The existence (or not) of God.

The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner.
Forum rules
The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner. Differing perspectives from both Christians and non-Christians are actively welcomed, but contributors should come prepared to justify their opinions and beliefs, while showing due respect to the views of others.

The existence (or not) of God.

Postby SwordOfTheSpirit » September 10th, 2016, 3:28 pm

Lyn wrote:Nice to see you on there SotS, I welcomed you in 'Introductions'.

Thanks for that. I missed it earlier!

I may regret it, but I'm going to see if I can get (some of) the atheists to see that the barrier to any kind of religious belief on their part is their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy, i.e. the assumption that all causes have natural explanations. It's pointless me using the direct approach of defending Christianity. Clearly all the other Christians posting there to date have been unsuccessful with that one.
SwordOfTheSpirit
 
Posts: 737
Joined: November 21st, 2007, 1:42 pm

Re: A saint...?

Postby Lyn » September 10th, 2016, 9:21 pm

Yes well, that is there and good luck to you, I think we only have one on here (or he might be agnostic).

Anyway, to return to Mother Teresa. I didn't realise she had a feast day already!
I'm posting these because Pondero will like them when he is properly back online:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... he-unborn/

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/09/08/reme ... -abortion/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-10/m ... ke/7822916
Lyn
 
Posts: 51287
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:25 am

Re: A saint...?

Postby Sprocket » September 12th, 2016, 9:34 pm

Rel. & Ethics has a nasty dose of the Floo, but otherwise is not a bad forum.
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: A saint...?

Postby Sprocket » September 12th, 2016, 9:36 pm

SwordOfTheSpirit wrote:
Lyn wrote:I may regret it, but I'm going to see if I can get (some of) the atheists to see that the barrier to any kind of religious belief on their part is their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy, i.e. the assumption that all causes have natural explanations.

It seems a reasonable assumption. How do you demonstrate that some do not have natural explanations?
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: A saint...?

Postby Lyn » September 12th, 2016, 11:58 pm

You may already realise this Sprocks but those words are Sword's, not mine. The way the post is quoted looks as though I said it.
Lyn
 
Posts: 51287
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:25 am

Re: A saint...?

Postby SwordOfTheSpirit » September 13th, 2016, 3:53 pm

SwordOfTheSpirit wrote:I may regret it, but I'm going to see if I can get (some of) the atheists to see that the barrier to any kind of religious belief on their part is their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy, i.e. the assumption that all causes have natural explanations.
Sprocket wrote:It seems a reasonable assumption. How do you demonstrate that some do not have natural explanations?

By scientific standards, a hypothesis should be falsifiable. What I'm finding is that the assumption that all causes have natural explanations is not falsifiable in practice. It is this that allows some atheists to make assertions such as There is no evidence for xyz, yet cannot state what such evidence should look like. On that forum, at least two posters have been claiming that if God exists, He should be able to convince them of His existence. When I asked them to give examples of what would convince them, they can't (or won't).

In some ways I'm not really that surprised. Because they cannot state what would be a characteristic/evidence of a non-natural cause, what happens in reality is that non-natural causes are taken not to exist. So there is no way for any Christian (or even God!) to convince them otherwise, i.e. answer your question. Furthermore, they can always transfer the burden of proof onto the religious believer, without ever having to account for their unfalsifiable worldview.
SwordOfTheSpirit
 
Posts: 737
Joined: November 21st, 2007, 1:42 pm

Re: A saint...?

Postby Pondero » September 13th, 2016, 4:13 pm

Sprocket wrote:
SwordOfTheSpirit wrote:
Lyn wrote:I may regret it, but I'm going to see if I can get (some of) the atheists to see that the barrier to any kind of religious belief on their part is their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy, i.e. the assumption that all causes have natural explanations.

It seems a reasonable assumption. How do you demonstrate that some do not have natural explanations?

By examining a miracle, of which there are a few at Lourdes, Fatima and those which occurred during the process for the canonization of Mother Teresa. The doctors who do so , if agnostic or atheist which occasionally happens say "There is no natural explanation for the cure " I(miracle) . If there is no natural explanation ,What then,?
Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing make you afraid.
All things are passing.
God alone never changes.
Patience gains all things.
If you have God you will want for nothing.
God alone suffices.

— St. Teresa, The bookmark of Teresa of Ávila, [28]
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12807
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: A saint...?

Postby Lyn » September 13th, 2016, 8:32 pm

Pondy, here's an article from India which details the miracles purported to have happened due to Mother Teresa's intercession.

http://indianexpress.com/article/resear ... sainthood/
Lyn
 
Posts: 51287
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:25 am

Re: A saint...?

Postby Sprocket » September 13th, 2016, 9:46 pm

Lyn wrote:You may already realise this Sprocks but those words are Sword's, not mine. The way the post is quoted looks as though I said it.

Oops! Yes, I knew it was SotS's words, not sure how they got attributed to you. I deleted a bit of the quote which wasn't relevant, and must have deleted a bit of html code as well.
Last edited by Sprocket on September 13th, 2016, 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: A saint...?

Postby Sprocket » September 13th, 2016, 9:52 pm

SwordOfTheSpirit wrote:
SwordOfTheSpirit wrote:I may regret it, but I'm going to see if I can get (some of) the atheists to see that the barrier to any kind of religious belief on their part is their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy, i.e. the assumption that all causes have natural explanations.
Sprocket wrote:It seems a reasonable assumption. How do you demonstrate that some do not have natural explanations?

By scientific standards, a hypothesis should be falsifiable. What I'm finding is that the assumption that all causes have natural explanations is not falsifiable in practice. It is this that allows some atheists to make assertions such as There is no evidence for xyz, yet cannot state what such evidence should look like. On that forum, at least two posters have been claiming that if God exists, He should be able to convince them of His existence. When I asked them to give examples of what would convince them, they can't (or won't).

In some ways I'm not really that surprised. Because they cannot state what would be a characteristic/evidence of a non-natural cause, what happens in reality is that non-natural causes are taken not to exist. So there is no way for any Christian (or even God!) to convince them otherwise, i.e. answer your question. Furthermore, they can always transfer the burden of proof onto the religious believer, without ever having to account for their unfalsifiable worldview.
The burden of proof is on the believer. If you can't give a good reason for believing in God (or unicorns, or fairies, or anything), then it is reasonable not to believe. We have an adequate naturalistic account of origins, and the existance, intensity, extent, and grossly unfair distribution of suffering seem like a pretty good anti-theist argument, so the onus is on believers to say why, in spite of that, we should believe in God.
Also, the assertion that some effects (which I think is what you mean, rather than causes) do not have natural explanations is also not falsifiable.
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Next

Return to In depth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron