A Gutsy Preacher

[MarkFL]

What part of the supernatural for which there is compelling evidence could anyone legitimately use to demonstrate anything? There is no evidence of the supernatural, so how could not being allowed to use non-evidence as evidence possibly be an issue?

I'm not proclaiming a belief, I am simply making the observation that the natural is all we have evidence of.

And Josiah, I expected you would devise some ways to appear to completely misunderstand what I posted.

 

[MarkFL]

It sounds like you and Tigger are saying that Atheists claim...

"You believe in the Supernatural but we do not. So you cannot use the Supernatural as part of your proof since we don't believe in it."

That does seem to sound like how they've put it.

In mathematics, when proving a theorem, one is not allowed to invoke the theorem being proved in the proof of the same theorem.

 

[Josiah]

I'm not proclaiming a belief, I am simply making the observation that the natural is all we have evidence of.

Unless you can absolutely, objectively PROVE that (that means in a way NO ONE is POSSIBLE of disagreeing with, in a way that in no way points to what is natural), then it's a belief. A belief is something you chose to hold is real/valid/true. You have claimed - consistently - that what you call "natural" (you've never denied that - only that it's lacking "super" and "divine") is what you assume is real/true/valid and exclusively so. You claim that you are a "skeptic" and yet - in spite of numerous requests - have never revealed an ounce of skepticism toward your own belief - that what is real/valid/true is what you yourself currently feel is "natural." I agree with you that probably IS an assumption of "Atheism" (which is another reason why it's a religion) but again, you CLAIM to be a "skeptic" but you've never indicated any skepticism about your belief system, your assumptions as to what is and is not. Nor have you provided anything whatsoever to indicate that the "natural" (whatever you mean by that) IS 'real' and/or is the ONLY "is." So much for skepticism .... so much for proof...

Sure: if you BELIEVE that whatever you think "natural" is ... well... is what is real/existing/true, then you will accept such as valid evidence and it can have no other function than to reaffirm your believe (a bit of a circle there - as I've stated before but you always ignored). All you are doing is using your assumption to verify your assumption. And sure: if you reject anything else as "real" and thus as "evidence" then it cannot indicate anything to you. Both of these are simply functions of your belief system. Thus the absurdity, the nonsense of indicating the the one embracing the SUPERnatural can only provide evidence from the natural (but it is a good way to protect one's belief system - anything that could challenge it is disallowed).


IMO, you've ignored the very point of your own thread: Utlitmately, no one "proves" anything in the uber-philosphical, objective, provable sense. I can't prove I even exist - or you - or God or no God. If we could PROVE such - without any assumptions (belief), without any trust (faith), with only OBJECTIVE stuff that NO ONE could possibly question but only could accept, without using the assumption in the defense of the same - then everyone would have the same views, there would be no variant in opinions - everything would be proven.


I think you raise valid (if impractical) points..... you just don't acknowledge the same applies to you. You speak of skepticism while indicating that you have NONE toward your own views, assumptions, choices, beliefs, faith (only toward all OUTSIDE of it). You speak of "evidence" but you only permit such of a circular nature - that can do no other than verify itself and no other. I'm not rebuking you for that (in a sense, we all do that) only what appears obvious: it all applies to you, too. You have valid points - yet as you point one finger at others, you are pointing 3 back at yourself. THAT'S what you are not discussing.



Now, as you know, I'm using the word "belief" in its literal meaning as what is assumed, chosen as true/real/valid, something you cannot PROVE in an absolute, objective manner without a circle (using the assumption in your argument of defense). THAT is your "belief." And I'm using "faith" in its literal meaning as that which is trusted, what we "run" with. We all have beliefs..... we all walk by faith.... Some of us just admit this, others condemn what they themselves do.



- Josiah




.

 

[tango]

Well, before we go directly to the birth, life and resurrection of Christ, let's (I don't mean you personally, I mean the hypothetical "they" who try to convince) just get to the point where we have any compelling evidence for the supernatural. Once we clear this very first hurdle, then we can contemplate the multitude of hurdles remaining that would get us to theism (and our work would only just have begun at that point to get to Christianity). It is this first hurdle that stands in the way for the skeptic at the moment and is what prevents me as a skeptic from being compelled or even motivated to accept any claims made regarding the supernatural.

I guess this is where the unicorn example comes back into play. If I've seen a unicorn I no longer have the option to believe that unicorns do not exist unless I want to reject what my eyes are telling me, and yet until you see the unicorn for yourself there's nothing I can possibly do to convince you that I actually saw it. And if your reaction to seeing the unicorn for yourself would be to assume there was something wrong with you and go to the doctor, how would you ever come to believe?

Ultimately we end up in a situation that's at least comparable to the blind man in John 9 after Jesus gave him his sight. He was asked all sorts of questions and summarised with a simple comment - "though I was blind, now I see." Everything else was secondary, he no longer had the option to believe that blind eyes could never see because the miracle had occurred.

In the days of Jesus people would have known people so things that happened locally would be known locally. The lame man in Acts 3 would have been known to people and they would have known he was lame. When he started leaping around everybody would have known this was something Very Odd Indeed. In this day and age it's often hard to know just what can be believed because there are too many who try and get rich from the name of Christ, relentlessly soliciting donations from everyone and their dog and regularly making grand claims that nobody can verify. If such a minister visited my church claiming a ministry of healing I'd want to see something undeniable before accepting his ministry, simply because it's all too easy to bring along a few stooges who laboriously shuffle their way into the pews only to go forward at the appropriate time to be "miraculously healed" before heading back out of town and repeating the scam at another church. On the other hand if the paraplegic young man who has been a wheelchair user for as long as I've known him got up and started dancing it would be clear a miracle had occurred.

Where scientific proof is concerned it's hard to know how the supernatural could be measured or even verified by scientific instruments which, by their very nature, are natural.

 

[MarkFL]

I guess this is where the unicorn example comes back into play. If I've seen a unicorn I no longer have the option to believe that unicorns do not exist unless I want to reject what my eyes are telling me, and yet until you see the unicorn for yourself there's nothing I can possibly do to convince you that I actually saw it. And if your reaction to seeing the unicorn for yourself would be to assume there was something wrong with you and go to the doctor, how would you ever come to believe?

It would be in my best interest to consider whether it is more likely that I saw some uni-horned equine species that has thus far eluded discovery, or if I was somehow mistaken. Obviously, the latter is more likely, and so I would be inclined to explore that option first and very thoroughly before I would accept that what I thought I saw was genuine.

...On the other hand if the paraplegic young man who has been a wheelchair user for as long as I've known him got up and started dancing it would be clear a miracle had occurred.

Yes, it would be clear that something unusual had happened, but I wouldn't be ready to claim divine intervention. Now, if the young man was an amputee, and I knew him personally, and knew he was an amputee (had seen hist stump(s), etc.), and his lost limb(s) was/were restored to him, then I would be more inclined to believe that some kind of intervention beyond current known human capabilities had occurred.

Where scientific proof is concerned it's hard to know how the supernatural could be measured or even verified by scientific instruments which, by their very nature, are natural.

I can appreciate the difficult position here, but it's simply not my burden since I am not making a claim. It is the burden of those making the claim who wish to convince others of the truth of their claim. If I somehow knew or believed something extraordinary to be true, but could not demonstrate it is true to anyone else, I would not try to convince others of this "truth." I would likely tell those close to me about what I believe to be true, but I would recognize that their default position is to reject such a claim without compelling evidence, since I had not met the requisite burden of proof that goes along with making a claim. I would not foolishly expect them to prove I was wrong...I'm not that naive.

 

[Rens]

Who had to prove something? The women with the news that Jesus had risen and Jesus or Thomas? Did Thomas have a belief or a faith that Jesus had not risen? Jesus said to him: don't be unbelieving, but believing.
Did anyone tell him: prove He didn't?
He wouldn't believe unless he could put his hand in His side. Jesus just let him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

People accept a lot of things on the say-so of trusted sources without verified evidence. We eat food on the say-so of those who make it. Learn language on the say-so of our teachers. Same with mathematics. if you give it enough thought it is likely that the majority of things that one thinks one knows are based on the say-so of trusted sources.

 

[MarkFL]

These things all produce useful results and are based in experience to be true...we find that the language we have been taught allows us to communicate effectively with others speaking the same language, we find that the mathematics we have been taught can be personally verified to an absolute degree and when used to describe the natural world allows us to do some remarkable things. In other words, we have evidence of the validity of these things.

 

[Josiah]

People accept a lot of things on the say-so of trusted sources without verified evidence. We eat food on the say-so of those who make it. Learn language on the say-so of our teachers. Same with mathematics. if you give it enough thought it is likely that the majority of things that one thinks one knows are based on the say-so of trusted sources.

We all believe.... we all walk by faith. Some admit it, some deny it, but it's always true.

And it's nonsense to insist that if the assumption is used in the defense to indicate the assumption is true - ergo the assumption is true (it's called "circular reasoning"). If you assume that what one considers "natural" is real and exists and then use what is regarded as "natural" to substantiate that, it's just a function of the circular reasoning - it doesn't "prove" anything.

IMO, it is FAR more effective and honest to simply admit that propositions (all of them) cannot be proven in the uber-philosophical, objective, non-circular way that some might demand of others (but exempt from self) - such is never possible; we don't live with such extreme absolutes. This is more reasonable than nonsensical, contradictive, illogical positions such as "There is no life on Mars and I have no position of whether there is life on Mars neither denying or affirming that there is or is not" (Abioism - Agnosticism). "The number of sands on the beaches is NOT odd and I hold no position on whether the number of grains of sand is even or odd." That's just illogical, nonsensical, useless contradictions.




- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

On the issue of theism, only those who make a claim are exercising faith, since there's no compelling evidence either way to demonstrate knowledge. That's the bottom line.

For people like me, who simply reject any claim regarding the existence of God/gods, there is no faith being used since we are not making a claim. It takes no faith to reject such a claim, it only takes faith to make a claim without compelling evidence. I know a few will disagree, either because of an utter lack of understand regarding the true nature of faith, or more commonly through some dishonest desire to put everyone in the same tenuous position in an effort to call it a wash. I find all this "squirmy" behavior quite comical.

But, when one cannot meet their burden of proof that comes with making a claim, a choice has to be made...either admit it as a person of integrity and intellectual honesty, or try, unsuccessful as it may be, to squirm your way out of it.

 

[Josiah]

On the issue of theism, only those who make a claim

There IS a divine is a proposition.
There is NO divine is a proposition.

The only non-proposition is agnosticism, which is neutrality, non-statement, affirming or denying nothing.


You claimed that nature exists. You just never defined AT ALL what you, personally, currently opinion is "natural" and in spite of numerous requests, never one presented absolute, objective PROOF that in no way involves nature, that was not circular in some way.

exercising faith, since there's no compelling evidence either way to demonstrate knowledge. That's the bottom line.

Faith is the reliance, the action taken from what is believed (embraced as true/real/valid).

it only takes faith to make a claim without compelling evidence.

Propositions ("There is no God" for example) have a burden of proof. And using circular reasoning proves nothing (such as using what is regarded as natural to prove that natural is what is real).

Faith is reliance ... if you are behaving, thinking, feeling on the assumption that there is no divine, then you have faith in that. Now, if you rely on nothing - you have no faith (I think there's a psychological name for that disorder), but I find it just dishonest.

when one cannot meet their burden of proof that comes with making a claim, a choice has to be made...either admit it as a person of integrity and intellectual honesty, or try, unsuccessful as it may be, to squirm your way out of it.

I've never met a Theist who insists that he/she can PROVE in this uber-philosophical, absolute, objective way (never using anything supernatural)... although I've yet to met an Atheist who doesn't insist that we present that. Now I realize there are some Atheists who hold the antithetical, equal position (there is no divine) yet totally, absolutely exempt their position from any burden of proof (forgetting they just said there is no divine).... while TRYING concurrently, equally to insist that actually they are entirely NEUTRAL on whether there is or is not a divine. A complete lack of intellectual honesty, lol. Nonsense. But you gave the reason for it: so the Atheist can evade the "burden of proof" for their position that they demand of everyone else for their position - so they can attack with the "There is no divine!" claim then hide behind the Agnostic claim when they are asked for their proof. That's intellectual dishonesty, that's non integrity.

You seem to have a vague proposition: Nature is what is real. You have no absolute, objective, non-circular proof for that (I think that's revealed by your rather persistent avoidance of the request for such). You CHOOSE to accept that, you ASSUME that, you BELIEVE that. And you rely on that, you act and live and feel ACCORDINGLY, based on your belief - thus you have faith in your belief. I'm not rebuking you for that..... It's you that's rebuking that. You raise valid points (just entirely impractical) - you just won't admit as a person of integrity and intellectual integrity that it applies to you, too. I've repeatedly invited you to consider that.... you've always entirely evaded it.



- Josiah



.

 

[MarkFL]

And sadly, but expected completely, we're back to your lack of understanding of atheism, I see. LOL! I didn't read past that because your failing at that fundamental level renders all else inconsequential and a waste of time to consider.

Atheism, in general, is only the rejection of theism, to be without theism, hence atheism. I have not once claimed there is no divine, I have only said that I reject the claim that there is a divine. That you refuse to see that vital difference is where you are stumbling and failing over and over.

 

[Rens]

And sadly, but expected completely, we're back to your lack of understanding of atheism, I see. LOL! I didn't read past that because your failing at that fundamental level renders all else inconsequential and a waste of time to consider.

Atheism, in general, is only the rejection of theism, to be without theism, hence atheism. I have not once claimed there is no divine, I have only said that I reject the claim that there is a divine. That you refuse to see that vital difference is where you are stumbling and failing over and over.

You never know, we might all get it after another 100 pages or not LOL.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, Mr A says "I do not believe in any gods and certainly not the one you're trying to persuade me to accept" is Mr A

• an agnostic
• an atheist
• a deist
• a religionists of some kind

 

[MarkFL]

You never know, we might all get it after another 100 pages or not LOL.

LOL! I suspect the server's storage limits would be exceeded before that happens.

 

[Rens]

Josiah, Mr A says "I do not believe in any gods and certainly not the one you're trying to persuade me to accept" is Mr A

• an agnostic
• an atheist
• a deist
• a religionists of some kind

What can we win if we give the right answer?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, Mr A says "I do not believe in any gods and certainly not the one you're trying to persuade me to accept" is Mr A

• an agnostic
• an atheist
• a deist
• a religionists of some kind

1. If you eliminate the words "I do not believe in" and replace with "there are no gods ...." such is an Atheist.

2. If you eliminate the words, "I do not believe in any gods and certaintly not...." and replaced them with "I do not affirm the god you're trying to persuade me to accept' is insufficent to know - he could be a Theist, an Atheist or an Agnostic, there's no way to know.

3. There's no way at all to know from the statement if Mr. A has any "religion" or beliefs or faith.

 

[MarkFL]

Josiah, Mr A says "I do not believe in any gods and certainly not the one you're trying to persuade me to accept" is Mr A

• an agnostic
• an atheist
• a deist
• a religionists of some kind

The correct answer (with no need to squirm regarding the phrasing of the question) is:

2. An atheist

He is likely an agnostic atheist, since he has not claimed there are no gods, he has simply stated a rejection of theism making him an atheist.

 

[JPPT1974]

Real and true preachers IMHO, do it for the love of God through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the one and only begotten Son and that true and real preachers give God the spotlight. And they do not focus on themselves! But on the real true star in God!