How do you sense God, felix? What is it like when you sense God as opposed to, say, what it is like when you sense that your best friend is standing three feet in front of you?
This thread seems to have taken an epistemic turn.
Good. Let’s cut to the chase.
Uccisore or felix dakat, whenever you get the time, I would appreciate your response to the following:
Since it is just as possible that jets fly because tiny, invisible, flying elves carry jets on their backs as it is that they fly for reasons outlined by scientific principle (and it IS just as possible that they do), for what reasons do you believe, given your epistemology, that jets fly for the reasons given by scientific principle and not for the reason that tiny invisible elves carry them on their backs?
I suspect that the reason you accept the scientific explanation is not solely because the “elf explanation” is not a widely touted or believed explanation. I suspect that you hold this belief for other, more central reasons. Assuming that there are other reasons for your belief, what are these reasons and more importantly why do you find these reasons inapplicable to other supernatural explanation?
Hey RC. Based on my intial post on this thread, I would say that you already know the answer to your own question on some level. This I will say though, it’s better than sensing your best friend. 
I’ve never experienced an elf.
You don’t know my best friend.
Anyway . . . back to the topic, I “sense” my best friend by seeing her or smelling her or hearing her, etc.
Perhaps you mean something different than this when you say that you (and presumably a few others, as well) sense God. Maybe you mean that you sense God like you sense _____ ? What?
I’m not sure how you might fill in that blank.
The difference is that we have evidence for the one, but not for the other.
An alleged effect is not the same thing as an effect. No credible evidence exists which suggests that black magic directly makes anyone sick. No credible evidence exists which suggests that the luminous ether exists. Thus, we relegate those things (things for which we have no evidence of existence even in places where evidence reasonably should be expected to be found if those things exist) to the realm of the theoretically possible but probably nonexistent. God is there, too.
Physical is generally taken to include everything that is described by physics. It is not only that which is observable but it is also that which can be directly inferred from that which is observable. Even something like ‘time,’ which can be described by physical theory, is physical by this definition.
To say that some of the more theoretical things discussed by astrophysicists are “known” does violence to the concept of what it means “to know.” Just because various theories are discussed by astrophysicists and others does not mean that those theories are known.
What precisely do you refer to when you refer to the observation of God’s effects? Do you have an example of an effect that can be reliably attributed to God?
I would say that the physical (and the effects that can be attributed to the physical) is all that we can, even in theory, examine. The non-physical, then, is everything else. When we cannot examine a putative entity nor any effect that might reliably be attributed to that putative entity, we assume that this is because the putative entity is actually nonexistent. This is why we believe that the phlogiston is nonexistent. It is why believe that fairies, elves, and witches are nonexistent.
Some of us see no good reason to exempt gods from this same sort of analysis.
If anyone can explain how it is possible even in theory to examine the non-physical, then science will be happy to examine it. Otherwise, I’m not clear on what precisely it is that you would have science do.
No one has asked you to justify an epistemology that includes the mere possibility of the supernatural. You have been asked to justify your positive belief that the supernatural exists. A veritable chasm separates possible existence and existence. I’ve yet to see how you will bridge that chasm.
Something that doesn’t happen very often is statistically unlikely, not supernatural.
Something not well understood only means that we are ignorant about that thing. It doesn’t mean the thing is supernatural.
How do you know this? If flying invisible elves DO carry jets on their backs then you have experienced an elf (at least indirectly).
Since it is just as possible that incredibly strong, invisible, flying elves account for jet flight as it is possible that physical law does, your belief that physical law explains that flight best seems to be arbitrary unless you can give some reason why you believe the physical law explanation is the most likely to be true explanation.
The whole point of this exercise is to show that your belief in God cannot be justified without your making a special execption in your epistemology to make such a belief possible. If you were consistent and applied your usual standard for belief to the God question, you would be an atheist.
I think it’s possible to show that there’s incoherency in the major claims of God’s qualities, sure. But I don’t think that would be all that useful to this discussion. I do think there must be some part of your theism that includes a ‘definintion of God’ that you believe to be unassailable. God must be your default position or you cannot take on the label ‘theist’. Along those lines, I’m questioning your methodology here. If, in this realm of ILP reason, you’re setting up materialism (as you define it) to be inadequate, so that God can become the default position, thus creating a negative case that you can defend, then I think you oughta own that. Because it’s an assailable position, in no small part due to what you’re revealing to be your definition of materialism. I’ve been remiss, I suppose, in not reading the materialsm thread to see how the argument’s been framed, but that’s because of demands on my time that require reading ILP in a piecemeal fashion, as I can. I’ll have to go back to it.
So would you be in agreement with the sentiment that the truth (or divinity) of God is revealed through the New Testament? God can’t be revealed through reason, because one ends up with a circularity.
It seems to me dicey to throw God into the idea of ‘relational’, assuming that your idea of God is as something not contingent. The universe is indeed relational, there are no absolutes. In that sense, it’s a closed system. As well, if you imply contingency on God, then you’re going to run into some of the traditional problems that arise regarding omniscience and free will.
I think “reality check” has responded to this very well, but my specific reply is that the acceptance and rejection of any proposition is necessarily an individual choice, but we have external standards of reason against which we can measure the rationality of the choice and thus challenge it. I think there’s a trap that you can fall into if you want to use these standards as a way of justifying your belief in divine causation, because it contradicts the very basis of the standards themselves. That’s why I’m questioning what seems to be an attempt to discredit materialism (which of course is compatible with those standards) as a way to dredge a narrow channel through which your presumption can pass.
Rational.
But you haven’t yet demonstrated that, and I’m asserting that you won’t show it by negating materialism and positing your default.
I think this was well-addressed by the Hoover Dam builder’s grandson discussion. (And I have to side unequivocally with RC on it)
I don’t see ‘dependent on’ and ‘up to’ as mutually exclusive. But I’m not denying your autonomy or questioning the ‘value’ of proof to you (and I don’t think anyone else is either). What I’m questioning is whether you’re utilizing an objectively-based methodology – because causality is observed objectively – to establish that materialism cannot be a rational means of establishing knowledge.
I agree with your choices of PoE & supernatural. The challenge for Christian apologists, IMO, is how these collapse in on themselves because the inherent contradiction lies within the justification structure that on one hand underlies the concept of what Christianity is, on the other, makes it vulnerable to demonstrations of inherent irrationality.
Well, people put their religious beliefs and scientific beliefs into separate boxes all the time. They give separate and equal status in terms of legitimacy to something called ‘faith’, when ‘faith’ cannot be held to the same standards of observation and measurement as scientific beliefs. That the vast majority of believers do this without really thinking about or questioning it (which is what you’re doing, which is what makes you unusual as a believer) isn’t surprising, we all do it. Nobody lives 100% according to their beliefs, it’s not possible in such a complex, interdependent world.
I think the term ‘idiot’ is mostly a (rude) short-cut way of saying ‘irrationalist’. Again, I think you’re unusual in that you’re making an attempt at complex reasoning to reconcile accepted epistemic standards and practices with your supernatural belief system. And, beyond that, using them to support it. I would daresay that the average Joe couldn’t attempt that because he has neither the smarts, the training nor even the motivation to do it. I think the reason it doesn’t happen more often is a combination of the powerful comfort that belief in a supernatural, eternal, afterlife-oriented god provides (“why question that which fulfills my basic need?”) and the lack of intellectual drive that could be attributed to the masses. Because even many people who aren’t ‘dumb’ don’t necessarily have that drive. Exploring ideas just for the sake of doing it, I mean.
As uncomfortable as it may be, I think you’d have to concede that there’s a commonality to how these beliefs manifest. It’s the problem of induction, no? Of course, bigfoot and aliens don’t offer life after death, so they’re not nearly so attractive. Perhaps they can therefore be relegated to the fringes of the supernatural and the believers considered not as elite as those who believe in god. But I think the reasoning one does to get support any of these ideas as ‘reality’ isn’t substantially different.
Are you asserting that it’s ‘out there’ if a person only accepts the much higher probability that he existed ‘in the flesh’ at some time and the much lower possibility that he performed such miracles resurrecting the very-established-as-dead dead? I can’t speak to the numbers of people who might consider it that way, but it seems to me that a lot of what I read or hear is about the truth of ‘love thy neighbor as theyself’ sort of teachings, exclusive of any sort of supernatural occurrences. I’ll don’t have stats on what people think, but I’m guessing there are a lot who can accept that he was more like a sage offering wisdom and comfort than a divine entity walking on the waters or feeding a full stadium out of one shopping bag.
Yeah, Greek and, especially, Roman historians or other major public figures who left oral and written records throughout the period of antiquity. Or public records from that era, official documents, the legal and historical papers of major families, none of which mention Jesus’ activities, his trial or his execution. Since these documents do include such records of other people, it’s odd that they don’t include someone who purportedly was considered a notable political threat (at least according to the gospels) during the time. It’s the negative evidence idea, that something that should have been written by someone who could reasonably have been expected to both have known of it and have written about it, would have. When you look for documentation beyond that produced by converts of Jesus at the time, you don’t find it. Surely you’re not claiming that every single person exposed to his presence – or even who presumably heard tell of his miracle-working – was undoubtedly converted and that’s why we only read of him through the tales of his converts!
I think this has been addressed on this thread, and I know that we’ve dealt with it in our past exchanges…it’s only logical to view such historical events in the context of what’s reasonable should a similar event occur today. If biblical documents say that somebody was raised from the dead and we know the state of medical technology at that time (which we do) versus the state of medical technology now, and that there’s a limited window of opportunity to ‘bring someone back’ even with the relatively advanced technology we have now…then it’s reasonable to think that Jesus’ action then belongs in the ‘supernatural’ category. Had this been a relatively common occurrence performed by more than one person back then, and had the multiple occurences been documented by a variety of people and, most importantly, had there been historical evidence of a reasonable and progressive advancement of some sort of technology that would give such events a reasonable context with modern understanding, then we might be able to view them differently now. But it’s all non-existent, it’s all so questionable, and not reasonable.
Well, if you think about it, we’ve only had the capacity to debunk many of these so-called ‘miracles’ for not much longer than a hundred years or so. And you can’t deny that as scientific understanding has evolved, the general status of miracles has declined. I may have an overly cynical view of it, but I think humans enter a subconscious sort of contract with themselves, or you could say with the meme, when it comes to believing in supernatural entities. They will accept on ‘faith’ – something that their minds and the natural laws of their world don’t support them doing – if the god they accept as such will give them eternal life. If the meme reneges, then the contract goes out the window.
As I’ve said, I don’t believe that discrediting a materialism that you define in a particular way so that God wins by default is rational. If you view your course as different, then please correct my understanding.
Then it’s not an ‘anecdote’ if it’s only between the eyewitness and himself.
When I say ‘just as reasonable’ I’m not holding only one possibility out and rejecting all others. I’m instead opening the ‘causal’ field. But just because I’m opening it, that doesn’t mean I’m going to exempt the event itself from the standard of a rationalistic explanation for such events. The rationality of a ‘miracle’ claimed as ‘caused by god’ or ‘caused by cultural infusion’ must still be challenged on its own merit. It must be held to standards of reason, as was addressed in the raising of the dead discussion.
I mentioned the ‘truth value’ problem in an earlier post and it stands as perhaps the main problem here. While I don’t disregard ‘anecdotal’ evidence, I place a different truth value on it than I do on evidence that is demonstratable beyond what someone says happened last week or 2000 years ago.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, unless you can prove that these ‘uniquely Christian’ events are documented in a reasonably unbiased way. I don’t buy it because people make all sorts of claims for all sorts of reasons and when those who report them have something to gain by it (or are just invested in furthering the status quo), then it’s always subject to serious doubt.
Reality Check
I only have a vague understanding of how it is that jets fly, they look too big and cumbersome to me. That said, I've never heard anyone say that tiny invisible elves carry them, and the experts that do know that sort of thing say it has something to do with speed, air pressure, and the shape of the wing, or something like that. Why would I just assume they're wrong for no reason? That's crazy. If someone offered me 50 dollars to explain how jets fly, I'd give it my best, and I'd use the explanation I've heard on the Discovery Channel or whatever (to the best that I recall it), but it would be wrong to say that any scientific evidence is the [i]reason[/i] I believe (or if so, only indirectly). The reasons are testimonial.
Well, there’s an underlying reason in that I don’t believe in invisible elves, and I do believe in air, pressure, and wings. Is that what you mean?
Mad Man P
It’s not the terminology, it’s the set the terminology is supposed to represent that isn’t definitive.
First of all, there are scientists that investigate the supernatural, and they aren't taken seriously because of the nature of their subject matter, so the subject matter has to have some other definition. Secondly, for all you know that might be an empty set, even if God, spirits, and all the rest exist. There's no way to make claims about what science might be able to examine.
Exactly my point. The only thing supernatural things have in common is that we have decided to call them 'supernatural things', and that materialists prefer to think of them as nonexistent. There's no actual quality of the things themselves that gives them that distinction- it's all social. There's no reason to respect it.
Well within “the realm of matter and energy”? Why is that even a realm? The point I’m making is that there’s no reason to stick them together other than an affection for dualism. We easily could have thought of Matter as one thing, Energy as a second, and Mind or Spirit as a third, and been trinitarian metaphysicians. The grouping of matter and energy together is more social than substantial.
You can’t do those things with gravity, either.
Absolutely. Again, I’m not arguing for monism, you really need to abandon both monism and dualism to see what I’m saying. I’m not saying God and Matter are fundamentally the same. I’m agreeing with you that they are fundamentally different, and furthermore pointing out that matter and energy are fundamentally different as well. Trees, ghosts*, light and God are four things that all have various similarities and differences with each other, with no good reason to put 2 in one broad category, and 2 in another.
Constant prayer and discipline, engaging in the spiritual life, and communion with God. Why is this a hard question?
Anyways, I’ve already written my epistemology in that essay in another part of the website, I believe I provided a link?
Carleas
Not sure what you're talking about. If you mean the Resurrection, you have Jesus, Lazarus, and all the accounts of monks and so on encountering Resurrected saints in their own glorified bodies similar to Paul's encounter with Christ.
I should probably specify what I mean when I say 'inductively incredible'. When I say a claim is not inductively incredible, I mean that there's no very good inductive argument that shows we ought not believe it. I'm not commenting on the amount of evidence we should hold out for before belief.
Look at my original quote:
All I mean to say is, there is no successful inductive or deductive philosophical argument against the central claims of Christianity. You seem to be taking the comment out of context, and assuming I’m saying something about the quality of the historical evidence. When I talk about inductive arguments, I’m talking about the Inductive Problem of Evil, the argument from Pluralism, and so on. None of them work.
Sort of. Remember a lot of the popular arguments against the existence of God are deductive, and so all that's required to defeat them is a coherent scenario in which their accusations don't obtain. Once that's been demonstrated, the arguments fail, even if that scenario isn't true. So, with regards to the deductive Problem of Evil, for example, suppsose a version of the free will defense defeats it. If it turns out that the theodicy the free will defense describes is wrong in the particulars, the deductive argument [i]still fails[/i].
Simply put, I can say "I don't know why God permits Evil, but here's a plausible scenario...", and in that way maintain that the existence of God is philosophically sound while leaving some fairly big questions without definitive answers.
Well, that wouldn’t work, because even with materialism out of the way, there’s immaterial alternatives to theism, and it would require an entirely different body of arguments to parse that out.
I believe that the truth can be revealed through the New Testament, as properly understood in the tradition it comes from. The New Testament is a cornerstone is a larger body of wisdom. We can do some things with reason- realize that our atheistic arguments are flawed, see that theism isn’t as incoherent as we had supposed, but I do not think that reason can lead to a conclusion on the matter, all by itself. Or at least, it couldn’t for me.
The interesting thing is that if you put a triune God at the beginning of the universe, then sometimes things can be ‘relational’ and ‘absolute’ at the same time. They aren’t opposites anymore, if the first relationship is eternal in nature.
I’m basically a rationalist, so I agree with that. Keep in mind we’re surrounded in this thread with materialists who can only defend their materialism by rejecting rationalism and embracing a pragmatic understanding of truth.
Okay, reasonable means rational. I can accept that, but of course I find myself wanting more.
What does rational mean, besides ‘coherent’? Unless you include being true as a criteria of being rational , which I don’t think you can do, I don’t see that there’s any other way to measure rationality but coherence.
You completely lost me on your claim that “causality is observed objectively”. It is the rationalists denial of this that makes them rationalists, and it’s the empiricist’s denial of this that makes them pragmatists. I haven’t said materialism isn’t a rational means of establishing knowledge, by the way. I’m not sure what that would mean, since I haven’t seen materialism presented as a methodology yet, but as a series of premises or conclusions based on some other methodology, pragmatic, empirical, or rational. If you mean to say that empiricism cannot be a rational means of establishing knowledge, I’m not saying that, either. I just deny it’s unique status as such.
Thank you for agreeing, but I confess everything else you said here went way over my head.
I agree that all of those things happen. However, I think it’s only a bad thing because of an implied need for monism (there can only be one!) and the pre-existing fight between science and religion that people live in the context of. You may as well call it ‘compartmentalizing’ that I put equal status on memory and vision, even though the things I remember cannot be held to the same standards as the things I see.
Though, I’m not sure I think of faith as a faculty like reason, or as a methodology like science, so I’m not sure the comparison works at any level.
I am unusual among human beings in that I’m a critical thinker. When it comes to religious thinkers, I have some very big shoes to fill, and anything I’ve said that’s not just mimicking what has been said before me is probably wrong.
One of the biggest things I’m thinking about these days is to what degree we hold average Joe accountable for this. Do we do what we do so that Joe doesn’t have to, or should everybody be doing this?
Of course you think so, because you're an atheist that doesn't believe in any of those things. What choice do you have, but to think that the people who do are guilty of some error? What I'm telling you is, there are enough unusual people like me who believe in God (and have been such people through the ages) that it does set it apart as being like Bigfoot or aliens or whatever.
Compare it, if you will, to the Christian argument that atheists are just atheists because they are caught up in sin that doesn't let them experience God. That's not going to have any power to convince for you- even if it were true, no reasonable Christian could expect you to see it that way. So it's a useless point to raise.
There are very, very few people who think that Jesus didn’t exist who have earned the right to be taken seriously in what they say on such matters. As to the supernatural side of Christ, I know of no way to cite a statistic that would be fair to both of us. We can’t say “most biblical scholars”, since obviously most biblical scholars are devout Christians, unfair to you. We can’t say “most non-Christian scholars”, because then the conclusion is “Most scholars who don’t think Jesus was God, don’t think Jesus performed miracles”, which isn’t terribly informative or fair to me.
Yes, perhaps the best way to put it would be to say “Most historians who don’t accept the divinity of Jesus, still accept His existence as a historical figure”.
Specifically, I mean? Greek or Roman historians who left oral and written records, and corroborating accounts of the same events are just as detailed and contain far fewer contradictions? I’ve always been under the impression that the number of contradictions in the New Testament is pretty part for the course when it comes to history of the period.
Not every single person. Every single person with enough interest and information to have bothered writing something down? Close, but probably not all. But again, we have the problem of the nature of the witness we're talking about. If he attested to Jesus' miracles, without being a Christian, he's [i]by definition[/i] going to call them 'alleged' miracles, or attribute them to some other god or some natural explanation. How would some 1st century Jew talking about how "A bunch of crazy people falsely claimed Jesus performed miracles and started calling him the Messiah" help my case? Maybe that sounds harsh, but if you're specifically looking for non-Christian sources, I don't see what else it could be.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, you're presenting exactly the kind of thinking I'm objecting to. In order for you to believe the Ressurection, it'd have to be the kind of thing we can do today with modern science, that people back then could do with their technology, and we'd have to have repeated and repeatable evidence of how it was a naturally explainable event.
In other words, no evidence would ever be sufficient to establish the occurrence of a [i]miracle[/i] under any useful definition of the term. If that's the route you want to argue on (and indeed, it's the route everyone in the thread is arguing on), can we please drop the debates about how much evidence there is or is not, since it's clearly a waste of time? I've never seen a Christian argue that the Resurrection was a naturally explainable event, [i]I'm[/i] certainly not arguing such, so what is my interest in providing you with evidence in that direction?
No. The capacity to perform a deliberately hoaxed miracle contains the capacity to debunk them in all cases. It’s not as though 500 years ago the wonder-workers had trick photography and animatronic puppets the rest of the world didn’t know about.
Only as a socially acceptable thing to talk about. The occurrence of miracles is alive and well in the world, among the same class of people they were ever likely to happen to.
Well, we’d have to agree to disagree, since “reasonably unbiased way” doesn’t suggest anything to me. Where do you think information about the life of a penniless saint who grew up in some dumpy village to spend most of his adult life in a monastery is going to come from?
EDIT: Let’s use you as an example (you must consider yourself a reasonably unbiased source, right?). Describe to me a situation in which you would be able to give an account of a miracle, such that, say, another person like yourself would find it credible.
*taking it for granted that ghosts exist as popularly understood, not to say I believe that.
But it’s not just “testimonial evidence,” is it? Instead, it’s testimonial evidence from the vast majority of experts; the same experts whose expert consensual testimony in other matters you reject without good reason (e.g., the testimony that says irreversible processes occur in neural tissue within a few hours of death that prevent someone’s coming back to life).
This is why I say that you cannot believe in the existence of God without making an unjustified exception for God in your epistemology.
Uh, yes they can. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet of God and regard the bible as a holy book. A muslim would accept the christians arguments and further argue that Mohammed is the return of christ foretold in the bible.
Not to say that this invalidates your stance but it does this argument.
Please, get your facts straight.
So IYO Christians like Muslims consider Jesus only to be a prophet of God and do not consider Jesus to BE God???
And IYO Muslims accept the truth of the New Testament???
Studied religion much, have you?
I think I understand what you are getting at… and if I understand you correctly… I actually agree with you… but since it’s slightly irrelevent in this thread’s context I won’t get into it with you here… though I’d love to carry on a longer more broad discussion with you… I fear that realistically you’re hands are already full with all the people on this thread… and that any such discussion will have to wait until this dies down a bit…
Why? I don’t care how other people lable things… I gave you my definition of the term “supernatural”… let’s use that when you and I speak together… and ignore what other people mean by it…
Jesus raising from the dead on account of being god of the son of god is BY DEFINITION supernatural… it can never be arrived at via the scientific method… because each such act is a unique alteration of the otherwise uniform natural laws… it can never be explained scientifically… there is no “natural” explination… the explination is wholy SUPER-natural…
Jesus walking on water without an anti-gravity belt is a wholy supernatural phenomena… it flies in the face of our notion of “gravity” which naturally effects humans… the only non-supernatural explination would be to say that jesus was not human at all… that he merely looked human… but had some kind genetic mutation which allowed him to defy gravity enough so that the surface of water could support his weight…
I read the link you provided… I really liked your aproach but at the same time found it to be an incompleate argument…
You talk about true belief and false belief… and seeking true belief rather than avoiding false belief… but there was no mention of any clear epistomology…
How do we know a “true belief”? What qualifies? How are we to recognize it?
You provide tools for valuing an epistomology (by how much true belief can it provide) but not an epistomology to value…
I still need a clear epistomology on your part…
My last post was in the form of a statement and ignored, so let’s try putting it in the form of a question and see if that works.
When confronted with something we cannot explain, what is the mechanism that allows us to assume that there is a conscious will acting in or on that something?
An early ancestor is walking along a steep hillside when suddenly a boulder comes crashing down the side of the hill narrowly missing him/her. The ancestor is keenly aware that something has happened that almost cost them their life, but what caused it? Had the ancestor an adequate understanding of geological processes, they would have understood that erosion brought on by weathering created instability resulting in the boulder responding to gravity, and that their brush with death was just circumstance. They would have thanked their lucky stars, shrugged, and gone along about their business.
An alternative explanation is that this ancestor had, in an earlier experience, participated in a defense of the family group where boulders on the same hillside were deliberately pried loose, and rolled down the hill to drive off a competing group of people. A cause-effect relationship was born. If a boulder suddenly came crashing down the hill, then it was the deliberate act of someone or something unseen. And now we have a perspective that the unexplainable is explained by the acts of a conscious willful presence.
From this simple example, one could easily come to the conclusion that what is considered supernatural or miraculous is simply ignorance of natural processes. If this example is extended, then the repetition of this perspective creates the foundation of religion. From the proto-religions of animism to the complex dogmas of today.
So back to the question. I’ve provided two explanations for a simple experience. What is the mechanism that allows one to assign willful agency to yet unexplained phenomena?
I understand how today’s religious person can accept the explanation that it is unlikely that tiny elves are making the jet fly. We know a bit more about aerodynamics now, and the elves theory isn’t quite as plausible as it might have been a couple thousand years ago. (really early jets!) But if that is true, then where is the consistency that allows willful agency to explain the unexplained, but doesn’t consider elves as a likely explanation of flying jets given a more knowledgeable and plausible explanation?
It seems that religion is more than capable of accepting scientific explanation when it doesn’t conflict with traditional dogma, but ignores the same when it isn’t ‘convenient’.
I’d like to believe that my computer is made up of devils and angels struggling to either help me or thwart my best intentions, but it doesn’t seem plausible, or at least that is what my wizard keeps telling me.
Could the internet be tiny little messengers carrying messages to and from and rewarding me when I’m a good boy and punishing me when I’m bad? It remains within the realm of possibility because we don’t know for sure what is going on at the sub - sub atomic level. But is it likely? What really happens when I click the submit button?
The argument for theism relies on assigning willful consciousness to the unexplained. All the philosophical constructs, all the ’spiritual experiences’, all the miracles of the supernatural , depend on and begin with that single perspective.
If there is a difference between those religious and the “hard†agnostics, it is the difference in this perspective.
Sensing God is not that much different than sensing anything else. But it changes everything. It’s like a 3-D movie. If you watch it without the 3-D glasses it looks two dimensional When viewed through the glasses everything changes. In the case of God, the normal thing is to be able to percieve God in everything including oneself. The inability to do that is what is abnormal. It constitutes what Chrisitanity calls “a fall from grace.” Grace here meaning the state of percieving that one is in the presence of God.
No. What I did say (or at least meant, sorry if I wasn’t coming accross) was that the Christ being OF God does not necessarily mean that he IS God and thus islam and christ (The prophet-hood of christ, not christianity the way its today) are not necessarily incompatible.
There’s a billion muslims and a whole field of muslim scholars who will agree with this point although I’m not one of them.
Any “truth” in the new testament is subject to interpertation. Christians interpert the new testament in their own way and muslims in their own. Both interpertations are consistent within themselves.
However, the interpertations are NOT compatible with each other if that’s what you mean.
Sorry if I missed the original meaning of the text (I propably did) and sorry for going OT. Interesting discussion btw, please continue.
Hej tentative
Does this sound relevant to your point? 
I don’t know what you mean by “indirect experience.” I either experience something or I don’t. If you tell me that you have seen an elf, I don’t have an indirect experience of an elf; I have an experience of you telling me you have seen an elf. I have seen jet engines operate and I have sensed God’s presence. My belief is based on experience in both cases. So I think your claim my belief in God is a special exception is unfounded.
Mad Man,
Yeah, kinda sorta. I was attempting to get to the root assumption of any and all theistic assumptions. Assigning willful consciousness, or agency, to all phenomena is certainly understandable, but it in no way is a ‘proof’ of the christian god, or any other god for that matter. Seeing agency ‘behind’ all that is, is merely an assumption on the part of any theist.
Little wonder that theists and hard agnostics talk past one another. The issue of agency cuts through all the ‘philosophical’ contortions and forces an either-or choice of “I want to believe I know”, or “I don’t know”.
But perhaps I shouldn’t say that in public because we would have to find some other way to waste our time… 