating the entire illusion of many people having different experiences.

Thus far all I see is a claim to have a potential resolution but I don't see any actual resolution being proposed.

An ability to "measure" this would indeed be a resolution.

So in the interest of intellectual honesty can you share with us your resolution to this measurement problem?