BibleForums Christian Message Board

Quote from: CadyandZoe on July 03, 2022, 11:38:53 AM

What is abductive reasoning?

It's what most people think of when they think of Sherlock Holmes, despite thinking that they're thinking of deduction. Or maybe they are, but probably they're not.

This goes back to the epistemic difficulty I raised earlier: abduction only gets us so far, and then, how do you distinguish between God and godlike aliens?

Where else in everyday human experience to we use abductive reasoning? Hint: the process can be a life or death decision.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 29, 2022, 03:06:48 PM

Quote from: Fenris on June 28, 2022, 09:13:18 PM

By "rational" you mean "people who think like me". And yet you don't know how other people think.

What I mean is this. Those who deny what is self-evident chose to do so for reasons other than a love of the truth.

What is "self evident" to you isn't self evident to other people.

What you're saying here is that anyone who disagrees with you is motivated by bad intentions.

I will admit that what I see is not often seen by others. That is true. However, as it pertains to things that are "self-evident", by definition such things stand without proof. Such things are fundamental and foundational and taken for granted. If such things are not evident to other people, the cause is subjective. Some people are motivated, in certain cases, to deny what rationality delivers.

In the NT, (and the Hebrew scriptures) belief is the conviction of the truth of a proposition. But contrary to modern notions of "faith" belief in a proposition is not conviction without proof. Our culture has redefined "faith" or "belief" in terms of some extra-rational process, akin to imagination with a bit of wishful thinking added. But "faith" as the Bible understands it, is accepting as true what our rationality delivers to us.

A man might say, "I don't need proof, I accept the Bible on faith" as if "faith" was another way of knowing. I contend that the NT, and the Hebrew scriptures would not recognize such nonsense. Another man might argue, "Your belief in Jesus Christ is based on your faith (the result of extra-rationality.) And for this reason, it can't be disproven." But this conclusion is based on a faulty premise, i.e. that "faith" is an extrarational function of the brain working with an irrational desire for something to be true. In other words, faith is the result of subjectivity, without any basis outside the mind.

I maintain that the concept above is foreign to the Bible and to the faith we believe. Our faith is based on objective truth. And it can be proven using abductive reasoning.

Quote from: The Parson on June 28, 2022, 08:13:37 AM

And without faith it's impossible to please God.

I think that depends on your religion.

It has nothing to do with religion. Do you think God is impressed with religion?

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 28, 2022, 04:02:40 PM

Hebrews 11:1 isn't a definition of faith as many suppose. Rather, Paul is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of the thing hoped for, the thing unseen. What what is unseen? God's approval. In other words, they can gain confidence in what they can't see: i.e. God's approval, based on what they CAN see: i.e. their own faith in action. Paul exhorts them to not throw that confidence away, since all they lack is endurance. As proof of this, Paul forms a list of people for whom God explicitly expressed his approval due to their faith. If I have faith, i.e. if I believe what he says and put that into practice, I can have confidence of his approval even if he doesn't make it explicit in my particular case.

Christians have been tricked into thinking that faith is "believing what can't be proved", which is not true. That definition of faith is foreign to the Bible. Faith is giving mental ascent to a truth claim. That's it.

You've gone through some minor effort to correct a misunderstanding I haven't offered, but I suppose that's why I answered in five words or so. I've noticed that you like to "well, actually...". I'm almost tempted to discuss the definition you've provided but what could I possibly say to someone who seems to ask only rhetorical questions?

I realise this comes across a bit harsh. I'm confused as to why you responded as you did, in assuming that I was offering a popular misunderstanding. I didn't put much effort into my response for the reason already stated, but given that you seem reasonably clever I would have thought that by pointing to an example of faith the definition would be implied (or at least, no one is going to read and then simply stop at Hebrews 11:1 and go no further). Faith is more than merely giving "mental ascent"<sic>, but that is part of it.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 28, 2022, 04:02:40 PM

I don't understand what you are saying about babies.

What do you think I might be saying?

That faith is more than mental assent. It isn't.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 28, 2022, 10:58:45 AM

How do you define "faith"? How is it not compelling? What do mean?

We could stick with Hebrews 11:1, and the 'it' that is not definitively compelling is reason alone.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 28, 2022, 10:58:45 AM

Paul argues that the existence of God is what our rationality delivers to us. He says God made himself evident to the world. He says that his divine attributes can clearly be seen from what he has made. If the natural order is NOT compelling, we have only two possibilities: 1) privation of the mind, or 2) privation of the will.
 

And I would agree with Paul, but also that we exist in a state of privation following the sin of Genesis 3. Anyone who lacks faith will simply turn to Paul and ask, "which of God's attributes do babies who die of cancer attest to?"

Hebrews 11:1 isn't a definition of faith as many suppose. Rather, Paul is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of the thing hoped for, the thing unseen. What what is unseen? God's approval. In other words, they can gain confidence in what they can't see: i.e. God's approval, based on what they CAN see: i.e. their own faith in action. Paul exhorts them to not throw that confidence away, since all they lack is endurance. As proof of this, Paul forms a list of people for whom God explicitly expressed his approval due to their faith. If I have faith, i.e. if I believe what he says and put that into practice, I can have confidence of his approval even if he doesn't make it explicit in my particular case.

Christians have been tricked into thinking that faith is "believing what can't be proved", which is not true. That definition of faith is foreign to the Bible. Faith is giving mental ascent to a truth claim. That's it.

I don't understand what you are saying about babies.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 27, 2022, 12:54:55 PM

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

All rational people.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 26, 2022, 12:30:36 PM

Rather, he is focused on those who know for certain that God exists. He asserts that the wrath of God is being poured out on those who "suppress the truth [about God] in unrighteousness . . ." He argues that human-kind has discovered the true nature of God empirically, i.e. by observation from the things that he has made.

I mean Paul is all over the place in Romans 1, but I don't agree with the assertion that God's existence is "obvious" in any way. It is one possible conclusion that an individual may come to, but there are others.

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 24, 2022, 12:06:31 PM

Quote from: Athanasius on June 23, 2022, 05:55:14 AM

Quote from: CadyandZoe on June 23, 2022, 05:47:26 AM

What did Kierkegaard say about the ditch?

Nothing that won't get him accused of being a subjectivist/relativist

You studied this subject yes? I thought maybe. Perhaps my memory is failing me. Do you remember what K said with regard to Lessing's ditch?

That's right; Climacus (not K proper) wrote about Lessing's ditch (or ditches?) in Philosophical Fragments and Postscript. It's been a while so I'd need to familiarise myself, but Climacus' answer, if we can call it that, was to do something like properly place the subjectivity of the individual, bring in relevation to overcome any problems posed by historical distance, emphasize faith, make notions of historical belief, etc. As far as I remember.

I think you will find that K remarked something like this, "For someone who doesn't want to jump; the ditch is infinitely large.

In other words, giving mental ascent to an idea is a matter of the mind, but agreeing with an uncomfortable truth is a matter of the will.