Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  the_classicist

  E.g. your not having skinny-dipped in my grandmother's pond does not mean the experience has never been had by anyone. You have never seen my grandmother's pond, therefore you would be well within your rights to disagree that she has a pond, or even that I have a living grandmother. That doesn't make the experience I have had any less real.

  I really be expected to provide all the examples of experiences you haven't had, of course. As with any human, their number far outweighs the number of experiences you have had.

  Your conclusions stretch too far when you assert that your lack of sensational experiences automatically means no one has experienced what you have not experienced. You can speak to the lack of importance of God in your life. But you can't really expect to speak for everyone, it would seem presumptuous.

  Again, if God is a mental agent or a "pure spirit," it follows that man cannot ever know the existence of God since existence is only perceivable or knowable by sensation. It also follows that the existence of God is completely meanings, for man can never perceive the existence of an unsensible being.
• 

  OldSoul

  the_classicist:

  You apparently haven't been following the whole thread. Where have I written anything that would make you think I believe God cannot impact physical reality?

  I don't remember writing anything to that effect. Did I? If so, I apologize. Or were you adressing me as though you know my beliefs already? I am not "religion in general" nor am I "most people." I am an individual. If you're going to try to argue against my beliefs, you could at least do me the courtesy of arguing against my beliefs.

  But, if you'd rather just have a conversation with yourself that reinforces your stereotypical and prejudicial view of believers, knock yourself out. Sheez! You guys don't even see how pompous and egocentric you come across! You tell me you can't falsify my belief, but then you presume to tell me that my belief is meaningless? You don't see a sharp disconnect there? [edit to add]

  God is held by most to be an unsensible mental agent

  Odd. That is the first time I have ever heard God described that way. I would love to see the data that led you to conclude that one, if such data exists. OldSoul
• 

  OldSoul

  Cygnus:

  You're welcome to your belief. I disagree with you. And ultimately, if you are right, I don't care what I come back as.

  Now, take that same approach and apply to my beliefs. I am not proselytizing here. You don't have to agree with me. And if you don't, you won't even come back as a porcupine next Friday (didn't you know, I am a Fridayist).

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Shining One

  >But I digress, since the only way of perceiving existence is by sensation and since God is held by most to be an unsensible mental agent, it follows that the existence of God is not unfalsifiable, but completely meaningless with respect to human beings.
  
  God is ever present in one who has a personal relationship with Him. Perception, is not limited to sensation and the history of this goes back to the dawn of mankind. The supernatural has always been evident by testimony of man himself. Testimony is admitted in a court of law and equal to circumstancial evidence. It is meaningful to those who choose to make themselves available to God. You are immersed in an 'appeal to the popular' logical fallacy.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Cygnus,
  REM has proposed a false delimma.
  >If someone experiences God using one or more of their five senses, then they are delusional
  1) They COULD be delusional.
  2) They could be lying (If it is only a claim in the above example).
  3) God chose to communicate with them in a sensory way.
  We have examples of this in history. Testimony that would not only be admissable in a court of law but considered proof by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. We have physical effects upon people and objects that could not be accounted for with natural laws. They continue even today as a matter of fact. Something beyond our five senses may be causing these 'miracles' to occur.
  Just because somebody limits their own possibilities to the sensual it does not follow that all need to do so!
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Old Soul,
  At some point doesn't Pascal's Wager come into play?
  Rex
• 

  funkyderek

  Shining One:

  We have examples of this in history. Testimony that would not only be admissable in a court of law but considered proof by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. We have physical effects upon people and objects that could not be accounted for with natural laws. They continue even today as a matter of fact. Something beyond our five senses may be causing these 'miracles' to occur.

  Excellent. That's exactly what we're looking for. The kind of evidence that would be accepted in a court of law. Perfect. Now, where is it?

  At some point doesn't Pascal's Wager come into play?

  Heh, no. Boy, Paley's Watchmaker and Pascal's Wager. You really like the old fallacies, don't you Rex?
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  That was a good point about the subtractive observation being not discernibly better or worse than direct observation. I agree, but I don't think that in any way bolsters an argument for disbelief in God or a spirit realm. I think it has the opposite effect.

  I agree. It doesn't favour the materialists. I also don't see it favouring the spiritualists. Thats why I find myself in the mindscape of agnosticism.

  That's actually been my point the entire time. If our entire understanding of reality is based on perceptions, what possible basis could someone have for claiming my unfalsifiable perceptions are delusional?

  I'm with you in principle on that point. I don't think that they can do that for sure. If they're going to work from a mental paradigm that excludes something, they'll never perceive it.

  But from my own experiences (more correctly ------> lack of mystical experiences), I'm just more inclined to believe that the purely materialists have it right. I'd like a personal mystical experience. I'd probably just be stuck in a conundrum with that too. Was it real or am I delusional?
• 

  LittleToe

  Rem:
  Without getting pedantic about symantics, since you believe that most humans are delusional, may I ask if you include yourself in that category?

  Derek:

  Excellent. That's exactly what we're looking for. The kind of evidence that would be accepted in a court of law. Perfect. Now, where is it?

  Numerous eyewitnesses, beginning two thousand years ago and continuing into the present time (with at least three or four on this thread). Many would suggest that eyewitness accounts precede this by several millenia, too, but that's an extended area of investigation.

  Midget:

  If they're going to work from a mental paradigm that excludes something, they'll never perceive it.

  I don't know if it precludes it, however I suspect it hinders it. I wouldn't be dogmatic on that position, though
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus, are you still a 'Young Earth Creationist' who believes in an Earth that is less than/approximately 10,000 years old?

  If so, how can you credibly quote from a source which doesn't hold the same opinion? ReMine, for example, accepts standard time scales. Yet you are willing to quote him to support your argument when it suits you, despite the fact that his view are utterly incompatable with yours.

  It would be like a Hindu quoting part of a Christian Bible-literalist YEC theory puportedly supporting a low age of the Earth to support a Hindu Creationist theory.

  Abaddon, there is no requirement that in order to credibly quote or reference a source for specific points that a person must also be in agreement with everything else that the source advocates. I'm sure that you will find that evolutionists themselves reference the works of other evolutionists for specific points -despite not agreeing with every other point of belief. Anyway, the fact is that there is much in ReMine's book that is compatible with Biblical creationism.