Unanswered Challenges to Theists

[Singularity]

Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true.

Provide support that your faith is not arbitrary, i.e., different your religion from all other religions such that it deserves your faith whereas others do not.

[Jobar]

Singularity, you know, and I know, that they can't do that. Lots of them know it, too. I'm afraid that you won't get many responses to your challenge here, as most of our regular theists have had it made plain that when you provide proof for the supernatural, it then becomes natural.

But if you do, good- it's a subject we don't see discussed a lot anymore.

[Eric H]

Hello Singularity,

As a theist I would have to agree with Jobars conclusion; we can only believe and have faith, there is no proof.

Without proof I can only hope that my beliefs in the Catholic faith are sound, so I would not wish to dismiss other religions as being unfit.

I do not reject other religions, and I don't really have problems with other faiths; one day I would hope that the religions of the world could find ways to live in harmony with each other.

Peace

Eric

[Singularity]

Eric H - but do you also freely admit that your faith is completely arbitrary without any basis in reason or logic?

[Bellarmino]

Originally posted by Singularity
Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true.

Provide support that your faith is not arbitrary, i.e., different your religion from all other religions such that it deserves your faith whereas others do not.
Clearly "empirical evidence" and "supernaturalism" are mutually exclusive terms. Cutting out the middle parts, your sentence reduces to:

Provide support that your faith deserves your faith.

[shivalinga]

http://www.singlenesia.com/drtnews/cache/00000003/index.shtml

the proof,read em and weep.

[nessa20x]

I must have missed the point...all I saw were a bunch of islands misinterpreted by some wacked out person to be sexual...It didn't look sexual to me at all...looks like a bunch of islands...you would think a god could do better than that.

[Eric H]

Hello Singularity,

Originally posted by Singularity
Eric H - but do you also freely admit that your faith is completely arbitrary without any basis in reason or logic?

You can use a certain amount of reason and logic to base your faith on, but reason and logic are not enough on their own.

At least one God the creator of the universe exists totally, or there is no God at all, one of those statements is true, but there is no proof as to which one is true.

Either theists or atheists are totally wrong; atheists may claim their conclusions are based on science and logic. This same science and logic is also available to theists as well; somehow opposing beliefs lead us to look on this evidence in opposing ways.

There are billions of people on Earth, opinion is divided, and no one has come up with a mathematical formula that proves the existence or non-existence of God conclusively. Are the millions or billions of people who are wrong devoid of logic and reason, or could it be that the evidence and logic is misleading?

If a God exists then to me it is logical to believe that he created all of mankind. We all seem to have a certain amount of freedom of choice, so it seems that God gave us the freedom to be an atheist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or anything else.

I can give you a description of the chair I am sitting on, but I can’t give you an accurate description of God because I can’t even prove he exists. I feel it is this lack of proof that causes us theists to interpret God in so many ways.

Peace

Eric

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Eric H
This same science and logic is also available to theists as well; somehow opposing beliefs lead us to look on this evidence in opposing ways.
Except that science and logic do not point to god. There is no scientific theory of god: there is no scientific evidence of god: there is no scientific reason to think there is a god.

It is not that theists use science and come to different conclusions: it is that they can only reach those other conclusions by abandoning science.

For example, every time they do a prayer study, it comes up with nothing. Nothing.

You seem to imply that it is possible to look at the evidence scientifically and posit a god. This is not true.

[trendkill]

Originally posted by Eric H


There are billions of people on Earth, opinion is divided, and no one has come up with a mathematical formula that proves the existence or non-existence of God conclusively. Are the millions or billions of people who are wrong devoid of logic and reason, or could it be that the evidence and logic is misleading?Good question, and I think I have seen enough (especially at places such as this forum) to dismiss the idea that all of the people on whichever side is wrong are unreasonable. I think it is the latter--a great deal of the evidence is misleading. Specifically, I suspect that the best evidence in favor of the existence of a deity, that being personal religious experience, is extremely misleading and deceives many rational people.

[seebs]

Originally posted by Singularity
Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true.

I have no idea whether or not there is any. I am fairly sure there isn't, and won't be, conveniently reproducible evidence. This doesn't bother me; supernaturalism is only one of a large set of claims that I have concluded are by definition unanswerable by empiricism, and which I use other methodologies to evaluate.

Provide support that your faith is not arbitrary, i.e., different your religion from all other religions such that it deserves your faith whereas others do not.

I believe based on personal experience. My personal experience matches one religion well, many poorly but a little, and some not at all. This seems to me to be sufficient differentiation to support a decision to accept that religion as a working hypothesis.

[seebs]

Originally posted by Yahzi
It is not that theists use science and come to different conclusions: it is that they can only reach those other conclusions by abandoning science.

Using another methodology is not "abandoning" science; it is recognizing its limits.

You seem to imply that it is possible to look at the evidence scientifically and posit a god. This is not true.

Sure it is. It's just that you are not positing it based on the scientific analysis; you are positing it based on something else, having concluded that science is, as promised, silent on the issue.

[Kingdomovehearts]

How did the universe get here? It couldnt have always been here cause of entropy taking along the universe and no new hydrogen is being made cause of nuclear fusion and thus if it were unlimited years old there would be no stars. And to say something can explode into nothing is absurd! People will give that argument against God but remember: God isnt made up of matter!

[NottyImp]

I believe based on personal experience. My personal experience matches one religion well, many poorly but a little, and some not at all. This seems to me to be sufficient differentiation to support a decision to accept that religion as a working hypothesis.

But your personal experience is of one societally-determined faith. Had you been born somewhere else, you might say exactly the same thing about an entirely different faith. Such an obvious fact hardly lends much credence to the initial observation, does it?

[Dark Jedi]

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
How did the universe get here? It couldnt have always been here cause of entropy taking along the universe and no new hydrogen is being made cause of nuclear fusion and thus if it were unlimited years old there would be no stars. And to say something can explode into nothing is absurd! People will give that argument against God but remember: God isnt made up of matter!

Well, you have mis-stated several atrological and physics theories, and made baseless supernatural claims.

Please re-read the opening challenge and try again. You are to provide proof, or show why your faith is different from the faith of other god-beliefs.

Hint: Entropy involves a closed system, and applies to thermal energy. Hydrogen is created in fusion, and is destroyed by black holes. The claim of "unlimited" years old is yours, and not repeated in science. To say something cannot explode into nothing is absurd. Your inability or refusal to understand physics is not proof that physics is false.

[Jobar]

Either theists or atheists are totally wrong; atheists may claim their conclusions are based on science and logic. This same science and logic is also available to theists as well; somehow opposing beliefs lead us to look on this evidence in opposing ways.

The thing is, all the scientific evidence that I have seen points away from the liklihood of a deity of any sort. We search and search- witness, this forum- and we find that all the fact claims are mistakes honest or dishonest, and that all the supposedly supernatural occurances seem to have natural explanations when examined closely. As Yahzi says, all the tests give a null result.

Sure, we can't prove that there is no deistic god, no superior being who is hiding from us, or far away and completely disinterested in the beings who have sprung forth from the universe he's created. But, what good is such a being? How can believing in such a thing, all unevidenced, benefit us? We see no reason to think that unbelievers live lives any less moral or useful or enjoyable than believers; rather the opposite. Answering any question, like "what caused the universe", with "Goddidit" is no answer at all- it but pushes a possibly answerable question into the realm of the unanswerable.

I have to say that belief in such a being is not just arbitrary, nor even just useless; it actually limits the scope of human understanding.

God, like cigarettes, stunts our growth. ;)

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Singularity
Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true.

Provide non-empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that naturalism is true.

You assume that naturalism is both normative and authoratative without evidence which doesn't presume naturalism.

So, you see, it is not a matter of proving supernaturalism by naturalism, i.e., empiricism, but of supporting the reality of natural phenomenon by presupposing Christian Theism.

Note to Jobar - you should have known better than to encourage this rank assertion of naturalism.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by theophilus
Provide non-empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that naturalism is true.

Can you give a valid definition of "non-empirical" evidence, as well as some examples? I'm sincerely interested in this concept of yours.

Originally posted by theophilus
You assume that naturalism is both normative and authoratative without evidence which doesn't presume naturalism.

Consider the alternatives to naturalism. The only alternative free of assumptions is solipsism. Then there is supernatualism, which the burden is on the supernatualist to prove is true.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet Grind
Can you give a valid definition of "non-empirical" evidence, as well as some examples? I'm sincerely interested in this concept of yours.

The point is empiricism is not a neutral objective starting point. It is an assumed position which cannot be demonstrated by anything behind it.

Revelation, OTOH, does provide an objective (not derived from experience) foundation for knowledge and truth.

Consider the alternatives to naturalism. The only alternative free of assumptions is solipsism. Then there is supernatualism, which the burden is on the supernatualist to prove is true.

Well, the difficulty in replacing it does not justify it and, besides, revelation does very nicely, thank you. In fact, revelation establishes experience as being authentic.

[Ellis14]

"revelation establishes experience as being authentic."

But experience is authentic regardless of revelation. We experience the world and interpret it. We interpret facts using our minds. Sometimes those interpretations are misguided, but to interpret empirical phenomenon in natural ways based on experience is surely more reliable than interpreting supposed supernatural revelation in metaphysical ways?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Ellis10
"revelation establishes experience as being authentic."

But experience is authentic regardless of revelation. We experience the world and interpret it. We interpret facts using our minds. Sometimes those interpretations are misguided, but to interpret empirical phenomenon in natural ways based on experience is surely more reliable than interpreting supposed supernatural revelation in metaphysical ways?

Well, philosophers could certainly have turned their energies to other things if it were that simple.

How did you "authenticate" your experience? You certainly can't use experience to authenticate itself, can you?

I do not mean this as a put-down or to be condescending, but it might be helpful for you to read some introductory philosophy materials relating to the nature of metaphysics and epistemology.

[Ellis14]

i don't understand the point you are making to be honest, my friend. and i don't see the significance of that post.

you said:

"revelation establishes experience as being authentic"

maybe you didn't understand what I meant because I didn't understand what you meant, perhaps you would like to explain the above statement. :)

[Amlodhi]

Originally posted by theophilus

The point is empiricism is not a neutral objective starting point.

empiricism - 2(a): the practice of relying on observation and experiment . . . [Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary; tenth ed.]

theophilus:

So, you see, it is not a matter of proving supernaturalism by naturalism, i.e., empiricism, but of supporting the reality of natural phenomenon by presupposing Christian Theism.

So your argument is that observation and experiment are not neutral starting points whereas presupposing Christian Theism is?

That can't be right.

Also, it seems to me that there are only two ways in which to perceive the supernatural. One would be to indirectly deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing its effect on the natural world.

The only other way would be to perceive the supernatural directly; perhaps in the form of revelation. It has, however, been demonstrated ad nauseum that revelation invokes as many alternate avenues as there are people to walk down them. In view of its miserable record of accuracy and consistency, revelation seems to serve no more purpose than playing poker with a deck consisting of nothing but wild cards.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by theophilus
The point is empiricism is not a neutral objective starting point. It is an assumed position which cannot be demonstrated by anything behind it.

Agreed, but as I demonstrated, we all must be solipsists to be devoid of metaphysical assumptions.

Originally posted by theophilus
Revelation, OTOH, does provide an objective (not derived from experience) foundation for knowledge and truth.

What makes these so called "revelations" non-empirical? Wouldn't you otherwise be left to arbitrarily labeling anything a revelation?

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, the difficulty in replacing it does not justify it and, besides, revelation does very nicely, thank you. In fact, revelation establishes experience as being authentic.

I would argue to the contrary, metaphysical doctrines are more than just abstract concepts, they describe the specific conditions of reality.

Our choices are:

1. Solipsism: My self is the only true reality, devoid of assumptions.
2. Idealism: The Material world doesn't exist and all aspects of reality are either mental or spiritual. Assumes other mental entities exist.
3. Naturalism/Materialism: All things that exist have natural/material causes, assumes the natural world exists objectively.
4. Supernaturalism: Things objectively exist above and/or beyond physical reality, assumes itself.

Take your pick.

BTW, while I agree that revelation would establish experience as being authentic, by what means (beyond intution) would you establish something as a revelation?

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet Grind
Can you give a valid definition of "non-empirical" evidence, as well as some examples? I'm sincerely interested in this concept of yours.

The point was to show that he assumes his position, empiricism, without being able to give an external proof while he demands that revelation based Christian Theism give and external, empirical, demonstration.

Do you believe that all knowledge is empirical, i.e., derived from sensory experience? If not, where does such knowledge come from?

Consider the alternatives to naturalism. The only alternative free of assumptions is solipsism. Then there is supernatualism, which the burden is on the supernatualist to prove is true.

The point is, there are no epistemologies which do not make assumptions, i.e., presuppositions. The question is whether the presupposition can justify the worldview constructed upon it and whether that worldview is internally consistent, coherent, rational and consistent with experience.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet Grind
Agreed, but as I demonstrated, we all must be solipsists to be devoid of metaphysical assumptions.

and I explained that presuppositions are inescapable.

What makes these so called "revelations" non-empirical? Wouldn't you otherwise be left to arbitrarily labeling anything a revelation?

I understand that it is difficult to escape the concept of demanding proof, but how could there be a "proof" of revelation if revelation is the foundation for knowledge.

Revelation is not experienced empirically, i.e., revelaiton is not established by the "experience" of reading the Bible. It is, and must be, self-authenticating.

Again, the question is not "how do we know that revelation is true (or that a particular system is "revelaiton). The question is, how do whe KNOW anything. Notice, I did not say DO we know things.

I would argue to the contrary, metaphysical doctrines are more than just abstract concepts, they describe the specific conditions of reality.

They are certainly attempts to describe reality, but there is an epistemological demand that must be satisifed before any ontology can be established, i.e., how can we know what is real if we can't know things.

Our choices are:

1. Solipsism: My self is the only true reality, devoid of assumptions.
2. Idealism: The Material world doesn't exist and all aspects of reality are either mental or spiritual. Assumes other mental entities exist.
3. Naturalism/Materialism: All things that exist have natural/material causes, assumes the natural world exists objectively.
4. Supernaturalism: Things objectively exist above and/or beyond physical reality, assumes itself.

But how do you "know" that these are the choices?

Take your pick.

BTW, while I agree that revelation would establish experience as being authentic, by what means (beyond intution) would you establish something as a revelation?

The nature of revelation is (and must be) self-attesting. If we are created in the image of God, then we would be able to receive and comprehend the informaiton he wants to communicate (this does not address the nature of unbelief, i.e., a denial of such knowledge, which is a theological issue for which the Bible accounts).

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi
empiricism - 2(a): the practice of relying on observation and experiment . . . [Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary; tenth ed.][/b]

In standard philosophical usage, Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is possible and ONLY possible as the result of experience. There are no "a priori" categories by which experience is understood.

The confusion results from our contemporary use of the term Empirical which is more consistent with your definition.

So your argument is that observation and experiment are not neutral starting points whereas presupposing Christian Theism is?

That can't be right.

No, it can't and it isn't for the simple reason that it is not my argument. Presuppositions are the necessary foundation of any epistemology. I have explained this elsewhere and will not repeat it.

Also, it seems to me that there are only two ways in which to perceive the supernatural. One would be to indirectly deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing its effect on the natural world.

And how did you come to such knowledge?

The only other way would be to perceive the supernatural directly; perhaps in the form of revelation. It has, however, been demonstrated ad nauseum that revelation invokes as many alternate avenues as there are people to walk down them. In view of its miserable record of accuracy and consistency, revelation seems to serve no more purpose than playing poker with a deck consisting of nothing but wild cards.

You are confusing revelation as the necessary precondition for knowledge and specific religious claims. Also, you assume an authoritative standard of knowledge when you say "it has ... been demonstrated ad nauseum, etc." What is the standard of demonstration and how was it validated?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Theo:

The opening post of this thread asked theists to "Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true".

"Sorry, there isn't any" is a sufficient answer.

No need to drag your battered, failed worldview into this.
Provide non-empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that naturalism is true.

You assume that naturalism is both normative and authoratative without evidence which doesn't presume naturalism.
Trusting in empirical evidence isn't "presuming naturalism", Theo.

Yes, you think God made everything. But you have no evidence to support this belief. You're being asked for evidence (empirical evidence, because that's what "evidence" is) that this is the case.
So, you see, it is not a matter of proving supernaturalism by naturalism, i.e., empiricism, but of supporting the reality of natural phenomenon by presupposing Christian Theism.
Naturalism and empiricism are NOT synonymous, REGARDLESS of whether you're using the standard dictionary definition of "empiricism" OR the philosophical usage of the word.

And "Christian theism" (or , rather, your version of it: hardly any actual Christian theists share your belief) has failed to "support the reality of natural phenomena" so there's no point in using it.
Note to Jobar - you should have known better than to encourage this rank assertion of naturalism.
Note to Theo: buy a dictionary.
The point is empiricism is not a neutral objective starting point. It is an assumed position which cannot be demonstrated by anything behind it.

Revelation, OTOH, does provide an objective (not derived from experience) foundation for knowledge and truth.
Nonsense. Belief in "revelation" is an assumed position which cannot be demonstrated by anything behind it.
Well, the difficulty in replacing it does not justify it and, besides, revelation does very nicely, thank you. In fact, revelation establishes experience as being authentic.
So does the Prime Axiom.
I do not mean this as a put-down or to be condescending, but it might be helpful for you to read some introductory philosophy materials relating to the nature of metaphysics and epistemology.
You have already demonstrated your own lack of understanding of these topics, Theo.

You might try reading such things AFTER discarding your condescending attitude that the problems they describe cannot apply to your own worldview.
The point was to show that he assumes his position, empiricism, without being able to give an external proof while he demands that revelation based Christian Theism give and external, empirical, demonstration.
If God created the world, and is the reason our senses work, then using those senses to investigate the world would NOT be "external", Theo. How many times will you continue to make this blunder?

This is why your worldview is self-refuting. GOD is telling us that God does not exist!

Your worldview is a set of excuses for ignoring the simple fact that the Bible doesn't match reality.
The point is, there are no epistemologies which do not make assumptions, i.e., presuppositions. The question is whether the presupposition can justify the worldview constructed upon it and whether that worldview is internally consistent, coherent, rational and consistent with experience.
This question requires the use of our senses and reason to answer it. It is a test that metaphysical naturalism passes and your "Christian theism" fails. Thus, you keep contradicting yourself by retreating from this test and refusing to subject your own worldview to it.
What makes these so called "revelations" non-empirical? Wouldn't you otherwise be left to arbitrarily labeling anything a revelation?

I understand that it is difficult to escape the concept of demanding proof, but how could there be a "proof" of revelation if revelation is the foundation for knowledge.

Revelation is not experienced empirically, i.e., revelaiton is not established by the "experience" of reading the Bible. It is, and must be, self-authenticating.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that "revelation" has ever produced ANY knowledge. This is pure fantasy.

Perhaps I should remind you again of the reasons why your worldview failed?
FIRSTLY, TAG fails because MY wordview is fully consistent, thereby negating TAG's "impossibility of the contrary" claim. And there is an infinite variety of consistent alternative worldviews, including non-Christian theistic ones. It is erroneous to claim that they all "borrow from the Christian theistic worldview": this attempted Christian plagiarism of OTHER worldviews will not stand.

SECONDLY, the TAG worldview is self-refuting because "God's revelation" reveals that the Bible is false (due to Biblical contradictions, the fossil record etc etc etc: all supposedly a part of "God's revelation", and plain to Christians and non-Christians alike), hence the Biblical God cannot exist.

THIRDLY, even the actual existence of the Biblical God would NOT give any assurance that the TAG-proponent has actual KNOWLEDGE of the real world, because the Biblical God IS capable of deceit. Even with the additional presupposition that God is NOT capable of deceit, there is no guarantee that God will not permit OTHERS to deceive the TAG-proponent, who has no guarantee that he isn't a brain in a jar, being fed false sensory data by a demon, mad scientist, alien, or similar entity. The existence of scam-artists who prey on Christians is proof that no guarantee against deception exists.

FOURTHLY, there is no good evidence that the Judeo-Christian God exists. Now, if it were true that this deity MUST exist "because of the impossibility of the contrary", this wouldn't matter: however, because this argument has failed, the lack of evidence DOES matter. It is highly implausible that we should have no good evidence for the most important "fact" in the Universe! Furthermore, there is no evidence that "God's revelation", as a process of receiving knowledge independently of our own senses and reason, exists either. If it DID exist, we should expect that there would be numerous examples of knowledge clearly unavailable by normal means, but later confirmable by normal means: such as successful prophecies. Christianity provides none.

Therefore the TAG provides no foundation for knowledge.
My fourth point is particulary relevant here. You have INVENTED a totally fictional means of "gaining knowledge" (because normal means of gaining knowledge give the "wrong answer": that your worldview is false). And you are now demanding that we use your imaginary means of gaining knowledge to "validate" the means that EVERYBODY ordinarily uses to "gain knowledge" (including YOURSELF). Without ever demonstrating the existence of ANY actual knowledge gained by "revelation"!

TAG is nothing more than a word-game in which the hopelessly delusional seek to insulate themselves from an uncomfortable reality.

[Whispers]

The opening statement...."Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true", is without answer because proof would render the supernatural, natural. Supernatural cannot be definition be proved. Or can it?

Anyhow...

God is.

No amount of discussion on this or any other forum will change this basic fact of the mystery of life. I am not suggesting it is wrong to discuss or chat on these subjects, merely that it is always superficial and without real depth. Words, ideas, theories and other logical patterns keep us caught in the world of shallow, narrow and finite. To understand depth, wide and infinite, we must look elsewhere.

No amount of positing, theorising or arguing can prove or disprove the existence of God. We all know this. Stating it as a reason that God does not exist, is a fallacy. This is the way of things.

I choose to believe and you may choose not to. This is the free choice offered us by God.

You have the choice whether to believe or not. That is all there is...the rest is simply distraction.

[NottyImp]

The point is, there are no epistemologies which do not make assumptions, i.e., presuppositions. The question is whether the presupposition can justify the worldview constructed upon it and whether that worldview is internally consistent, coherent, rational and consistent with experience.

But Theo applying this to Christian Theism shows a nice line in irony, don't you think?

[Dark Jedi]

Originally posted by Whispers

No amount of positing, theorising or arguing can prove or disprove the existence of God. We all know this. Stating it as a reason that God does not exist, is a fallacy. This is the way of things.

This is a correct statement, but a fallacy in and of itself. We claim that there is no evidence for, and thus no reason to believe, gods exist.

Your strawman of claiming god does not exist is not our claim.

You open with "God is", a supernatural claim, an affiant claim, and an extraordinary claim. Now, as the claimant, provide supporting evidence for your claim. Until you can, we shall continue along our previous path, which is seeing no reason to believe in gods or leprachauns.

[Whispers]

QUOTE---This is a correct statement, but a fallacy in and of itself. We claim that there is no evidence for, and thus no reason to believe, gods exist.

Evidence eh? This is where it gets really tricky. Do tell me what evidence I could possibly offer you in my next post which you would consider as evidence. I need you to be exact and very specific as to what your own personal requirements are? Also, I must consider whether your personal requirements for evidence match those of other Atheists/Agnostics? What happens if I offer you evidence, you accept it, but someone else denies it?

QUOTE---Your strawman of claiming god does not exist is not our claim.

My apologies for that sneaky strawman! :p

QUOTE---You open with "God is", a supernatural claim, an affiant claim, and an extraordinary claim.

It is extraordinary I agree, to the mind of a non-believer. Yet surely you would agree, that the belief *some* people hold that we literally have no creator and have come from nothing is equally or even more extraordinary.

QUOTE---Now, as the claimant, provide supporting evidence for your claim.

I am in a relationship with God. I cannot prove this to you, and we both know this. Despite the afore knowledge, you insist on asking anyway. If I refuse to answer, you could say that it is because I have no demonstrable proof, something we both know already. If I do answer, and talk about my personal experience, you will dismiss it as unscientific and unrepeatable. You are asking for something that cannot be provided on a forum. Despite this, you still ask. How many more times will you ask, before you realise that there is no answer coming?

QUOTE---Until you can, we shall continue along our previous path, which is seeing no reason to believe in gods or leprachauns.

As you know I cant, you will indeed continue on your path. This is your choice and to be respected. The only thing I dont agree with is the idea that you will remain on that particular path, because someone else cannot provide you with the evidence. How about making your own mind up?

[blindwatchmaker]

Whispers, you must realize that your position is logically untanable.

Obviously, everyone has a "right" to believe whatever they like.

The question though, is do you want your beliefs to correspond to reality or just to feel nice.

I agree entirely that at present there is no proof one way or the other concerning the existence of gods. Surely then, the way to proceed towards truth is to take the method that historically has worked well?

Believeing things on faith very rarely leads to truth. Therefore the chances are that your belief in a god is false. (It may be true but the odds are against it)
The only way to reasonable argue against this is to say that available evidence supports your belief. But you have already stated that you don't base your belief on logic or evidence.

Beliefs which are not based on logic or evidence are almost always false.

You are deluding yourself. When you're ready to open your eyes, you'll ask the right questions and look in the right places for answers.

If I tell you that it is my firm belief that the entire universe exists as a speck of dust on the end of a huge pink elephant's trunk, there is no way to prove or disprove my belief but that doesn't make it reasonable.

[Whispers]

QUOTE---Whispers, you must realize that your position is logically untanable.

In some ways, yes.

QUOTE---Obviously, everyone has a "right" to believe whatever they like.

Agreed.

QUOTE---The question though, is do you want your beliefs to correspond to reality or just to feel nice.

Hmm, let the fun begin. =) My beliefs correspond to my reality, as do yours to yours. As an example, I love my wife and my beliefs on the matter are based around my reality and what happens within my life internally and externally. There is no possible way I could prove to you that I love her and that she loves me back. Despite my inability to prove it, this is actually the case. I cannot prove to you that my love for her is a real feeling, and not an attempt to stifle the existential anguish that some of us may suffer from.

QUOTE---I agree entirely that at present there is no proof one way or the other concerning the existence of gods. Surely then, the way to proceed towards truth is to take the method that historically has worked well?

The scientific method has indeed worked well. However, use it to prove that love exists. Use it to prove to me what you dreamed last night. Use it to prove to me how your taste buds react to the bitterness of grapefruit. Prove to me using science, how much you love your parents. Prove to me using science, how beautiful your children or your wife are to you. These things are unprovable, but to you they are truth and factual.

QUOTE---Believeing things on faith very rarely leads to truth.

This is quite a big statement. Can you elaborate?

QUOTE---Therefore the chances are that your belief in a god is false. (It may be true but the odds are against it)

The odds? What would you say the odds are?

QUOTE---The only way to reasonable argue against this is to say that available evidence supports your belief. But you have already stated that you don't base your belief on logic or evidence.

Personal evidence, ie feelings, insights etc are valid in my eyes and should be looked upon as having some weight.

QUOTE---Beliefs which are not based on logic or evidence are almost always false.

Almost always eh? Massive statement there!

QUOTE---You are deluding yourself. When you're ready to open your eyes, you'll ask the right questions and look in the right places for answers.

Okay then my friend, let me ask you....what would I see if my eyes were open like your are? What *exactly* are the *right* questions? Where *exactly* should i look for answers?

QUOTE---If I tell you that it is my firm belief that the entire universe exists as a speck of dust on the end of a huge pink elephant's trunk, there is no way to prove or disprove my belief but that doesn't make it reasonable.

Agreed. However, that suggestion is nowhere near as feasible as the suggestion that we are all divine and divinely created.

[NottyImp]

As an example, I love my wife and my beliefs on the matter are based around my reality and what happens within my life internally and externally. There is no possible way I could prove to you that I love her and that she loves me back.

Well, for starters, your can give material evidence that your wife exists - you can't do that with God. Secondly, you could also both provide evidence that you love each other in a variety of forms. You can't do this either with God.

[NottyImp]

The scientific method has indeed worked well. However, use it to prove that love exists. Use it to prove to me what you dreamed last night. Use it to prove to me how your taste buds react to the bitterness of grapefruit. Prove to me using science, how much you love your parents. Prove to me using science, how beautiful your children or your wife are to you. These things are unprovable, but to you they are truth and factual.

All of these examples are amenable to scientific investigation. There is no mystery in positing a material explanation for all of the things you list here.

[Amlodhi]

Also, it seems to me that there are only two ways in which to perceive the supernatural. One would be to indirectly deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing its effect on the natural world.

Reply from theophilus

And how did you come to such knowledge?

Observation, experience and experiment. (i.e. empiricism in the non-philosophical sense.)

theophilus:

You are confusing revelation as the necessary precondition for knowledge and specific religious claims.

The across-the-board consistency of various religious claims is the measuring stick by which we empirically determine the dependability of alleged transcendent divine revelation.

theophilus:

Also, you assume an authoritative standard of knowledge when you say "it has ... been demonstrated ad nauseum, etc."

Genuine divine revelation, by definition, must necessarily be inerrant truth. Thus, the knowledge expounded by everyone receiving genuine divine revelation must necessarily be inerrantly consistent across the board.

It is, however, an observable and easily demonstrated fact that the knowledge expounded by those claiming revelatory knowledge is not only inconsistent across the board, but is also often mutually exclusive.

Thus, we can determine (empirically) that (at least) the majority of people who fervently believe that they are receiving divine revelation are, in fact, simply fooling themselves.

IOW, I can (and have) had ten people sitting around my table all of whom claimed their knowledge originated by divine revelation. Since each of these ten expounded a different opinion as to the nature and substance of this knowledge, it is evident that (at least) 9 out of 10 of these people were not receiving genuine divine input. Since, based on these observations, I can conceive of no compelling reason to arbitrarily select one from among the ten on which to assign credibility, it seems not unreasonable to suspect that they are all merely fooling themselves. Indeed, this assessment is made even more tenable by the fact that the human predisposition for self delusion has, at this point, already been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

theophilus:

What is the standard of demonstration. . .

Genuine divinely inspired truth must necessarily agree with genuine divinely inspired truth.

theophilus:

. . . and how was it validated?

Observation, experience and experiment.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

[blindwatchmaker]

Originally posted by Whispers


Hmm, let the fun begin. =) My beliefs correspond to my reality, as do yours to yours. As an example, I love my wife and my beliefs on the matter are based around my reality and what happens within my life internally and externally. There is no possible way I could prove to you that I love her and that she loves me back. Despite my inability to prove it, this is actually the case. I cannot prove to you that my love for her is a real feeling, and not an attempt to stifle the existential anguish that some of us may suffer from.



The scientific method has indeed worked well. However, use it to prove that love exists. Use it to prove to me what you dreamed last night. Use it to prove to me how your taste buds react to the bitterness of grapefruit. Prove to me using science, how much you love your parents. Prove to me using science, how beautiful your children or your wife are to you. These things are unprovable, but to you they are truth and factual.

Whisper, you misunderstand me. I have never said that I will only believe things for which I have proof. I have said that it is only reasonable to believe that for which you have evidence. I'm sure that there is lots of evidence that love exists. My memory is strong evidence for what I dreamed last night. The way that taste buds react to chemicals in grapeful is supported by a large body of scientific evidence. My love for my parents is supported very strongly by the evidence of my actions towards them consistently for over a quarter of a century. The beauty of my wife and children to me is a value judgement and is therefore the only evidence required is that I express this view which i do regularly.

QUOTE---Believeing things on faith very rarely leads to truth.

This is quite a big statement. Can you elaborate?

Yes I can.
I think that any reasonable person would accept that evaluating ideas on the basis of evidence has acheived much more "truth" about the world than belief through faith. If anyone challenges this assertion I would challenge them to come up with ten advances that we have made that have added to our understanding or quality of life that are based purely on faith.

There is another way in which belief through evidence is far superior to faith. This is that belief through evidence is "self policing". By this I mean that quite often, we have incorrect beliefs as a result of misinterpreting the evidence, or because we don't yet have the full picture. Then at some later stage, if new evidence comes to light we are forced to modify or abandon the original belief. The beauty of this system is that the incorrect beliefs get washed out of the system as time goes on, and only those that are extremely well founded are allowed to "stay in the club".

Does faith have any such filtering or quality control? I think not. If you were to take all the ideas that have been believed purely as a result of a "feeling inside" by all people throughout history to the present day, it would certainly be the case that most of them turned out not to be true. This may at first seem like an unproven assertion, but think about it. All the ancient civilizations with their war gods, sun gods and sky gods. All the people who burned innocent women and young girls for being "witches". All the witch doctors who claimed that a sick child could be cured by "shaking the leaves of the village tree over them" (before the child died), all the prophecies that have never come to pass (I've lost count of how many times the earth was meant to end), all the hunches that modern day people have that turn out to be untrue, all the money lost in gambling halls by people who "just have a feeling deep inside", all the different religions in the world who all believe their "inside feelings" just as strongly but by virtue of their different beliefs must contain a majority of people who belief falsehoods(If Islam is factually correct then all xtians must be wrong and vice versa etc..)
This list goes on. What's more, the strength or passion with which a feeling of faith is felt does not make it any truer.

There is another sense in which belief through evidence scores more highly than faith. This is in it's ability to make successful predictions. Almost all religions are filled with ambiguously worded prophecies of what is to come. The vast majority turn out to be either false, smudged(ie written after the event) or come true either by being worded generally enough that they were bound to, or by being obvious in the first place. The performance and accuracy of religious prophecies pales into limp significance against the pinpoint accuracy of scientific predictions. Show me a prophecy that will tell you to the nearest minute, what time a certain comet will appear in the sky over a point on earth in four hundred years. Basing beliefs on evidence allows predictions of this accuracy to be made every day.

It is my contention that given there is so much about the universe that we don't know (and perhaps never will) then if we want our beliefs to be true (rather than just fun and comforting whether true or not) we should adopt the approach to finding truth that is most likely to yield results. I find it hard to see how "faith" can reasonably be considered a realistic alternative to scientific method and evidence.


QUOTE---Therefore the chances are that your belief in a god is false. (It may be true but the odds are against it)

The odds? What would you say the odds are?

I don't have sufficient data to be exact about the odds. But given that most statements which are believed without any evidence turn out to be false, by definition there is a greater chance of your beliefs being false than true. This doesn't mean that they ARE false. Just that that is unlikely that they are true.


Personal evidence, ie feelings, insights etc are valid in my eyes and should be looked upon as having some weight.

According to the above, if I have a strong personal feeling that there is a magic cow called Gerald living on the dark side of the moon, that constitutes evidence.

QUOTE---Beliefs which are not based on logic or evidence are almost always false.

Almost always eh? Massive statement there!

The statement happens to be statistically true. The reason I say "almost" is because some turn out to be true by chance. Is that what you're hoping?


Okay then my friend, let me ask you....what would I see if my eyes were open like your are? What *exactly* are the *right* questions? Where *exactly* should i look for answers?

The answer here is simple. If you want a greater chance of your beliefs being true, you should become more discerning about where you look for them. You should be less gullible. I am not prepared to base my world view on a collection of ancient myths that are full of inconsistencies and nonsense, with out a shred of CREDIBLE evidence to support its claims. I would rather look to the scientific method as a means towards truth. It's delivered some pretty impressive results so far. Of course there may be some things we can't ever discover.

QUOTE---If I tell you that it is my firm belief that the entire universe exists as a speck of dust on the end of a huge pink elephant's trunk, there is no way to prove or disprove my belief but that doesn't make it reasonable.

Agreed. However, that suggestion is nowhere near as feasible as the suggestion that we are all divine and divinely created.

How is that the case. What evidence do you have that we are divinely created? The only thing that your divine creation myth has that my pink elephant story doesn't is that yours was published a couple of thousand years before mine.;)

[Prof]

Theophilus' Transcendental Argument has been demolished in many other threads (and he leaves them without ever answering the hard questions). But that doesn't stop him from showing up to shoehorn the same ineffectual argument into whichever threads he can.

Here is the irony contained in Theo's position: It doesn't matter if
Theo ever admits that The Prime Axiom must precede his Presupposition of the truth of revelation. As he has explained in other threads, Revelation CONFIRMS the worth of our reasoning and that our senses may be in general trusted. It doesn't matter if you describe yourself as empiricist, Christian, naturalist...whatever...revelation confirms our use of our senses and reasoning to apprehend and understand our world.

Christian Presuppositionalism thereby validates Empiricism, as a method to understand the world.

Now, the problem for Theo and his ilk of course is that evidence gained via our BIBLICALLY CONDONED senses and reasoning contradicts many of the "truths" of revelation. Theo cannot rail against the vast scientific evidence that does not conform to revelation because his epistemology has already condoned empiricism as a successful evidence-gathering tool - whether the scientist is a Christian Presuppositionalist or Atheist.

Oh-oh. Now what? Of course you don't see Theo or other Presuppositionalists dealing with these problems. The main reason being Presuppositionalism isn't really an explanatory
system - I've yet to see a single presuppositionalist show how his epistemology explains anything. Rather, Presuppositionalism is a reactionary argument; an attempt to build the fort around a belief system besieged by better knowledge systems (science), and it employs sophistry in a weak attempt to reclaim usurped ground. It's all about attacking naturalism and empiricism, and in fact it explains nothing. Just as Theo refuses to explain anything, but instead simply uses Presuppositionalism to say over and over again "But how do you know that?"

Our senses are reliable. Empiricism has proven the most useful and valid method of gathering knowledge.

Oh, and how can I know that Theo? Why, because you told me I could. ;)

Prof.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amlodhi
Also, it seems to me that there are only two ways in which to perceive the supernatural. One would be to indirectly deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing its effect on the natural world.



Observation, experience and experiment. (i.e. empiricism in the non-philosophical sense.)

I understand your theory. I'm asking for a demonstration how the scientific method gave you the knowledge that "there are only two ways in which to perceive the supernatural." What experiment did you perform, what phenomenon did you observe to arrive at this conclusion.

You are simply asserting the scientific method as a mechanism I want to know how it applies to the measurement of what are inherently immaterial, transcendent concepts.

The across-the-board consistency of various religious claims is the measuring stick by which we empirically determine the dependability of alleged transcendent divine revelation.

There is no "accross the board" consistency among various religious claims and I am not arguing "religious claims" as a support for revelation. I am claiming revelation as the necessary prerequisite for knowledge. You are merely arguing in a circle when you claim to have an empirical foundation by which to judge revelation, i.e., you are claiming an alternative "ultimate" point of reference without validating it.

Genuine divine revelation, by definition, must necessarily be inerrant truth.

Well, again, you're applying an external standard of what "genuine divine revelation" must be like. If revelation IS THE NECESSARY precondition for intelligibility, then it alone will determine what is "necessary." Because you have grown up in a culture dominated by Christian ideas, you assume that all religions posit inerrancy for their documents; this is false, and even some current Christian theologians do not demand (in fact deny) inerrancy, e.g., Barth, Tillich.
The Bible is inerrant because, as the revelation of the God who it declares, it must be.

Thus, the knowledge expounded by everyone receiving genuine divine revelation must necessarily be inerrantly consistent across the board.

No, only the revelation itself must be inerrant. Everyone claiming to speak "from" the Bible does not have a claim to inerrancy.

It is, however, an observable and easily demonstrated fact that the knowledge expounded by those claiming revelatory knowledge is not only inconsistent across the board, but is also often mutually exclusive.

Then at least one of them must be wrong. This doesn't touch the authority of revelation, it simply confirms what the Bible says that men are fallible, that only God has perfect knowledge and that men, even believers, are prone to misunderstand - much of the New Testament is written to correct such misunderstandings.
Regardless, the scripture provides a standard, even if it is imperfectly understood. "You shall do no murder," does not mean "it's okay to murder."

Atheism provides no standard at all that rises above the level of skepticism.

Thus, we can determine (empirically) that (at least) the majority of people who fervently believe that they are receiving divine revelation are, in fact, simply fooling themselves.

I never said anything about people "receiving" revelation, did I. The revelation of God in Christ is a completed event, recorded in scripture. It does not come "mystically" to each individual. Faith is based on the declared word of God, not on some personal "experience" with the divine.

Once again, empiricism has not been validated as a test for revelation. Now, if I claim to have empirical proof for revelation, then you can apply your standard to my proof. But until then, you're begging the question

IOW, I can (and have) had ten people sitting around my table all of whom claimed their knowledge originated by divine revelation. Since each of these ten expounded a different opinion as to the nature and substance of this knowledge, it is evident that (at least) 9 out of 10 of these people were not receiving genuine divine input.

Or that they had misunderstood.

Since, based on these observations, I can conceive of no compelling reason to arbitrarily select one from among the ten on which to assign credibility, it seems not unreasonable to suspect that they are all merely fooling themselves. Indeed, this assessment is made even more tenable by the fact that the human predisposition for self delusion has, at this point, already been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

I never suggested that it is up to you (or anyone) to "select" one revelation among many claimants. The argument is epistemological, what are the necessary requirements for knowledge.

My epistemological presupposition is the revelation of God in scripture. This does not mean, however, that I sullected the Bible based on autonomous reason as deserving my approval. What I am engaged in here is an apologetic enterprise. It would be a mistake to confuse that with the faith relationship I have with the creator.

You, OTOH, have still failed to declare you epistemology and explain (as I have done) how it provides a foundation for knowledge and understanding experience.

I really think it's time you turned your attention to that.

[Ellis14]

theophilus's post is another red herring to move away from the attacks made on his previous arguments. once again, i would like to see him stick to these topics and answers the refutations made to his position instead of take the course of apologetics and attacking the contrary of his position.

quote: "You are simply asserting the scientific method as a mechanism; I want to know how it applies to the measurement of what are inherently immaterial, transcendent concepts."

Well the simple answer is that the scientific method cannot be applied to immaterial transcendent concepts, assuming that such exist. Science can only offer a model (theory) to interpret the evidence (facts). However if a mechanism cannot be tested or proved right or wrong, then it is not a very useless scientific theory.

The real issue is, can you provide a method or mechanism by which to measure the concepts you cite? What possible method might you use to explain the supernatural or transcedent. If these methods are self-contradictory and don't require testing, reasoning, critical analysis, logical thought, objective determination and cannot provide frameworks that can be tested against whatever evidence is acceptable, then they are useless. If however you intend to use such methods to determine the immaterial or transcendent concepts, they you are using the scientific method yourself!

Otherwise, how might you ever possibly prove the assertions you make?

[Angrillori]

Here's what really gets my goat about this presup, debunked, hackneyed tripe.

The xian presup. position claims that revelation allows us to know our senses are reliable.

However, if our senses are reliable then revelation is not. (See scientific inaccuracies in biblical revelation and internal contradictions in biblical revelation) Therefore the revelation that our senses are reliable is not reliable. Therefore this whole house of presup. cards falls down before it starts in one humungous contradiction.

Not to mention the whole bit that to presuppose revelation shows our senses are reliable we must first presuppose that our senses are reliable when we read revealed text. :confused:

Not to mention the vast spans of history and geography which never 'met' revelation outside of nature. If the only 'revelation' neccessary for xian presup. to be true is what we can experience with our senses in nature, then really, xian presup. is indistinguishable from empiricism (Except with an additional supernatural entity ready to be occam-ed away!)

Not to mention the dozens of other failings that have been shown in this mishmash of verbal diarrhea referred to as xian presup.:banghead:

[Angrillori]

Oh, and you want to know the epistemiological foundation?

Hindu scripture.
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er....

The Koran
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er....

Greek Mythology
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er...

Buddhist text
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er....

The Velveteen Rabbit
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er...

The Owner's Manual for my Jeep
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er...

Cave paintings in Avignon
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er...

The Tao Te Ching
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er...

Dune
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...
er...

The Bible
oh no wait I have to rely on my senses to read that and my reason to understand it, so my senses and reason could be deluding me...

So I guess the only foundation I need is to assume my senses and reason are reliable. Haven't I heard that somewhere....Some axiom? ...The 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23 Axiom?....Oh yeah! The Prime Axiom!

Occam your presup out on your own Theo. You can do it!

[blindwatchmaker]

Whispers, I take your lack of response to mean that you concede that your argument was poor and that belief through faith alone is largely useless.

Well done!:)

[Ellis14]

-

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prof
Theophilus' Transcendental Argument has been demolished in many other threads (and he leaves them without ever answering the hard questions). But that doesn't stop him from showing up to shoehorn the same ineffectual argument into whichever threads he can.

Here is the irony contained in Theo's position: It doesn't matter if
Theo ever admits that The Prime Axiom must precede his Presupposition of the truth of revelation. As he has explained in other threads, Revelation CONFIRMS the worth of our reasoning and that our senses may be in general trusted. It doesn't matter if you describe yourself as empiricist, Christian, naturalist...whatever...revelation confirms our use of our senses and reasoning to apprehend and understand our world.

Christian Presuppositionalism thereby validates Empiricism, as a method to understand the world.

Not irony, just shere ignorance on your part.

[Ellis14]

in what way is that "ignorance" Theo? please explain.

for that matter, any time you would like to answer the "hard questions" we would all be very much obliged.

[Singularity]

Theo - even if we grant you that supernaturalism is true you can't justify faith in one religion over another. Faith in a particular is arbitrary. Faith in supernaturalism is a by-product of arbitrary religious faith. Once you understand your religious faith is arbitrary you can begin coming to terms with your faith in supernaturalism.

[Whispers]

Originally posted by blindwatchmaker
Whispers, I take your lack of response to mean that you concede that your argument was poor and that belief through faith alone is largely useless.

Well done!:)

Thus far, we have enjoyed a reasonable sparring session. To conclude from my lack of an *immediate* response that I have conceded, is a bit premature dont you think? What evidence did you base such an assumption on? ;)

The reason I did not post immediately is because I was at work, I have a wife and child that take up a lot of my time and I have decided to cut my Intermet connection at home, and therefore can only respond when I am in the office.

I will try and find time later today to rebut some of what you said.

W

[NottyImp]

Bear in mind that on another thread, Theophilus asserted that science's successes can be attributed to "pure luck".

That's right, folks, Theo believes that the thousands of scientific discoveries that went into building the complex machine that is the computer that he types his messages on, all work separately and together because of "pure luck". This is the kind of nonsense that his position reduces him to.

[blindwatchmaker]

Originally posted by Whispers
Thus far, we have enjoyed a reasonable sparring session. To conclude from my lack of an *immediate* response that I have conceded, is a bit premature dont you think? What evidence did you base such an assumption on? ;)

The reason I did not post immediately is because I was at work, I have a wife and child that take up a lot of my time and I have decided to cut my Intermet connection at home, and therefore can only respond when I am in the office.

I will try and find time later today to rebut some of what you said.

W

Apologies for my brash and premature judgement. Look forward to reading your response.:)

[Whispers]

QUOTE---Whisper, you misunderstand me. I have never said that I will only believe things for which I have proof. I have said that it is only reasonable to believe that for which you have evidence.

I agree that it is only reasonable to believe that for which there is evidence. I have evidence, personal evidence that God is. You will understandably not accept this as valid. In truth, I would not want you too. Your own relationship with the divine, must be forged through your own efforts and insights.

QUOTE---I'm sure that there is lots of evidence that love exists.

Prove to me in your next thread that you have felt love. If you cant, how could I possibly prove to you that God is and I can feel him?

QUOTE---My memory is strong evidence for what I dreamed last night.

Prove it to me then...

QUOTE---The way that taste buds react to chemicals in grapeful is supported by a large body of scientific evidence.

Agreed. How much of this evidence have you actually read? Are you assuming that it is there? Do you KNOW for definite that the evidence has been checked and verified? Even so, prove it to ME in your next thread.....how does a grapefruit taste to you?

QUOTE---My love for my parents is supported very strongly by the evidence of my actions towards them consistently for over a quarter of a century. The beauty of my wife and children to me is a value judgement and is therefore the only evidence required is that I express this view which i do regularly.

All of these things are true and I have no doubt in them and what you say. However, that in no way proves to me any of it. Despite the fact you cannot prove it, its true isnt it? See what I mean?

QUOTE---Does faith have any such filtering or quality control? I think not.

I disagree here. Discernment is present, or should be.

QUOTE---If you were to take all the ideas that have been believed purely as a result of a "feeling inside" by all people throughout history to the present day, it would certainly be the case that most of them turned out not to be true. This may at first seem like an unproven assertion, but think about it. All the ancient civilizations with their war gods, sun gods and sky gods. All the people who burned innocent women and young girls for being "witches". All the witch doctors who claimed that a sick child could be cured by "shaking the leaves of the village tree over them" (before the child died), all the prophecies that have never come to pass (I've lost count of how many times the earth was meant to end), all the hunches that modern day people have that turn out to be untrue, all the money lost in gambling halls by people who "just have a feeling deep inside", all the different religions in the world who all believe their "inside feelings" just as strongly but by virtue of their different beliefs must contain a majority of people who belief falsehoods(If Islam is factually correct then all xtians must be wrong and vice versa etc..)
This list goes on. What's more, the strength or passion with which a feeling of faith is felt does not make it any truer.

In some ways you are correct. All of the feelings you mentioned are not necessarily true. I think we would both agree on this. In no way though, does this mean that feelings should not be trusted, or discounted without reasonable contemplation and reflection. You have neglected to mention the other side of the coin. What about the feelings which led to actions conducive to love, harmony, peace, warmth, worthy sacrifice? Feelings in and of themselves are not truth or proof. We both know that. We both also know that we can only ever know the world through our own eyes, the eyes of a Human Being. The magnificence and wonder of the universe is beyond us to some degree and although science is working wonders in increasing our understanding, there are many things that I think we may never know.

QUOTE---There is another sense in which belief through evidence scores more highly than faith. This is in it's ability to make successful predictions. Almost all religions are filled with ambiguously worded prophecies of what is to come. The vast majority turn out to be either false, smudged(ie written after the event) or come true either by being worded generally enough that they were bound to, or by being obvious in the first place. The performance and accuracy of religious prophecies pales into limp significance against the pinpoint accuracy of scientific predictions. Show me a prophecy that will tell you to the nearest minute, what time a certain comet will appear in the sky over a point on earth in four hundred years. Basing beliefs on evidence allows predictions of this accuracy to be made every day.

Okay I agree. Science is masterful at revealing what is what, and is accurate. If it is inaccurate it wants to know why, finds the answer and moves on. Science has made my life easier, and the world better in *some* ways. To feel God and to be in him, is not to discount science. As we are all created by God IMO, the works of science have been created by God's children. Even those that have led to death and suffering. Science and God can and do mix, and anyone that says different is not understanding what the truth of the matter is.

QUOTE---It is my contention that given there is so much about the universe that we don't know (and perhaps never will) then if we want our beliefs to be true (rather than just fun and comforting whether true or not)

Belief in God is not always fun and comforting. Where did you get such an idea? It is challenging, sometimes scarey, difficult and calls us to be the best we can be, to know ourselves and to come into harmony with the world and those around us. It's not all about having faith so I dont have to be afraid of dieing. I have faith and I am still afraid of death. It may sound like a contradiction but it is not. True faith calls for honesty, the deepest honesty and that is far from "fun and comforting".

QUOTE---we should adopt the approach to finding truth that is most likely to yield results. I find it hard to see how "faith" can reasonably be considered a realistic alternative to scientific method and evidence.

It is not an alternative. Truth is truth, there are no alternatives. I do not disregard science, I respect science and the laws of science. They are God given.

QUOTE---According to the above, if I have a strong personal feeling that there is a magic cow called Gerald living on the dark side of the moon, that constitutes evidence.

Is that what you believe? =p If you really believed that, if you had evidence in your life that your beliefs were truth, then it would be. Wouldnt it?

QUOTE---The answer here is simple. If you want a greater chance of your beliefs being true, you should become more discerning about where you look for them.

Please answer my question about *where* I should look?

QUOTE---You should be less gullible.

Ignoring the feint insult, please explain methodology for becoming less gullible?

QUOTE---I am not prepared to base my world view on a collection of ancient myths that are full of inconsistencies and nonsense, with out a shred of CREDIBLE evidence to support its claims.

Noone is asking you to. Your world view is yours and yours alone. Developing insight and truth about God does not come from a book. The book can help, but the relationship is what is important, not words on paper.

Tell me, what is your worldview based on currently?

QUOTE---I would rather look to the scientific method as a means towards truth. It's delivered some pretty impressive results so far. Of course there may be some things we can't ever discover.

You search for truth and that is to be commended, and I feel sure that in the fullness of time you will find it.

QUOTE---How is that the case. What evidence do you have that we are divinely created?

Believers see God everywhere, non-believers cant. I see a divine world, with divine beings capable of love, humour and warmth, as well as the darker side of the emotional animal. You, I guess, see the same things without the divinity, but have no suggested answers as to how or why. I suspect that you want the answers and you are awaiting on science to provide them for you. That is fair enough. I dont knock you for your views in any way. You cannot see the things which I see, and I do not see that which you see. We are both limited to live and to view lfe through our own eyes. Our fears, prejudices and experiences will shape us and tint what we see or dont. That is why trying to find the truth on a forum is difficult, because our predjudices limit our ability to really listen and prevent us from opening deeply. That applies to me too.


QUOTE---The only thing that your divine creation myth has that my pink elephant story doesn't is that yours was published a couple of thousand years before mine.

He he he....You are a funny man! =p Just remember that your sense of humour is God given! =)
I am away and celebrating Xmas now and will not be able to post again until the 29th. Do not take my lack of response to be fear or an absence of anything to say. I am out there somewhere and I will respond to you soon. Fear me =)

Oh and Merry CHRISTmas
:p

[Paul5204]

Proof of supernaturalism = your existence in this universe.

And the Supernatural can either be a potential field that doesn't give a hoot about you, or a Being that does give a hoot. Take your pick.

[Jobar]

Whispers:
True faith calls for honesty, the deepest honesty and that is far from "fun and comforting".


Faith does have honesty as one of its meanings, as in 'good faith'. But is that the sense of the word you use when you speak of your faith in God? I don't see that; if you claim it is, please explain how. Really, in the sense of 'blind faith'- belief without any external evidence- I think faith also has overtones of *dishonesty*.


please explain methodology to become less gullible?

My own suggestion for that is to buy Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and look for his 'baloney detection kit'. It's a list of common fallacies, and suggestions on how to avoid making them, and being taken in by them. I think it works very well.

You cannot see the things which I see, and I do not see that which you see. We are both limited to live and to view life through our own eyes.

The difference is that we don't claim to see anything, at least where gods are concerned. *You* are the one who says he sees something, and we are looking and looking, but not seeing anything like that. What do you say we are claiming to see, that you don't? (Hint: "seeing that there is no god" is not a good answer.)

[blindwatchmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Whispers

I agree that it is only reasonable to believe that for which there is evidence. I have evidence, personal evidence that God is. You will understandably not accept this as valid. In truth, I would not want you too. Your own relationship with the divine, must be forged through your own efforts and insights.

Please give details of the evidence you have for god's existence.
Please explain in what way it is different from the evidence that Muslims claim for their God's existence.


Prove to me in your next thread that you have felt love. If you cant, how could I possibly prove to you that God is and I can feel him?

You cannot equate feeling God to feeling love. Love is an emotion. Saying that you feel love is not making a statement about the existence of something external to yourself. Feeling love is simply feeling an emotion. Surely you are not saying that you think god is just an emotion are you?
The same goes for dreams.

QUOTE---The way that taste buds react to chemicals in grapeful is supported by a large body of scientific evidence.

Agreed. How much of this evidence have you actually read? Are you assuming that it is there? Do you KNOW for definite that the evidence has been checked and verified? Even so, prove it to ME in your next thread.....how does a grapefruit taste to you?

You ask two questions here.
1) How much do I know about the evidence for how taste buds work?
Answer: I know that the evidence for the mechanisms of taste are extremely well documented in many peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. If you would like examples, please see:

www.science.mcmaster.ca/psychology/psych2e03/labs/taste.illusion.html

or

www.clarku.edu/departments/biology/faculty/kennedy.cfm

2)How does a grapefruit taste to me?
Answer: It tastes bitter.



All of these things are true and I have no doubt in them and what you say. However, that in no way proves to me any of it. Despite the fact you cannot prove it, its true isnt it? See what I mean?

Again, I will remind you that you don't have to be able to prove something in order to reasonably believe it. I have never claimed that you do. What I have said is that you have to have evidence. There is plenty of evidence that I love my parents, so even though it can't be proved, it is still a reasonable belief.


QUOTE---Does faith have any such filtering or quality control? I think not.

I disagree here. Discernment is present, or should be.

Faith as defined is beyond reason. Otherwise it isn't faith. The moment you start to use discernment, you are not participating in faith anymore. It is precisely for this reason that faith is not reasonable.


To feel God and to be in him, is not to discount science.

Yes, unfortunately it is. No true scientist would accept "feeling" anything as evidence for the existence of something.


Belief in God is not always fun and comforting. Where did you get such an idea? It is challenging, sometimes scarey, difficult and calls us to be the best we can be, to know ourselves and to come into harmony with the world and those around us. It's not all about having faith so I dont have to be afraid of dieing. I have faith and I am still afraid of death. It may sound like a contradiction but it is not. True faith calls for honesty, the deepest honesty and that is far from "fun and comforting".

Then why do so many people get depressed or even suicidal at the thought of a godless universe?


I do not disregard science, I respect science and the laws of science. They are God given.

This statement is self contradictory as it is deeply unscientific to believe anything (including that god gave us the laws of science) without objective evidence. One of the laws of science that you say you respect is that a feeling doesn't count as evidence. This is because there is no way to tell a feeling that corresponds to something that exists from a feeling that doesn't.


Please answer my question about *where* I should look?
You should look to science if you want the best chance of truth. Scientific ideas are not always correct, but the are correct much more often than any other method of investigating the world around us.

Ignoring the feint insult, please explain methodology for becoming less gullible?

No insult intended. Please see:

www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html

This is a GREAT methodology for becoming less gullible.

The book can help, but the relationship is what is important, not words on paper.

Please explain to me how you participate in a "relationship' with someone/thing that you cannot hear, see, touch, taste or smell. By what method does this relationship take place?

Tell me, what is your worldview based on currently?
I don't understand this question. Please ask what you mean in more detail.


Believers see God everywhere, non-believers cant. I see a divine world, with divine beings capable of love, humour and warmth, as well as the darker side of the emotional animal. You, I guess, see the same things without the divinity, but have no suggested answers as to how or why.

Please explain in exact terms what you see that I dont. Please explain how the above statement is anything more than you simply choosing to use the adjective "divine" in your description. Do your senses perceive any data that mine don't? If so, please give details.


You cannot see the things which I see, and I do not see that which you see.

Please tell me a thing that you see that I can't. What do you suppose I see that you are unable to see? Is the above statement not simply a way of saying that we have different opinions?

We are both limited to live and to view lfe through our own eyes. Our fears, prejudices and experiences will shape us and tint what we see or dont. That is why trying to find the truth on a forum is difficult, because our predjudices limit our ability to really listen and prevent us from opening deeply. That applies to me too.

I entirely agree. Although sometimes, when someone presents a compelling argument or strong evidence, we can change how we look at the world. I Swear on my life that if I was presented with strong enough evidence or a strong enough argument for the existence of god I would change my mind in an instant. This is because I want to believe the truth no matter what it is. Can you say the same for your position?


I look forward to reading your response when you return from being away.
In the meantime, merry christmas.:)

[DungScooperDave]

Has it occured to anyone yet that the supernatural might exist, that we witness it daily, but that we just write it off as natural every day without even realizing it?


Furthermore, (though perhaps I should start another thread for this) I'd like to see one empiricist here prove that empiricism is a good method for obtaining truth.

[NottyImp]

Has it occured to anyone yet that the supernatural might exist, that we witness it daily, but that we just write it off as natural every day without even realizing it?

Give examples.

Furthermore, (though perhaps I should start another thread for this) I'd like to see one empiricist here prove that empiricism is a good method for obtaining truth.

What do you suggest - goat's entrails?

[Eidal]

I just want to explain once and for all that the supernatural, by definition, can not exist. Anything that appears "supernatural" is something natural that we do not understand.

It may very well be that ghosts are real, but this does not make them supernatural, it just means that we are missing a significant portion of a concept we don't understand yet.

[DungScooperDave]

Originally posted by NottyImp
Give examples.
A Christian trips and falls over. Did this just happen naturally, or did it happen because a demon caused it to happen? For all we know, either could be true. But I suppose we would just cut the demon off with Occam's razor and just assume that it was natural.
Never mind then. I think I was mostly just trying to make the same type of point that Eidal just did.
What do you suggest - goat's entrails?
No, I'd like something better please. :)

[Ellis14]

Furthermore, (though perhaps I should start another thread for this) I'd like to see one empiricist here prove that empiricism is a good method for obtaining truth.

Proof that empiricism can result in truthful conclusions is science: science explains the natural world in logical ways using empirical facts. Therefore any and all scientific truths which are facts, i.e.: gravity, EM waves etc, are good examples. This doesn't mean that empiricism is completely truthful or useful all the time, but that isn't the point.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by DungScooperDave
Furthermore, (though perhaps I should start another thread for this) I'd like to see one empiricist here prove that empiricism is a good method for obtaining truth.
Ah, another case for the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM)!

When one reads a comment like this, one has to wonder what constitutes a "good method." Is the author in possession of a better method for obtaining truth? Or is the author merely pointing out that the current method is not perfect, and thus does not qualify as good, even when it is ten billion times better than every other known method?

To put it another way: is it possible to have a conversation with a theist that does not involve word taffy?

[heusdens]

As a small contribution to this discussion, a question that keeps begging for an answer is that of sufficient grounds for the existence of the observable material world, as we know it.
The question then is, can empirical knowledge ever satisfactory and sufficiently explain the existence of the world we observe, or is that beyond empirical knowledge?

My answer to this would be that solely on empirical knowledge alone, we might not be able to satisfactory and sufficiently explain the observable material world. The way we conclude and observe the world to exist, would then beg for an explenation for the existence of the observable universe.
Empirical knowledge would for example not be able to indicate that the universe exists in an eternal and infinite way, even if that would indeed be the case.
The eternity and infinity of the universe can never be tested for emperically, it could only be a logical conclusion, based on known and observed facts in the universe.

In everyday science practice, this kind of reasoning is not un common. There are estimates for extra terrestial planets, their mass and position/orbit around far away stars, which never have been observed directly, but which existence is based solely on indirect data of movement of the star the planet orbits.
Is the existence of such a planet part of emperical knowledge, or not?

A related question is, that since we can by emperical means only trace back the existence of the observable world to a finite amount of time before now, what kind of conclusions are there allowed concerning the (possible) existence of the material world before that time?

Is it allowed to claim that the world before that time also did exist, but in a form we do not (exactly) know, or is even that not permitted?

[Amlodhi]

Hello heusdens,

Originally posted by heusdens

Is it allowed to claim that the world before that time also did exist, but in a form we do not (exactly) know, or is even that not permitted?

The rules are ours to make. However, when we allow too many wild cards into the deck, the game becomes meaningless.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

[Whispers]

In response to Jobar

QUOTE---Faith does have honesty as one of its meanings, as in 'good faith'. But is that the sense of the word you use when you speak of your faith in God? I don't see that; if you claim it is, please explain how. Really, in the sense of 'blind faith'- belief without any external evidence- I think faith also has overtones of *dishonesty*.

Honesty is central and integral to faith. When we have doubt, and we do doubt, we must be honest about this. You must realise that as a believer I am stricken with the same mental afflictions as anyone else. I doubt everyday and reflecting on that and being honest with who I am and what I feel, leads to a deepening of the issue and a more thorough understanding of who we really are. When doubt or fear raises its head, instead of turning from this, we look straight at it, and the feelings that rise within us because of it.

QUOTE---My own suggestion for that is to buy Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and look for his 'baloney detection kit'. It's a list of common fallacies, and suggestions on how to avoid making them, and being taken in by them. I think it works very well.

Thank you for your recommendation. I Googled and I have just read through the baloney list. Logically sound.

QUOTE---The difference is that we don't claim to see anything, at least where gods are concerned. *You* are the one who says he sees something, and we are looking and looking, but not seeing anything like that.

I claim to "see". I do not claim that you see, or that you should see or that anyone else should see. Do you "see" the difference?

QUOTE---What do you say we are claiming to see, that you don't? (Hint: "seeing that there is no god" is not a good answer.)

I can only guess....I assume that you see a world devoid of pre-design? A world where morality is at root, only based on any given opinion, or the opinion of the masses. A world where living creatures only have the significance given them by themselves and others. No objective significance....I guess that is what you see. Tell me if I am wrong.

[Ellis14]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here Whispers: one the biggest vices of faith is that it is dishonest, either with yourself or with others.

[Whispers]

QUOTE---Please give details of the evidence you have for god's existence.

Before we go down this route, can you explain why you want it, and please be honest here. Is it so that you can discount it, whatever it is? Are you wanting to shoot down my own personal evidence, so that your beliefs or views can remain attached and you can continue to live them? What about if you shatter my evidence using logic and a reasoning mind. What then?

QUOTE---Please explain in what way it is different from the evidence that Muslims claim for their God's existence.

With all due respect, I have no idea what a Muslim's personal evidence is, and even if they told me, I am in no position to judge. My relationship, is all I can account for.

QUOTE---You cannot equate feeling God to feeling love. Love is an emotion.

I am merely asking you to prove something you feel. Prove it to me if you can, if you cant, you must not ask me to prove something I feel.

QUOTE---Saying that you feel love is not making a statement about the existence of something external to yourself.

I would say that it is. If you love something external to yourself, in a sense you are admitting that you feel love for something other than you. Something external. If you say that, surely you are saying that you believe in its existence?

QUOTE---You ask two questions here.
1) How much do I know about the evidence for how taste buds work?
Answer: I know that the evidence for the mechanisms of taste are extremely well documented in many peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals. If you would like examples, please see:

www.science.mcmaster.ca/psychology/...e.illusion.html

or

www.clarku.edu/departments/biology/faculty/kennedy.cfm

I understand that there is literally tonnes of evidence for this sort of thing. What I was trying to get to, is how much scientific stuff do you believe, without personally seeing the evidence?

QUOTE---2)How does a grapefruit taste to me?
Answer: It tastes bitter.

Prove it to me.

QUOTE---Again, I will remind you that you don't have to be able to prove something in order to reasonably believe it. I have never claimed that you do. What I have said is that you have to have evidence. There is plenty of evidence that I love my parents, so even though it can't be proved, it is still a reasonable belief.

You dont have to prove it to yourself, I am asking you to prove it to me. I suspect that you cant. However, that is not a reason for me to dscount what you are saying. Somethings cannot be proved on a forum.

QUOTE---Faith as defined is beyond reason. Otherwise it isn't faith. The moment you start to use discernment, you are not participating in faith anymore. It is precisely for this reason that faith is not reasonable.

Faith starts with discernment, questioning, opening and progresses from there based on what is known. faith is IMO very reasonable.

QUOTE---Yes, unfortunately it is. No true scientist would accept "feeling" anything as evidence for the existence of something.

Perhaps not, but who says that what a scientist says is truth? What about if a scientist feels that a certain theory is truth, tests it and then confirms it. Surely feeling was a direct link to the existence of the truth for which he was searching?

QUOTE---Then why do so many people get depressed or even suicidal at the thought of a godless universe?

I suspect that it is because we are God made, and some people cannot cope with the false idea that we are not.

QUOTE---This statement is self contradictory as it is deeply unscientific to believe anything (including that god gave us the laws of science) without objective evidence.

Please give me the EXACT rules for deciding what is scientific and what is not...

QUOTE---One of the laws of science that you say you respect is that a feeling doesn't count as evidence. This is because there is no way to tell a feeling that corresponds to something that exists from a feeling that doesn't.

There are ways...

QUOTE---You should look to science if you want the best chance of truth. Scientific ideas are not always correct, but the are correct much more often than any other method of investigating the world around us.

Perhaps...Do you realise that we are all made of atoms? Do you realise that it has been suggsted that the atoms are actually made of smaller particles, and these smaller particles are actually made of smaller particles (quarks)? It is my understanding from reading into this, that at this point we have next to no knowledge of what is actually happening, and why, down at the sub-atomic level. Most of what has happened during research has left us utterly stumped and confused. Someone once said that humans are merely atoms way of knowing itself, or something similar. Someone else suggested that anyone that had read quantum theory and not been left utterly scandalised, had not really read what was written. We literally have zero understanding of the things of which we are made. Of which everything is made. Science has no experts, merely people with more knowledge(never complete), than others. I fear that residing in science and its results will not lead to a full and real truth.

QUOTE---Please explain to me how you participate in a "relationship' with someone/thing that you cannot hear, see, touch, taste or smell. By what method does this relationship take place?

The best explanation would be for you to do the same. If you are *serious* about developing a relationship with God, let me know and we can discuss this in more detail.


QUOTE---Please explain in exact terms what you see that I dont.

I could only guess, as could you.

QUOTE---Please explain how the above statement is anything more than you simply choosing to use the adjective "divine" in your description. Do your senses perceive any data that mine don't? If so, please give details.

Same again.

QUOTE---Please tell me a thing that you see that I can't. What do you suppose I see that you are unable to see? Is the above statement not simply a way of saying that we have different opinions?

In a sense yes. Different perceptions, leading to different opinions.

QUOTE---I entirely agree. Although sometimes, when someone presents a compelling argument or strong evidence, we can change how we look at the world. I Swear on my life that if I was presented with strong enough evidence or a strong enough argument for the existence of god I would change my mind in an instant. This is because I want to believe the truth no matter what it is. Can you say the same for your position?

I like to think so, yes =)

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by Paul5204
Proof of supernaturalism = your existence in this universe. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise.And the Supernatural can either be a potential field that doesn't give a hoot about you, or a Being that does give a hoot. Take your pick. Since when is any kind of reality dependent on our preferences?

WMD

[Prof]

Whispers wrote:

"You must realise that as a believer I am stricken with the same mental afflictions as anyone else. I doubt everyday..."

Actually, I DON'T have the mental affliction of "doubt" (as it pertains to my belief system, which I assume is the subject here).
I never experience the feeling that my world view is in doubt (that I can remember), nor do I encounter anything in the world that appears dissonant with my world view (I ain't got no Problem Of Evil to reconcile, for one thing). It's not because I have figured everything out and know the "truth." It's the opposite: Rather than trying to cram ill-fitting evidence into a fixed belief system, I examine the evidence and let it teach ME about the truth of the world.

Let's see: my belief system is based upon evidence.
Your belief system is based upon a figure from a book for which no one can produce evidence.

I wonder why only one of us has "doubt?"

Prof.

BTW, please do not take this as being unsympathetic to your beliefs or struggle to make the world comprehensible - we are all trying for the same thing.

[Dark Jedi]

Originally posted by Whispers
QUOTE---This is a correct statement, but a fallacy in and of itself. We claim that there is no evidence for, and thus no reason to believe, gods exist.

Evidence eh? This is where it gets really tricky. Do tell me what evidence I could possibly offer you in my next post which you would consider as evidence. I need you to be exact and very specific as to what your own personal requirements are? Also, I must consider whether your personal requirements for evidence match those of other Atheists/Agnostics? What happens if I offer you evidence, you accept it, but someone else denies it?

QUOTE---Your strawman of claiming god does not exist is not our claim.

My apologies for that sneaky strawman! :p

QUOTE---You open with "God is", a supernatural claim, an affiant claim, and an extraordinary claim.

It is extraordinary I agree, to the mind of a non-believer. Yet surely you would agree, that the belief *some* people hold that we literally have no creator and have come from nothing is equally or even more extraordinary.

QUOTE---Now, as the claimant, provide supporting evidence for your claim.

I am in a relationship with God. I cannot prove this to you, and we both know this. Despite the afore knowledge, you insist on asking anyway. If I refuse to answer, you could say that it is because I have no demonstrable proof, something we both know already. If I do answer, and talk about my personal experience, you will dismiss it as unscientific and unrepeatable. You are asking for something that cannot be provided on a forum. Despite this, you still ask. How many more times will you ask, before you realise that there is no answer coming?

QUOTE---Until you can, we shall continue along our previous path, which is seeing no reason to believe in gods or leprachauns.

As you know I cant, you will indeed continue on your path. This is your choice and to be respected. The only thing I dont agree with is the idea that you will remain on that particular path, because someone else cannot provide you with the evidence. How about making your own mind up?

The point of this thread is to address questions that many theists cannot or will not answer re: existance of god. Many assert that there is a god, and do so here with the presumed (and sometimes defined) goal of convincing us. With no evidence, and no reason to accept this claim, it is a pointless assertation. You say "God is", and that in itself is fine, if you are reassuring yourself. When you direct this claim to us, we reply with our own two-word reply, "Prove it".

My mind is made up. There is no evidence to support the claim of gods, therefore I do not believe the claim.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by heusdens
As a small contribution to this discussion, a question that keeps begging for an answer is that of sufficient grounds for the existence of the observable material world, as we know it.
The question then is, can empirical knowledge ever satisfactory and sufficiently explain the existence of the world we observe, or is that beyond empirical knowledge?

My answer to this would be that solely on empirical knowledge alone, we might not be able to satisfactory and sufficiently explain the observable material world. The way we conclude and observe the world to exist, would then beg for an explenation for the existence of the observable universe.
Empirical knowledge would for example not be able to indicate that the universe exists in an eternal and infinite way, even if that would indeed be the case.
The eternity and infinity of the universe can never be tested for emperically, it could only be a logical conclusion, based on known and observed facts in the universe.

In everyday science practice, this kind of reasoning is not un common. There are estimates for extra terrestial planets, their mass and position/orbit around far away stars, which never have been observed directly, but which existence is based solely on indirect data of movement of the star the planet orbits.
Is the existence of such a planet part of emperical knowledge, or not?

A related question is, that since we can by emperical means only trace back the existence of the observable world to a finite amount of time before now, what kind of conclusions are there allowed concerning the (possible) existence of the material world before that time?

Is it allowed to claim that the world before that time also did exist, but in a form we do not (exactly) know, or is even that not permitted?

These are important observations/questions. I hope some of the "scientists" here will take the time to give you a thoughtful, meaningful response.

As a Christian, I would go further and say that naturalistic science gives us NO knowledge of any type because it has no grounding for its basic assumptions.

Good post.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dark Jedi
My mind is made up.

Your WHAT is made up?

[Prof]

"As a Christian, I would go further and say that naturalistic science gives us NO knowledge of any type because it has no grounding for its basic assumptions."

Boy, talk about giving Christians a bad name. :D

Look, Theophilus, why don't you ever follow up on the logical/practical consequences of your ludicrous statements like the one above.

Let's say your child has diabetes. He goes into insulin shock. You have the choice of administering an insulin injection - a solution brought to you by Naturalistic Science - or you can let him die. (Or fold your hands in prayer - same thing).

What'll it be Theo?

If science is as absurd, unfounded and impotent as you keep sloganeering, I assume you wouldn't bother with the fruits of it's labor.

Or...would you? If so, why?

Prof.

[Cross Examiner]

Been away for a while, back for the present.
Originally posted by Singularity
Provide empirical evidence supporting the fact claim that supernaturalism is true.
I think another already remarked on the irony of this statement so I'll let it alone and take you to mean that you'd like evidence of some sort for the existence of God and/or supernaturalism. Take your pick, there are arguments (which include lines of evidence, as you've requested) from: morality, consciousness/existence of other minds, miracles (e.g. resurrection of Christ), the TAG, the Kalam/contingency arguments, ontological, teleological etc. which are strong individually and particularly so when taken in conjunction with one another. You can also couple these positives with a few of the unsolved mysteries for the opposing school of thought (e.g. atheistic materialism), namely: Is the universe eternal? Whence comes DNA/RNA? Explain the writings of Paul, the origin of belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the historical development of the Church? And you find you have good cause for belief (though no one comes to faith in Christ by mere argumentation). Of course there's lots, lots more to add but this is good for starters IMHO.
Originally posted by Singularity
Provide support that your faith is not arbitrary, i.e., different your religion from all other religions such that it deserves your faith whereas others do not.
Christianity is bolstered by various academic disciplines. Not sure where you'd like to start but demonstrating the uniqueness of Christianity (e.g. historically, sociologically, theologically etc.) and that the Holy Bible is superior in every major dimension (e.g. archaeological corroboration, internal consistency, manuscript integrity etc.) to other sacred texts (e.g. Qur'an, Book of Mormon etc.) are both feasible undertakings. Perhaps you could clarify what, exactly, you are looking for?

Regards,
BGic

[blindwatchmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Whispers


Before we go down this route, can you explain why you want it, and please be honest here. Is it so that you can discount it, whatever it is? Are you wanting to shoot down my own personal evidence, so that your beliefs or views can remain attached and you can continue to live them? What about if you shatter my evidence using logic and a reasoning mind. What then?

A reasonable person, revises their opinions when presented with evidence that their ideas or original evidence is unsound. For example, circumstantial evidence in a crime investigation may point strongly to one suspect. Perhaps, so much so that everyone investigating the crime is "sure" they did it. But if it can be proved that for example the suspect was abroad at the time of the crime, it no longer makes sense to interpret the original evidence in the same way and the investigators must change their opinions.



QUOTE---You cannot equate feeling God to feeling love. Love is an emotion.

I am merely asking you to prove something you feel. Prove it to me if you can, if you cant, you must not ask me to prove something I feel.

AGAIN, I will say, I am not asking you to prove anything. I am merely saying that something you feel does not constitute evidence for something existing.

QUOTE---Saying that you feel love is not making a statement about the existence of something external to yourself.

I would say that it is. If you love something external to yourself, in a sense you are admitting that you feel love for something other than you. Something external. If you say that, surely you are saying that you believe in its existence?

That depends on how you define existence. I can say I love Santa. That doesn't mean I believe he exists.

QUOTE---2)How does a grapefruit taste to me?
Answer: It tastes bitter.

Prove it to me.

I honestly do understand where you are going with this, but you are missing the point. If I say a grapefruit tastes bitter to me, there is no way that I can prove it to you(In actual fact it is possible to prove that someone is experiencing bitter tase by monitoring brain activity but for the purpose of this debate lets let that one go).
You are saying that on this basis it is unreasonable for me to ask you to prove that you have a relationship with a god.
I quite agree.
That is precisely why I am not asking you to do that.
I'm quite sure that you have very strong feelings about your god and I entirely believe you when you talk about your feelings.

What I am saying, is that because the relationship is entirely in your head, it doesn't count as evidence. The reason for this is that even if God didn't exist, it would still be possible for you to have strong feelings as you do.




Faith starts with discernment, questioning, opening and progresses from there based on what is known. faith is IMO very reasonable.

I'm sure that the majority of people who claim to have faith would disagree with you. I lose count of how many times I have been told that you have to believe regardless of what you know. That faith asks for no evidence. I'm sorry but faith as most religious people understand and describe it is very far from reasonable. Thats why its called faith not reason.


who says that what a scientist says is truth? What about if a scientist feels that a certain theory is truth, tests it and then confirms it. Surely feeling was a direct link to the existence of the truth for which he was searching?

Nobody says that what a scientist says is truth, but the scientific method of examining the world around us leads to more success than any other method. In terms of scientists using feelings to lead to confirmed truths, that is a very old and long refuted argument. Obviously scientists use feelings, hunches and in some cases guesses to decide where to look and what to look for. But these alone are never the basis for their claims. You will never ever ever hear a reputable scientist say"This theory is true because I have a really strong feeling about it, even though I haven't tested it." If he tests his strong feeling and it doesn't pass the test it goes in the trash with all the other false ideas. What's more, if he discovers that there's no real way to test if the feeling is true or not and no other evidence to suggest that it is, he would not place much value on it.
Religion, on the other hand is quite happy to accept strong feelings as being true without bothering to test them, or even if they actually conflict with the evidence. This is why religion has never provided any answers about how the universe works. How many religious people are quite happy to believe the ridiculous creation myth even though it has been disproved many many times?..

QUOTE---Then why do so many people get depressed or even suicidal at the thought of a godless universe?

I suspect that it is because we are God made, and some people cannot cope with the false idea that we are not.

My point exactly. It is much more comforting for some people to belive in the Sky Daddy.