Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[prometheus11]

Yes, it is the nature of evidence that it exists independent of your knowledge or recognition of it.

Yet the evidence is not conclusive as proved by the fact that people agree on ideas with conclusive evidence like math and chemistry and don't agree about which God to believe.

Very high, and creeping further out. Was that a crack I just heard?

Is that an argument or rebuttal?

You're not going to slip this one past me. "... because there is no scientific evidence."

No one is trying to slip anything past you. You can always continue in your faith like you have been.

 

[prometheus11]

Sorry I got the doctors name wrong - here is a 2014 link - it is Dr S Burzynski -
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-2014-edition/

They finally dropped their case to scrap him from the AMA medical roll
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/01/19/cancer-doctor-burzynski.aspx

Yes. I was aware of him.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, it is the nature of evidence that it exists independent of your knowledge or recognition of it.

Sorry.

We can chalk that up to personal perception and or imagination. It is not really viewed as any kind of credible evidence and lies squarely in the definition of Supernatural.

 

[outhouse]

No one is trying to slip anything past you.

That is correct.

If you notice our good friend failed to address any possible evidence, knowing it is based on faith and nothing more.

 

[prometheus11]

That is correct.

If you notice our good friend failed to address any possible evidence, knowing it is based on faith and nothing more.

The rhetoric is interesting, though. It appears as though faith might be negated or significantly weakened with a mere "slipping past" of one idea.

 

[outhouse]

The rhetoric is interesting, though. It appears as though faith might be negated or significantly weakened with a mere "slipping past" of one idea.

The real problem I believe, is people learn under theistic professors that make claims of certainty to their students, and the students accept it because their own faith reinforces it.


All my professors told me to question them and that they would even test us on that. I told that to my classes the few times I lectured.

Philosophy when taught, has a huge area of artistic freedom. You have atheist philosophers and you have theistic ones as well.

And if you don't know and understand both sides, you left wanting and in the dark on many topics.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yet the evidence is not conclusive

Whoever said it was?

Is that an argument or rebuttal?

Neither.

We can chalk that up to personal perception and or imagination.

And there is your branch. This claim is not within your knowledge set. It is merely something you'd like to believe is true.

If you notice our good friend failed to address any possible evidence, knowing it is based on faith and nothing more.

That is how unfounded your position is. I don't need to provide any evidence to show that you can't properly make such a claim. I merely need to bring up theories of evidence and knowledge.

It is not really viewed as any kind of credible evidence and lies squarely in the definition of Supernatural.

I saved this one for last. Credibility is a subjective matter; my evidence for God is highly credible to me, being the one that received it. Unlikely that it is the same for you, and I don't really expect it to be.

Also, of course evidence of the supernatural is going to be supernatural. Duh.

 

[outhouse]

I merely need to bring up theories of evidence and knowledge

But you have not

evidence of the supernatural

It is not evidence, nor can it be. That is why it is called the supernatural.

 

[outhouse]

Credibility is a subjective

Simply not true.

That would mean each different opinion alone is credible. They are not.


There is only one truth.

Religious bias is not a factor here, it plays no part in my understanding of reality, nor does it play a part in any academic understanding of nature.

We do not have credible Christian science, or Islamic science, or science in Judaism.

There is only science and academia, and religion plays no part at all in any aspect of nature.

 

[outhouse]

This is key to our exchange here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected.

 

[prometheus11]

People do not believe what they would like to. They believe what they are compelled to believe

 

[Mister Emu]

That is correct.

There is only science and academia

Revisiting the first quote because of the reaffirmation in the second.

You did try to slip something past, that is the conflation of scientific evidence with all evidence. I believe this is our problem. I reject the idea that the scientific method is the only valid epistemological method.

Specifically in response to the second quote, there is also experience.

 

[Mister Emu]

People do not believe what they would like to. They believe what they are compelled to believe

Oh how I wish that were so. People surrender the reasonable for the comfortable a significant portion of the time.

 

[outhouse]

I reject the idea that the scientific method is the only valid epistemological method.

That's a personal problem that is faith based, in context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected.

 

[prometheus11]

Oh how I wish that were so. People surrender the reasonable for the comfortable a significant portion of the time.

Perhaps that compels them.

Simply wanting something does not cause belief.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's a personal problem that is faith based, in context.

It isn't a problem in general(first time I've ever come across your opinion that only through the scientific method can we verify claims). It also isn't faith based. Logic is also an excellent tool for adjudicating the merits of claims. Experience is not as reliable, but is a valid tool. I can evidence the love someone has for another through their shared experience, and cannot do so through the scientific method for instance.

We can use logic to deduce from a natural experience that something beyond nature exists. I can reasonable believe that God exists when I've had conversation with Him. That is evidence, even if it isn't compelling or credible at all to you. It is to me, I experienced it.

The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected.

What do you think this means in relevance to the discussion?

 

[Mister Emu]

Simply wanting something does not cause belief.

Look up the psychology of belief formation and resiliency. Our desire is a key part of beliefs.

 

[prometheus11]

Look up the psychology of belief formation and resiliency. Our desire is a key part of beliefs.

It's a part of it, but you realize his rare it is for a person to believe a loved one who has died is really alive. People don't believe their relatives are alive when they aren't because they're compelled to believe otherwise. Prisoners know where they are, too. Reality is quite compelling.

 

[Thief]

I see my 'dead' relatives in my dreams.....
will see more of them in the next life.

 

[outhouse]

I see my 'dead' relatives in my dreams.....

Humans have memories.

will see more of them in the next life.

Faith based on ancient mythology at this point in time.

Egyptians thought they would have an afterlife, they ONLY have after death in a museum.