Quote (Modulok2405 @ Mar 8 2023 11:55am)
I know that I might die from food contamination. For example BSE or many other illnesses. They can be deadly. I know. As you already said, I dont test out everything I eat. But I am not putting faith in it, I am just accepting the risk of dying or getting sick from the food I eat. Not accepting it at all cost of course thats why I use a fridge and cook my meat. But in the end I accept the risk because I dont have time to test out everything I eat. Its not fun and it costs so much time that its better to risk it.
I am not totally convinced that I will never die of food poisoning or in a car crash or plane crash but I accept it as a risk in life. Its a very real risk and it kills people. Every single day.
So the risk I accept is real and I am well aware of it.
You on the other hand do not just accept real odds to continue live a normal life, no - You believe in the supernatural without knowing if its existence is even a real possibilty. You just believe it because it makes sense to you. You cant confirm it exists, it just makes sense to you for various reasons.
How is it the same to accept the odds to survive certain situations and to believe in god? I mean, I see how you'd like to see it but thats not a reality.
I think we are gaining traction here, agreeing on some kind of "acceptable" unknowns and forgoing
unreasonable need to be 100% certain of different areas of life. We choose to "accept" the risk in the aforementioned examples. I would agree. In terms of food, or car accidents, or waking up tomorrow, I too agree there is "acceptable" risk involved, anything other would be too time consuming, too energy draining, and humanly unnecessary.
May I then bring your attention to this faulty claim that we need 100% proof for the supernatural? I argue we need not 100% certainty before we can
believe in its existence, we simply need reasonable evidence for
belief. This is also repeated in many religious rhetoric: ultimately, it is on faith, not certainty. The two are not the same. We cannot and will never have irrefutable proof in the supernatural, which makes sense. We will never be certain of the supernatural. Faith, on the other hand, is having
enough reasonable evidence to make a faith claim. I don't need faith to believe my mom exists, I know she exists, there is no faith required. However, in order to
believe in the supernatural, it is logical to have
reasonable evidence.
I use these points mentioned to argue: we need not 100% certainty to live and to govern our decisions, however, we should consider reasonable evidences, and upon considering the facts or truths, we make our own individual decisions whether we do something or not. This is by far the greatest misunderstandings between a theist and an atheist. An athiest may falsely claim, "I need 100% irrefutable proof in order to do anything in life", where in fact, we do many things in life without empirical data.
If in so far we are tracking with each other and understanding what's shared thus far, I move onto the next set of topics to further the discussion.
Quote (Modulok2405 @ Mar 8 2023 11:55am)
3) Okay now lets talk about the three main reasons why you believe in the supernatural.
a. You asked what was "prior" to the naturalistic events you talked about while also knowing that there was no before.
I hope thats enough for this point? God by the way has the same "skills" to his name. He has always been. The difference is, you accept it in his case, because you can think of it as supernatural. You explain something with something just as unexplainable. Our brains cant comprehend a reality without time, I understand that. But we are limited, we cant understand it all. We probably never will.
I agree that our brains cannot comprehend reality without time, or even time without reality-- we truly are limited. But let us dissect further into why. We are human-- we see things in our reality, time, matter, and space. All of these things we have categorically given them definitions of "naturalistic world" or "observable world" or "physical entities". It's
because we are human that we have defined "naturalistic" as the observable.
What exactly is the supernatural then? Is it not essentially that which we cannot see, cannot touch, cannot smell? Is it not the realm (if any) that transcends the natural? It's built into the name itself, supernatural. Notice how I refrain from using god or God, or G-D, or Jesus, or Allah, etc? Those are human manifestations of the supernatural, brought forth by source material, interpretation, and built on a mountain of presuppositions. I don't use these words when communicating like this because it misses so many extremely important facets of understanding the supernatural in of itself.
By definition, if something (or someone) transcends naturalism, therefore it is
supernatural. Do we agree on this at least? By definition?
If indeed the scientists are correct that the universe is 14 billion years old, and prior to that from existing there isn't any time or matter, then it begs the direct conclusion that anything prior to the Big Bang is defined as supernatural (beyond time and space).
At this point, I'm not arguing if it truly is "god" or "jesus" or "allah", merely pointing out, the supernatural, by
definition, should be seriously considered if the scientists are right about their research and studies on the beginnings of our observable universe.
Quote (Modulok2405 @ Mar 8 2023 11:55am)
c. Does it really matter how accurate the bible is in some of its content? Is this really proving anything? I dont know how this is evidence or something cllse to evidence for god? Could you give me an example for this "absurd level of accuracy" please?
Reason and logic can never lead to the supernatural. We do not even know how the supernatural would look like or feel or whatever as it has never been demonstrated. How should logic lead to supernaturalism?
I think there are signs that point to the supernatural or a higher power. For example, if you see patterns in this world that just cannot be explained by natural circumstances or situations that seem incredibly impossible, it points to some kind of explanation. This is an argument of intelligent design.
You walk the beach and see writing in the sand. Deep down, you know random waves or animal creatures do not write comprehensible words in the sand, your first conclusion would be: someone wrote it. An unreasonable skeptic would say: the waters have pushed around the sand so perfectly that it wrote English letters into the sand! I think at this point, if you are a truth seeker, you would be like me in thinking: a person wrote letters into the sand.
In this world, I argue that many things point to the existence of intelligent design. They may be personal stories (in which I'm guessing you have heard many from Christian theists or what not), but some may be also universally observable. Scientists point out that the human DNA is a string of chemical biological structures that contains unimaginable length and language. I believe it's reasonable to look at that finding and ask: is there a higher power that has designed that? On the other hand, a person could say: well that's just random string of bio-chemical protein structures miraculously creating a human body!
After writing this section, I can see that I've veered off the path of why accurate textual criticism points to the existence of the supernatural. It is closely tied to the belief of Christianity, not necessarily continuing our conversation on the supernatural, so bare with me. It is sometimes compartmentalized, but my belief in the supernatural is undeniably attached to my belief in supernatural source material. The two are inseparable.
Basically, if we look at all the other ancient historical work that experts use in validating Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, etc, there is a fundamental acceptance of those ancient bodies of work. It is not contested whether Alexander existed, it is not contested whether Cleopatra existed, they are all ancient figures that we are
certain about. They existed. Period.
If we took the same high standard of historicity and applied it to the ancient writings of the Christian Bible, it has a higher level of reliability than any other ancient writing. Thousands and thousands of copies verify its historicity and accuracy. It is simply unprecedented. To reject the historicity of the Bible while simultaneously accepting other ancient figures such as Cleopatra would be a self defeating position where the one's conclusions were obviously cherry picked.
So please consider the following: Historians have thousands upon thousands of copies of the Christian Bible, and if you look at the age differences between the copies, you will see a significant accuracy between two extremely important ancient texts: The Masoretic Text (MT) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The MT is dated to 1000CE, and the DSS is dated to around 3rd century BCE. There is over 1000 years difference between the two ancient writings. A reasonable skeptic (myself included) would think there would be differences within the text, discreptions, faulty mistakes, etc. But upon analysis, over 1000 years, there is astonishing accuracy between the two.
Commonly, a rejection of ancient scripture is usually cited as a game of telephone. Over hundreds or thousands of years, its reasonable to think the writings have all changed and altered. But the discovery of the DSS has actually validated the current manuscript we have today. When I hear that, I don't see it as chance or coincidence. I see it as another sign that a supernatural power has preserved ancient writings from one generation to the next. No other ancient historical text has the same kind of reliability, accuracy, and consistency. There is an unexplained force at work here.
Do I believe the supernatural can influence generations of humanity? I do.
Do I believe the supernatural can be intelligent ? I do.
Do I believe the supernatural would entwine itself with humanity or even care about humans? I do.
But before getting into those conversations, I want to converse with you if we believe in the supernatural as a starting point.
Quote (Modulok2405 @ Mar 8 2023 11:55am)
Let me say this first of all: I like these kind of conversations and I appreciate you as a debate partner who is - in my opinion - as reasonable as possible regarding your believes. So thx for the polite and fruitful conversation.
As do I.
I love these kinds of conversations: sincere, truthful, and open conversations.
This post was edited by dajusta on Mar 8 2023 06:01pm
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.