****
While at the G20, Obama has declared the racist president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to be most popular politician in the world – and good looking too. Recall that Lula da Silva has said, while shaking a finger in the face of British prime minister Gordon Brown,
"This is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes."During a lunch at the Group of 20 summit in London, Obama shook hands with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and said: "This is my man, right here. I love this guy."
****
Back at home, Congress has started to investigate Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio because he is diligently enforcing illegal immigration laws. Arpaio is accused of racial profiling in dealing with illegal immigrants. The House Panel on Immigration proceeded without Arpaio's presence although his opponents were there. Fox News reports:
"These congressmen never had the courtesy to ask me to speak," he [Arpaio] said.To enforce such laws is called racist, but it is actually a threat to the Democrat voter base. The upcoming 2010 census will respect the privacy of individuals not to reveal their immigration status.
Arpaio also defended his policing methods, saying they are both constitutional and effective in lowering crime rates.
"We investigated 147,000 people booked into our jail under 287. And 23,000 murderers all the way down we proved are illegal so they can not get back on the street. That's why crime has gone down in this area," he said.
The sheriff said he has invited congressional critics to come to Arizona to observe his operations, but so far has got no response.
"I'm just enforcing the law that I took an oath of office to enforce. And nobody's going to deter me or scare me away," he said. "They can go after me all they want, but I'm very comfortable the way I run my operation."
****
The earmark-pork generation on Capitol Hill actually has a dedicated computer for the submission of earmarks. The computer broke down, but - never fear - the deadline for pork submission was delayed. Do politicians hate earmarks as much as they hate missing the deadline?
16 comments:
So we atheists can just ask a question in the comment box?
OK. If there really is a God, and this God you speak of wants to relate to me, then...where is He?
Captain Howdy,
Welcome aboard Captain!
(This is a little long, please power on through it, and ask any question you wish, we can discuss any aspect that isn't clear from my limited descriptive skills)
If by "where" you mean the physical location of God, I have no idea, because such a being, having created space-time, doesn't exist in space-time, any more than Picasso exists in his paintings.
Just as quantum mechanics suggests the entanglement of mind and matter, and string theory suggests eleven coexisting dimensions, it is possible to suggest that these dimensions harbor a being (or beings) that coexists with us. Yet this being would not be perceptible to us in our limited dimensional capacity, with senses limited to our dimension.
But how would that be known? Certainly not empirically which self-restricts to three dimensional space-time and mass-energy.
It requires introspection to find even the basics of truth: the First Principles. These are the incorrigible axiomatic foundation of rational thought and are not empirically provable. In fact empiricism depends upon their truth despite its inability to prove the First Principles. It can be seen that these truths exist outside empiricism and space-time, which are material restrictions. Truth is non-material.
Introspection in an humble and honest fashion was the first step in my shedding of the Philosophical Materialism as truth: Limiting reality to the input of the sensory and material is not truth; it eliminates contact with truth.
Introspection is the only way to encounter non-material entities such as truth (for starters), because these are not available from sensory input. Philosophical Materialism demands that reality does not exist outside of sensory input; it claims without proof that internal truths are delusions, not based in sensory reality.
With quantum mechanics and string theory we are able to see that the sensory world is itself incomplete and at certain levels, a delusion. Yet we still believe in the First Principles.
To access any truth beyond sensory physical reality, self-examination and introspection is the necessary first step.
Beyond that, an enlightenment occurs in a similar fashion to how consciousness does: internally, separate from sensory input. The knowledge of the truth of the First Principles, for example, occurs under introspection only, not under induction or deduction or abduction or empiricism.
The questions you ask internally determine the types of answers you get, if any.
It requires a rejection of dogma received externally, culturally and materially, and an openness to internal capabilities. Beyond that all I can say is that it worked for me and still does.
But to a closed material philosophy, it could not ever work; I know this also from my own history.
So it is both the type of questions asked and the honesty of the search that leads one to the truths that exist beyond our dimensions. I have many unanswered questions, and many more that I would not even ask because no answer could register properly in my limited mind. But my first three questions asked have resulted in access to answers:
a) is there truth?
b) is reality limited to material, sensory input?
c) is rational thought limited to material, sensory input?
One last thought if you will permit me. Stephen Hawking recently suggested that the quantum "Schroedinger equation collapse" that is required to bring particles out of "potentiality" and into existence for observation, also could be postulated to have caused the Big Bang. Given that our reality seems to be just a potentiality until it encounters a mind, at which time it converts to a material reality... so could the creation of the universe have been caused by the collapse of a potentiality into material reality by an outside observer. This is perfectly consistent and coherent with modern science.
Again, thanks for the question and please ask any further questions that you might have, or help me defog whatever I have fogged up...
Hi again, Stan--
I didn't really mean for you to devote so much time to a reply.
I found your reply interesting, and you seem to have put a lot of thought into these things.
It shows how many different ways there are to approach these kinds of questions. You seem to be interested in making a case that a supernatural presence could conceivably exist outside of our perception in the 8th dimension. To me, questions like that are legitimate in their own right, but have no bearing on the real question, which is: From appearances and such direct evidence as we have available, is there a God? And the answer seems to be no. You allude to this yourself:
"If by "where" you mean the physical location of God, I have no idea, because such a being, having created space-time, doesn't exist in space-time, any more than Picasso exists in his paintings."
God doesn't exist in space-time, which is kind of what we atheists have been telling you all along. Whether God actually exists in another reality--while intriguing--is irrelevant, because He doesn't seem to exist in this one.
Again, thanks for attempting to answer my question. At least you try and engage with us. You'd be surprised how many Christian blogs there are that make provocative anti-atheist or anti-science remarks and then refuse to stand behind what they say. I even had one guy turn comments off when I raised an objection to one of his posts. So again--thanks.
Captain,
Thanks again for your comments. I didn't mean to insinuate that a superntural being does not exist in these dimensions, rather I meant that if the dimensions are coexistant, that there is no reason to believe that it is not possible that he does, in an overlay fashion. There is no reason to believe that such a being would communicate within these dimensions though, unless the being were of a totalitarian bent.
Atheism is not tenable, logically. Agnosticism, yes. But the original meaning of Atheism - before the tricky manipulations currently practiced on it - was not ignorance, it was a positive belief that there is no deity. And this, based on observations limited to x,y,z,t. This is not a viable position. As Huxley (I think) said, there is no way to know for certain, hence agnosticism.
But I also understand that much of the drive toward Atheism and rejection of authority is emotional, not rational. There is no rational way to deal with that, other than to point out the rational and logical lapses, using standard principles of logic. I have found that most folks who call themselves "rationalists" have not even heard of the First Principles, much less studied syllogistic argumentation.
Many Christians (and probably all Muslims)also fail to use rational principles in their approach, and that is unfortunate, because there is no need of dogma in this pursuit. Dogma is a product of ecclesiasticism, which is a human perversion and has no bearing on truth. But the battle between ecclesiasticism and Atheism is just a battle of dogmas, and little else. Unfortunately it is easy to get caught up in the mud-slinging, and ignore real internal rational discipline as the correct approach.
By the way, it is not rationally possible to be anti-science. Science is voluntarily materialistic. It cannot speak to that which it cannot measure and replicate.
It is also not rational to agree with science advocates who also promote the dogma of Philosophical Materialism, which is a self-contradictory belief being used as a force for credulity in bad science. This is not distinguished in too many places, and that is unforunate also. What is actually anti-Philosophical Materialism is mistaken for anti-science.
I know these responses are a little long, but it gives me a chance to stretch out a little, and it feels good.
Care to discuss free will? Origin of consciousness? etc.
Hi again, Stan
Thanks again for your reply. This will have to be a bit brief; due to time constraints.
I didn't mean to insinuate that a superntural being does not exist in these dimensions, rather I meant that if the dimensions are coexistant, that there is no reason to believe that it is not possible that he does, in an overlay fashion. There is no reason to believe that such a being would communicate within these dimensions though, unless the being were of a totalitarian bent.
~~~~~~~~~~
To me, it's not a question of whether or not a supernatural agent could somehow exist in within the bounds of what we commonly call "reality." The question is: "Is there actual evidence to support the idea that a supernatural being exists?" And the answer to that question appears to be "No."
Remember: We're not arguing about the existence of some disputed element in the periodic table. We're talking about a personality, an intelligence.
Here's an analogy: If I see somebody walking along the beach holding an Arabian-looking "magic lamp" and when I inquire what it is he's holding, he replies it is just what it looks like, and it has a genie inside, it's completely reasonable to ask him to produce the genie in question. If he cannot--regardless of the reason he provides--it is just as reasonable to reject his claims until he actually does produce his purported genie.
Same thing here: You worship a God you can't actually produce. All apologetics, it seems to me, is an attempt to explain away this fact. But at the end of the day, when all the arguments for God are exhausted, you still can't produce the genie. Until you can, I have little reason to take your claims seriously.
'mornin' Captain.
"You worship a God you can't actually produce."
You demand material evidence of a non-material entity. There are problems with this.
1. Searching set (M) for set(!M)
is self-contradictory and futile.
2. The deity does in fact produce for me. Because it is non-material, I can't hand it to you for test tube verification.
3. A human demanding anything of a deity - such as "produce yourself physically" - is futile.
"Until you can, I have little reason to take your claims seriously."
There is every reason to examine the foundational principles of logic and rational thought, and then use those to examine the coherence of your personal belief system and worldview with humility and intellectual honesty.
There is every reason to suspect and be skeptical of all sensorily "received knowledge", including both apologetics and Philosophical Materialism.
There is every reason to suspect that personal logic, if not honestly analyzed, is faulty - being human and generally devised in support of worldview filters.
There is every reason to suspect that abduction has sneaked into our thought process out of emotional force even though that is rejected intellectually.
And there is every reason to watch for rationalization in support of preselected conclusions.
I personally came to the conclusion that these objections, which once were mine also, are unreasonable demands made from a position of personal intellectual haughtiness, not of rational investigation of non-material entities, such as truth found in the First Principles.
The First Principles are not material, they are true, and they are believed as axiomatic to both empiricism and logic, as well as math.
The demand for empirical proof (excuse this language) is just not rational; I take it as a pseudo-logical dodge to eliminate the perceived need for self-examination. The reason I say this is because it was exactly that for me, and it seems to be the case for the objectors that float through this blog, too.
Most of what the self-authorized "rationalists" pass off for logic is merely rationalization; they assume that their worldview (Philosophical Materialism) makes their every opinion rational, so they say whatever they want and declare it rational.
But rationality demands analysis, internal, non-material, intellectually humble and honest analysis.
So I won't be producing a bucket full of God, nor a bucket full of First Principles, nor a bucket full of philosophy, logic or math, nor a bucket full of any non-material entities.
But I know they exist by introspection of their nature, and in many cases, their truth which suggests validity.
BTW, I don't deal in apologetics for the very reason you state: it is logical legerdemain, not the actual empirical proof that so many people demand.
I deal in the fallacies found in Atheist, Philosophical Materialist logic, the need for study of rational processes, the need for applying rational processing rather than dogmatic rejection.
(OK, too long again)...
Evening, Stan. Hope you had a smooth day.
Let's see what we got here:
CH: "You worship a God you can't actually produce."
Stan: You demand material evidence of a non-material entity. There are problems with this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm just using the same reasoning that we both would use to reject belief in other immaterial beings, with similar results.
CH: "Until you can, I have little reason to take your claims seriously."
Stan: There is every reason to examine the foundational principles of logic and rational thought, and then use those to examine the coherence of your personal belief system and worldview with humility and intellectual honesty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My atheism consists almost exclusively of pointing out God's apparent absence. That's not a worldview, it's a simple statement of fact. God appears not to be there. Even you agree with this. When I asked you initially where God is, you said you didn't know--an honest answer.
It seems to me that the same reasoning and standards of evidence that we use our whole lives on a daily basis clearly points to the absence of God. This isn't like arguing whether or not there is another planet in the solar system. You claim there's somebody on the other end of the phone but all I hear is static. That, apparently, cannot be explained away.
Remember: It's not a question of whether or not a deity of some sort is theoretically possible somewhere. It's a question of: Does God appear to be actually there or not? That's the REAL question, and the answer is no. If you deny that, ask Him what the lotto is going to be for the next few draws and promise to give the proceeds to Ray Comfort.
The First Principles are not material, they are true, and they are believed as axiomatic to both empiricism and logic, as well as math.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But remember--Those things are concepts. Nobody says there's a "logic" particle out there. Maybe that's what God really is, too--a concept.
The demand for empirical proof (excuse this language) is just not rational; I take it as a pseudo-logical dodge to eliminate the perceived need for self-examination. The reason I say this is because it was exactly that for me, and it seems to be the case for the objectors that float through this blog, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To declare your religion exempt from the same standards of evidence we all hold everything else to raises red flags.
So I won't be producing a bucket full of God, nor a bucket full of First Principles, nor a bucket full of philosophy, logic or math, nor a bucket full of any non-material entities.
But I know they exist by introspection of their nature, and in many cases, their truth which suggests validity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All I'm saying here is that it appears you believers are holding an empty lamp.
Hello Captain Howdy,
Coupla things here, Captain,
You said,
"I'm just using the same reasoning that we both would use to reject belief in other immaterial beings, with similar results."
This is not the reasoning that I would ever use, because it doesn't pass the criteria of non-contradiction, in the following sense:
You are using a single argument for proof of concept: Philosophical Materialism, which claims that there is no metaphysical existence because there is no physical proof of the metaphysical. This fails two ways.
First, it is contradictory to look in the physical realm for non-physical entities. This fails the First Principle of Non-Contradiction.
Second, it is a Category Fallacy, wherein the wrong category is being accessed in order to argue for or against a different category.
Third, the requirement for physical proof, let's say empirical experimental results, leads to the following self-refutation: There is no possible empirical proof of the non-existence of non-material existence. Given that material proof is required, then the Materialist enterprise collapses due to failure of its own requirement.
Some argue that an inability to find material, empirical evidence for a non-material existence lends a probabilistic argument against it. That is false: search the living room as much as you want and you won't find the bathroom; there is no probability function for the existence or non-existence of a bathroom implied or proven by searching only the living room.
The fact that Philosphical Materialism self-refutes so easily under the slightest scrutiny using rational principles leads one to surmise that Materialism is an agenda, not a rational enterprise.
So any "proof" or even inferral which is taken from Materialism cannot be accepted as a valid, logical argument, because the basis is fallacious.
Gotta go,
Stan
Hey, Stan--
Hey, I can understand if this discussion is eating into your time.
Actually, any deity that can only be discovered by means of abstract argument is of little interest to me in any case. The problem with claiming to be in contact with an intelligent being is that the only real way to verify it is to "put him on the phone", so to speak. Any cosmic intelligence that mere mortals have to speak for will have a harder time getting his cosmic message out to humanity, and should speak for Himself.
That's what I mean about apologetics. All apologetics is designed to dismiss the simple fact that God appears to be absent. Perfect example: "First, it is contradictory to look in the physical realm for non-physical entities. This fails the First Principle of Non-Contradiction."
In other words, it is acceptable to disregard the evidence of your own eyes. But I disagree with that. The invisible and the nonexistent very much resemble each other, sometimes for good reason. As I strongly suspect is the case here.
Hello Captain,
You said,
"Actually, any deity that can only be discovered by means of abstract argument is of little interest to me in any case."
I agree. It is not my position that abstract argument ever leads to that discovery. In fact, persistent argumentation such as apologetics tends to delay that discovery, if that is all that is done. Also, I suspect that apologetics debates are merely polarizing events, where each side declares victory when no victory is actually available.
You said,
"In other words, it is acceptable to disregard the evidence of your own eyes. But I disagree with that. The invisible and the nonexistent very much resemble each other, sometimes for good reason."
I have never made that assertion. There is no positive, material, empirical, replicable and falsifiable evidence of the "lack of a creator" that can be ignored. If you have such, kindly show me, and I will try to reproduce the experiment to prove that there is no deity.
But you likely know in advance that one cannot prove a negative. This cannot be done by use of induction, deduction, abduction, empiricism, or any use of syllogistic combinational logic. And this is exactly what you hope to do with your material claims for a materially absent deity meaning non-existence.
What I do assert is that there is more to reality than is available to the eyes, so from that perspective, what the eyes see is limited - and limiting - if that is all the input to the mind that is allowed.
You have not mentioned witness testimony as being acceptable or non-acceptable; in the court system witness testimony is frequently given more weight than scientific testimony. This is because science changes, and current science is likely to be less than totally valid. The sensory, material, empirical conclusions are only as good as the latest techniques, equipment, and interpretations.
Presumably your position on witness testimony in this case is that the millions of witnesses are all deluded - as claims Dawkins.
This leaves the material case you make pretty much out on a limb, the limb of Philosophical Materialism, which is non-coherent and self-refuting.
You said,
"Any cosmic intelligence that mere mortals have to speak for will have a harder time getting his cosmic message out to humanity, and should speak for Himself."
Two points here.
First if a cosmic intelligence cohabits and communicates internally with every open individual, then your assertion is not correct. Also there is no reason to think that a cosmic intelligence would wish to communicate with those who reject it. And especially those who reject it using non-coherent rationalizations as the reason for rejection.
Second, your position on what that cosmic intelligence "should" do is in the form of a moral imperative, which is decided only by yourself. If you decide that you can choose the terms and methods by which the cosmic intelligence will communicate, then you will not likely find yourself communicating with it.
Your demands on the cosmic intelligence are not made out of a desire to connect, but out of an apparent desire to prove that the cosmic intelligence doesn't exist because it doesn't connect on the channel which you command it to use. This argument fails, too.
Again, Philosophical Materialism can't produce rational results when used as the only basis for an argument, because it self-refutes, and is logically false.
Hi Stan--
There is no positive, material, empirical, replicable and falsifiable evidence of the "lack of a creator" that can be ignored. If you have such, kindly show me, and I will try to reproduce the experiment to prove that there is no deity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We're talking about a cosmic personality here. With super powers. The reason you and I have to break out our instruments and go off on cosmic snipe hunts in search of the elusive God is because He does not directly interact with us. If, when I ask God something, God would appear in blazing glory in the sky and directly respond to me, then there would be no doubt at all as to His existence. Any deity that has to be tracked down in the manner you and I are discussing isn't relevant anyway--whether He exists or not.
I return to the "Aladdin's lamp" reference I made earlier. If you make claims to be in direct contact with a genie in a lamp, it seems reasonable to ask you to produce him. You're telling me it's a "category error." I reject this, and suspect you don't seriously entertain the notion of the existence of fairies and that category errors had little bearing on your decision to reject the idea of their literal existence out of hand.
But you likely know in advance that one cannot prove a negative. This cannot be done by use of induction, deduction, abduction, empiricism, or any use of syllogistic combinational logic. And this is exactly what you hope to do with your material claims for a materially absent deity meaning non-existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's not necessary to be able to conclusively disprove the existence of leprechauns before you or I can reasonably reject their literal existence. That same rationale applies to God. I reject the supernatural and the magical not because they can be rigorously disproved but because there's no reason to believe to start with.
What I do assert is that there is more to reality than is available to the eyes, so from that perspective, what the eyes see is limited - and limiting - if that is all the input to the mind that is allowed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You see, my problem with that is that I view anything "unavailable to the eyes" as being essentially irrelevant anyway, whether it actually exists or not. Remember: You're trying to make the case that our day-to-day perception is incomplete and misleading us. That's a bold claim.
Maybe the best answer to the question of whether or not God exists isn't "yes" or "no" but "who cares?" Who cares if a hiding God exists?
You have not mentioned witness testimony as being acceptable or non-acceptable; in the court system witness testimony is frequently given more weight than scientific testimony. This is because science changes, and current science is likely to be less than totally valid. The sensory, material, empirical conclusions are only as good as the latest techniques, equipment, and interpretations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I highly doubt that. I suspect the reverse is true: Scientific evidence usually overrides contrary witness testimony because witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. People lie and can frequently be honestly mistaken.
Besides, you're not claiming to have actually seen God, are you?
In the end, claims still require evidence, and I reject the contention that immaterial beings are exempt. A hyper-intelligent superbeing with omnipotence could easily remove all doubt as to His existence.
I just don't think your position is very tenable. You're trying to defend your idea of God by using tools such as the laws of non-contradiction. This suggests you are not arguing from a Christian perspective, because Christian doctrine has it that Jesus was literally a God-man; that is, he was both God and man at the same time. This means Jesus was both material being and immaterial being at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction six ways to sunday.
Captain,
You said,
"The reason you and I have to break out our instruments and go off on cosmic snipe hunts in search of the elusive God is because He does not directly interact with us."
This statement is incorrect; his main interaction with us is direct. This is an issue that you seem to take as axiomatic: God can only be found using sensory input. There is no non-sensory input.
You assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that all evidence is material.
You seem to wrap your argument up in this statement:
"In the end, claims still require evidence, and I reject the contention that immaterial beings are exempt. A hyper-intelligent superbeing with omnipotence could easily remove all doubt as to His existence."
Your rejection is your right to make, but what is your evidence for claiming that your rejection is correct? You demand evidence for everything; thus you obligate yourself to provide evidence of the validity of your imperative statement. But you cannot, because your statement is a "must" or "should" imperative: a moral statement that has neither evidence, nor corresponding material existence. Again, self-refuting. So you cannot prove that which you assert to be truth: that non-material existence requires material proof. But apparently self-refutation is not bothersome to you.
BTW, arguing that Jesus is an exhibit of violation of non-contradiction is a non-starter, because the counter argument is merely, "yeah. So what?" A deity cannot exist in several dimensions simultaneously? Where's your evidence for that?
We are going in circles here, arguing the same thing on different days. I do have a couple more comments:
Yes, I have experienced the deity. You may deny that all you wish; you cannot prove it false, because it is not false; and it is non-material, a non-visual apprehension. As an Atheist, I denied that the possibility even existed; I was wrong.
Human demands on a deity are actually trivial in the over-all scheme of things. A deity will do as it wishes, regardless of human demands. If you are determined to believe in Materialism, then nothing will deter that including pointing out the internal discontinuities and non-coherence of that philosophy.
And any testimony to the contrary of Materialism will be disregarded as delusion, because you have not experienced it for yourself.
So we have quickly reached an impasse, where logic has no bearing on the conclusion being drawn. Again, Materialism is not a rational philosophy; it is a dogmatic, self-refuting agenda.
Hi Stan--
Captain,
You said,
"The reason you and I have to break out our instruments and go off on cosmic snipe hunts in search of the elusive God is because He does not directly interact with us."
This statement is incorrect; his main interaction with us is direct.
This is an issue that you seem to take as axiomatic: God can only be found using sensory input. There is no non-sensory input.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you can't see or hear him, how can you distinguish valid revelation from the warm fuzzies? You have a...flexible idea of what "directly interact" means. When I use that phrase I mean it literally; thus revealing himself without any possibility for doubt. What I describe is if you're in a situation and lose your keys, for instance, you could ask God and he would verbally tell you where they are--if He chose. If your kid is sick you could ask God what it is and to cure it--and God would (if He chose) verbally engage you and reply.
You seem to wrap your argument up in this statement:
"In the end, claims still require evidence, and I reject the contention that immaterial beings are exempt. A hyper-intelligent superbeing with omnipotence could easily remove all doubt as to His existence."
Your rejection is your right to make, but what is your evidence for claiming that your rejection is correct? You demand evidence for everything; thus you obligate yourself to provide evidence of the validity of your imperative statement. But you cannot, because your statement is a "must" or "should" imperative: a moral statement that has neither evidence, nor corresponding material existence. Again, self-refuting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I base my rejection of your claims on the fact that no evidence of any kind--material or otherwise--has been put forward by you in support of them. That claims require evidence is one of the general principles of critical thinking and didn't originate with me. I shouldn't have to defend that principle. I mean, you seem willing to suspend one whale of a lot of disbelief here.
So you cannot prove that which you assert to be truth: that non-material existence requires material proof. But apparently self-refutation is not bothersome to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I've said before, claims must have a certain amount of credibility to be seriously considered in the first place. This is nothing new or novel, and is a general principle we employ in every aspect of our lives on an ongoing basis--and I see no reason why your religion should claim an exemption, except that it can't meet these standards of evidence in any way.
All appearances are that there is no spiritual, supernatural or magical component to reality. While I'm willing to at least entertain the possibility that my perception deceives me (I can't see the oxygen in the air but I know it's there), you'll have to provide some pretty compelling evidence in support of the notion that there are invisible beings watching me.
BTW, arguing that Jesus is an exhibit of violation of non-contradiction is a non-starter, because the counter argument is merely, "yeah. So what?" A deity cannot exist in several dimensions simultaneously? Where's your evidence for that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stan, come on. You're trying to use the law of non-contradiction to prove the existence of a being that violates the law of non-contradiction by being both material being and immaterial being at the same time. I mean, you're not even denying it--you're just saying it's acceptable for this particular being to violate it.
Yes, I have experienced the deity. You may deny that all you wish; you cannot prove it false, because it is not false; and it is non-material, a non-visual apprehension. As an Atheist, I denied that the possibility even existed; I was wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know, I really have no problem with that. If you experienced some kind of Road-to-Damascus revelation, then it's no surprise you're a christian. If I experience that myself someday, then I'll try to respond appropriately. But until then, I have to make sense of the plain fact that God appears to be absent, and during the entire course of our conversation contented Himself with letting you speak for Him, instead of speaking directly for Himself and putting the whole question to rest.
Hello Captain,
Well, we have both outlined our positions fairly well by now. Thanks for your messages, and if you have further questions or comments, please let me know.
Thanks again,
Stan
Many thanks for your time, Stan. You've been a gracious host and interesting to talk to.
Captain,
Thanks for staying engaged, I hope you stick around...
Stan
Post a Comment