May 4, 2012 -- 8:18PM, fodaoson wrote:

If we define “God “ as the creator, then the creation is evidence of that creator.  The creator methodology may appear to the created as a big bang, as something from nothing, mudballs into flesh etc.  but the beginning is that creation came from a creator or creator event tah ahs been called “God”..   

By this way of thinking, you ( a mortal) creates an invalid conclusion from an invented definition.  You maight as well say Santa was the creator.  Valid conclusions can ONLY come from objective and verifiable evidence.

Twofish

The problem is that we have no definition for 'supernatural being' that's useful both to theology and to reasoned enquiry. 

That's why we have no objective test that will tell us whether any candidate is a supernatural being or not.

This hasn't been a problem so far, because we've had no candidates so far. 

But it's said they have objective existence, and if that's so, well, they've got to be out there somewhere.

If it's not so then they're imaginary.

May 5, 2012 -- 12:06AM, Thetwofish wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 12:01AM, Blü wrote:

Twofish

The problem is that we have no definition for 'supernatural being' that's useful both to theology and to reasoned enquiry.

Blu...I know that...you know that...I was trying to attempt to get THEISTS to get it.  But I'm probably just beating my head against the wall.  I mean no disrespect to good ole' t...but that doesn't cut it for the reasons already stated.

Peace

<'{{><

The OP explains it. Theists can't think analytically about their intuitive concept of God, because analytical thinking destroys the intuitive. 

May 5, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Blü wrote:

twofish

good ole' t...

He's a dear feller, no doubt, but unfortunately reasoned replies aren't something he's ever done.

As JCarlin has said, the OP bears on the problem.

The "block" function works well for this.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

We're talking ideas, not science. I was pointing out, the conclusions that any ideas force. The ideas  and conclusions that atheism, at least as largely expressed here, point to, ultimately don't seem very rational to me.

Do you notice how you never explain yourself?  Perhaps you can elaborate on why you don't think non-belief isn't rational?

Not that science and sprituality are at odds. They are not.

Neither is poetry and science.  But poets are smart enough to not let poetry interfere with what they can know about science, as some theists do with their religious beliefs.

But, again, I'm talking about looking at a proposal, or idea, taking a step back, looking at where it leads, and then weighing it accordingly. By that standard, some claims made by atheism are, well, incredible and difficult to accept from a reasonable point of view.

Why?  Could it be that you want science to validate your religious beliefs, and since it cannot due to a lack of evidence you find it "unreasonable"?  If so, that isn't reason, it is emotions not being satisfied.

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.

That humans can reason only points to how our mature brains function.  Notice that infants can't reason.  Notice how brain damaged people may not have the ability.  Notice how some aged peolple have lost cognitive ability.  Other animals can problem solve, but not to the degree that most humans can.  This points to a natural process, no supernatural.  

To deny that is to deny the obvious, and merely a weak attempt to claim atheism has a monopoly on something it simply does not. Every idealogy that wants a monopoly insists that things can be framed only a certain way. And every such idealogy tends to get huffy whenever somebody simply steps outside that frame, and points out the inherent flaws.

This illustrates the liability in stepping back and looking at all this vaguely.  What you call "obvious" is actually outdated and obsolete.  Recent work in the cognitive sciences inform us of a purely natural process.  

Hence, atheism continuing to pound the table and insist upon "evidence" -- when the evidence is more than ample. I once read that it's like a man sitting on a pile of leaves and insisting "there is no tree." The more time I spend on these boards, the more I see that.

Bad analogy.  Trees exist equally to leaves.  We can't deny trees existing since they are there to see.  Show us any god that is there to see.

Anyway, let's continue:

Also "Written accounts" seems like a weak deflection. And misses the point. Either way, you're making an incredible claim about someting that's obvioulsly there. That being, those figures' influence on human history.

If it is obvious then you won't have any trouble showing us.

There's no a priori assumption of the "supernatural" (whatever that is supposed to be) needed to see what is obvious. That is purely a straw man on your part.

Do you notice how you talk about this "obvious" evidence without actually presenting it?

The evidence of those figure's influence on humanity and human history is plain as day. What conclusions can be drawn from that then becomes a matter of perspective. I find the perspective that they were, in fact Manifestations of and aided by a higher power to be ultimately far more rational and reasonable than attempts to explain that away.

Why?  You basically admit that you are interpreting/inventing a conclusion here.

If your perspective is that nature implies or indicates a god exists, then that is going to taint how you perceive it.  That means you are not making objective observations, but seeing what you want what you see to mean.  THAT is why it isn't reasonable.  It doesn't matter to anyone else what your perception MEANS to you.  What you see has to mean something objectively.  If for us to "see" what you see requires a special assumption, then you fail at making a reasonable assertion.

"Sensory experience" is also hugely missing the point. Once again, you're getting hung up on the hardware. Which seems to happen over and over -- whenever I challenge you to consider sapience -- not just mere "intelligence."

Yes, you are hung up on the MEANING you give the raw sensory data.  But your meaning is irrelevant to us.

If we both were walking down the street and saw five trees in a yard, neither of us can deny the trees existm and are certain types of trees.  But they are just trees to me, no more special than the other trees on the street.  But to you, these trees are special, and you are expecting me to see them as special too, but I don't.  What makes them special to you is that you planted these trees when you were a child, and you have emotions and memories tied to them.  I don't.  But you are insisting that I am unreasonable because I have no special perception about these ordinary five trees.  What you fail to understand is how your experiences and beliefs related to what you see ENDS with you.  So when you notice that humans can reason, and think it indicates a god exists, that is merely a result of your personal experiences, and not a reasoned conclusion of raw, unprejudiced, sensory data.