The natural world is all that we can detect with our 5 senses and instruments used to interact with those senses when the scale of perception surpasses the limitations of those senses. The supernatural world then would be that which we cannot detect with senses or instruments (at the present time). This means that at the present time there is no evidence which we can discern supporting the supernatural. If and when we become able to detect the supernatural, it will have moved into the realm of the natural, as we can then detect it.Here is the part that causes growning:
This means that at the present time there is no evidence which we can discern supporting the supernatural. If and when we become able to detect the supernatural, it will have moved into the realm of the natural, as we can then detect it.
The problem is that it assumes that only things that can be observed by our 5 senses or scientific observation are real or carry any validity. Does this make sense? Here is an example: How do I know you have a brain? Can I touch it? Can I see it? Can I hear it? Can I smell it? Can I taste it? No? Of course not. Can I scan it and detect it using an MRI or X-Ray Machine? I'd assume so, but it's only an assumption. Not everyone is going to have a scan or be able to test that assumption. So how do you know? Well, other people have had the revelation of seeing such scans so we take that evidence. You may have even had a brain scan yourself. It's no different when it comes to the Bible or when it come to the testimonies of what God has done for people. The marked difference is that you may not have the opportunity to view brains scans of your or someone else yet you can experience a person revelation of God from God through Jesus Christ. While you may have accept your brain's existence by blind faith, you don't have to accept Jesus by blind faith.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by exrelayman
Any time I see something from Loftus that makes me facepalm, I remember the shellacking he experienced at the hands of Dinesh D'Sousa. Good times.
ReplyDeleteLoftus' defense in the poor showing at the debate was basically "winning a debate doesn't make you right." True. But it does show you either have bad arguments or an inability to articulate them. In Loftus' case the problem was both.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy would something devoid of meaning make you sick? I suspect to make you sick, it would at least have to carry a little weight, or you're exaggerating about it making you sick.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that is so silly so pointless make me sick. The fact that a person could even think it up makes me wonder. That's what I mean by making me sick. The absence of weight makes me sick. It's insulting.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that is so silly so pointless make me sick.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you. Silly things make me laugh.
And happy Thanksgiving.
ReplyDeleteAnd to the quote, the only two reason I can think of for positing the supernatural is either that one is lazy or dishonest.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't detect it, you can't make any judgments on it or pretend to know it's attributes. Maybe we'll detect it eventually, but until we do... you can't pretend to know anything about what it is we can't detect.
There's no cause for facepalming or being sick, it's just pure intellectual honesty. Try it some time.
Dishonest? How honest is it to deny that which you cannot prove? That is dishonest, who do you thank on Thanksgiving if you don't believe God exists? Honesty anyone?
ReplyDeleteI thank my family and friends.
ReplyDeleteNotice I said either lazy or dishonest. As far as motives go for positing the supernatural, I think those two cover it. Lazy if you are throwing in the towel and ending inquiry and settling on "goddidit", or dishonest if one is positing it to support an agenda, like most professional apologists do.
How did your family and friends wake your children up this morning? How did they keep the earth moving around the sun? How do they keep life in your bodies.
ReplyDeleteI am an engineer and a scientist. Why does believing in a creator equal "Throwing in the towel" and ending inquiry? I'm going to give you credit and just assume you are ignorant. Science is about understand how God did what he did. The scientists like Isaac Newton's theistic beliefs drove them to make more discoveries. They wanted to see how God thinks and understand Him better through understanding the creation He made. I look at it the way they did. What is lazy or dishonest about that? Since you can't prove that God did not do it, what right have you to assume there is no God?
Why does believing in a creator equal "Throwing in the towel" and ending inquiry?
ReplyDeleteBecause it causes you to reject evidences that contradict your theology. Evolution as a case in point.
No it does not mean rejecting evidence. The evidence is not up to snuff for evolution and I don't think degrees in finance, Ryan, qualifies you to determine what is viable evidence.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly certain you are not a "scientist".
ReplyDeleteAnd definitely not a biologist.
ReplyDelete