Why would any god value belief?

[Cheerful Charlie]

Tell me why when Luke actually says he investigated eyewitnesses in order to "write and orderly account" that those do not count as eyewitness accounts? Tell me why Peter's sermon quoted in Acts is not an eyewitness account. Paul refers to as many as 500 eyewitnesses that both he and the churches knew? So, there are eyewitness accounts.

Anyone can write a story and claim that it is an eyewitness account.  Anyone can write a story and claim that it contains eyewitness accounts.  But unless any of the claims can be independently verified they remain nothing more than claims.  What verification do you have for your biblical claims of eyewitnesses?

If Luke wrote both the gospel of Luke and Acts, why do the tales of Jesus's ascent to heaven in Luke 24, and Acts 1:3-9 vary so wildly?  I doubt that claim for that reason.  Obviously we have no eyewitness accounts here.  If Acts 1 occurred as related, everybody in Jerusalem would have either seen that or heard about it and numerous writers would have related this miracle in no uncertain terms.  The powers that be would have made inquiries of witnesses and this record would have been written down and we would have good records of such an amazing series of events.  This is not what we get, it is not what one would expect if anything like this occurred.

Does this logically seem to be an eyewitness occurrence.  Does the utter lack of mention of all of this very public miraculous happenings , witnessed by many supposedly, seem reasonable?  Not to me.

[Cheerful Charlie]

What makes you think I want to engage that shotgun blast of claims and vague characterizations? I didn't the first time you posted this exact post. You don't like to talk details. I prefer details. When you post some, I might respond.

Unless of course, these posts are not really a reply to me, but are part of the necessary support of the echo chamber that you regularly participate in. Supporting, ironically, the indoctrination (yes, used exactly as the dictionary definition) of your fellow echo chamber members.

Well you cant prove any attribute of god to be true, not a one.
You can't prove god

I know you don't like that question, but i really don't think you realise just how silly 'attention to detail' of things you cannot possibly know to be true looks.

You are really missing the point.

You are making straw men with your word choices in nearly every post. When you say "know" that means 'knowledge'. Knowledge is defined as a justified, true, belief (JTB). Note that knowledge is not equivalent to belief . Knowledge is a belief, a belief is not necessarily knowledge. I do NOT have knowledge that Jesus lived and died as the NT describes. I have a belief that he did. I have reasons to believe that he did. I have evidence to consider on the question of if he did. But I don't have proof that it is true, so therefore I am making no claim to knowledge in this matter.

If you use the word 'know' or 'knowledge' relating to my position, you are misrepresenting my position and creating a straw man in order to make your point seem stronger. This is the root of your "silly" characterization--which is of your own making.

We can all read the gospels and see what Jesus is represented as preaching.  That the end of this world as we know it is soon, very soon.  It will be bloody and cruel.  Sell all you have and give to the poor, and wait for the inevitable end.

This did not happen as promised.  This is knowledge.  It is no straw man.  My belief is that the gospels are a bunch of hooey.  The prophecy of Jesus of the end of the world and his imminent return, sorting the sheep from the goats and a new Utopian  This failure of the whole thrust and scope of these amazing prophecies world, as promised, repeatedly, did not occur, is knowledge.

Belief that ignore facts, truths, knowledge that demonstrates that belief is false, is not knowledge or worth believing.  Not Christianity, not Mormonism, not Scientology.

[SteveII]

My argument goes like this:

1. Memories are not what happened, but largely top-down interpretations of what happened -- reconstructions,
2. Such interpretations depend on what one has been taught,
3. If what one has been taught is inaccurate, so will be the memories so interpreted,
4. You therefore can't use memories to justify a knowledge system,
5. Careful science and scholarship are essential to verify our knowledge.  

This is why anecdotes, however meaningful to the individuals involved, are never sufficient for knowledge.  They can represent subjective data, but never a reliable method of approaching knowledge.

1. That is true, but all sense data needs to be interpreted because the mind does not experience the world directly. Some experiences require more interpretation than others. Remembering a conversation about politics is not the same as the color red or 12x12=144.  Repetition of an experience also is a factor that can reduce the dependence on interpretation.

First, if you have been reading my contributions to the Consciousness discussion, you will know that one school of thought says that perceptions are direct rather than indirect.  They are not interpreted because the abilities to sort out what we are experiencing were evolved, and are for the most part subconscious.

Second, since memories depend on consciousness, they are in fact interpreted and not simple perceptions, though simple perceptions are usually mixed in with them.  The more highly memories are interpreted, the more unreliable they become as reflections of experience.

Third, repetitions are not necessarily helpful, since studies show that once we have some schema for repeated occurrences, we can exclude new information because of it.

2. Some interpretations will depend on what you have been taught. Other semantic memories are based on your first-person experience of the world. No one taught you what red it.

3. Maybe, it is not necessarily so.

Again, the perception of the color red is not a memory, though obviously it can be remembered.  Once it is remembered, inaccuracies can creep in.

Second, my point was never that all memories are untrustworthy, but rather that you can't use them as the basis of a knowledge system since so many are untrustworthy.

4. Sorry, (4) does not follow necessarily from (1), (2) and (3). The first three premises are not always the case so (4) cannot be always the case.

I don't know what the word 'system' is supposed to mean, but knowledge is justified true belief (JTB). If my memories tell me that extreme heat burns my hand, and another memory tells me that stoves can be extremely hot, the proposition that stoves can burn my hand is certainly a justified true belief (knowledge) no matter when those memories are from.

There is also the problem of time. If I just experienced something and my senses are all operational, I am justified in believing the experience is real and in accordance with reality (a JTB). I am sitting in my office at my computer typing the "ing". It is justifiable to doubt my memory of just 10 seconds ago?

Point 4 does follow from 1, 2, and 3 once you understand that I am addressing the unreliability of memories, as I mentioned above.

A knowledge system is a set of mutually supporting assumptions about the world.  Each assumption has to be true for the system to hold together as knowledge.

Simple perceptions are trustworthy, but they are not interpretations.  "I see the color red," is a statement of fact.  You may call that knowledge, but I prefer to think of knowledge as a collection of generalizations which apply to a wide variety of facts.

5. This is just obviously false. There is all kinds of knowledge the neither science nor scholarship can verify. Prove there are other minds. Prove that you current sense experience is real. Prove mathematics. Ironically, you can't do science without philosophy and metaphysics--themselves things you cannot prove. You can't prove human rights, moral sentences, and a host of other things. Does employing these concepts lead to unjustified knowledge? It seems your last point is actually self-defeating.

Again, this depends on what you call knowledge.  Some knowledge is a matter of probabilities rather than certainties, and is still based on careful science and scholarship.  Please remember that both science and scholarship absorbed many points about logic and reason from philosophy.  They can be considered as spin-offs from philosophy, but are still quite different disciplines.  You may think philosophy trumps science and scholarship, but I think the reverse is true.

So no, I do not think point 5 is false.  Scientific and scholarly approaches are widely held to be the best ways to verify our assumed knowledge in any number of fields, including philosophy.

Defining your "knowledge system" helps. So back to your argument:

1. Memories are not what happened, but largely top-down interpretations of what happened -- reconstructions,
2. Such interpretations depend on what one has been taught,
3. If what one has been taught is inaccurate, so will be the memories so interpreted,
4. You therefore can't use memories to justify a knowledge system,
5. Careful science and scholarship are essential to verify our knowledge.

Knowledge system = "A knowledge system is a set of mutually supporting assumptions about the world.  Each assumption has to be true for the system to hold together as knowledge."

For the discussion, I think you agree with the definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (JTB). A belief that must also be true.

I think that by adding the word 'system' you are after the concept usually referred to as a worldview. But, you can't just replace the phrase 'knowledge system' with 'worldview' because the definition of knowledge is necessary to your argument. Essentially, you are saying that you can't use memories to justify a claim to a worldview contained only of knowledge (all JTBs). I agree.

Defining Worldview: "A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view.[1][2][3][4] A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

No one's worldview contains only knowledge (all JTBs). Knowledge is only ever going to be a subset of any worldview.

But what is the Christian claiming? I am not claiming that my memories or experiences lead me to sure knowledge (all JTBs). I am claiming they lead to warranted belief.

Defining belief: "Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts. However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, few ponder whether the sun will rise, just assume it will." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

So, my worldview consists of knowledge (things I know are true) and beliefs (things I have reasons to believe are true).

Back to your argument. If you leave the term "knowledge system" in, then I have no problem with the conclusion because my claim of memories and experiences is not proof that something is so (knowledge). If you use the weaker worldview (which contain knowledge and beliefs) instead, your premises don't support it and the argument breaks down.

Therefore the argument is not a defeater for the Argument from Religious Experiences (which holds that the best explanation for religious experiences is that they are genuine experiences of God). Science does not undermine religious belief (as you have said before).

[Bucky Ball]

1. That is true, but all sense data needs to be interpreted because the mind does not experience the world directly. Some experiences require more interpretation than others. Remembering a conversation about politics is not the same as the color red or 12x12=144.  Repetition of an experience also is a factor that can reduce the dependence on interpretation.

First, if you have been reading my contributions to the Consciousness discussion, you will know that one school of thought says that perceptions are direct rather than indirect.  They are not interpreted because the abilities to sort out what we are experiencing were evolved, and are for the most part subconscious.

Second, since memories depend on consciousness, they are in fact interpreted and not simple perceptions, though simple perceptions are usually mixed in with them.  The more highly memories are interpreted, the more unreliable they become as reflections of experience.

Third, repetitions are not necessarily helpful, since studies show that once we have some schema for repeated occurrences, we can exclude new information because of it.

2. Some interpretations will depend on what you have been taught. Other semantic memories are based on your first-person experience of the world. No one taught you what red it.

3. Maybe, it is not necessarily so.

Again, the perception of the color red is not a memory, though obviously it can be remembered.  Once it is remembered, inaccuracies can creep in.

Second, my point was never that all memories are untrustworthy, but rather that you can't use them as the basis of a knowledge system since so many are untrustworthy.

4. Sorry, (4) does not follow necessarily from (1), (2) and (3). The first three premises are not always the case so (4) cannot be always the case.

I don't know what the word 'system' is supposed to mean, but knowledge is justified true belief (JTB). If my memories tell me that extreme heat burns my hand, and another memory tells me that stoves can be extremely hot, the proposition that stoves can burn my hand is certainly a justified true belief (knowledge) no matter when those memories are from.

There is also the problem of time. If I just experienced something and my senses are all operational, I am justified in believing the experience is real and in accordance with reality (a JTB). I am sitting in my office at my computer typing the "ing". It is justifiable to doubt my memory of just 10 seconds ago?

Point 4 does follow from 1, 2, and 3 once you understand that I am addressing the unreliability of memories, as I mentioned above.

A knowledge system is a set of mutually supporting assumptions about the world.  Each assumption has to be true for the system to hold together as knowledge.

Simple perceptions are trustworthy, but they are not interpretations.  "I see the color red," is a statement of fact.  You may call that knowledge, but I prefer to think of knowledge as a collection of generalizations which apply to a wide variety of facts.

5. This is just obviously false. There is all kinds of knowledge the neither science nor scholarship can verify. Prove there are other minds. Prove that you current sense experience is real. Prove mathematics. Ironically, you can't do science without philosophy and metaphysics--themselves things you cannot prove. You can't prove human rights, moral sentences, and a host of other things. Does employing these concepts lead to unjustified knowledge? It seems your last point is actually self-defeating.

Again, this depends on what you call knowledge.  Some knowledge is a matter of probabilities rather than certainties, and is still based on careful science and scholarship.  Please remember that both science and scholarship absorbed many points about logic and reason from philosophy.  They can be considered as spin-offs from philosophy, but are still quite different disciplines.  You may think philosophy trumps science and scholarship, but I think the reverse is true.

So no, I do not think point 5 is false.  Scientific and scholarly approaches are widely held to be the best ways to verify our assumed knowledge in any number of fields, including philosophy.

Defining your "knowledge system" helps. So back to your argument:

1. Memories are not what happened, but largely top-down interpretations of what happened -- reconstructions,
2. Such interpretations depend on what one has been taught,
3. If what one has been taught is inaccurate, so will be the memories so interpreted,
4. You therefore can't use memories to justify a knowledge system,
5. Careful science and scholarship are essential to verify our knowledge.  

Knowledge system = "A knowledge system is a set of mutually supporting assumptions about the world.  Each assumption has to be true for the system to hold together as knowledge."

For the discussion, I think you agree with the definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (JTB). A belief that must also be true.

I think that by adding the word 'system' you are after the concept usually referred to as a worldview. But, you can't just replace the phrase 'knowledge system' with 'worldview' because the definition of knowledge is necessary to your argument.  Essentially, you are saying that you can't use memories to justify a claim to a worldview contained only of knowledge (all JTBs). I agree.

Defining Worldview: "A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view.[1][2][3][4] A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

No one's worldview contains only knowledge (all JTBs). Knowledge is only ever going to be a subset of any worldview.

But what is the Christian claiming? I am not claiming that my memories or experiences lead me to sure knowledge (all JTBs). I am claiming they lead to warranted belief.

Defining belief: "Belief is the attitude that something is the case or true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts. However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, few ponder whether the sun will rise, just assume it will." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

So, my worldview consists of knowledge (things I know are true) and beliefs (things I have reasons to believe are true).  

Back to your argument. If you leave the term "knowledge system" in, then I have no problem with the conclusion because my claim of memories and experiences is not  proof that something is so (knowledge). If you use the weaker worldview (which contain knowledge and beliefs) instead, your premises don't support it and the argument breaks down.

Therefore the argument is not a defeater for the Argument from Religious Experiences (which holds that the best explanation for religious experiences is that they are genuine experiences of God). Science does not undermine religious belief (as you have said before).

There is no "argument from religious experience". 
You have failed to make a case for that nonsense. 
There is no way to verify what they even are, exactly, in billions of people. 
Nice try. 
Monumental fail.

[possibletarian]

Therefore the argument is not a defeater for the Argument from Religious Experiences (which holds that the best explanation for religious experiences is that they are genuine experiences of God). Science does not undermine religious belief (as you have said before).

Nobody doubts that they feel real experiences but how how do you decide if they are from a god, or that is even the best explanation ?