Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just bring evidence to the table of the sort that non-relativists need for accepting something as factual. That would already be more than any Christian here has accomplished in the last few years.I don't want to argue over how many people are relativists. I just want to know who here is a relativist and who isn't. I explained the reason why it makes a difference.
I believe that the evidence is right in front of our noses. It's first of all in the fact that we exist and that there are laws in nature, many things that have an intelligent design. But I know that an atheist will reject that as evidence since their rejection of God leads them to believe that everything in the universe is ultimately all the result of meaningless dumb luck. I could tell you about some of my personal experiences, but I think you will probably just say that you don't believe it or that I was just very lucky. How about this, tell me what would convince you of God's existence.Just bring evidence to the table of the sort that non-relativists need for accepting something as factual.
So far, why is his position nonsensical?I don't believe it's esoteric...the claimant does. That's why I came up with the name EKG. If I were to create a name for it based on my views of it...it would be a less polite version of horse-dooky.
Take the example of dysert from his posts in this thread...
He starts off from the basic position I outlined in my OP. The position that he's in possession of some truth/knowledge that he couldn't possibly explain to me because I'm not spiritual. He explains that it's not even knowledge that can be conveyed to me, it can only be conveyed "spiritually".
I ask him a few questions to cut through the nonsensical nature of his position...
We have metaphors for God like "Father" and "Creator" and others. In reality it's hard to explain what anything is. Metaphors are used all throughout science; waves are called waves because they act likes waves we can see; nothing is actually being "selected" in natural selection. Early models of the atom looked like small planets orbiting a big star, now we've apparently learned the electrons are at any given moment everywhere and nowhere in particular, which is extremely difficult to imagine or explain mentally, verbally or graphically.You mentioned belief in god as an analogy for the EKG...I think it's a poor analogy, but maybe you can elaborate on it to connect the dots a little better. You seem to think that I don't believe in god because of your (or believers in general) inability to describe a god completely. That's not the case at all...all I need in order to rationally consider the existence of a god is some basic explanation of what a god is. I don't need the encyclopedia of gods. I'm not sure where you got this idea from...
...but perhaps your mention of a "doctrine" I supposedly hold is the clue here. What doctrine are you talking about? That it's illogical/irrational to hold beliefs without any evidence?
Most atheists here (perhaps all) don't have a doctrinal obligation to atheism.
No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.But Chesterton has a doctrinal obligation to believe they do.
Tell me more about the doctrine I adhere to. I need to know these things about myself.No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.
Tell me more about the doctrine I adhere to. I need to know these things about myself.
Want some ketchup with that - admittedly carefully arranged - word salad?If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact.
A disbelief requires no evidence. If I say "There is an invisible pink unicorn over there", and you say, "I don't believe you", I do not then get to demand your evidence for this disbelief.You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence
Want some ketchup with that - admittedly carefully arranged - word salad?
A disbelief requires no evidence.
If I say "There is an invisible pink unicorn over there", and you say, "I don't believe you", I do not then get to demand your evidence for this disbelief.
I don't want to argue over how many people are relativists. I just want to know who here is a relativist and who isn't. I explained the reason why it makes a difference in a discussion about evidence for God.
So far, why is his position nonsensical?
We have metaphors for God like "Father" and "Creator" and others. In reality it's hard to explain what anything is. Metaphors are used all throughout science; waves are called waves because they act likes waves we can see; nothing is actually being "selected" in natural selection. Early models of the atom looked like small planets orbiting a big star, now we've apparently learned the electrons are at any given moment everywhere and nowhere in particular, which is extremely difficult to imagine or explain mentally, verbally or graphically.
No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.
If a Christian cannot show that he genuinely knows what he claims to know, or if his claims are discredited, then would it absurd to doubt that he possesses such knowledge? I don't doubt the sincerity or strength of his belief. But mere belief, no matter how sincere or strong, is not equivalent to knowledge.If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact.
What doctrine would that be?No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.
See post 95 in this thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?