[quote]pat wrote:
Just because revelation is not provable in a logical sense does not mean it does not exist or never happened.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity Pat, would you mind elaborating a little here? I don’t think I am following.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Just because revelation is not provable in a logical sense does not mean it does not exist or never happened.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity Pat, would you mind elaborating a little here? I don’t think I am following.[/quote]
The idea that divine revelation or revelation in general does not exist is based on one’s personal experience. “I have not experienced revelation, therefore it does not exist”. Which is called positivism and is what ‘new atheism’ is largely based on. Now the problem with that, is that it requires everybody that make the claim, to be or have been liars without a “fair trial”. So everybody who makes the claim that they have received a divine revelation is by default a liar. It does not stand to reason that everybody who makes that claim, is a liar. Nor does it stand to reason that they misunderstood the experience, if not a liar.
However, if Jesus came and stood before me I could never prove to you that that happened. But it does not mean it did not, and it doesn’t mean I am by default delusional, or a liar.
The problem with expressing religious experience is that it is largely a personal experience. It may have happened, it may be extraordinarily profound and life changing. I could tell you about it and you could simply either agree that I had the experience, or not.
Now, I can prove the existence of God, or a ‘God-like’ entity by mere simple and clear logic. I can also show you that what is understood about God, by folks who have expressed experience of divine revelation agrees about the core tenets of this ‘God-like’ entity that we can derive through logic. I can’t prove the revelation part happened. I can say there is a significance about the claimed revelation, agreeing with the logical understanding, before the logical component was known about.
I think it is a reasonable request of the atheist by the theist, to follow the logic and allow the logic itself to lead to it’s own conclusion. It’s reasonable for the atheist to attempt to pick it apart and ask questions in order that the validity of the argument be established by surviving every possible criticism. It’s also a reasonable request to believe the logic when it’s true.
It’s also a reasonable request to simply no deny someone else’s claims about revelation, when it has some agreement in supportable logic even though the same conclusions were drawn by different methodologies.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not be called a liar unless a lie has been proven. You may believe or disbelieve something, but that doesn’t make somebody else a liar.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that people to have lied about God for the past 3-4000 years. Is it possible? Sure. It’s not likely though.
You have to go far from something starting the universe as we know it to lobbing off a piece of your sons penis in the name of your god (or some of them, maybe not yours). Pat I commend you for not believing the world is 6000 years old at least.
People have talked about a lot of different gods the last 3-4000 years, unless this planet is rife with gods, surely a lot of them must have been liars?
Individuals recounts of meetings with the divine has to be questioned, like a patient of ours in the psych ward who insisted I was Jesus. In her case, some medication and time and she was out of her psychosis, and didn’t mention me being her lord and savior again.
[quote]espenl wrote:
You have to go far from something starting the universe as we know it to lobbing off a piece of your sons penis in the name of your god (or some of them, maybe not yours). Pat I commend you for not believing the world is 6000 years old at least.
People have talked about a lot of different gods the last 3-4000 years, unless this planet is rife with gods, surely a lot of them must have been liars?
Individuals recounts of meetings with the divine has to be questioned, like a patient of ours in the psych ward who insisted I was Jesus. In her case, some medication and time and she was out of her psychosis, and didn’t mention me being her lord and savior again.[/quote]
Sure there were a lot of ‘gap’ gods, by people who did not have the benefit nor made the claim of divine revelation. There is a claim of divine revelation of an entity that is the source of existence, physical and metaphysical, all of it a stop-gap Necessary Being, same conclusion as what logic dictates. That’s the intersection, that’s were revelation and logic intersect.
What I am saying, is let the logic lead you. Don’t try to guide it, don’t try to make it what you want it to be. Follow reason and go where it leads you. Then look at the other. If you follow the path of reason and are honest about it you have done your part.
I would appreciate this not being turned on me, I have done that…
[quote]pat wrote:
What I am saying, is let the logic lead you. Don’t try to guide it, don’t try to make it what you want it to be. Follow reason and go where it leads you. Then look at the other. If you follow the path of reason and are honest about it you have done your part.
I would appreciate this not being turned on me, I have done that…
[/quote]
When I did that I ended up at a different path than you. For me those gaps have temporarily been filled with scientific theories, until someone comes up with a better theory. I may disagree with you but you are more interesting than Tirib.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
What I am saying, is let the logic lead you. Don’t try to guide it, don’t try to make it what you want it to be. Follow reason and go where it leads you. Then look at the other. If you follow the path of reason and are honest about it you have done your part.
I would appreciate this not being turned on me, I have done that…
[/quote]
When I did that I ended up at a different path than you. For me those gaps have temporarily been filled with scientific theories, until someone comes up with a better theory. I may disagree with you but you are more interesting than Tirib.[/quote]
I love science. But alas these aren’t scientific questions. The existence and validity of science actually requires these arguments be true. Should they not, they will shake the foundation of science muchless anything else.
Where did science come from?
Thanks for that reply Pat, I appreciate you going into detail.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Far to often the claims of the atheist is “you cannot prove a negative”, which is false, you can. Second, that the theist should make their claims first. The second is correct, we theists have to make an argument, but what they fail to recognize far to often is that the arguments have been made, now they have to disprove it and so far, they have not come close.[/quote]
The underlying principle at work is that if you want to make a claim, you have to be able to prove it.
Otherwise I can make grand assumptions about a teapot that circles between Jupiter and Saturn. Do you have to disprove this assumption, or am I required to prove it?[/quote]
I think anybody making a claim, has to prove that claim, be it positive or ‘negative’. Nevertheless, the arguments have been made and sit unrefuted. So to say, ‘the theist must prove his claims’ is an argument from ignorance because the work has already been done. It is then on the atheist to disprove it.[/quote]
Again, no. The teapot theory has been made and sits unrefuted.
Disprove it.
There are massive riots in Sweden now, courtesy of our favorite religion.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Far to often the claims of the atheist is “you cannot prove a negative”, which is false, you can. Second, that the theist should make their claims first. The second is correct, we theists have to make an argument, but what they fail to recognize far to often is that the arguments have been made, now they have to disprove it and so far, they have not come close.[/quote]
The underlying principle at work is that if you want to make a claim, you have to be able to prove it.
Otherwise I can make grand assumptions about a teapot that circles between Jupiter and Saturn. Do you have to disprove this assumption, or am I required to prove it?[/quote]
I think anybody making a claim, has to prove that claim, be it positive or ‘negative’. Nevertheless, the arguments have been made and sit unrefuted. So to say, ‘the theist must prove his claims’ is an argument from ignorance because the work has already been done. It is then on the atheist to disprove it.[/quote]
Again, no. The teapot theory has been made and sits unrefuted.
Disprove it.[/quote]
I cannot disprove a theory that does not exist. Further, I am not concerned with theories. Only deductive arguments.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Far to often the claims of the atheist is “you cannot prove a negative”, which is false, you can. Second, that the theist should make their claims first. The second is correct, we theists have to make an argument, but what they fail to recognize far to often is that the arguments have been made, now they have to disprove it and so far, they have not come close.[/quote]
The underlying principle at work is that if you want to make a claim, you have to be able to prove it.
Otherwise I can make grand assumptions about a teapot that circles between Jupiter and Saturn. Do you have to disprove this assumption, or am I required to prove it?[/quote]
I think anybody making a claim, has to prove that claim, be it positive or ‘negative’. Nevertheless, the arguments have been made and sit unrefuted. So to say, ‘the theist must prove his claims’ is an argument from ignorance because the work has already been done. It is then on the atheist to disprove it.[/quote]
Again, no. The teapot theory has been made and sits unrefuted.
Disprove it.[/quote]
You know, it’s starting to occur to me that you may not actually understand the argument as I previously thought. Or you read something ridiculous like that idiot Dawkins, that has enkindled a more militant atheism in you. It’s not about inventing things and requiring one to disprove their existence. There is an argument, with real verifiable premises and from those premises a single conclusion can be drawn from them. Hence, if the premises are correct, then the conclusion likewise must be correct. You can cut the Flying spaghetti monster crap. That’s for intellectual half-wits who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about, but are damn passionate.
If you got a counter claim, feel free to bring it. Introducing strawmen will get you nowhere…
[quote]espenl wrote:
There are massive riots in Sweden now, courtesy of our favorite religion.[/quote]
Piss them off and where a Star of David.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
There are massive riots in Sweden now, courtesy of our favorite religion.[/quote]
Piss them off and where a Star of David.[/quote]
It will not be long before we have a similar situation in Norway, the integration of the muslim immigrants has failed completely. I will eat my bacon while it is still legal.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
There are massive riots in Sweden now, courtesy of our favorite religion.[/quote]
Piss them off and where a Star of David.[/quote]
It will not be long before we have a similar situation in Norway, the integration of the muslim immigrants has failed completely. I will eat my bacon while it is still legal.[/quote]
Hmmm, actually it sounds like integration is working just fine. You guys are integrating to them. 
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
There are massive riots in Sweden now, courtesy of our favorite religion.[/quote]
Piss them off and where a Star of David.[/quote]
It will not be long before we have a similar situation in Norway, the integration of the muslim immigrants has failed completely. I will eat my bacon while it is still legal.[/quote]
You are always welcome here? Become a refugee.
Bacon sounds good right now.
[quote]pat wrote:
Hmmm, actually it sounds like integration is working just fine. You guys are integrating to them. :)[/quote]
Yep, in 20 years Norway is an islamic state.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You are always welcome here? Become a refugee.
Bacon sounds good right now.[/quote]
Thanks I will consider it.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Hmmm, actually it sounds like integration is working just fine. You guys are integrating to them. :)[/quote]
Yep, in 20 years Norway is an islamic state.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
You are always welcome here? Become a refugee.
Bacon sounds good right now.[/quote]
Thanks I will consider it.[/quote]
Being serious if you need a place to stay for a month or two you are always welcome at my place.
Thanks mate, my fiance went to Concordia College in North Dakota for a year, and have been all over the US. It is definitely a country I want to visit once my daughter is older. I have to try texan BBQ
British soldier decapitated (or, nearly) on a London street.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
British soldier decapitated (or, nearly) on a London street.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10074029/Shootings-and-machete-attack-in-south-east-London-live.html[/quote]
The irony, the riots in Sweden started when the police shot a crazy man vielding a machete.