Modern Paganism

I'll take WorldlyWiseMan's role again and ask the question. How do you know, Valiant? How do you know anything about anything about a supernatural god whose only information comes from Bronze Age stories?

You are the one with the problem of epistemology. How do you know anything? What makes your dogma believable?

Christians know because the empty tomb testifies that the words of Christ are truth. Christians know because they are ‘sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession’ [Ephesians 1:14].

Why do you mock that which you do not know?

As I've said before, there is a difference between believing and knowing. We can believe whatever we want, but that's not the same as knowing. I know what I know through reason and rational deduction. I follow reason to solve the issues of what makes up the universe, how do I behave and what is best for me and my loved ones, and everyday issues like what to wear, what to have for dinner, and how I earn my living. The difference between your dogma and my dogma is that mine isn't dogma. I'm not the one claiming absolute truths. Reason can't be dogmatic by definition because it is open to inquiry and is necessarily objective. If someone comes along and proves to me with reason that what I once thought to be true was actually false, I would accept that so long as the reasoning is sound.

Dogma is abundant and prevalent in faith, the antithesis of reason. This includes Christianity. It has the same issue, either accept what the doctrine says or your a heretic. Nothing can ever be proven wrong or rationalized. It's something you either have or you don't. I don't mock what I don't know, I just admit I don't know. I don't mock anybody, but I call into question those that claim they do know things that they truly can't know. Nobody can know what happens after death and nobody can know whether some supernatural deity or any of the myths and fables told about it are true because they're not told through the guise of reason. Hence, it can never be truly asserted whether one faith is any more valid over the other. It's a matter of belief and belief, no matter how strongly held, can either be true or false. That is why it is belief.

Your knowledge is limited and therefore, you insist nobody can know, but your knowledge is limited because you will only accept evidence that fits a standard created by finite human beings.

Valiant is correct in saying that we accept the evidence of the empty tomb, but additionally, we accept evidence that to you find objectionable. You preconceive that only knowledge that meets a scientific standard can be deemed "real" and "knowable" while we do not. God, being infinite, is not required to meet human finite standards. That is exactly what one should expect from an infinite God. When you insist that He step DOWN to your level so that you may understand Him, the answer that is that He did -- in the empty tomb.

As I look around my awesomely beautiful corner of the planet, I am forced to accept that neither the beauty nor my perception of it serves an evolutionary purpose. There is no survival function to beauty, so why does it exist? If the answer cannot be found in materialistic preconceptions, then perhaps it is found in metaphysical evidence. And, that is the point where, beyond the tomb of Christ, I can KNOW God and be certain, because I am not bound and strangled by materialistic preconceptions.

You misunderstood me, Valiant. I don't reject evidence just because I don't agree with it. I reject it if it is unreasonable. If the evidence presented has no merit or isn't verifiable, then by the logic of reason I reject it.

The notion that the empty tomb is evidence and that god is infinate, and thus excluded from these measures, goes beyond reason and into the realm of belief. And as I have stated before, beliefs are not evidence. They are not truths or anything of that nature. They are and always have been beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, but it won't make something true.

Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Believers are the ones making the claim that something is there. If you cannot present evidence that is not fallacious (ie anecdotal evidence or arguments of personal incredulity) then by the logic of reason your claim is not supported. And I do not accept it. That is why you have faith. You have faith that it is there, but faith is not evidence nor is it proof. It is what it is and nothing more.

You have faith in god. I do not. That's all there is to it.

For me the question becomes this: are the only facts we know those learned from the scientific method? Can we learn facts from revelation and faith while acknowledging that they sometimes lie outside the realm of scientific observation?

Do you have anything better than last time to say on the origin of logic and antithesis? Why do men think this way and how do you know that your conclusions are valid?

Caday, the difference between the scientific method and revelation is that science deals with reason and logic while revelation is strictly personal. It is not verifiable, not testable, and not measurable. It is at the mercy of the fallacy known as anecdotal evidence, which is evidence that is based solely on personal experience. I concede there are things human beings can't know at this point. But that doesn't mean revelation offers those answers. A strictly reasonable and honest mind would admit that they simply don't know and can only continue seeking that answer rationally.

Valiant, men think this way because it bears knowledge and understanding. Science and reason have offered far more comprehensive explanations than mythology, superstition, and folklore. It does not directly disprove belief. It can never prove or disprove religion because religion is believed on faith. And faith, no matter how you spin it, isn't evidence of anything except the faith itself.

I always appreciate your notes but the question remains, can we learn facts outside of the scientific method? And if so, can we learn facts from revelation?

Do you not understand my question? Why does logic exist? Why are men rational rather than not rational?

When you reason using what we call logical arguments, then you have stepped over into theism. You cannot live in this world consistently avoiding the Biblical world view of a reasonable Creator who upholds all things by His power thus bringing order and life.

Will you not admit that rationality belongs to the immaterial and cannot have arisen from naturalism. We are rational because we are image bearers. You are most foolish to try to misuse what God has given you in order to deny Him.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. When it comes to objective truth, the scientific method is the best tool because it has to be objective by it's own design. It can't involve any kind of persoanl bias and it has to be verified and peer reviewed. I'm not aware of any other system that can come to those truths.

As I said before, revelation is personal and it may offer spiritual truths. For many people it does. Believers of all faiths use revelation to draw conclusions about their concepts of god, life, and the afterlife. But this same process wouldn't work to uncover truths in the scientific sense because of the personal nature of revelation. If it's personal, it's not verifiable. And if it's not verifiable, it can't be considered truth in the same context. Thank you for your insight though. It does bring up a valid point in the nature of truth with regards to spiritual and objective.

Perhaps I don't understand your question because if how you're phrasing it. Questions such as why does logic exist and why are men rational are more philosophical than scientific. I can give you a sceintfic explanation. Mankind evolved the ability to understand their world through higher cognative functions and in doing so, developed a capacity for reason that allowed them to better manage their surroundings and survive. But since I know you don't accept evolution, this explanation is not acceptable to you. Because of that there really isn't much else I can give you because you're loading the questions you're asking me.

I believe you are wrong. The capacity for reason and logic can arise through natural process. But since you don't accept evolution, it is somewhat of a moot point. When we use reason, we aren't vidicating a god or a metaphysical force. We are vindicating our own cognative capacity. To say otherwise is to make a tautological argument, which is a fallacy.

You say I'm foolish for not accepting god, but I don't believe in god. But you still can't prove to anybody without resorting to faith that your god exists. So it is still an irrational point to make. And since there are some reasonable points you simply will not accept, there is nothing I can do to make an argument you will accept.

"since there are some reasonable points you simply will not accept, there is nothing I can do to make an argument you will accept."-jack to VFT

So why do you post here? Believer's are not "tolerant" of your belief in no God. We have no wish to hear of your philosphy of science.
You expect to post here and be respected as competent to speak your views; but you are incensed that we consider you to be a fool, reprobate, and ultimately doomed to Hell.
To tolerate your views would make us as guilty as you are. Christianity, real Christianity, is an "intolerant" worship of Christ.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There are those who simply reduce it to a "religion", but they are those who do not understand truth. It is from our "intolerance" that we believers may expect to be persecuted, and hated among the world.

John 15:19
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Tolerance is a worldly concept, therefore a sinful concept.

James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Believers are called to believe, by faith, and worship the Truth. Nowhere that I am aware of does the Scripture say to tolerate sin, in effect to compromise with untruth.

Leviticus 19:17
... thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Why? because to rebuke him is to love Him. You're on the wrong path, jack. Your "peer reviewed" attitude is your path to damnation.

2 Corinthians 10:12
...but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

You claim wisdom, reason, and rationality, but you are not wise nor reasonable; a fool is what the Scripture calls you. It also tells you to repent, peradventure God will give you repentance (2 Timothy 2:25).

I hope you and yours are well, my friend. Good to see you back.

Appreciate that, Ed.

Good of you to chime in, Chiefest. The reason I post here is to engage in debate. While I know there are some arguments you and other believers will not accept, it is still pertinent to point out the fallacies in the claims you make. Claims in regards to atheists, science, and what not should be challenged if they are fallacious. I have no problems with you or anybody else believing in what you want and expressing it however you please. But understand when you do express it, expect people like me to point out the shortcomings. That's what comes with free speech and free expression.

The scriptures may call me a fool, but I take no offense to what a 2000 year old Bronze Age book says about me. I don't believe in judging people on the basis of what spiritual texts says. I believe you judge people by who they are and what they do. You say I'm inherently wrong no matter how many reasonable arguments I make. But that by definition makes you unreasonable to begin with. That's not an indictment on your religion. That's an indictment on you as a person.

I'm not asking you to tolerate me or even change your beliefs about me. This is what you get when you're in a free society. If you do not like that, then perhaps freedom isn't for you.

I could ask this way, can we find objective truth without using the scientific method? To me, it seems like you are saying that we cannot.

Also, to me, objective truth is truth that stands outside of ourselves. So the question becomes is God's existence objective truth? Can we know objective truth outside of using a scientific method that utilizes peer-reviews?

I can't say definitively if there is another way of finding objective truth without the scientific method. I suppose it could be possible if you're willing to embrace a new sort of philosophy or reveal new insights into the workings of the human brain. But it isn't very probable.

As for god's existence being objective truth, I suppose it may be possible to prove scientifically. Like if you could prove repeatedly in experiments that praying to a certain god would heal people from illness in a statistically significant way, then that would be good evidence. If people praying to god were able to obtain valid, specific predictions about future events such as an earthquake or landslide on a very specific day at a specific location and was able to do so without using esoteric language or making a lot of predictions where many fail (which often happens in biblical, quran, and Torah prophecies as well as Nostradamus) then that would be proof as well. Or if one could gain knowledge from praying to a certain god about a specific issue in physics, biology, or chemistry just by praying and it is knowledge that no scientist has ever heard of or discovered (such as Jesus or Buddha saying 2000 years ago that E=MC2) then that could be proof as well.

As of today, none of this has been proven. There have been predictions, but they've been shown to be statistical anomalies. There has been references to knowledge in religious texts, but they aren't very ahead of their time. The concepts of biblical and islamic science was consistent with the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans at the time. And faith healing hasn't been shown to work. But if somehow you could find something like that which could withstand peer review, that would be considered proof.

Here, I would disagree. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you equate objectivity with the scientific method. And since the scientific method is based on observation of some sort, it seems that you have reduced the universe to that which is physical. And then you say that the spiritual is subjective, that is personal truth.

But doesn't your approach imply that spiritual truth depends on one's perspective and, if that is the case, it cannot be objective because it is not a truth that stands outside of the person.

So how could we verify that spiritual truth is personal and not objective if what is spiritual cannot be observed and thus cannot be shown using the scientific method? That is unless you assume that the universe in which we live can be reduced to the physical, the best one can say from your point view is that one can be agnostic about a non-corporeal being but not certain that one does not exist.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong but, it seems that your starting point was assumed, that the universe can be reduced to what is physical and objective truth can only be found through the scientific method and not arrived at using the scientific method.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. I did not mean to imply that objectivity is synonymous with the scientific method. It isn't. Some research, especially the psychology and sociology research that I took part in while I was in college, cannot be objective because it has to take subjective points as data. It would be inaccurate to say objectivity is inherently scientific or linked to reason. It really does depend on the subject matter. If we're talking objectivity in terms of scientific research, then you would need the scientific method. But if we're dealing with objectivity in terms of art, literature, or even legal proceedings then science isn't exactly applicable.

I would say though that spiritual truth is mostly a matter of subjective interpretation. But not entirely so. It isn't so clear cut when you include such factors as culture, socioeconomic background, and geography. If the two of us were born in Pakistan, chances are we would be Muslim. If we were born in Israel, we would probably be Jewish. This has nothing to do with our subjective interpretations of religious experiences or lack thereof. They are products of geography and culture.

In the strictest sense, no one from my perspective can say with absolute certainty that god is not present. Nobody makes that claim. It would be more accurate to state that no proof has been presented to indicate that a god exists. As such god is not there. That doesn't definitely prove god does not exist. There just isn't any proof of him.

Now could god be proven objective? Yes, it's possible. As I said before if a certain prayer to a certain god leads to miraculous outcomes that cannot be statistical anomalies, that would be proof. If someone could die completely and come back to life and remember what the afterlife was like. And multiple experiences corroborate that story, that would be proof too. So far, none has been proven. As such, god has not been proven yet and must still be believed on faith.

I hope my questions don't bother you but if spiritual truth is subjective, then, it seems to me, that there no same spiritual truth applies to two or more people.

So do you think that the miracles in the Bible, if genuine, prove not just that a god exists, but the God of the Bible is the one who exists?

I do not mind your questions in the slightest. They are very insightful and thought provoking I apologize if I am unable to give you a complete answer. You do know how to ask some difficult questions and I'm doing my best to make them clear.

Now in regard to spiritual truth, I do not mean to say it is solely based on individual subjective interpretations. That would be a grossly simple explanation. Other factors such as culture come into play. People of a similar culture and background will often come to the same spiritual truths based on innate and environmental factors. This is because mankind is a very social creature. In solid groups like those formed in religion, similar truths can be attained using the same reasoning. It is just a lot more difficult to convince someone else who has come to another truth on their own.

In regard to the miracles of the bible, if they could somehow be proven it would lend credibility to the biblical god. If somehow praying to the god of the bible or praying using specific teachings in the bible produced miraculous results that could be repeated, that would be strong proof. So far that has not been proven withing reasonable constraints. So faith is still necessary. I hope this clears things up and thanks again for your input.