14 Jul 05
The bottom line is that you can't use the natural to explain the absence of the supernatural. Neither can you force the "existance" of the supernatural on someone who refuses to acknowlege it.
The natural does have a problem explaining free will. If we are merely organic machines reacting to external physical stimuli on our brain cortex, surely free will is something supernatural.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by HalitoseNot to mention getting everything from nothing if one believes that
The bottom line is that you can't use the natural to explain the absence of the supernatural. Neither can you force the "existance" of the supernatural on someone who refuses to acknowlege it.
The natural does have a problem explaining free will. If we are merely organic machines reacting to external physical stimuli on our brain cortex, surely free will is something supernatural.
matter and so on had a beginning at some point in the past.
Kelly
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayOnother "supernatural" occurence is bringing "the spark of life" to inate chemicals in a pond somewhere. Nobody has ever created life, except perhaps Dr Frankenstein.
Not to mention getting everything from nothing if one believes that
matter and so on had a beginning at some point in the past.
Kelly
Even if evolution magically created the "watch" which is our natural world, they still need somebody to wind it up.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by StarrmanNot everything incoroporeal is intangible. I could provide tangible evidence for the existence for any of those things, as such they are not intangible.
In my first statement I was using the definition that intangible is something incapable of either being perceived by the senses or of being touched or realised. As such, although the potential of existence is possible, providing empirical data on such a thing is not.
Not everything incoroporeal is intangible. I could provide tangible evidence for the existence for any of those things, as such they are not intangible.
So would you classify "free-will" as incorporeal or as intangible?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Jul 05
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, any psychologists will tell you that human beings are irrational by nature. Seeing that I believe that human beings are sinfull by nature due to the fall of man, this makes perfect sense.
Would you like to share any evidence that proves the opposite?
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWould you like to share evidence that that is the dominant view among psychologists—or cognitive researchers in general—and not just an exceptional one? Or are you just making a blind assertion and daring someone to prove you wrong?
Well, any psychologists will tell you that human beings are irrational by nature. Seeing that I believe that human beings are sinfull by nature due to the fall of man, this makes perfect sense.
Would you like to share any evidence that proves the opposite?
14 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerWould you like to share any evidence that proves the opposite?
Well, any psychologists will tell you that human beings are irrational by nature. Seeing that I believe that human beings are sinfull by nature due to the fall of man, this makes perfect sense.
Would you like to share any evidence that proves the opposite?
no. like everyone else here, i would like you to provide evidence for your beliefs. you can postulate existence of the supernatural -- no one is disputing that. but if you want me to have any respect for your views, you need to either:
provide support for them
or
admit you have no evidence backing your claims.
which is it going to be? please don't ask what type of evidence i would be willing to support. just present your evidence, and i will let you know whether or not i agree with it and why. admittedly, i seriously doubt you have any credible evidence because one cannot reasonably argue for the supernatural. still, it would be better to show us what you have, rather than to continue chasing your proverbial tail.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by bbarrNot as offer a proof, but some supporting evidence for the God of the Bible and Christianity:
Maybe, maybe not. What is your evidence?
* the apparent order of the universe - the laws of physics
* the complexity of the creation
* the mind of man (capacity for abstract reasoning)
* mans sense of morality - what some call natural law
* the Bible
* language
Although there are numerous explanations of these things, the Christian worldview does explain them better than others IMHO.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf man is rational, why do "good" people do "bad" things? This is going off the premise that man is essentially good. Where does all this evil come from? To your best definition of good and evil.
[b]Would you like to share any evidence that proves the opposite?
no. like everyone else here, i would like you to provide evidence for your beliefs. you can postulate existence of the supernatural -- no one is disputing that. but if you want me to have any respect for your views, you need to either:
provide support for them
or
admit you ha ...[text shortened]... would be better to show us what you have, rather than to continue chasing your proverbial tail.[/b]
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJellothen since christian beliefs are 'completely logic' (from above), it follows from transitivity that christian beliefs cannot answer any questions.
[b]I do not think any true Christian beliefs are irrational (the Christian world view does not contain contradictory beliefs) and is completely logic.
lack of contradiction between beliefs is not sufficient for the belief system to be rational. what evidence do you have that the christian beliefs are 'completely logic'? if they are, then they a ...[text shortened]... ly not completely rational. furthermore, being complete and being correct are not the same.
[/b]
I meant to say "logical", not "logic". When I say something is fully rational, or logical, I mean that the premises and their logical conclusions are non-contradictory. "Logic" is the method by which we determine if a given set of propositions are rational (logical). Logic itself is not the object of reasoning, it is the means of reasoning. The content of logical operations that are considered rational (logical).
if the christian god is a supernatural being; and if the supernatural is beyond our intellect and unknowable through reason; then how is the christian's belief in the christian god rational?
I do not agree with the premise the "the supernatural is beyond our intellect and unknowable through reason."
you've said before that your world view is complete (in a different thread). now you are saying it is also completely rational. therefore, as your world view is both complete and completely rational, it must be possible for man (specifically, coletti in this case) to explain everything through reason. .
Yes. The Christian world view (CWV) means the axioms of Christianity and their logical conclusions (inferences). Using the axioms of Christianity, and correctly applying logic, one can explain all the fundamental questions about "the meaning of life."
By complete, I mean the CWV can answer all the basic questions regarding epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. It explains the fundamental questions about how can we know things, or explain existence, and morality. It does not leave any of the basic questions unanswered.
however, your world view itself directly contradicts this by saying that, on the contrary, it is not possible for man to explain everything through reason because (in your own words), "man in general is flawed, he makes mistakes in reasoning...man's mind is finite."
This does not contradict the CWV. On one hand I am saying that the CWV can answer all things about life and morality. I do not mean to say it can answer all questions - such as what tie you should wear to your next job interview - but the most fundamental ones. On the other hand I was speaking about the finite capacity for man to know and understand. Man is not the CWV or God. People are flawed, and make mistakes in reasoning. I was talking about two different things.
so your world view is definitely not both complete and completely rational.
In summary - the Christian world view is both compete and rational. It can answer all the basic questions of existence and purpose and knowledge, and it is rational because it is non-contradictory. I know of no alternative world view that can make this claim.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by Halitosei'm not sure i agree to your premise unless you clarify what you mean by 'essentially good'.
If man is rational, why do "good" people do "bad" things? This is going off the premise that man is essentially good. Where does all this evil come from? To your best definition of good and evil.
being rational need not be associated with being good. the manifestation of this is guilt. man can certainly choose to commit an act that he believes or knows to be wrong. this may be predicated upon invested self-interest or a lack of respect for others, for example.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloFirstly, do you have any explanation where guilt comes from? Evolutionary chance perhaps?
i'm not sure i agree to your premise unless you clarify what you mean by 'essentially good'.
being rational need not be associated with being good. the manifestation of this is guilt. man can certainly choose to commit an act that he believes or knows to be wrong. this may be predicated upon invested self-interest or a lack of respect for others, for example.
14 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerguilt arises from one's belief in his own willful wrongdoing. it is a product of evolution only in as much as it is extremely likely that people are the product of evolution.
Firstly, do you have any explanation where guilt comes from? Evolutionary chance perhaps?
EDIT: here again, self-interest can play an integral part. we recognize that the 'golden rule' is sensible not because jesus so spoke, but because we recognize that it would not be in our own interest for us to be treated in certain ways by others.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by Coletti" rational because it is non-contradictory"
[b]then since christian beliefs are 'completely logic' (from above), it follows from transitivity that christian beliefs cannot answer any questions.
I meant to say "logical", not "logic". When I say something is fully rational, or logical, I mean that the premises and their logical conclusions are non-contradictory. "Logic" is the method by ...[text shortened]... because it is non-contradictory. I know of no alternative world view that can make this claim.[/b]
where did you get that definition from?
"One might equate growing up with a mistrust of words. A mature person trusts his eyes more than his ears. Irrationality often manifests itself in upholding the word against the evidence of the eyes. Children, savages and true believers remember far less what they have seen than what they have heard."
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)