Just Another Salem," an account by Chester Smalkowski
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Nobody has demonstrated it, because nobody is God. Christians and Jews argue that God has historically demonstrated His own existence by at least partially entering into our understanding. A historical revelation is different from an empirical or even an intellectual point of entry, since it proceeds from outside, rather than inside us. The problem (possibly) is that once God has entered into man's understanding, the processes and mechanisms by which He is perceived is indistinguishable from the ones used to perceive anything else. That's how skeptics can explain away any evidence theists could testify to as lies, deception, illusion, ignorance... the list goes on. If someone has already decided that all perceivable phenomena may point to anything but God and that ones pertaining to God must have been generated rather than perceived, it's only logical that he'll never "see" the data as evidence. I'm not even talking about "open your mind to greater possibilities" or anything that requires superstition or the suspension of reason - there certainly are illogical and unwarranted beliefs. But as long as you expect people to produce God, you'll only get what you put in (or what they put in).Cris said:
As facts go, the fact that nobody has demonstrated that God doesn't exist should carry equal weight if you want to approach some level of objectivity. Clearly establishing the "base" of the argument to either side requires more to be put on the table than these two unprovable premises.
Last edited:
No... you keep trying to put positive and negative aspects to God's existence as being equal. Even if this were the case you have a 50% chance of wasting your life on something that isn't there... Although since you are a follower of a God described by Christianity, then you have a 100% chance of wasting your life on something that isn't there. What I am trying to say is that if I claim that something fantastic exists, like a baby with the body of a spider... Because nobody could prove that wrong I could claim I have a 50% chance of being correct since nobody could prove me wrong.
Most superstitions are laid to rest by coming to a greater understanding of something. I believe the prospect of an intelligent creator would be put to rest too if it were possible, but this is a robust superstition. Even if science gathered knowledge at an exponential rate... there would still be room to believe in this creator as it would obviously be outside our universal laws and impossible to detect.
True, then the only thing that we can discredit and make their god obsolete is their scripture. If enough flaws, discrepancies, and outright contradictions can be demonstrated in any religious text, then the document becomes moot. Therefore rendering their god, an invention from ancient desperate mystics to invent a god for their salvation.
From Covenant to Apocalypse
Christianity Without Jesus?
Christ myth
Thus to believe as theist do, after pages and pages, have been demonstrated that their scripture is indeed full of flaws, discrepancies, and outright contradictions, is not only irrational, but outright DELUSIONAL.
Godless
But it's not a wager for me. I don't follow God based on probabilities, but on who He is. It's like trusting one's doctor.KennyJC said:
Whether a life is wasted or not depends what you do with it - whether you believe in God or not.
Your chief mistake here is that you believe God occupies the space that science doesn't. Jews never thought that, and not many Christians make that mistake anymore, so the effort is wasted. No doubt many people have invented superstitions to explain what they don't understand, but this is why the Bible differentiates between superstition and faith. God is not his creation; they're not mutually exclusive. The more knowledge we gain, the more we become aware of the mistakes we were making, and the more people may actually come to the conclusion that there is intelligence behind its detectable design. Anthony Flew and Francis Collins.
To do that you will have to rely on a specific model of interpretation. The Bible does not allow itself to be read on one level, as if it were a single book written from start to finish by a single author within a single lifetime. Maybe the problem is in how you explain the discrepancies, rather that merely observing that they're there and conclusing that they somehow damage its integrity. If you read it for what it is, you might even manage to understand why this tactic would only work with people who rely on the same model of interpretation.Godless said:
Last edited:
Well then this tells me you do not need religious faith to get you out of bed in the morning. I get the feeling most theists have religious faith because it makes them feel better. Since you however, would not require it if it could be shown there was no God, then the odds against your faith would force you to ditch it if you were being rational.
Jenyar,
Which cannot be independently supported and cannot be meaningfully distinguished from more believable delusion.
In which case there is no reason to believe he is real as opposed to fantasy, which is a more credible explanation.
Well yes but that argument is simple misdirection. If someone doesn’t have any pre-conceptions you still can’t show that these claims are not simple imaginative delusion, which is an infinitely more credible answer.
Unless of course you had something real and could produce something independently verifiable other than what is more likely just fantasy.
But I’m not claiming that God doesn’t exist so I have nothing to demonstrate. Please stop trying to misdirect. You still have nothing to show that what you believe is not just imaginative fantasy, do you? Be honest.
There is only one issue – the claim that a god exists. Neither is that a premise – it is a simple unsupported baseless claim.
A more believable delusion, like Santa? As KennyJC said, "This is far more likely than your God in heaven as at least we know children, reindeer, presents and fat old jolly men exist." Do you have an example of such a believable delusion?Cris said:
Not if the simpler explanation is the more probable one. Either the nation of Israel suffered from a consistent delusion over a period of centuries, or they believed in God because they were convinced by reason. Depending on how you explain their belief, either explanation may be credible.
You're right; no one can show that these claims are not simple imaginative delusion - for the same reason that nobody can prove that reality as they perceive it isn't an illusion (the old problem that you can't prove the existence of other minds than your own). There is no-one without pre-conceptions. Such objectivity doesn't exist (unless you're God). What is credible depends on your premises. To you it seems infinitely more probable that all religion arose from an imaginative delusion, to me it seems more probable that there was a logical reason why (at least one branch of) religion came to a persistent faith in a God who does not exist just to explain away the unknown, but as the Creator behind everything known and unknown.
What would prevent you from accusing all claims and independent verification as delusion. Objectivity?
Like I said, I'm not God so I cannot "produce" Him. You claim that all the evidence recorded in the Bible is the result of delusion and/or deception, correct? (If some evidence wasn't, that evidence would have to be considered). That's one thing you might demonstrate. Another is the assumption that belief in God is obviously false and disbelief is obviously true. How do you manage to question so many people's rationality over such a period of time, without being skeptical of your own? So many rational beings like yourself have come to the conclusion of a higher power, of a transcendant order, all by themselves - surely you have a better reason to dismiss that than their flailing, diverse and often contradictory attempts to express and come to terms with it?
At the very least it's an axiom. The problem as I see it is that the evidence Jews and Christians rely on comes from two places: from God's creation and from Himself. All the evidence that may come from outside creation is dismissed by the naturalist out of hand. Their axiom of faith (about the extent to which everything that is real must be observable and subserviant to his reason), automatically renders such evidence inadmissable, allowing them to say with complete confidence that "there is no evidence". And all the evidence that is even remotely consistent with the observable creation is easily made to conform to what "everybody knows" is true, i.e. explained away.
This by no means implies that all beliefs about what is observed or sensed or even revealed are equally rational or equally viable. Skepticism and critical enquiry apply to all claims without exception, but it can also be abused and turn into its own brand of fundamentalism.
In other words, the phrase "there is only one issue" should sound uncomfortably familiar to you. It certainly raises warning bells in my head.
Last edited:
Jenyar,
No, it was a typing error. Should have read indistinguishable from delusion.
The requirement for a super being capable of creating universes and with unlimited power is neither simpler nor more credible than ANY more mundane natural speculation.
Like the fact that billions of people over several millennia believed the world was flat because it seemed reasonable. Your suggestion is standard logical fallacy. Truth is in no way determined by how many people believe something.
Nope, refer to the super being fantasy above.
But you’re the one claiming it isn’t a delusion. How do you know without any form of independent evidence? Again it is significantly more credible to accept the far simpler natural explanation of delusion than the super being fantasy of your claim.
In this case, I don’t think so. The choice is simple understandable natural delusion versus a super being capable of creating……..etc. This is not a matter of marginal degree but many orders of magnitude for something with absolutely no precedent.
Yes I understand and I used to think the same way. But, as mentioned earlier, your belief is factually baseless. You simply appear to feel comfortable with that explanation, but it is nevertheless irrational since there are no facts to support you.
Why would I if there were independent verification?
One doesn’t have to be an object to show that an object exists.
Not quite. My point is that those who claim the speculations are true cannot show how they can be distinguished from delusion.
Unclear what you are asking here.
No. I fully accept that belief in God occurs. Your usual confusing sentences are tying you in knots again. My position is very clear – I find the claims made by theists unbelievable.
This has no meaning, it is not an assertion.
What rationality is being questioned? That is my point, without any evidence in this case rational conclusions cannot be drawn.
I’m not making claims. I’m questioning yours and you are unable to support yours so why would anyone believe you?
Clearly they are not rational since there is no evidence to support such things.
Another confused sentence. It is unclear what you are saying here.
We don’t know this is evidence, these are for the moment only claims of evidence. And you are incorrect. You missed the third, and the infinitely more likely natural conclusion – simple delusion.
What does that mean? What does outside of creation mean? Certainly any claim that is not accompanied by factual support should be appropriately dismissed.
Well not quite. The issue is that you cannot demonstrate that what you claim as evidence is more believable than the more credible and mundane explanation of simple delusion.
Again you only have claims of evidence, more appropriately referred to as imaginative speculations or fantasies. But proposing a speculative idea does not constitute evidence or truth. You still need to substantiate your claims before expecting them to be believed. Remember your claims are really quite fantastic and have no precedent so it is quite right that more credible natural explanations would be offered instead.
You may have wanted to say something here, but I cannot see it, a jumble of mixed ideas again I think.
Perhaps, but it wouldn’t be a problem if you had any clearly believable evidence for your claims.
No. You were erroneously trying to create two issues, e.g. (1) belief of existence and (2) belief of non-existence. I have neither, but simply disbelieve yours – the only issue of relevance when discussing your claims.
You're right. There's no evidence for anything.water said:
Evidence is only relative to the observer. It's not "inherently" relativistic, unless you believe everything really is an illusion. But maybe you think that is a more credible belief because it doesn't rely on evidence?
Besides, far more strange then would be the people who require evidence in the first place, as if they expect it can mean something.
Last edited:
Not if you know why you believe one thing and not another. Like CS Lewis said, "Nonsense remains nonsense even if we talk it about God". But considering your beliefs I can understand why it must be indistinguishable for you.Cris said:
The initial belief in God says nothing about who or what God is - it might be a purely intuitive realization at the time. An encounter with the numinous is evidently not an encounter with the mundane, so explaining it as an encounter with the mundane would be the more strained explanation.
That's quite correct - truth is truth where the majority or the minority believes it. If you look carefully, you'll see I did not make an argument from popularity, as I did not say it was true because Israel believed what they did. My question was about how you explain their belief, whether it is true or not. I'm not so naive to think I'm right because I share their beliefs. Judaism has been a minority religion for its entire history, yet I believe their God is true, not the majority of gods.
There is a reasonable perspective from which someone can believe the earth (the ground beneath their feet) is flat, but you seem to say there is no perspective from which God's existence may be reasonably believed.
That's the thing. You claim it is a fantasy while at the same to you say you make no claims; you define my claim in terms of yours and expect me to provide proof that satisfies those terms. You seem unable to consider any evidence to the contrary, simultaneously dismissing all evidence and claiming none is or has been provided. If you claim the evidence is invalid, it's up to you to substantiate it.
I've told you the problems that should be expected with belief in God - things that have to be considered when looking for any evidence - that in a greater sense all of creation may be evidence for God if He is its Creator, and because the evidence is everywhere it might seem to be nowhere... and in the most basic sense there can be no "independent" evidence, since there is always an observer or observers involved, whom you can simply doubt if you are so inclined. For better or worse, those are the boundaries within which any productive discussion must take place, and it would be unreasonable to expect evidence that won't be limited by them.
Again, if He exists, God would by nature be without precedent, anywhere and every time - He would remain a unique being no matter how many times He is encountered, and it would remain a unique encounter for any human being. And any such encounter with Him would be distinguishable from a natural delusion for its uniqueness. Like I said, such an experience would not be initially perceived as "a super being capable of creating" through any theological/intellectual process, but simply as "God". Because of his uniqueness, his unquestionable separation from mere nature, He would naturally be perceived as "God" - an unfathomable, extremely complex and consistent reality - rather than an unfathomable, extremely complex and consistent part of creation, that they would imaginatively call "God" and worship... an ignorant belief that "better explanation" (presumably by less naive minds) would in retrospect expose as a delusion.
Contrast this with all other kinds of beliefs that proved to be wrong: the general favourite, unicorns, was never believed to be supernatural. Man eating ants, the gryphons of Scythia, giants, magnetic islands, mermaids, dragons... Santa Claus. Whatever people believed when they took their existence for granted, no matter how great their ignorance of modern science, they were never described as anything outside creation itself, never confused with God. Even something like the belief that lighting came from the gods wasn't so much a belief about "God" as a belief about lightning.
And I maintain it's no more irrational than believing there are other minds outside your own. My belief may be hanging in the same metaphysical "mid-air" as our own existence and our experience of "others", but it is nevertheless based on facts, albeit facts that would challenge strict naturalistic presumptions. If they are true, one would certainly expect them to. I simply don't have the same faith in naturalism's ability to describe all of reality, just because it's so well suited to describe nature.
In other words: objectivity. What do you consider objective or independent? Things attested to by nature, or verified by people, or what?
But one has to be able to access it at will. I.e. it should submit to independent verification. That's fine for everything that's part of or subserviant to nature, but not for something nature, and by implication, mankind, is subserviant to. I would have to be God to prove that God exists for the same reason one has to be part of nature (arguably even a little above it) to prove anything in nature exists (anthropic principle).
You're essentially refusing to believe in God until skeptics also believe in Him, but you dismiss any skeptic who becomes a believer, and believe those who remain unconvinced. Hence my question above.
On the level you're talking about, how does anyone distinguish anything from delusion? We simply call our most fundamental assumptions "reality" and proceed from there. The reason faith persists in so many forms despite all "odds" is that it's so fundamental to our thinking. So fundamental in fact that most people would deny having any kind of faith - we simply don't start our everyday thinking processes that far back - or the only "reasonable" belief would have been solipsism (if even that).
But after we admit our basic assumptions, it's quite simple to distinguish between illusion and reality. One criterium is consistency, which is what you would rely on if you said miracles cannot occur (the uniformity of nature). This is also one of the reasons why we rely on the Bible so heavily as a measurement ("canon") of our faith, and why the Bible relies on itself, and so on. Either way, we both assert it's possible to distinguish between delusion and reality, even if we don't agree on the fundamental assumptions that inform our perceptions.
But your arguments attempt to go further than that. That you see any religious diversion from your beliefs as "delusion", implies that you claim not to be deluded yourself. Consequently, you are convinced it's only the theist's responsiblity to defend his "claim", while he may be equally convinced that his is the natural explanation for things, and that disbelief requires complex explanations for self-evident events. I'm simplifying, of course, but I hope you will see my point.
Disbelief in God, obviously. I.e. that skepticism is a more "natural" state, and faith is contrived.
Don't you see? Your point calls their rationality into question.
How many ways can I say it? You don't believe the evidence. You said so yourself: "I find the claims made by theists unbelievable".
This applies more to Godless's argument of contradictions, so if you don't use it as a reason, it won't apply to you. My point is that the conclusion that a higher power exists isn't necessarily damaged by inconsistent attempts to formulate it.
What might be keeping you from "knowing" that it's evidence is the limits you put on what is admissable as evidence, or the low regard you have for those most likely to report it (those who believe the evidence to be evidence).
"We can call the attempt to refute theism by displaying the continuity of the belief in God with primitive delusion the method of Anthropological intimidation." -- Edwyn Bevan, Symbolism and Belief, ch.2.
And it was, in the past just as in the present. But you account for the facts that were admitted from outside a strictly naturalistic view of the universe (that creation, "nature", is all that exists) as the result of delusion. That's why "outside creation" can mean nothing to you, not even theoretically. You don't seem able to consider it.
I have no wish to. This is what I referred to earlier when I said it would be unreasonable to expect evidence that isn't limited to the boundary conditions imposed by our own perspective. What I claim as evidence isn't more believable/unbelievable than mundane explanations, it's equally believable/unbelievable from a human perspective (which is always in play).
Whether these people were delusional or not should be judged with the same measure by which you judge your own assumptions about reality. If you're certain you're not delusional, how do you manage to say these people were deluded if they were equally rational, equally able to discern between delusion and reality. And if you say they weren't able to discern, how can you be certain you are able? You're fighting with a double-edged sword.
These claims were not especially "fantastic" for thousands of years - especially Christianity's central thesis about the coming Messiah of a single God is quite bland compared to the beliefs that many religions are/were made up of. It is because of how the world has changed in just the past 200 years that these beliefs have come to seem more imaginative (as people turned to the more concrete aspects of the universe for security). It's typical of this age to expect someone/something else to compensate for any deficiencies, whether it is imagination (cue myth, religion and entertainment), direction (cue politics or spirituality) or love and excitement (cue sex, hedonism and entertainment).
The evidence and their explanations will stay the same - the way any event that occurred or evidence that was given throughout history would remain what it was at the time - no matter how much our need to be convinced or persuaded by it grows or diminishes over time.
I understand what you mean, but this is how I see it: "I have neither, but simply disbelieve yours" is the only issue of relevance when discussing my claims. If you profess to have no belief about the existence/non-existence of God, you must have some other reason to disbelieve my claims and the evidence - one that still isn't clear to me.
Last edited:
Cris said:
Evidence is inherently relativistic as it is never conclusive, never final; always, new evidence can come in -- given that we are consistent empiricists. The consideration of that new evidence can then lead to a change in current knowledge. This is why in science, there are theories, and not absolutes.
Relying on evidence is a relativistic method, it is always open-ended, and as such, cannot lead to an absolute.
But God is something that is usually deemed an absolute (something self-existent, context-independent).
Thus, the path of evidence is not the adequate path to take when it comes to the matters of the existence of God.
Some theists call upon evidence, saying there exists evidence for the existence of God. They are using a relative to show or point at the existence of an absolute.
That is metaphysical and scientific charlatanism.
Jenyar,
Whatever imaginative scenario you rationalize to convince yourself that a god exists doesn’t diminish the issue that it is still only fantasy until you can show otherwise. I’ve been there and done the same thing, and there are some very attractive scenarios that would be nice if they were true, but they remain fantasy until shown otherwise.
My primary reason for disbelief: Neuroscience – all properties originally claimed for a soul are now explained through brain function. I.e. there is no such thing as a soul. Without a soul the whole Christian spiritual, heaven/hell, supernatural plain, and paradigm totally collapses. All the promises and threats of reward and punishment in an afterlife have zero meaning when there is no soul to make such a transition. This renders almost every religion redundant and irrelevant and not just Christianity.
But the nature of delusion is that it will feel entirely real so you will remain in the grey area of really not knowing whether your claimed experience is real or purely within your brain. The only way to know is to reference something independent of your perceptions, and to date no one in the history of mankind has been able to do that. And that brings into very serious doubt any credibility of your claims, especially when we know that popular memes like religious concepts can spread easily and have no basis in reality.
Like most religions: Born out of ignorant times and now deeply entrenched in culture and tradition making it difficult to discard. Again without some form of independent evidence we have no way to say whether have any truth or not.
No that isn’t what I am saying. The only point here is to demonstrate the logical fallacy of assuming that truth is determined by a popular vote.
Don’t confuse the assertion of a fantasy with claims of falsehood. I am not asserting that your claims are false just that without evidence your claims are creations of the imagination and otherwise baseless. Now we know that some things can be imagined and are later found to be actual at which point they cease to be fantasy. Your claims can’t be shown as “actual” though so they are strictly and factually fantasy.
When the Church stops emphasizing “faith” (belief without evidence) because they have found some evidence then I’ll consider such evidence. But until then I am not aware of any claims of evidence that unambiguously indicate a god exists as opposed to some other more mundane natural explanation, unless you know otherwise. What’s your best attempt at what you think is evidence that I should seriously consider?
OK, but then that gives you a problem then doesn’t it, how do you show that that imaginative scenario is more than just imaginative? That is the crux of your claims and entirely your problem. If you think your ideas represent a truth and you want other’s to believe you then you must do some work to prove your case.
Agreed. But that just makes it more difficult for you to show it is real. Without any precedent you have no inductive evidence on which to call upon for your proofs, and that leaves you with a need for real empirical evidence before you could be seriously believed.
Whatever imaginative scenario you rationalize to convince yourself that a god exists doesn’t diminish the issue that it is still only fantasy until you can show otherwise. I’ve been there and done the same thing, and there are some very attractive scenarios that would be nice if they were true, but they remain fantasy until shown otherwise.
I don’t understand your point. We have empirical evidence that other minds exist.
No I don’t think. Your class of problem is entirely different and without precedent.
Then that is indeed your problem. Since we know of nothing that is not natural then your claims of facts seem significantly premature. What is your best attempt at such a fact?
Faith isn’t needed. As soon as we can detect and observe something, even if it is a god then that object enters the realm of knowledge and becomes “natural”. But we are a very long way to understanding our universe and science isn’t so arrogant to say it knows everything. We are on a journey of discovery and desperately trying not to confuse what we hope is true with what is actually true. The religionist is trying to jump the gun and assert things that cannot be shown as truth. Science offers some very meticulous and stringent methods for discovering knowledge and for many religionists that is just too difficult to deal with. That’s their problem.
Something other than imagination.
At least you need to show it is more than just a figment of imagination. I don’t care how you do it.
These are your restrictions you are creating for yourself. It’s your claim and your problem on how to show it isn’t just your imagination at work.
No that is nonsense. You simply need to show an effect caused by God that can have no other explanation.
No. I simply see nothing in your statements that can convince me that a god exists.
It doesn’t matter how someone becomes a believer, there remains the same absence of evidence for their position.
By looking to independent evidence outside of the imagination.
No, we use our senses to verify our surroundings and perceptions. If what we perceive and imagine doesn’t jive with our senses then a rational person will question both and seek further clarification.
That’s because so very few people have been taught how to think clearly or critically. It is not something of which we should be proud but an affliction to be addressed. It is no accident that the more intelligent and better educated people tend also to be the least religious. Similarly those at the forefront of critical thinking, the scientists, tend by far to be the least religious.
Yes this worldwide problem needs to be addressed by more appropriate education.
Yes by using our senses.
No this is not a valid method for determining truth. It might be secondary support but has no merit on its own. The need must be to link an effect with an identifiable cause. In the case of miracle claims, what we generally see are unexplained effects and religionists making a leap of faith by inserting their own particular favorite fantasy as a magical cause.
I don’t see any value in that. This is just fantasy supporting fantasy.
But that isn’t true. The bible is a primary source of religious fantasy that fuels the problem. It doesn’t offer any independent sensory verification.
I’m not asserting a belief here, only disbelief in yours.
Yes I see and the approach is totally wrong. It must always be the onus of the claimant to prove their case; otherwise we’d all be going around trying to prove things that don’t exist because someone said they might. The result would be total chaos. Your suggestion is a typically disingenuous position adopted by the theist entirely because the religionists have no means to support their claims and they know it. Their only hope of redemption is to shift the emphasis onto the objectors – sorry that isn’t going to work. You’ve made fantastic claims – and the onus is entirely upon you to prove them.
I’d prefer the perspective that faith is simply irrational belief and disbelief is a state of being unconvinced. Not sure that “natural” or “contrived” are appropriate terms.
No. Without evidence they don’t have a rational position. I’m questioning the basis of their assertions.
The best method for defining evidence has been provided by science. Religious claims don’t pass the first hurdle on that score. And religions don’t come close to proposing a method superior to science or showing that what they claim to be evidence is better than science. So what would you propose?
Interesting title but that doesn’t deflect from the accuracy of the observation. And remember truth is not determined by a majority vote; the fact that god belief has had a long duration is irrelevant.
I think this is more the case that your terminology is simply confused. And you seem to be erroneously thinking I have a limited perspective. Let’s be clear – all that we currently know is naturalistic, we know of nothing else. That does not preclude the potential that much more is likely to be discovered possibly beyond anything we can currently imagine. My problem with your position is that you assert with certainty that there is something else with specific properties – but you cannot know that. You might speculate but that doesn’t mean it is true. I suspect the universe holds some fabulous things for us, but we don’t know what they are yet. Whether gods, different dimensions, multiverses, etc., who knows. Let’s just wait and find out. But as Einstein said – the idea of a personal god interfering in the lives of individual humans is childish. The Christian concept is simplistic, primitive, archaic, baseless, and unsupportable.
We’ve covered this already. They can’t show their fantastic claims are not more readily explained by simple credible delusion.
Covered already. I’m not making fantasy claims.
Not relevant. But covered already – use the senses.
No your perspective is not appropriate. There is still only one issue – the overwhelming inability of theists to support their claims other than verbalizing their fantasies.
Yes and entirely due to the overwhelming ignorance of those early times, much of which still persists in the minds of religionists to this day.
I don’t recognize any evidence from you yet.
My primary reason for disbelief: Neuroscience – all properties originally claimed for a soul are now explained through brain function. I.e. there is no such thing as a soul. Without a soul the whole Christian spiritual, heaven/hell, supernatural plain, and paradigm totally collapses. All the promises and threats of reward and punishment in an afterlife have zero meaning when there is no soul to make such a transition. This renders almost every religion redundant and irrelevant and not just Christianity.
What you are describing is nothing new. It's simple postmodernism, which rejects the basic premises of modern epistemology. In its wake follows relativism, denial of the correspondence theory of truth, and rejection of the referential theory of language.water said:
Theists don't use evidence to describe absolutes, nor do scientists. Evidence doesn't have to. It just needs to point us in the right direction, like headlights on a road.
You seem to expect theists and sceintists to give up on the whole world because the evidence only illuminates a part of it (or worse, give up on seeking evidence for our beliefs and theories altogether). As if we should abandon our belief in reality because no piece of information or evidence can describe it all.
Do you think the whole of reality is self-existent and context independent, or don't you?
Last edited:
Cris,
Hopefully I'll be able to address the rest in time, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't. An incomplete answer would just look like evasion on my part, and a complete answer would escalate the discussion even more. I enjoy debating with you, probably because I enjoy the journey of discovery that we're on as much as you seem to, even though it's from a different vantage point.
Since the Bible doesn't give any definition for soul except the words themselves, nefesh (life), ruach (wind/spirit), neshama (breath), all neuroscience proved is that the attempts to define it were misguided. It's probably a synergetic term. But your biases prevent you from understanding it in any other way than as a purely naturalistic assertion, which it isn't (and if it were, neuroscience would only tell us more about it).
“You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.” - CS Lewis
Unfortunately, my time is more limited than it would seem from my posts... and it will take a lot of time to answer your post to my (and your) satisfaction. However, you've clearly ignored some of the things I've said, some of which (like the other minds problem) I thought you would be familiar with, and would need more elaboration. Either that, or you've glossed my arguments (and I don't blame you - this can easily become a full-time exercise). Some are misconceptions: Faith does rely on evidence (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14), it just keeps in view the things that have passed out of sense and sight again; Religion's first concern is not with explaining the natural world - science is indeed better suited for that - but in engaging with it holistically by incorporating our belief God; the soul, as above, and so on. My arguments are not as superficial as you treat them. "Anthropological intimidation" is a serious accusation - at least as fallacious as argumentum ad populum - but you didn't seem to take it seriously. Your fundamental faith in naturalism (clearly emboldened by its own successes) and your seeming obliviousness to the assumptions that underlie your disbelief, complicates my task. You want me to provide evidence that you can't give another explanation for, but you clearly consider any explanation that doesn't involve God as natural, and therefore "infinitely more believable", no matter how imaginative or fantastical it might be in its own right. That you don't recognize how that taints the sample is beyond me. Much of what you said I've already addressed in some form or another, and you only need to look into my post again to find my answers. Hopefully I'll be able to address the rest in time, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't. An incomplete answer would just look like evasion on my part, and a complete answer would escalate the discussion even more. I enjoy debating with you, probably because I enjoy the journey of discovery that we're on as much as you seem to, even though it's from a different vantage point.