Musika:
It appears you've got muddled, and maybe didn't read another reply I made to you, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157/page-29#post-3546153
I can't help but notice the hand wiggling you employ to equate "having power over" to be identical to "being above".
If you think this is problematic, you ought to explain why. The prefix "super-" in "supernatural" literally means "above" or "beyond".
Yet for some funny reason, atheists prefer to use their own word, "supernatural", instead of any one of a bevy of words theists already provide that satisfy the same requirements, eg transcendent, immanent, omnipotent, etc.
You have, as yet, still failed to explain why it is the case that atheists bring exclusive terminology to define the subject.
I don't believe it is a terminology exclusive to atheists.
Supernatural things have no fundamental relationship with the "reality" of things.
It is interesting that you say that.
Are you saying, therefore, that anything "supernatural" is therefore necessarily a fantasy?
I suppose that, if this is your position, you would describe God as entirely "natural". But in that case, empiricism would appear to be the logical epistemology method for investigating God, would it not?
No relationship of contingency exists between an "enabler" and "reality" if you want to run around calling things "supernatural". No doubt this is a convenient euphemistic tool of thought for atheists, since a dumbed down version of God provides easier access to their arguments (at least for as long as the fact that atheists are utilizing their own euphemistic language is glossed over, I suppose).
What's your preferred, smartened-up version of God?
Actually if you remove the supernatural from a designated supernatural thing, the designated thing ceases to exist. This is why arguments against supernatural things are easier to float than transcendent or immanent things.
I take it you argument, then, is that God is immanent and transcendent, rather than supernatural.
How does this impact the evidentiary question? It seems to simplify things, from my point of view. We needn't worry about God having "more than natural" attributes. No miracles allowed, I assume.
So, given that we can't appeal to miracles as evidence for this immanent, transcendent God, what evidence are you going to present?
Now what supposed agenda do you suppose atheists could have in corralling the definition of God into a more easily dismissible category at the onset of all their arguments?
It's an interesting question to consider, but one better suited to a different thread. This one is for discussion of evidence for God, as you know.
In this thread and many more, I have brought it up many times, with discussions about the variety within epistemology according to western and eastern philosophical traditions. It appeared to fly over your head, so I started discussing Andamon Islanders, medieval painters and history, utilizing the services of professionals like mechanics, doctors and lawyers by the otherwise inept, etc. Your standard response is to try to swallow it all under the umbrella of empiricism.
Okay, let's assume you have talked about your toolbox. So, you use your non-empirical tools to dig up the evidence and ... what do evidence do you find that shows that God is real?
James R said:
What is your non-empirical evidence for God? Can you present some of it?
Musika said:
Well? Where is it? There are now more than 600 posts in this thread.
Will your next post be the one where you stop talking about the method for obtaining the evidence, and finally post some of the evidence itself?
The main contributing problem here is your automatic compulsion to approach such evidence empirically.
Fortunately,
you aren't constrained by
my automatic compulsions. You can approach the evidence non-empirically. I just want to see the evidence.
You were talking about (empirical, of course) evidence. You were saying that things outside (empirical, of course) evidence are supernatural. I introduced cosmology and events pre-big bang as subjects rife with dubious empirical connections (or even flat out of bounds to empiricism) and alluded to your presumed reluctance to categorize them as "supernatural" despite them meeting your same criteria (being "beyond empiricism .... as a further detail, I expect you would go the extra mile and explain how such things are not "beyond nature", but exist as the empowering core of reality, even if they are empirically inaccessible, hence use of the word "supernatural" would be interpreted as a dishonest ploy to dumb down science yada yada .... ). Now you have come forth and said, no, we have theories (pural, of course) to explain such things. So do theories equate to evidence (for instance, can one acquire a nobel prize by a theory alone? If not, why?) or are you rolling back the terms under discussion?
No, theories don't equate to evidence. That's why I keep bugging you and Jan to stop explaining how one might theoretically go about finding evidence, and to start actually finding some evidence.
You asked me what relation I think that theory has to evidence, and I told you in a previous post (the one you apparently didn't read, linked above).
Anybody can float a hypothesis. To use your example, in cosmology there are many competing hypotheses. Where evidence is lacking, it can be impossible to tell which, if any, is correct. Therefore, I do not commit to any single theory, but keep an open mind, pending collection of the relevant evidence. If there is no evidence to be had, then the theory is mere speculation. It could be right, or it could be wrong; there's literally no way to tell for sure.
Your theory, and Jan's, is that God is real. Jan apparently has no evidence to offer. Let's hope you can do better.
One could point to any example...
And yet, you do not do point to a single example. Why not?
... since empiricism has a fundamental requirement for epistemological incompleteness (aka ignorance) in order to function (can you think of anything scientists have studied that has no more requirement for further research?).
This is not to say this is because scientists are a bunch of nasty dummies (although, on account of the human condition, they certainly can be on occassion), but rather, the weighing in of the finite (human powers of perception) vs the infinite (the macro and micro universe) always swings the scales in one direction for as long as these two things face each other off in the epistemological boxing ring.
I mentioned cosmology and pre-big bang because they are easily identifiable as clear candidates of impossible victory, even in the pathological minds of those beset by the violence of such an epistemological arena.
It sounds like you're saying that hoping to find evidence of God is another "impossible victory". Is that what you're saying?
Let me ask you directly: do you have any evidence for God? Do you think that any evidence exists?
