Then all you have to do is find a way to demonstrate that you are supernatural. If you can't, then we can apply your claim here to show there's no reason to think that you can comprehend spiritual truths.
Upvote
0
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.
Well the fact of the matter is that most spiritual truths cannot be comprehended by those who are "natural".
True, it may not require evidence, but in this case the disbelief is still based on none.
Sure you can demand it.
Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?It´s untrue.
It's a belief, likely part of a set of beliefs.Plus, even if it were true, it wouldn´t be a doctrine.
Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?
If they've presented evidence, and I don't believe it, then chances are I've explained why the evidence is insufficient.
If they haven't provided any evidence, then I don't believe based upon a lack of evidence.
Misguided accusations of "scientism" are often made by people who refuse to have their claims subjected to any sort of scrutiny. Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.Well there you go. Lots of overlapping names could apply to your doctrine. Scientism comes to mind.
I don't know, if you really see it that way I can't argue, but it did bother me when you said "ploy" as if anyone who couldn't explain themselves was lying. Not that I think a Christian couldn't ever lie or anything, but I honestly think there may be cases where it's true that it's just hard to explain things. I can even think of an example of knowledge which one Christian may have trouble understanding, which another Christian claims to "get", but still has a very hard time explaining to the other Christian.He's not claiming that he has difficulty understanding this magical realm of knowledge...he's claiming I'll have difficulty understanding it (or more specifically, that I cannot understand it at all).
His comparison is that of trying to explain colors to a blind man. The problem is that he's describing a very specific type of knowledge with that analogy...perceptual knowledge. Perceptual knowledge doesn't necessarily refer to anything external in reality. If this was the claim made by the EKG...or by dysert himself, then I'd have no real problem with it. I'd dismiss it without any evidence...just like I dismiss mind-readers or people who can "talk to the dead"...but at least his claim wouldn't be utter nonsense. That's not the claim that he or the EKG makes though...
He's saying that this magical knowledge he has (that I don't have) relates to reality, truth, facts. That's a completely different kind of knowledge from something that's purely perceptual. He's speaking about conceptual knowledge regarding reality. Are you starting to see why the claim is absurd now? How can he claim to know a fact/truth (concepts) without any means of conveying that concept (like words, pictures, etc)?
Imagine that you believed evolution to be true...would it be possible to hold a concept of evolution without words to describe it? Even if you're terrible at describing it...I don't see how one can claim to have knowledge of a concept without having any means of conveying that concept (even just to yourself).
Misguided accusations of "scientism" are often made by people who refuse to have their claims subjected to any sort of scrutiny. Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.
I already explained how it's misguided: Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.How is it misgiuded? Demanding demonstrable evidence as an absolute requirement is scientism.
I already explained how it's misguided: Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.
We've already mentioned a couple reasons why it may be difficult, but if you believe it's because the evidence is poor that's fine.Well I have to actually be presented with some evidence in order to disbelieve something based on the evidence. If a christian believes something based on his personal experiences (for example, he believes that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ)...he's going to have to relate that personal experience to me. Once he does, and I explain why his personal experiences aren't good evidence, I'm no longer rejecting his claim based upon any doctrine...am I? Christians make these claims all the time but they rarely present their "evidence" for them...and I suspect the reason why is similar to the reason why I tend to reject such claims...we both know the evidence is poor at best.
Because of my doctrines.If you need an example to help you with this...suppose I made the claim that based upon personal experience, I can read people's minds. You asked me what "personal experience" I'm referring to...and I say that I'm not going to share something so personal with you. Are you rejecting the claim because of your doctrines? Or is it based upon the evidence (of which I haven't presented any)?
I already explained how it's misguided: Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.
Um yeah, you sort of implied that.
We've already mentioned a couple reasons why it may be difficult, but if you believe it's because the evidence is poor that's fine.
Because of my doctrines.
I also gave a link to the wiki on scientism, seems to describe what we're talking about pretty good. Just read the first paragraph and tell me where I'm wrong.
How did you get scientism out of my post?
Is it because I cite a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing a claim that has no evidence?
What doctrine would that be?
"Demonstrable" evidence is where you're wrong. The kind of evidence we should expect will change depending upon the claim.
I didn't get scientism out of it, but Chesterton is claiming that it exemplifies scientism.How did you get scientism out of my post?
Is it because I cite a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing a claim that has no evidence?
You've mentioned two "if"'s. If you can demonstrably discredit him that's one thing. If you merely disbelieve him because he can't prove his claim, that's another.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.
Neither is mere lack of belief, or disbelief.But mere belief, no matter how sincere or strong, is not equivalent to knowledge.
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?