The Demise of Evolution

[AnotherAtheist]

Ah yes, it's like trying to tell you what the sense of Tweal is like. You can never understand because you (like must people) were born without the ability to use the sense of tweal. That's why people think there are only five main senses. Touch, sight, taste, smell and hearing. But there's a sixth one, called tweal, and it's amazing. Such a shame that you'll never be able to tweal anything, you're really missing...

If the sense of Tweal actually existed, then it could be demonstrated to people who didn't have it.

Imagine a world full of the blind. If there was one person was sighted, then their additional sense could be demonstrated to the world. E.g. the sighted person could predict that someone is about to walk into a tree before that person could feel the tee, and do so from a distance. There would be lots of other ways of demonstrating it. Maybe not enough to truly understand what the additional sense was like in full detail. But, enough to convince others that the additional sense exists.

If belief in a God was like an additional sense, then those with that sense should be able to provide evidence of it to those who don't have that belief, that sense. E.g. if only those who believed had their prayers answered, then the non-believers should be able to see the evidence of answered prayers.

Note: I'm posting this in support of your argument, not to counter it.

 

[pitabread]

If belief in a God was like an additional sense, then those with that sense should be able to provide evidence of it to those who don't have that belief, that sense. E.g. if only those who believed had their prayers answered, then the non-believers should be able to see the evidence of answered prayers.

In my view, everyone experiences the same sorts of emotions, feelings, etc. It's just the attribution of those experiences that differs. Some people believe that these experiences are the result of an external spiritual entity, while others do not.

I don't think there is much real division, if any, in terms of experiences between those with spiritual beliefs and those without.

At least, as you say, nothing anyone has ever been able to demonstrate.

 

[Ophiolite]

In my view, everyone experiences the same sorts of emotions, feelings, etc. It's just the attribution of those experiences that differs. Some people believe that these experiences are the result of an external spiritual entity, while others do not.

I don't think there is much real division, if any, in terms of experiences between those with spiritual beliefs and those without.

At least, as you say, nothing anyone has ever been able to demonstrate.

I have seen no discernible difference in the descriptions given by Christians of their "sense of being in contact with God" and my own experience of "being at one with nature". This seeming identity of the two spiritual* conditions is one of the factors that led me to discount the claims of Christianity (yet strengthened my appreciation of Christian ethics - as I understand them).

*I find the term "spiritual" useful for describing those experiences and mind-states. I don't think "spiritual" need be restricted to religious experiences. I understand this may be a minority view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen no discernible difference in the descriptions given by Christians of their "sense of being in contact with God" and my own experience of "being at one with nature". This seeming identity of the two spiritual* conditions is one of the factors that led me to discount the claims of Christianity (yet strengthened my appreciation of Christian ethics - as I understand them).

*I find the term "spiritual" useful for describing those experiences and mind-states. I don't think "spiritual" need be restricted to religious experiences. I understand this may be a minority view.

From personal experience I have had Christians deny what I felt was a spiritual experience because it did not match their own. In fact they probably have to. If anyone can have a spiritual experience regardless of the existence of a god they cannot use it as "evidence" any longer for their version of God.

 

[Strathos]

So what you seem to be saying is that
1. You have to be open to the possibility of a spiritual experience, and
2. You have to humble yourself, and then maybe
3. God will show you that the biblical texts and related sources are 100% reliable as historical evidence.
Is there anything else you have do do?

You're wrong when it comes to #3. I never argued that they are '100% reliable as historical evidence'. In fact there are just as many passages in the NT that are not meant to be taken literally as there are in the OT. But the core message of the birth, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ is what is important.

You can tell us about the evidence, but only God can show it? Ok, go ahead. Tell us what evidence God will show us.

Only God can know that for sure. It could come in many forms.

Of course we could. You won't "humble" yourself when it comes to looking at how Christian beliefs tend to be terrible self contradictory. One should never assume that one's opponent has not seriously given a belief a chance. That is what you did. That was an error on your part. Most atheists that are Christians became atheists against their will. Not because they were looking for an excuse not to believe.

Everyone has contradictions in some of their beliefs, because humans aren't perfect.

 

[Ophiolite]

From personal experience I have had Christians deny what I felt was a spiritual experience because it did not match their own. In fact they probably have to. If anyone can have a spiritual experience regardless of the existence of a god they cannot use it as "evidence" any longer for their version of God.

I've had exactly that here on CF. The details escape me, but the summary was that my experience could not be the same as their experience. This declaration was made without any of the particulars of either experience being discussed and was based soley on my comment that I saw a powerful identity between my "spiritual" experiences and those of Christians.

Now, these exepriences might not be identical. I don't know if you experience the taste of onions, or the colour blue in the same way I do. But I fall back on the ornithology approach: if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, it is probably a duck.

On the other hand, even if the experiences are identical, it may be us non-believers who are misinterpreting its meaning. Then we are thrown back upon considering other evidence, or the lack of it. Or accepting the arguments for God on faith . . . and neither of us seem to have much faith in faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone has contradictions in some of their beliefs, because humans aren't perfect.

Correct, which supports my earlier claim. The same argument that you use against nonbelievers can be used against believers.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I have seen no discernible difference in the descriptions given by Christians of their "sense of being in contact with God" and my own experience of "being at one with nature". This seeming identity of the two spiritual* conditions is one of the factors that led me to discount the claims of Christianity (yet strengthened my appreciation of Christian ethics - as I understand them).

And I see no significant difference between how Christians describe their connection to and experience of God wiith those reported by believers in other religions. If one religion was actually true, and therefore other religions false, I'd expect to see a signifiicant qualitative difference. But, I don't.

 

[Speedwell]

You're wrong when it comes to #3. I never argued that they are '100% reliable as historical evidence'. In fact there are just as many passages in the NT that are not meant to be taken literally as there are in the OT. But the core message of the birth, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ is what is important.

OK, but the topic of the discussion was the historical reliability of the biblical texts (not the core teachings of the Christian faith) which is why I thought that is what you meant, what we must humble ourselves to know.

 

[Strathos]

Correct, which supports my earlier claim. The same argument that you use against nonbelievers can be used against believers.

Not really, because you don't believe in a transcendent reality.

OK, but the topic of the discussion was the historical reliability of the biblical texts (not the core teachings of the Christian faith) which is why I thought that is what you meant, what we must humble ourselves to know.

The Bible contains history, but it is not primarily meant to be used as a historical record.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not really, because you don't believe in a transcendent reality.

Isn't that begging the question? It seems like it, but I am open to an argument that it is not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Only God can know that for sure. It could come in many forms.

You said quite specifically that you could tell us about the evidence. This response does not tell us anything about the evidence. It's more like the response I'd expect from someone who cannot tell us anything useful but cannot admit it.

 

[Strathos]

You said quite specifically that you could tell us about the evidence. This response does not tell us anything about the evidence. It's more like the response I'd expect from someone who cannot tell us anything useful but cannot admit it.

I never said I knew exactly what the evidence would be. It is often different for each person.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never said I knew exactly what the evidence would be. It is often different for each person.

The conversation has gone pretty much like this:
Strathos: There is evidence for God.
Others: Cool. What is it?
Strathos: I can't show you because you don't think it's evidence.
Others: If it's evidence it doesn't matter what I think. Please present it.
Strathos: I can't present it, but if you humble yourself you'll see it.
Others: You have evidence but it can only be seen by a humble person? That's a silly claim.
Strathos: I can tell you about the evidence, but only God can show it.
Others: Great. Tell us about the evidence.
Strathos: I can't tell you about the evidence.

I think you're making unsupportable claims and trying to blame others for not accepting them.

 

[Strathos]

The conversation has gone pretty much like this:
Strathos: There is evidence for God.
Others: Cool. What is it?
Strathos: I can't show you because you don't think it's evidence.
Others: If it's evidence it doesn't matter what I think. Please present it.
Strathos: I can't present it, but if you humble yourself you'll see it.
Others: You have evidence but it can only be seen by a humble person? That's a silly claim.
Strathos: I can tell you about the evidence, but only God can show it.
Others: Great. Tell us about the evidence.
Strathos: I can't tell you about the evidence.

I think you're making unsupportable claims and trying to blame others for not accepting them.

I never said most of that. You are misunderstanding.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never said most of that. You are misunderstanding.

Everything I attributed to you you have said in this thread. Interesting how you still insist that it is others who continue to misunderstand rather than accepting you have made bogus claims.

 

[Strathos]

Everything I attributed to you you have said in this thread. Interesting how you still insist that it is others who continue to misunderstand rather than accepting you have made bogus claims.

What I said was that it's possible to receive evidence, but you need to first be open to it, and even then it's up to God to enlighten you.

 

[VirOptimus]

What I said was that it's possible to receive evidence, but you need to first be open to it, and even then it's up to God to enlighten you.

Thats not how it works.

Try again.

 

[Strathos]

Thats not how it works.

Try again.

That actually is how it works. Which supports my original claim that you wouldn't understand.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What I said was that it's possible to receive evidence, but you need to first be open to it, and even then it's up to God to enlighten you.

What you said was that evidence exists and that you could tell us about this evidence. When asked on multiple occasions to tell us about this evidence you have failed to do so and have insisted that it's our fault we cannot see the evidence rather than your fault for not being able to support your claims. It's all there in black and white for anyone to see.