Search results

Be careful now enteebee, your sounding dangerously close to verificationism. What method would you like the theist to give you in order to show you that the supernatural realm exists? We already know that they cannot empirically prove it to you. Either way, I don't think that is at the...

I honestly don't see the relevance. Even if we say that belief in the natural is needed in order to interact with the world, the theist could say that belief in the supernatural in required to interact with the supernatural world. To say things like people can function without belief in the...

Wanted to mention that we have also been discussing a fair bit more than this also. This is just where we are currently up to (as enteebee said). For those interested, I think the previous dialogues are definitely worth a read. Just one point on this. If we are putting it in these terms, I...

This isn't my point though. My point is not simply to say that knowledge of the supernatural is based on subjective experience. My claim is that knowledge of everything is based on ones subjective experience. You need to be able to show why ones subjective experience of the natural is more valid...

Well sure, but aren't we all resting our arguments on subjective experiences? Unless you can show that their subjective knowledge of the supernatural is less valid than your subjective knowledge of the natural, this, I don't think this is really all that much of a claim. You've got the order...

Even that is stretching it - there are millions of people who claim to know about the supernatural. If by know, you mean show empirically, then sure, but we've already been through that. I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not ask you why you can't assume God is the reason for the...

Hey man, Not sure if I am understanding you properly here, but are you suggesting the big bang as some sort of disproof for Gods existence?

Hiya Sam! *waves* See, to me it seems again that you are presuming your conclusion as a proof in your argument. Assuming we are creating an entirely new realm of existence assumes that the supernatural is not already part of our existence - ie naturalism is true. Certainly with this argument...

I don't know that naturalism is a simpler answer at all - I don't think the two are even directly comparable in that manner. Surely assuming that naturalism is simpler, assumes naturalism's truth and the supernaturals unlikely hood? Thats true, but that's really all I have sought to show...

Heh heh, sure you did :P

If God was in fact the instigator (and thus it was a supernatural event), then yes, no amount of research and scientific investigation will show how that event occurred in naturalistic terms. However, would such investigation stop simply because the christian believed that God played a part? I...

Oh, it doesn't imply a Christian God at all. In fact, it doesn't even imply a God. All it seeks to show is that the universe has existed for a finite period of time and thus had a beginning. In fact, many christian apologetic arguments will not infer the christian God at all. They are general...

I just don't buy this at all. Scientific discovery ends because we suppose that God did something? If this were true, then christian scientists would not exist. Even if one acknowledges that God did something, one will still want to know why and how God did something.

Ha ha. You seem to have read my mind - as I was thinking the exact same thing as I wrote that! Why, must a supernatural God influence our universe (outside of it's creation)? Well I suppose it doesn't have to. I think it could be argued that for any personal God (and certainly the biblical...

Woah, settle down HalcyonSky! The first time I've talked to you in ages and this is your post? No hello or anything? :P As I've already briefly gone over, I don't really find the God of Gaps theory all that much of a problem, certainly no more of a problem than the science-of-gaps that I see...

The Big Bang theory points to a beginning of the universe a finite time ago. It is currently the standard and most proven model. Even with other models of the universe that propose it has existed for all eternity, they still run up against philosophical problems. Take this argument for...

Let me rephrase then to "a seemingly impossible naturalistic explanation to the beginning of the universe". I don't think it's question begging. I mean, sure, it pre-supposes that a supernatural explanation is the cause, but this is after all naturalistic explanations have been exhausted - it's...

Well of course there is not proof of a God of Gaps theory - your asking science to empirically show that a supernatural event happened. Ultimately, the God of gaps theory doesn't really bother me. If a supernatural God does exist, then we would expect to see instances where naturalistic...

Well, since we lack any plausible naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe. Out of nothing, nothing comes.

I feel like we've been through this before, but here goes :P The reason we don't believe there is red zebras in China, is because we know what evidence one would expect to see if such an animal existed and yet, no such evidence exists. This is in contrast to God who's evidence one would expect...