Arguing for Theism

FiskeMiles · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:30 am Post subject: Re: Arguing for Theism

Dear Saint:

Quote:
This is exactly why you should disbelieve in God. The fact that we have no reason, and COULD have no reason, to believe in him!

You perhaps have no reason to believe in God but I have a perfectly legitimate reason for believing -- I have felt the presence of the Lord. It was the most profound emotional experience of my life -- a feeling of total peace, of oneness with all creation, of total confidence and trust, and complete assurance of absolute love. And what's more, I am not alone in experiencing this. Millions and millions of Christians have experienced the same. More than that, millions of Muslims, Hebrews, and practitioners of other religions have had similar experiences, though the language and metaphor they use to describe the experience differs from that of Christians.

I understand that you have never felt this. It is clear, because having felt it removes all doubt concerning the Lord's existence. It is simply not possible for me to disbelieve.

Experiencing the presence of the Lord does not, however, invalidate or supersede the empirical truth claims made by science about the natural world. How could it if God created the world? The natural laws that science seeks to discover and understand are, quite simply, the work of God.

I think this is where some Christians (and practitioners of other faiths) lose their way. Some creationists, for example, claim that the Earth is a ridiculously young age. Six thousand years say. They reason themselves into this position (yes I said reason), by positing the infallibility of the Bible. They understand it as the word of God, and therefore believe it is absolutely true. Their argument for a young Earth is rational, it is simply based on an invalid premise. It is the premise that invalidates the conclusion, not the reasoning based on the premise.

The Bible is not the word of God, but the word of human beings trying to relate their experience of God. Humans, being fallible, the Bible is also fallible, though this takes nothing away from its sacred character or its importance to Christians. Think about it for a minute -- if there were really nothing to all this, do you suppose a two thousand year old book would remain the most widely published and read text on the planet?

Think about this too, the Bible was written by humans. This is a fact disputed by no one. Fundamentalists argue that it was actually written by God through humans but they do not dispute that humans agents wrote the actual texts. No Christian disputes that God created our world. Nor would any Christian dispute that the Lord endowed humans with the intellect to discover natural laws and the curiosity to impel them to do so. Is it reasonable to believe that the Bible, written by humans, is a more reliable guide to the truth than directly studying God's creation? When the two don't agree, the problem must be one either of interpretation, or because the human authors of Biblical texts could not understand or fully convey their experience of the Lord as a result of the historical context from which they perceived the world.

A second mistake of fundamentalists is to insist on the infallibility of their own interpretation of the bible.

The majority of Christians reject fundamentalism for just these reasons. Evolutionists often point out that Creationists don't really criticize evolution. Instead, they set up evolutionary strawmen, which don't accurately portray the powerful arguments attesting the truth of the evolutionary process. These strawmen are easy to knock down. This is a legitimate criticism of Creationist arguments. But it is also true that Evolutionists, along with many atheists, criticize theists in the same way -- they don't go after the strongest theists, but the weakest. Those whose arguments are the easiest to defeat. They make all theists fundamentalists, which is not only insulting but leads to profound misunderstanding and mistrust.

Quote:
The foundation for any truth claims we are going to be making is an empirical one. If we could not sense the world around us--if we were rocks, for instance--then we certainly couldn't make any remarks about "truth", about what is "out there" in the world. Because of this fact, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about non-empirical truth (in the sense that it is true but cannot possibly be known about with our sensory organs).

Well, in what sense could we talk about the "truth" of the scientific model of the atom? We can't sense atoms. And our conception of them, as balls of protons and neutrons with a shell of orbiting electrons is a metaphor. I mean, this is not what atoms actually are, it is a mental picture or model we have created to understand how they operate.

Christians are doing the same thing when they communicate with each other about experiencing the Lord using terms like love. We can no more understand the reality of the Lord than we can see an atom, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the experience at all or communicate anything about it.

And why should empirical evidence by the ONLY foundation for truth claims? Isn't that an a-rational or pre-rational assumption?

Fiske

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Quote:
Let's try it this way. What is the foundational assumption of your world view? Put another way: what is the one thing in your belief that comes before anything else?

Observation.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 12/26/06 4:07 pm

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Quote:
Of course. We have many different institutions filled with people that we do this to.

Insanity eh. Well what is insanity. Esencially it is when the function of a person's mind differs greatly from that of the norm.

Thats all that really seperates schizophrenics from the rest of us. If the majority of people were schizophrenic it would be nonschizos who would be considered insane.

If the majority of people, or even a very large minority say 30% can feel the pressence of god then we don't have a small enough number to discount it as a dillusion.

Have many individuals who claim to feel the pressence of god been diagnosed with any recognizable conditions. Often I've heard people discredit those who claim to have divine inspiration as schizophrenic. But out of the millions of people who claim they can feel god's pressence how many do you really think can be diagnossed as schizophrenic.

I recal that you've claimed this feeling is just caused by endorphins. That really doesn't stack up to much. All our emotions are related to one chemical or another, does that mean your family doesn't make you happy (or otherwise)? Essencially chemicals are how you feel emotions rather then why you feel emotions. So while we know how people "sense gods pressence" I don't think you've made much of an argument that we know why.

Besides institutions are for people who are a threat to themselves or others. If a man thinks he's a dog in human form, let him. As long as he isn't harming anyone its nobody's concern and of course unless you can attribute this particular belief to a treatable condition (which you often can't) there's no way to change this belief. He for whatever reason is sure that he is in fact mans best friend. You can't argue with that.

Quote:

Observation.

What a terribly fallible basis. We both know how inconsistent human observation can be. After all don't the insane you're talking about observe things in order to create their dillusions? I guess you could say scientific observation but once again that eventually returns to human observation which as I've established is inconsistent. Of course you also need to interprit the scientific observation using your own limited human observational abilities.

Now indeed observation has given us many great things over the years, cures to diseasesm new transportation, but it still can't be applied effectively to all of life's problems, particularly the very complicated ones.

Edited by: MaesterAuron151 at: 12/26/06 4:43 pm

FiskeMiles · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Dear Chris:

Comments like the following from your post are why I started this topic:

Quote:
Nah, none of this will ever happen again. All of these miraculous feats are buried in an antiquated book of fairy tales from times long past when cameras and scientific instruments and skeptical inquiry weren’t prevalent. And you fall for it. Each of you theists is gullible enough to actually believe this nonsense happened.

This statement is incorrect and demonstrates a total misunderstanding concerning the nature of theism. In fact, many theists do not believe the miraculous claims in the Bible actually happened. My father, who was a devout Christian all of his days, certainly didn't. I'm not sure he even excepted the divinity of Christ, though we never frankly discussed it. This didn't stop him from believing in God, tithing 10% (or more) of his income to charitable causes, or volunteering in community programs like Meals-on-Wheels and reading books to disadvantaged children at Kansas City's Shepherd Center until the final year of his life when he became to ill to drive.

Theists and atheists can easily find common ground -- our human nature causes us to want many of the same things. But deriding the beliefs of others as irrational and/or delusional is no way to conduct a dialog or find ways to live in peace and harmony. Moreover, you simply cannot prove the non-existence of God. This doesn't mean you must accept God's existence, as some misguided theists assert, but it precludes you from arguing all theists are wrong by virtue of believing something that does not lend itself to empirical claims or observation. Is this so hard to understand? Is it so hard to understand that requiring an empirical foundation for all belief is not a provable position?

You make the case for what would convince you of the existence of God. So far, so good. I think your critique of Mad's argument is spot on. BUT, you also insist your standard of proof is what everyone must ascribe to and that is where we part company.

Quote:
How about we start over and not ask the atheists to explain what we believe would constitute "proof," and instead ask the affirmative claimants, the theists, what do you personally accept as proof? I won't expect any answers to this one as I've been through it with theists for decades now. You don't have any proof and have nothing but philosophy and Zen riddles and dodging and weaving in response to such an honest and straight-forward challenge.

Here again you insist that proof must be miraculous in nature. Why? Paul being blinded on the road to Damascus was not miraculous. People sometimes lose their sight and eventually recover it. But through this event Paul experienced the presence of the Lord, became a Christian convert, and devoted his life to the Church. The physical context when this person or that feels the presence of God will necessarily be mundane. How could it be otherwise when we live in the natural, not a supernatural, world? What is transformatory about such an experience is the internal emotional/intellectual context which is anything but mundane.

This is straightforward argument concerning what constitutes proof. No word play, dodges, Zen riddles, and no BS. Of course, it is not proof to people who have not had the experience. It cannot be empirically tested. Nor can it justify the insistence that others comply with a faith position, though extremists attempt to insist that it can.

But are you really going to tell someone who has had the experience that they didn't have it? What proof could you hope to offer? If you were in their position, how would you respond? (More or less the point of this topic.)

Quote:
Show me your God or the evidence that leads you to infer the existence of a God.

No one can show you God. You have to see for yourself.

Fiske

FiskeMiles · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
Oh...and for the record...I do not think that NOT believing in a god is a-rational or a-logical or a-whatever. No argument posed by Mad has convinced me of this to any extent.

Let's try it this way. What is the foundational assumption of your world view? Put another way: what is the one thing in your belief that comes before anything else?

Fiske

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Quote:
But are you really going to tell someone who has had the experience that they didn't have it?

Of course. We have many different institutions filled with people that we do this to.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

MAuron:

I think I have made it clear why I will not discuss anything with you...in case you missed it...it is because of shit like this:

Quote:
Recently I learned of a concept known as the singularity, the theoretical time period at which humans will become one with their machines. Many believe we'll reach a point where our minds will be uploaded into computers and exist in virtual worlds of our own design. Then I began to wonder, what if the singularity has already happened and this is just a program within it.

True there's no solid evidence of this, but at the same time there's no solid evidence that this world is real.

Now my understanding of logic says that the above makes the singularity possibility an empty one with no meaning in our current lives.

Still it makes me wonder...

Now off with you to watch the Matrix lad.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

FiskeMiles · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Mr. P:

Quote:
Of course. We have many different institutions filled with people that we do this to.

This is funny, but you're dodging the question.

Fiske

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: Arguing for Theism

Fiske: The problem with this statement is that Christianity is not one plan to change the world but many.

I'm not arguing for a monolithic Christianity. I am arguing that Christianity, as I understand it, is more about changing the world than arguing for the existence of God. Or, more precisely, the epistemology of Christian faith is better deciphered through acts of love.

In other words, engaging the powers and principalities of domination and oppression, as one who makes peace and hungers for justice, fully aware of the Cross ahead and behind, as well as the promised resurrection behind and ahead...living in the world this way is how one determines the truth of the Gospel.

And I don't think it is ever fully determined, but is under constant threat of dismissal as utopic nonsense, escapist fantasy, political manipulation, familial neuroses...it is constantly challenged with each new circumstance where violence demands a response, and the temptation to retaliate rears its ugly head.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

After reading that quote I completely understand why Misterpessimistic doesn't take you seriously.

FiskeMiles · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
Fiske: Let's try it this way. What is the foundational assumption of your world view? Put another way: what is the one thing in your belief that comes before anything else?

Mr. P: Observation.

Observation is an action (in other words a verb). It's not a belief or an assumption.

Care to try again?

Fiske

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Fiske:

If I choose to opt out of a coversation, I take it to be very insulting to be the topic of the continued conversation. Please do not irk me. I can get very irritable.

Mr. P.

Edited after original was edited to say: **Very good. Thanks.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 12/27/06 1:31 pm

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

I really do not give a shit.

Mr. P.

** Just to make myself clear...if I ask to opt out or be left alone, the best course of action is to just do that. If people want to respond with additional comments, I will take that as an invitation to escalation. I am very easy to figure out. I usually make this fact easier to see by stating my intentions and wishes in no uncertain terms. This does not mean I am angry at the person or anything like that...and will probably not carry over to other situations. I am very direct and topic specific.

Thanks!

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 12/27/06 1:48 pm

FiskeMiles · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
If I choose to opt out of a coversation, I take it to be very insulting to be the topic of the continued conversation. Please do not irk me. I can get very irritable.

Fine by me.

See edits.

Presumably, you won't grace this topic with any further comment. You'll certainly understand why I'll be disregarding any from you.

Fiske

FiskeMiles · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: No evidence, no prob

Dear Landroid:

Quote:
How would this d


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT