Being in relationship with Jesus is about living a heavenly reality with Him now and in eternity. Eternity begins in our hearts when we enter fellowship with Jesus and continues after we pass from earth. Living a life with Jesus cannot be simplified to mere moral living. It’s about living out a new reality and being harbingers of the
Too often Christians give the impression that Jesus only saves us from hell and helps us live good moral lives. Too often, I hear atheists think this the epitome of Christianity. Christians mistakenly produce this erroneous idea. Most mean well, but you won’t find it in Scripture.
Life with Christ is tangibly experiential as well as logically sound. Science has been elevated way past it’s realm of expertise to delineate that there is nothing beyond the natural world. However if the natural world is all science can study then science is claiming to know something it cannot know. If it is true that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural world then that is because such evidence extends beyond the reaches of science.
Do we only know things by our minds? Do we not also employ our hearts, souls, and spirits in our quest for knowledge? Why do we elevate our minds so high that it trumps the rest of our being? Our reasoning isn’t so infallible as to be the end all way of attaining knowledge of the real. If we live by our heart and ignore our mind we are out of sync, yet if we live with our mind and ignore our heart and soul and emotions we are also out of balance.
Humans are spiritual and physical beings. We need both to be complete. If we ignore one and elevate the other we are out of kilter with reality. It is interesting to note, that only in Western civilization has atheism taken root. The only other place other than
That is the main reason why I could never be convinced of atheism. It’s not the compelling logical arguments that draw me to the Lord, though there are many sound arguments for His existence along with arguments to the contrary. It’s His presence that I have tangibly experienced and all the facets of my real relationship with Him that are impossible to deny. I haven’t just read the book written by the Lord, I’ve experienced its contents and I am pressing in to know more of Him and experience more of Him. It is because of this that I feel so compelled to help others come to know Him too. He is way too good not to share with the world.
27 comments:
karla said: Science has been elevated way past it’s realm of expertise to delineate that there is nothing beyond the natural world.
Science *asserts* that there is nothing beyond the natural world. It is also not interested in the supernatural world because scientific methodolgy is not set up to study it. This in no way undermines the scientific world view. It has produced marvels and allows us - for example - to debate this very issue whilst thousands of miles apart.
karla said: If it is true that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural world then that is because such evidence extends beyond the reaches of science.
Beyond their remit, yes. It's also rather difficult I imagine to disect either an angel or a demon....
karla said: Do we only know things by our minds? Do we not also employ our hearts, souls, and spirits in our quest for knowledge?
Ah... The 'other source of knowledge' argument..... I'm afraid it doesn't cut much ice with me. Just because people *feel* things to be true or believe *passionately* that they are true doesn't make it so. There may be other ways of knowing things but they are inherently inferior to Reason.
karla said: Why do we elevate our minds so high that it trumps the rest of our being?
Because what we find out with our minds is much more reliable that what we find out with our 'hearts'.
karla said: Humans are spiritual and physical beings. We need both to be complete.
That depends on what you mean by 'spiritual' in this context.
karla said: It is interesting to note, that only in Western civilization has atheism taken root.
Actually Buddhists are Atheists as they do not believe in God/Gods. I'm also confident that Atheism exists in *all* cultures - not just Western ones...... It just happens to have taken off here.
karla said: The rest of the world is teaming with spirituality and supernaturalism of all kinds.
Which proves absolutely nothing I'm afraid. As I said before Truth is not a numbers game.
If science is relegated to the natural world it cannot speak at all about what might lie beyond it's ability to discern. It cannot prove or rule out a supernatural world. How can it? So it is by faith that one who has not seen evidence for it assumes it not to exist. In contrast, far less faith is employed by those who have experienced the supernatural world. They know it to exist. They don't assume it to exist. All can come to know this, but if ones preconceived idea is that its impossible then one may not even accept a direct encounter with it.
You're both wrong about science. Science does not say anything about the supernatural, whether it exists or not. It does not make any assertion about there being "nothing beyond the natural world." This is a common misconception.
"So it is by faith that one who has not seen evidence for it assumes it not to exist."
No it most certainly is not. Are you going to argue that it is by faith that you believe that invisible, pink unicorns don't exist?
BTW, I know what you are trying to say with your statement, and the way your worded it is even wrong. No one is assuming that the supernatural doesn't exist.
"In contrast, far less faith is employed by those who have experienced the supernatural world."
Wrong again. You have no assurance that you have experienced the supernatural. What does it even mean to experience the supernatural, considering that we are natural beings and all we know is what is in nature?
"They know it to exist. They don't assume it to exist."
Wrong again. You believe it to exist, you don't know.
"Wrong again. You have no assurance that you have experienced the supernatural. What does it even mean to experience the supernatural, considering that we are natural beings and all we know is what is in nature?"
Well, Anon, first I would ask you what assurance you could give me of precisely what you thought about yesterday at 3:32 PM. You did experience it, correct?
But secondly, you have committed a petitio above, more or less claiming that all we know is in nature because all we know is in nature.
But I'll set that aside for a moment and ask you how you can assert dogmatically that we are only natural beings, especially in light of your previous comments: "It does not make any assertion about there being 'nothing beyond the natural world.'" and "No one is assuming that the supernatural doesn't exist."
karla said: In contrast, far less faith is employed by those who have experienced the supernatural world.
I'm sure that you've said on other ocassions that you *need* faith to experience the supernatural world.
Quixote said: how you can assert dogmatically that we are only natural beings...
How can you say that we are anything *but* natural beings? I certainly see nothing unnatural about us. Do you mean anything specific?
cyber kitten said "I'm sure that you've said on other ocassions that you *need* faith to experience the supernatural world."
Have I? I don't recall making such a statement. I wouldn't say that you need faith to experience it. It's a real experience. You don't need faith to feel a hug from a friend. Or faith to see a leg grow out before you. You see it with your natural eyes. You don't need faith to experience the presence of God. The word "faith" is so often misused. Faith is more akin to trust. I have faith in God because I know Him, not so that I know Him.
Quixote said: how you can assert dogmatically that we are only natural beings...
cyber kitten said: "How can you say that we are anything *but* natural beings? I certainly see nothing unnatural about us. Do you mean anything specific?"
If you interpret all things to be natural then I see how differentiating between the two would be difficult. What I mean is if you saw and angel would you say that is a natural being as well? I think we need to define some terms so that we know what we mean when we use words like "natural" and "supernatural" and "faith".
karla said: Have I? I don't recall making such a statement.
Maybe I inferred it from our conversations.
karla said: It's a real experience.
I think calling supernatural experiences *real* experiences is debatable at best.
karla said: You don't need faith to experience the presence of God.
What exactly do you need then?
karla said: If you interpret all things to be natural then I see how differentiating between the two would be difficult.
I don't differentiate 'between the two' because I don't see two things to differentiate between.
karla said: What I mean is if you saw and angel would you say that is a natural being as well?
There are probably several ways I could classify such an experience.
But to go back to my original question I asked Quixote: How can you say that we are anything *but* natural beings?
Cyberkitten said:"How can you say that we are anything *but* natural beings? I certainly see nothing unnatural about us. Do you mean anything specific?"
Hang on a second, Cyber. Anon is making a positive claim. If you would like to answer for him, you are welcome to. However, I don't think "I certainly see nothing unnatural about us" is particularly convincing--and that would be supernatural, rather than unnatural.
Quixote said: However, I don't think "I certainly see nothing unnatural about us" is particularly convincing--and that would be supernatural, rather than unnatural.
Then I don't see anything *supernatural* about us..... It wasn't meant to be convincing. It was meant to be an observation.
"Then I don't see anything *supernatural* about us..... It wasn't meant to be convincing. It was meant to be an observation."
Are you then unconvinced that there is no supernatural world? Or do you doubt all that you don't personally observe?
"Well, Anon, first I would ask you what assurance you could give me of precisely what you thought about yesterday at 3:32 PM. You did experience it, correct?"
I can tell you what I believe I experienced and maybe even test empirically to see if those beliefs hold for certain situations (say I was speaking to someone at that time, I could ask that person to corroborate). It really depends on what you mean when you ask for assurance.
I'm still wondering how anyone can be sure of anything supernatural, however.
"But secondly, you have committed a petitio above, more or less claiming that all we know is in nature because all we know is in nature."
I've done no such thing. What I said was that we have no assurance and questioned how we could possibly know. There may be ways of knowing, but I know of none and no one has ever presented one.
"But I'll set that aside for a moment and ask you how you can assert dogmatically that we are only natural beings..."
We aren't natural beings? That's news to me. Last I checked we were part of nature. I never said "only" natural beings. The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether we are only natural beings or not. Maybe we are, but no one has come up with a way to show evidence that we aren't. Until then, it's irrational to assert that we are and believe such.
karla said: Are you then unconvinced that there is no supernatural world?
I *seriously* doubt its existence.
karla said: Or do you doubt all that you don't personally observe?
As I've said before... I doubt everything. Though somethings more than others and some things I have to work at.... [grin]
But you still haven't answered my question: How can you say that we are anything *but* natural beings?
Anon said: "I never said "only" natural beings."
Fair enough, Anon. A retreat from a positive claim of Naturalism to an agnostic position is fine by me. However, your subsequent claim is demonstrably false:
"The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether we are only natural beings or not. Maybe we are, but no one has come up with a way to show evidence that we aren't."
In fact, theists propose several ways of knowing this. The most common is revelation. In addition, Karla has provided several other evidences through her blog. A proper statement, then, would not be that there is no evidence, but that there exists no worthwhile evidence in your judgment. Thus, your statement (Until then, it's irrational to assert that we are and believe such.) is incorrect.
Moreover, even if there were no evidence for Theism, it is argued by many that Theism is a properly basic belief under classical foundationalism, being more or less an incorrigible belief based on the Theist's awareness of God. This is an epistemological question, which considers warrant, not truth.
Quixote,
"Fair enough, Anon. A retreat from a positive claim of Naturalism to an agnostic position is fine by me."
I fail to see how correcting you on what I did not say somehow represents a retreat by me.
"However, your subsequent claim is demonstrably false:
...
In fact, theists propose several ways of knowing this."
And none of them actually work as far as we can tell.
"The most common is revelation."
And, once again, it doesn't work as far as we can tell. How do you tell the difference between Joe's revelation and Jane's? Or Mohammed's? Does revelation actually tell us something about the world, or do we have to go out and do empirical observations to test and figure it out anyway? Revelation ain't worth squat.
"In addition, Karla has provided several other evidences through her blog."
Please point them out, because bald assertions with no supporting evidence don't count in my book.
"A proper statement, then, would not be that there is no evidence, but that there exists no worthwhile evidence in your judgment."
No, a proper statement is just what I said, there is no evidence. All of the "evidence" is born of logical fallacy (mostly begging the question).
"Thus, your statement (Until then, it's irrational to assert that we are and believe such.) is incorrect."
Once again, no it is not. If your evidence is based on logical fallacy, then it is not truly evidence. No evidence means that it is irrational to believe in the supernatural. Period.
"Moreover, even if there were no evidence for Theism, it is argued by many that Theism is a properly basic belief under classical foundationalism, being more or less an incorrigible belief based on the Theist's awareness of God."
Which is a fancy way of saying that since people believe in it, there must be something there. Unfortunately, this is logically fallacious, as it is not necessary for there to be something there to believe in, no matter how many people believe in it.
"This is an epistemological question, which considers warrant, not truth."
I don't even know what you are trying to say with this last sentence.
Anon said: "I don't even know what you are trying to say with this last sentence."
That's interesting Anon, since you spent the last paragraph disputing it.
"Which is a fancy way of saying that since people believe in it, there must be something there."
No, it's a fancy way, and a long accepted philosophic tradition with both atheistic and theistic adherents, of saying a belief is warranted, and therefore not irrational. There's a difference between warrant and truth. Again, I ask you to demonstrate to me what you were thinking yesterday at 3:32 PM. You can't. Do I think you are irrational then for believing it? Of course not. Likewise, try to prove that you have a headache. You can't. It's known as an incorrigible belief--and it's warranted whether it's there or not.
"Once again, no it is not. If your evidence is based on logical fallacy, then it is not truly evidence."
Agreed. Please demonstrate which evidences for the Christian faith are based on logical fallacy.
"Does revelation actually tell us something about the world, or do we have to go out and do empirical observations to test and figure it out anyway?"
We are discussing the supernatural, not the natural world. Revelation tells us all sorts of things about the nature of God, the soul, etc. Exactly how would you empirically test the existence of God? Has science a theomometer?
Interestingly enough, it is virtually impossible to empirically verify atheism. To the contrary, theism has the potential to be empirically verified, if true.
"And none of them actually work as far as we can tell."
Again, that's as far as you can tell.
"I fail to see how correcting you on what I did not say somehow represents a retreat by me."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then, and ask you again, are you making the positive claim that nature is all there is, or not?
Quixote,
"That's interesting Anon, since you spent the last paragraph disputing it."
What I meant was that I understood all the words you used, but I'm not sure how they fit together into a coherent sentence.
"No, it's a fancy way, and a long accepted philosophic tradition with both atheistic and theistic adherents, of saying a belief is warranted, and therefore not irrational."
And, as I said, simply because people are mistaken about whether theistic belief is rational doesn't make it so.
"Again, I ask you to demonstrate to me what you were thinking yesterday at 3:32 PM. You can't. Do I think you are irrational then for believing it? Of course not."
Yet, we are talking about apples and oranges here, are we not? Comparing the testimony of a person that actually exists and communicates it to you directly is quite distinct from assuming that god exists, getting supposed evidence for god by circular logic and logical fallacy, and then believing that god does exist.
"It's known as an incorrigible belief--and it's warranted whether it's there or not."
Are you arguing that it is rational to believe in god because we can believe that we have headaches or physical feelings? It is not irrational to believe I have a headache, but it would be irrational to believe that god or Satan is causing that headache. We know that headaches exist (as well as we can know anything) yet we have no evidence that god or Satan exist.
"Agreed. Please demonstrate which evidences for the Christian faith are based on logical fallacy."
Please show me one that isn't! Just coming up with the concept of god without any evidence to back it up is logically fallacious from the get-go. Some nomads in the desert couldn't explain some things, so they illogically believed some being in the sky must have done it (god of the gaps) and that belief has persisted due to various factors, but it's still all god of the gaps, begging the question, circular logic, etc.
"We are discussing the supernatural, not the natural world. Revelation tells us all sorts of things about the nature of God, the soul, etc."
OK, fine, what does revelation tell us about the supernatural, and how would you ever know? I just had a revelation that says that god weighs exactly 42 pounds. Do you claim that you now know this information?
"Exactly how would you empirically test the existence of God? Has science a theomometer?"
That's not my problem, it's your's. How do YOU test the claims of revelation? How do you tell which claims are true and which aren't? How do you tell which claims actually describe anything supernatural and which don't? Like I've already said before, "I'm still wondering how anyone can be sure of anything supernatural, however." Why has this question/statement gone unnoticed for this long by both you and Karla?
"Interestingly enough, it is virtually impossible to empirically verify atheism. To the contrary, theism has the potential to be empirically verified, if true."
Correct, one can not prove a negative. Theism does have the potential to be verified, yet it remains in the dust bin of the unevidenced. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we also can't rationally justify belief in something that has no evidence.
"Again, that's as far as you can tell."
I've yet to hear how ANYONE can tell.
"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then, and ask you again, are you making the positive claim that nature is all there is, or not?"
No. I'm making the claim that as far as we can tell nature is all there is. I'm also making the claim that no one has yet proposed or shown a method that actually allows us to figure out if anything lies beyond nature. Until such a thing is shown, it is irrational to believe in god.
Anon said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but we also can't rationally justify belief in something that has no evidence."
This discussion reduces to two points: you are confused with the distinction between warrant and truth; and you fail to note the distinction between evidence and what you consider to be good evidence.
Quixote,
I'm not the one confused.
You still have not provided any way of telling what is or is not supernatural and how we would know. This glaring ommission is hanging around the neck of your comments like an albatross. It's not enough for you to assert that supernatural beliefs are warranted or rational without being able to actually denote how one would tell that supernatural entities/events/whatever actually exist, etc.
Secondly, I'm not confused about the difference between evidence and good evidence. If your "evidence" is based on a logical fallacy, it's really not evidence for your position.
Thirdly, you are making a category error with your assertion that because it is rational to believe I know what I believe that it is similarly rational to believe that god exists. And, yes, it's a category error even when Plantinga makes similar arguments.
IOW, you're not making good arguments here, just more glossy looking ones. You're more educated than Karla, smarter, better versed in philosophy, logic, debate, and generally a better, more polished writer, but that doesn't mean that your arguments are correct, because they clearly are not. And, you seem to be ignoring the tough questions that are coming your way, instead trying to play "gotcha" games.
Anon said: "You still have not provided any way of telling what is or is not supernatural and how we would know."
Why do you continue to restate, continuously, things that are blatantly false. I provided a way, namely revelation. Despite your rejection of it, it's there. Again, you are blurring the lines between evidence that you accept, and evidence that exists. Just because you reject evidence, does not mean that's it's not evidence--unless somehow you are the evidence police, the omniscient arbiter of all knowledge?
It's a fact that the Bible exists, and that it claims to be revelation. Your rejection of it does not constitute a lack of evidence.
"It's not enough for you to assert that supernatural beliefs are warranted or rational without being able to actually denote how one would tell that supernatural entities/events/whatever actually exist, etc."
It is if we are discussing warrant, it's not if we are discussing whether something is true. You continue to smudge the lines between the two. Take your pick--I'll argue either one.
"If your "evidence" is based on a logical fallacy, it's really not evidence for your position."
You've yet to demonstrate any logical fallacy, but you keep repeating this same line. Evidently, you have some fallacy in mind. Let's hear it.
"Thirdly, you are making a category error with your assertion that because it is rational to believe I know what I believe that it is similarly rational to believe that god exists."
Once again, you have not taken the time to understand what I am saying. My reference to your difficulty in proving your experience is simply set forth to demonstrate that you have know possible way of evaluating my experience. And if you cannot evaluate my experience, you cannot know what evidence I may have at my disposal. I agree with you that this would not create rationale for you, but when it comes to my belief in God, it may. Fact is, you have no possible way to refute it; and any claim to the contrary is mere bluster.
"And, you seem to be ignoring the tough questions that are coming your way, instead trying to play "gotcha" games."
OK, I'll fall for this one last time. Give me a tough question you want answered, Anon.
Quixote,
"Why do you continue to restate, continuously, things that are blatantly false. I provided a way, namely revelation. Despite your rejection of it, it's there."
C'mon, you obviously aren't serious here. I'm this close to calling Poe's law. Once again, how would you ever know that revelation is correct? What does it actually tell us about the supernatural? How can you differentiate between different/competing revelations? Does god actually weigh 42 pounds? I would have expected this kind of crap from Karla, but I thought you had higher standards.
"Again, you are blurring the lines between evidence that you accept, and evidence that exists."
This is like saying that I have evidence for invisible, pink unicorns, because I had a revelatory dream the other night that they exist. Give me a break.
"Just because you reject evidence, does not mean that's it's not evidence--unless somehow you are the evidence police, the omniscient arbiter of all knowledge?"
If that evidence is born of logical fallacy, then it's not really evidence...why do you make me repeat myself?
"It's a fact that the Bible exists, and that it claims to be revelation. Your rejection of it does not constitute a lack of evidence."
And, you've gone right back into your category error. That the Bible claims to be revelation doesn't mean that it is or that it is evidence that revelation is true, god exists, etc. Until you understand this point, you'll continue to flail in the wind.
"It is if we are discussing warrant, it's not if we are discussing whether something is true."
This is basically a variant of Plantinga's equally bad argument. No, we don't have warrant to believe in something sans evidence and still consider our belief rational. The error you are making is actually that you are backwards. It might be true, but we would be irrational to believe in it.
"You've yet to demonstrate any logical fallacy, but you keep repeating this same line. Evidently, you have some fallacy in mind. Let's hear it."
Actually, I have. It's begging the question. The only way to get to the god "conclusion" is to first assume it. This is textbook begging the question.
"My reference to your difficulty in proving your experience is simply set forth to demonstrate that you have know possible way of evaluating my experience. And if you cannot evaluate my experience, you cannot know what evidence I may have at my disposal."
That's actually wrong and still a category error.
"I agree with you that this would not create rationale for you, but when it comes to my belief in God, it may. Fact is, you have no possible way to refute it; and any claim to the contrary is mere bluster."
No, actually it doesn't. That you have convinced yourself that god exists doesn't mean that he does or that you are rational to believe so.
"OK, I'll fall for this one last time. Give me a tough question you want answered, Anon."
Take your pick from the myriad ones I've already asked! I've asked four times now (combination of asking and pointing out that the point/question goes unnoticed) how we could ever tell if something is supernatural. You quoted just about everything I said except for that part. Why did you skip over it?
"Once again, how would you ever know that revelation is correct?"
Verifiable historically.
"What does it actually tell us about the supernatural?"
Nature of God, among other things.
"How can you differentiate between different/competing revelations?"
You're smart enough to answer this. Is it really that hard to differentiate between competing versions?
"This is like saying that I have evidence for invisible, pink unicorns, because I had a revelatory dream the other night that they exist. Give me a break."
No, it's not. Atheists, well apparently not all, do not make the positive claim that no evidence exists for God, because they know to do so would require them to scour the entire universe at all time and all palces to do this.
If all you are saying is that no sufficient evidence has been presented to you, therefore you are warranted in your unbelief, I'm fine with that. Problem is, you persist in using this position of yours as a springboard to make the outlandish claim that because you know of no evidence, no evidence therefore exists. Atheists don't typically do this for a reason.
"If that evidence is born of logical fallacy, then it's not really evidence...why do you make me repeat myself?"
Because you are wrong. Evidence is. We use logical fallacy as an aid in determining its truth. In addition, some evidence is not logically fallacious. The most obvious example, once again, is that you can have no possible means of evaluating my experience. Your continuous attempts to do so are the logical fallacy, primarily ad ignorantium: Just because I have never seen it, that means it doesn't exist.
But other examples are also not fallacious logically. There's 2000 years of church tradition. What law of logic does that violate? There's accounts of the resurrection. Granted, they may be wrong, but they don;t violate the laws of logic. Even if you claim they're not eyewitness accounts, which I'm sure you do, it doesn't create a contradiction or some otherwise fallcy of logic. It simply means the evidence is poor.
"That the Bible claims to be revelation doesn't mean that it is or that it is evidence that revelation is true, god exists, etc"
I understand it. Problem is, you don't. The Bible makes a positive claim. It takes evaluation to determine whether it is correct or not.
"This is basically a variant of Plantinga's equally bad argument."
The reference to Plantinga creates the illusion that this is a Christian argument. It's not. It's held by virtually every non-continental secular thinker anyone's ever heard of. Maybe you should look into it.
"Actually, I have. It's begging the question. The only way to get to the god "conclusion" is to first assume it. This is textbook begging the question."
Nonsense. It is easy beyond measure to begin with observation and reason back to something eternal, whether it be the supernatural or the space-time continuum. Something can't come from nothing, after all.
"That's actually wrong and still a category error."
Interesting. You are able to know all my experiences.
"how we could ever tell if something is supernatural."
Irreducible complexity would be the answer perhaps from a Christian scientist, but since I'm not one, I won't make that claim.
I'd say that Christ's resurrection would be an example of an event supernatural & knowable, and demonstrative within history. I'd also remind you of what Karla keeps trying to say: Christianity is more than intellectualism, it is a relationship with the supernatural. It's as obvious as the sun to every Christian.
But I see in your question "how we could ever tell if something is supernatural" a built-in skepticism, namely that whatever happens, since you have ruled out the supernatural a priori, obviously we won;t be able to tell.
Finally, let me restate this: atheism can never be empirically verified. Yet the supernatural can. I don't know your age, but I wager you will test it firsthand with 100 years. If it's there, you'll recognize it when you see it.
Yes, what I keep saying is that we can know God exist, not merely through logic and reason although it is logical and reasonable. But also because we can encounter the supernatural.
Christianity doesn't deny the existence of the natural, but affirms it. The supernatural affirms the natural it does not take away from the natural.
I keep hearing a lot of appeals to reason but how do you know you can trust your reason? How do you know reason is something stable? You must have faith that human reason can be trusted and even more faith that your own can be trusted.
Atheism doesn't provide a framework to trust any evidence as knowable or verifiable for you only appeal to human reason to know something to be true. This is even more circular and fallicious than the Christian position that ontology precedes epistomology. Someone must be for knowledge to be founded upon. You can't know anything for certain if only nature exist. You don't know your brain is any superior to the instictual animals we observe.
God has not only provided us written revelation. He entered our history as a man who preformed many miracles. He isn't merely mystical, He is actual, historical, real. And He didn't stop showing Himself, but gives us encounters with Him even today. Not having yet had one doesn't prove that everyone else who says they have encountered God is an insane imbecil.
Quixote,
"Verifiable historically."
What is verifiable historically? Revelation or the supernatural, and how will you verify it? If you are appealing to natural means to verify, then I will point you straight back to your objection to me that you weren't speaking about nature.
"Nature of God, among other things."
Oh yeah? And what is that nature? Depending on who you talk to that nature can vary quite wildly. Again, how do you know that anything that has been supposedly "revealed" actually tells you anything about the nature of a being that may or may not exist?
"You're smart enough to answer this. Is it really that hard to differentiate between competing versions?"
Yes. Muslims say one thing, Xians another. Jews say something different still, and Hindus say something different still from that. How do I know which revelation is true and which is false? To make matters even more complicated, sometimes we get conflicting revelations from the same source - hence the contradictions in the Bible and the different sects of Xianity (to name just two examples).
"No, it's not. Atheists, well apparently not all, do not make the positive claim that no evidence exists for God, because they know to do so would require them to scour the entire universe at all time and all palces to do this."
I don't have to scour the whole entire universe to point out the logically fallacious nature of all the evidence that has ever been dreamed up and presented. So, I still contend that I have revelatory evidence that Charlie the Unicorn has spoken to me. He also told me that your god doesn't exist, so it is now rational to hold that your god does not exist without even the chance that he might. Strangely, he also told me not to go to Candy Mountain.
"Problem is, you persist in using this position of yours as a springboard to make the outlandish claim that because you know of no evidence, no evidence therefore exists. Atheists don't typically do this for a reason."
I'm not saying no evidence does or can exist. I'm saying that we don't have any evidence for god and it's irrational to believe in god sans evidence.
"Evidence is. We use logical fallacy as an aid in determining its truth."
Sorry, but that's simply not true. For instance, I can't simply claim that I have evidence for the Loch Ness monster simply because I believe she exists. That's what you are doing with your "evidence" for god.
"The most obvious example, once again, is that you can have no possible means of evaluating my experience. Your continuous attempts to do so are the logical fallacy, primarily ad ignorantium: Just because I have never seen it, that means it doesn't exist."
But I don't need to know that. All I need to know is that your evaluation of your experience - if it includes god - is logically fallacious. I don't claim that god can not exist (or do I, since Charlie the Unicorn told me so?) but rather that it is irrational to believe so.
"But other examples are also not fallacious logically. There's 2000 years of church tradition. What law of logic does that violate?"
Church tradition built on logical fallacy you mean. Simply because something has longevity doesn't make it rational.
"There's accounts of the resurrection. Granted, they may be wrong, but they don;t violate the laws of logic."
There's supposed accounts that are very problematic. It simply does violate the laws of logic to believe that they are true and that this somehow leads to god. Where did the "god" idea come from anyway? That's the problem.
"It simply means the evidence is poor."
It means that the "evidence" is built on logical fallacy, and hence can not be used as evidence.
I'll have to address the rest later (maybe not until tomorrow).
Different interpretations of the supernatural does not mean there isn't a supernatural to interpret. Meaning different religions can call it different things and have different view points and doctrines, but they are all in agreement that there is a supernatural world. Even the Budahist who don't posit a God still agree that there is a supernatural/spiritual world.
When the supernatural invades the natural that often causes something that can be seen, touched, felt, smelled, heard etc.
Why do you keep insisting that most of the world has got it wrong and are all deluded? By what standard is your opinion about it all more valid than those who believe they have encountered a supernatural world?
karla said: Different interpretations of the supernatural does not mean there isn't a supernatural to interpret.
True - but it's interesting that there is so much diversity of thought on the matter. If knowledge of the supernatural was straightforward there wouldn't be so must disagreement on the matter.
karla said: Meaning different religions can call it different things and have different view points and doctrines, but they are all in agreement that there is a supernatural world.
Just because 100 people or 100 million people roughly agree or believe that something exists has no impact on whether or not something actually does exist. Belief in the supernatural is in no way proof of the supernatural.
karla said: When the supernatural invades the natural that often causes something that can be seen, touched, felt, smelled, heard etc.
So many people believe.
karla said: Why do you keep insisting that most of the world has got it wrong and are all deluded?
Because that is my considered opinion on the matter. It also connects with my understanding of reality. Most religions are based on ancient ideas about the world and the universe. Almost without exception these ancient ideas have proven to be false. Unfortunately many people still believe them to be true. I have a different set of beliefs which I believe are more accurate.
karla said: By what standard is your opinion about it all more valid than those who believe they have encountered a supernatural world?
Firstly because its my opinion which I have come to over the last 30+ years. My atheism is not a 'flash in the pan'. I have had no experience of the supernatural and most supernatural experiences I am aware of seem dubious at best. I also have centuries of science to back me up which explains the world without recourse to supernatural entities.
Continued for Quixote,
"I understand it. Problem is, you don't. The Bible makes a positive claim. It takes evaluation to determine whether it is correct or not."
OK. I make a positive claim that humdersnacher is reptortksnel. Evaluate that! Once again, how do you evaluate claims of the supernatural? Why do you insist on ignoring this point?
"Nonsense. It is easy beyond measure to begin with observation and reason back to something eternal, whether it be the supernatural or the space-time continuum. Something can't come from nothing, after all."
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mention the god of the gaps fallacy, of which you are now guilty of.
"Interesting. You are able to know all my experiences."
No, but I'm able to spot logical fallacy.
"Irreducible complexity would be the answer perhaps from a Christian scientist, but since I'm not one, I won't make that claim."
IC is a worthless concept. Do I really need to bring up all the debunkings that have been done? I realize you aren't using this claim, but don't pretend that it is a viable answer by any stretch.
"I'd say that Christ's resurrection would be an example of an event supernatural & knowable, and demonstrative within history."
Then demonstrate it. Oh, that's right, you can't. And, on top of that, I'll remind you that now you are talking of natural events, since the way you would demonstrate it is through natural events. This is what you chided me earlier on. So, are you moving the goal posts now?
"I'd also remind you of what Karla keeps trying to say: Christianity is more than intellectualism, it is a relationship with the supernatural. It's as obvious as the sun to every Christian."
And, I'll ask you the same questions that Karla couldn't answer. How do you know that you are experiencing something supernatural? How do you know it is god?
"But I see in your question "how we could ever tell if something is supernatural" a built-in skepticism, namely that whatever happens, since you have ruled out the supernatural a priori, obviously we won;t be able to tell."
I haven't ruled it out - I'm asking how anyone would ever know. Unless we can figure out a way to know, how can we actually know that we've experienced something supernatural? Until you can answer this, you've got no legs to stand on.
"Finally, let me restate this: atheism can never be empirically verified. Yet the supernatural can."
I've already agreed with this and pointed out why it's a throw-away statement. Although, I don't believe you included the word "empirically" last time. Far as I know, it might not be possible to empirically verify the supernatural. We're still looking for a way to do it. Again, how would one go about doing that?
Karla,
"Yes, what I keep saying is that we can know God exist, not merely through logic and reason although it is logical and reasonable. But also because we can encounter the supernatural."
Then, let's see that logic and reason!
And, once again, how will you ever know when you've encountered the supernatural? How can you know that it is god? Simply saying, "I know" is not enough, because it doesn't get to the "how" part.
"Christianity doesn't deny the existence of the natural, but affirms it. The supernatural affirms the natural it does not take away from the natural."
This is a non sequitor.
"I keep hearing a lot of appeals to reason but how do you know you can trust your reason? How do you know reason is something stable? You must have faith that human reason can be trusted and even more faith that your own can be trusted."
Because it holds up through empirical investigation. I've previously given you an example of this very thing - big surprise, you ignored it, instead simply clinging to your preconceived notions.
"Atheism doesn't provide a framework to trust any evidence as knowable or verifiable for you only appeal to human reason to know something to be true."
Um, the universe seems to be knowable and verifiable for the most part. Again, you are flat wrong.
"Someone must be for knowledge to be founded upon."
Don't you get tired of being wrong? Simply because X exists doesn't mean that god exists.
"You can't know anything for certain if only nature exist."
You're in the same boat.
"God has not only provided us written revelation."
So you claim, but let's see you prove it. Lots of god have provided us with written revelation - how do you choose between them? (As an aside, have you actually studied other religions in depth to make sure that they are false before accepting Xianity?)
"He entered our history as a man who preformed many miracles."
Again, so you assert, but the evidence is rather scant that Jesus existed and non-existent that he performed miracles.
"Not having yet had one doesn't prove that everyone else who says they have encountered God is an insane imbecil."
It doesn't prove you aren't either. But, seriously, all I'm saying is that you are irrational. I never called you an insane imbecile. And, you are irrational, unless you can provide justification for your belief, and point out how you know that your belief is true. Again, you can't simply say, "I know it's true" because frankly, you don't.
Post a Comment