wombatron:The burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of God. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God, and a lack of a belief requires no proof. The ad hom attack is also unecessary. The issue is confusing enough without insults being thrown around.
The ad hom attack is also unecessary. The issue is confusing enough without insults being thrown around.
He is the one who started making ridiculous, overly general, and most of all OFF-TOPIC statements about theism and theists. If he wants to pick a fight, I'm happy to oblige.
Atheists claim there is no God. That is an actual claim. The statement that there is no God is tantamount to saying the universe exists without god, that natural processes were capable of producing it. Prove it.
If you don't have a belief as to the existence of God, you're agnostic. A-theism = no-godism.
If you compare social structures to religon, anarchists are agnostics, if anything.
JCFolsom:He is the one who started making ridiculous, overly general, and most of all OFF-TOPIC statements about theism and theists. If he wants to pick a fight, I'm happy to oblige.
Sorry, I hadn't read the previous posts. My post may have been overly inflammatory, and I apologize.
JCFolsom: Atheists claim there is no God. That is an actual claim. The statement that there is no God is tantamount to saying the universe exists without god, that natural processes were capable of producing it. Prove it. If you don't have a belief as to the existence of God, you're agnostic. A-theism = no-godism.
Let's agree to disagree. This is neither the time nor the place for this argument. Minor philosophical issues pale in importance to the educational and dialectical roles that these forums play.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
banned:If you compare social structures to religon, anarchists are agnostics, if anything.
Well, maybe you are (I'm not convinced), but I would say that most anarchists hold at least two positions that must be defended:
Maybe a bit clumsy in my wording there, but I hope the point gets across. Anarchists, by advocating for anarchy, make explicit and/or implicit assertions about the nature of humans and human relationships and societies.
Yes, most "unfortunately" for both theists and statists, the existential burden of proof is on them. Now, it may be incumbent upon an atheist to prove the absolute non-existence of god, but then again not all atheists aim towards this. Maybe you're right though, maybe agnostic is the more pertinent word, if one takes atheism to exclude any and all higher powers (not just deities.)
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
JCFolsom: Well, maybe you are (I'm not convinced), but I would say that most anarchists hold at least two positions that must be defended: General social relationships can be conducted without the use of legitimized coercive power. Such relationships are preferable to those established with or in the presence of legitimized coercive power.
The first one can simply be proven with ethics. The second one I don't see as mattering much. Preference is subjective. The problem with the consequentialist attitude is that it's foolhardy to try and make an absolute statement about the future wellbeing of people. It cannot be proven, only supposed.
If the statist reasons that theft, murder, rape, extortion, and all other forms of initiative force are not immoral, they don't have the burden of proof in this discussion. But if the statist does believe these things to be immoral, their argument is for a state to prevent these things. But in so doing, they are arguing for the violation of morality by the state. The only deemed explination for this is that they believe human beings cannot prevent these acts from happening on their own. That is what they need to prove using a logical analysis of human nature and human action. They also need to prove why a government made up of flawed creatures who can't prevent atrocities is exempt from their analysis of human nature and action.
The state can only be supported via nihilism. I'm not well read enough to prove the non-aggression principle, but I've been working out an essay on it. However, I don't believe the statists here have conceded to nihilism.
banned: The state can only be supported via nihilism. I'm not well read enough to prove the non-aggression principle, but I've been working out an essay on it. However, I don't believe the statists here have conceded to nihilism.
I also arrived at "statism can only be supported via nihilism" earlier today when I was thinking about the effects of T.V. and mainstream culture on humans, and the observation deeply disturbed me. On a slightly more humours note, I also realized what an utter nightmare this would be for Rand 8D.It seems to me that the orchestration of a de-sensitized culture would eventually drive more & more humans within said culture (in this case, U.S. citizens) to perceive existience (or more commonly, life) as meaningless, and subsequently pursue seemingly meaningful things, such as celebrity, consumption, etc., but the void of meainglessness never being fufilled and only growing by those that would profit and/or reap benefits from such. Essentially, nihilism being marketed (subtley, obviously) as a 'solution' to one's rightfully grounded conflicts with Statism, hirearchy, coercion, a static society; the whole nine yards.Admitelly, the above is a little vauge & incomplete (I was at work when I made this observation, so I was a bit distracted), but I think the observation "statism can only be supported via nihilism" should definitley be elaborated upon if it hasn't already. It would be interesting to hear other's thoughts on this (albiet, at the risk of a further tangent in the thread).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Knight_of_BAAWA:So what? From the theist's perspective, god is self-evident and that's that.
JCFolsom:Because there's never been such a thing as apologetics, right?
Apologetics = god is self-evident + soybean sentences.
How about you get some thicker skin. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended. If you don't like that I think god-belief is just so much silly superstition: your problem. Not mine.
Knight_of_BAAWA:They don't feel that they have to prove that there is a god. However, they do in fact have to. Same thing with the statist: it doesn't matter how they "feel" about the situation. Burden of proof is what it is, regardless of their feelings. Period.
JCFolsom:But atheists who deny there is a god don't?
Right. It's called "burden of proof", and it's on the existentially positive claimant. If I say I have the cure for AIDS here, I have to show that I have it. You don't have to show that I don't.
Unless you want to prove that you don't owe me a million dollars.
Yeah, thought so.
One more thing: ad hominem fallacies are still fallacies. Get over yourself, and get over your hurt because I don't believe your superstition.
Trust me: you do not want that to happen. You will not like it. You will find that I know every argument forward and backward. You will find that I know every fallacy used in them.
And it was on-topic in the sense of an analogy. You decided to get all offended. Tough. Get over it. Suck it up.
JCFolsom:Well, maybe you are (I'm not convinced), but I would say that most anarchists hold at least two positions that must be defended: General social relationships can be conducted without the use of legitimized coercive power.
So you have to always have someone looking over your shoulder to make sure that you're good? That's an indictment of YOU, not everyone.
And anarchists aren't saying that coercive power can never be used; merely that it should not be monopolized and not used initiatorily.
You really should learn to not construct strawmen.
Since your second "position" relies on the first, and the first is a strawman.....
Knight_of_BAAWA:Get over yourself, and get over your hurt because I don't believe your superstition.
From your three posts in a row, looks like maybe you've gotten a bit pissy yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Trust me: you do not want that to happen. You will find that I know every argument forward and backward.
I am shaking in my boots. I actually just pissed myself. :P
Knight_of_BAAWA:And anarchists aren't saying that coercive power can never be used; merely that it should not be monopolized and not used initiatorily.
Coercion rather implies initiation. I would not call self-defense coercion. Land ownership is a territorial monopoly on force. I am unconvinced that the anarcho-capitalist model actually eliminates coercive force. It might just distribute it better, for a time.
If it be the nature of man that he aggress against his neigbor from time to time, how, first, can we overcome that, and what is the justification for that when natural law is our justification for liberty in the first place? With fully free will, human nature can be described by no more than that. With no or a mix of free will and determinism (this last is probably correct), whether anarchy is attainable is dependent upon whether or not it is within the realm of our free will. This must first be established. Even beyond this, if it is attainable, despite the protests against consequentialism (which I sympathize with greatly), if it renders all or the bulk of humanity more miserable than we are now, we should not pursue it. Would you really damn the world so you could be right?
In the end, the burden of proof is on anyone who takes a position other than agnosticism on anything. You can try to obfuscate it, but falsifiable elements will remain, and you must defend them. You are a COWARD for refusing to.
JCFolsom:From your three posts in a row, looks like maybe you've gotten a bit pissy yourself.
No, it looks like that's when I had time to post. But let's not let your insecurities ruin this thread, ok?
JCFolsom:I am shaking in my boots. I actually just pissed myself.
I believe that, actually.
JCFolsom:Coercion rather implies initiation.
No, it does not. If you steal something from me, and I coerce you into giving it back, have I initated force or have I used retaliatory force? Answer: retaliatory.
Learn the difference.
JCFolsom:I would not call self-defense coercion.
It is; it is retaliatory coercion.
JCFolsom:Land ownership is a territorial monopoly on force. I am unconvinced that the anarcho-capitalist model actually eliminates coercive force.
Then you need to not play a redefinition game.
JCFolsom:If it be the nature of man that he aggress against his neigbor from time to time, how, first, can we overcome that
Overcome? We simply deal with it by instituting penalties. You sound like the statists who strawman anarchism by saying that anarchists believe that humans will always be good all the time. Please don't do that.
JCFolsom:In the end, the burden of proof is on anyone who takes a position other than agnosticism on anything.
Wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the existentially positive claim or the claim in the face of the evidence. And no, anarchists aren't making claims in the face of evidence; they are saying "Your claims and reality aren't matching."
You can call me a coward if you like, but I'll just chuckle at you for not understanding how burden of proof works. Please do not drag this thread down with your pettiness.
JCFolsom:Coercion rather implies initiation. I would not call self-defense coercion. Land ownership is a territorial monopoly on force. I am unconvinced that the anarcho-capitalist model actually eliminates coercive force. It might just distribute it better, for a time.
Coercion may have many faces. The difference between coercive action and non-coercive action may be of a gradual and not a concise nature.
At the moment the state/government has the territorial monopoly on force vested in it. But I agree that the territorial monopoly on force may vest in the land owner. There will be coercive force under a anarcho-capitalist model as well.
My question would still be where (initiation) of coercive force starts and which actions are actually NOT (initiated) coercive force.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Right. It's called "burden of proof", and it's on the existentially positive claimant. If I say I have the cure for AIDS here, I have to show that I have it. You don't have to show that I don't.
If we use your argument here then the statist points out that they in fact have the cure for aids and can demonstrate that people have been cured. That is to say that the state exists and does provide what we would agree are some essential functions. So they have demonstrated that their alternative is in fact real and working on some level. The statist will agree that the system is not perfect and has flaws but still functions.
Now you come along and tell the statist that they have to prove to you that this method of organization is the only possible organization for a society. How could the statist possibly rule out that there could never be an alternative possibility? The statist merely argues the obvious that there is no other apparent organization method that has been demonstrated to work.
Equally, you can not rule out that whatever society you created could not be improved upon in some way.
Again, the vast majority of statists do not claim that there is no possible alternative, just that there is no viable alternative. If there is no viable alternative then they in fact are correct. One reasonable measure of viability is to see if a society organized under freedom can function. As of now that does not exist. Until we in the freedom movement can demonstrate that our ideas are in fact superior and can create a society superior to one organized by a state then the burden will continue to be on us.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the existentially positive claim or the claim in the face of the evidence. And no, anarchists aren't making claims in the face of evidence; they are saying "Your claims and reality aren't matching."
All positions other than agnosticism have existentially positive claims inherent. These might be difficult to discern or define, but they are present.
On a side note, what bad touch in your childhood made you into such a ***? You clearly have a lot of rage. It's sad, really.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Right. It's called "burden of proof", and it's on the existentially positive claimant. If I say I have the cure for AIDS here, I have to show that I have it. You don't have to show that I don't.
Maxliberty:If we use your argument here then the statist points out that they in fact have the cure for aids and can demonstrate that people have been cured. That is to say that the state exists and does provide what we would agree are some essential functions.
No, that would be called a "strawman", since anarchism isn't about saying the state doesn't exist. Also, are you stating that the state has essential functions, or that the state provides "essential" functions? And what is "essential"?
Maxliberty:So they have demonstrated that their alternative is in fact real and working on some level.
Which is horribly irrelevant, since that's not the issue. The issue is if it is proper for a coercive territorial monopoly to be. If it is proper for one group to expropriate the property of the group supposedly protected by the former group.
Maxliberty:Now you come along and tell the statist that they have to prove to you that this method of organization is the only possible organization for a society.
They're the ones claiming that it is. They need to show it. Period.
End of discussion.
JCFolsom:All positions other than agnosticism have existentially positive claims inherent.
Wrong. I would entreat you to take a course in basic logic, and understand the passive concept of disbelief qua disbelief. And I would especially entreat you to learn what agnosticism really is.
Until such time as you do, you're just not worth my bother. I'm not going to play your little sandbox game.
JCFolsom:All positions other than agnosticism have existentially positive claims inherent. These might be difficult to discern or define, but they are present.
A strong atheist belief, i.e., "There is no god.", might be a positive claim, but the weak atheist belief, "I don't believe in a god" is not a positive claim, or it's only positive from the subjective, personal viewpoint, and thus easily proven or justified. The person who says that they don't believe in god only has to prove that he doesn't believe, he doesn't have to prove that god doesn't exist. As such, the statement itself is usually (but not always) sufficient proof.
People are born as atheists--how can you believe in something that you've never heard of? It's only once they grow older and learn about gods and religion that they can become a believer or agnostic, although I agree that agnostic is not a positive claim.
macsnafu:People are born as atheists--how can you believe in something that you've never heard of? It's only once they grow older and learn about gods and religion that they can become a believer or agnostic, although I agree that agnostic is not a positive claim.
Funny, I don't see infants going around and turning up their nose at "those foolish superstitious primitive believers", than back down the minute they're confronted on it and say, "I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe. The burden of proof is on you, as to why I shouldn't be a rooster sucking ***." If you don't have an opinion one way or another, why aren't you just as distainful of "strong atheists"? I don't see people making analogies to how believing in the nonexistence of God is like believing in the tooth fairy.
JCFolsom: I don't see people making analogies to how believing in the nonexistence of God is like believing in the tooth fairy.
I don't see people making analogies to how believing in the nonexistence of God is like believing in the tooth fairy.
That's because believing in the nonexistence of God is like believing in the nonexistence of the tooth fairy.
CurtHowland:That's because believing in the nonexistence of God is like believing in the nonexistence of the tooth fairy.
So then, you make the claim that the universe as it is came about by entirely natural processes?
JCFolsom: banned:If you compare social structures to religon, anarchists are agnostics, if anything. Well, maybe you are (I'm not convinced), but I would say that most anarchists hold at least two positions that must be defended: General social relationships can be conducted without the use of legitimized coercive power. Such relationships are preferable to those established with or in the presence of legitimized coercive power. Maybe a bit clumsy in my wording there, but I hope the point gets across. Anarchists, by advocating for anarchy, make explicit and/or implicit assertions about the nature of humans and human relationships and societies.
Could it perhaps be a different claim? I get the idea that you're probably making the claim that Anarchists believe humans are inherently good - I find more commonly that there is no inherent human nature, and those that present the thesis that there may be, only do so as a projection of themselves onto an aggregate - and I believe that, though perhaps it is true for some, for others it may not be.
Perhaps Anarchists believe that humans are inherently bad and thus human monopolies on the use of power would be bad and the only way to effectively check this bad, would be to decentralize that monopoly. Could that not be the case?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Knight_of_BAAWA: superstition.
superstition.
What do you mean by "superstition"? What exactly do you think religion is? Do you believe in no divine presence? Do you believe that all spiritual claims are bunk?Then perhaps you should consult the clergy in Lanciano, IT.
Now, admittedly this is not proof of the Holy Trinity or the Christian God, but it is proof of a spiritual realm and evidence of the Christian God.
JCFolsom: CurtHowland:That's because believing in the nonexistence of God is like believing in the nonexistence of the tooth fairy. So then, you make the claim that the universe as it is came about by entirely natural processes?
So does someone who believes in gods, because for them the gods are natural.
That's like saying "100% real ingredients". Well of course, since none are imaginary.
Maybe you meant to ask a different question? I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please try again.
Niccolò: Now, admittedly this is not proof of the Holy Trinity or the Christian God, but it is proof of a spiritual realm and evidence of the Christian God.
Well, no, it is merely proof that they have flesh and blood. Anything beyond that is supposition until demonstrated.
JCFolsom:So then, you make the claim that the universe as it is came about by entirely natural processes?
Well no, whatever process nature came by is "natural". The claim atheists make is that it [the universe] came about randomly or was not purposeful.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Right. It's called "burden of proof", and it's on the existentially positive claimant. If I say I have the cure for AIDS here, I have to show that I have it. You don't have to show that I don't. Maxliberty:If we use your argument here then the statist points out that they in fact have the cure for aids and can demonstrate that people have been cured. That is to say that the state exists and does provide what we would agree are some essential functions. No, that would be called a "strawman", since anarchism isn't about saying the state doesn't exist. Also, are you stating that the state has essential functions, or that the state provides "essential" functions? And what is "essential"? Maxliberty:So they have demonstrated that their alternative is in fact real and working on some level. Knight_of_BAAWA:Which is horribly irrelevant, since that's not the issue. The issue is if it is proper for a coercive territorial monopoly to be. If it is proper for one group to expropriate the property of the group supposedly protected by the former group. Maxliberty:Now you come along and tell the statist that they have to prove to you that this method of organization is the only possible organization for a society. They're the ones claiming that it is. They need to show it. Period. End of discussion. If there is no possible alternative to the state that can actually be created then the statists are right. The fact you claim there might be an alternative is not sufficient to make it a legitimate possibility. Most statists only claim that there is no other viable alternative. If there is no other viable alternative then a state like entity would be the only organization possible. The fact that the state by definition is acting immorally does not preclude it from being the only viable option. It is reasonable when claiming that there is an alternative viable option to something that one generally speaking be able to produce said option. When I refer to essential functions this would include things like a police force and judicial system. These are things that most people would consider essential to the basic function of a society and are things in even small communities are a matter of specialization. Which is horribly irrelevant, since that's not the issue. The issue is if it is proper for a coercive territorial monopoly to be. If it is proper for one group to expropriate the property of the group supposedly protected by the former group.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Which is horribly irrelevant, since that's not the issue. The issue is if it is proper for a coercive territorial monopoly to be. If it is proper for one group to expropriate the property of the group supposedly protected by the former group. Maxliberty:Now you come along and tell the statist that they have to prove to you that this method of organization is the only possible organization for a society. They're the ones claiming that it is. They need to show it. Period. End of discussion.
If there is no possible alternative to the state that can actually be created then the statists are right. The fact you claim there might be an alternative is not sufficient to make it a legitimate possibility. Most statists only claim that there is no other viable alternative. If there is no other viable alternative then a state like entity would be the only organization possible. The fact that the state by definition is acting immorally does not preclude it from being the only viable option. It is reasonable when claiming that there is an alternative viable option to something that one generally speaking be able to produce said option.
When I refer to essential functions this would include things like a police force and judicial system. These are things that most people would consider essential to the basic function of a society and are things in even small communities are a matter of specialization.
The issue is not whether it is proper to use coercion only whether there is an alternate option. If we can not demonstrate that there is a viable alternative to the state then statists are correct.
CurtHowland: Niccolò: Now, admittedly this is not proof of the Holy Trinity or the Christian God, but it is proof of a spiritual realm and evidence of the Christian God. Well, no, it is merely proof that they have flesh and blood. Anything beyond that is supposition until demonstrated.
Ah, except it was demonstrated.
Did you look at the tests below? The eucharist itself, though definitely understood and given as a part of the miracle, is not so much the interesting part about the science.
Scientifically, how is it that the flesh does not spoil and the blood does not evaporate without additives, without preservatives, and without a climate controlled environment?If this is not proof of spiritual (or supernatural) activity, then you are willfully blind.
Niccolò: Ah, except it was demonstrated.
That they have flesh and blood. Yes. I said that.
Scientifically, how is it that the flesh does not spoil and the blood does not evaporate without additives, without preservatives, and without a climate controlled environment?
An excellent question. I look forward to when the causes for it are demonstrated.
If this is not proof of spiritual (or supernatural) activity, then you are willfully blind.
1) If there are gods, then they are natural. Saying "supernatural" is a non-sequiter.
2) Why can't I buy blessed meats that never spoil, without refrigeration, in the grocery store? Because what you have there has not been demonstrated to be what you believe it to be.
I'm not going to say it isn't, because I don't know what it is. You think you know what it is, so prove it.
I'm becoming very frustrated with the god-types who think anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe is therefore wrong. No wonder religion has been the cause of so much death and destruction throughout history.
CurtHowland:So does someone who believes in gods, because for them the gods are natural. That's like saying "100% real ingredients". Well of course, since none are imaginary. Maybe you meant to ask a different question? I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please try again.
So, you've never heard of the term "supernatural" before? Sorry to hear that.
OK, so I see you've heard of it. You just deny it. You have a metaphysical (definitional?) devotion to the idea that everything which exists is natural. Praytell, what is your definition of natural? Because it seems to me natural phenomena must obey laws of physical cause and effect, which non-physical beings acting on the physical universe would clearly violate.
Very well, you believe that the universe and the life in it are unplanned?
CurtHowland:1) If there are gods, then they are natural. Saying "supernatural" is a non-sequiter.
Natural in the sense that nature itself is defined by God's existance. In that way, miracles are natural.
CurtHowland:I'm becoming very frustrated with the god-types who think anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe is therefore wrong. No wonder religion has been the cause of so much death and destruction throughout history.
Talk about non-sequitur.
If god created nature, then god exists outside of nature. If god exists outside of nature, then god cannot be percieved. If god cannot be percieved, then there is no point to talking about the matter to begin with. If god is a part of nature or if god is nature, then god must abide by the laws of nature, which would eliminate all of the transcendental attributes of a god. From a materialist perspective, something that exists outside of nature is the same thing as non-existance.
Therefore, god doesn't exist.
Using natural science in the attempt to prove the supernatural makes no sense, and in fact it runs counter to the entire point and meaning of "faith". Science in and of itself can have nothing to say positively or negatively about the supernatural, pro or con. It deals with natural phenomenon.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Brainpolice:If god created nature, then god exists outside of nature. If god exists outside of nature, then god cannot be percieved. If god cannot be percieved, then there is no point to talking about the matter to begin with. If god is a part of nature, then god must abide by the laws of nature, which would eliminate all of the transcendental attributes of a god. From a materialist perspective, something that exizts outside of nature is the same thing as non-existance. Therefore, god doesn't exist.
Well, right, but the use of that argument necessitates that you confirm materialism as the valid metaphysic for reality, which has not yet been done.
No, because God can be percieved within the Natural realm (cosmology, miracle). Certainly his totality may not be able to be known, but this does not prove non-existance.
JCFolsom: Brainpolice:If god created nature, then god exists outside of nature. If god exists outside of nature, then god cannot be percieved. If god cannot be percieved, then there is no point to talking about the matter to begin with. If god is a part of nature, then god must abide by the laws of nature, which would eliminate all of the transcendental attributes of a god. From a materialist perspective, something that exizts outside of nature is the same thing as non-existance. Therefore, god doesn't exist. Well, right, but the use of that argument necessitates that you confirm materialism as the valid metaphysic for reality, which has not yet been done.
It is not possible for the immaterial to be proven. It can only be a matter of faith. The very attempt to prove the immaterial would have to rely on the material, and hence be self-defeating. It amounts to using the tools of materialism to disprove materialism. It simply falls apart logically, we need not even get into the nitty gritty of natural science to see the problem.
If god created nature, then god exists outside of nature.
If god exists outside of nature, then god cannot be percieved.
If god cannot be percieved, then there is no point to talking about the matter to begin with.
From a materialist perspective, something that exizts outside of nature is the same thing as non-existance. Therefore, god doesn't exist.
CurtHowland: That they have flesh and blood. Yes. I said that.
You atheists are such arses. No. It was demonstrated that something paranormal occurred. When placed in the context of the Church, it is evidence of the Christian claim.
It is quite simple actually. It is abnormal, and thus specifically paranormal.
1) If there are gods, then they are natural
According to who?
That doesn't seem to be any kind of logical statement. Why could it not be that they are only found in Lanciano - or other geographic areas around the world?
Even accepting that nothing spiritual exists, your statement is illogical. This is common, however, among militant atheists; you usually are the most close minded of people.
Now run along back and suckle at the teet of Ayn Rand.
It's been proven. My claim was that it is proof of (spiritual) paranormal activity. Paranormal activity is any activity that lacks scientific explanation.
Science attempted to explain it; science failed - because humans are failures and their reasoning capabilities are small at best. Thus, it is paranormal.
Your atheism is false. Deal with it.
What are you talking about?
I presented evidence of the Christian God and you said, "NO IT'S JUST SPOILED MEAT, LOLZERZ"
And for the record, I am much more open to other religions and consider myself a catholic in the sense of accepting the messages brought about by Christ and anyone that adheres to those same ideals (including Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, followers of the Baha'i faith, etc.) delivered by similar manifestations of the LORD.
Talk about needing to get a grip of yourself - no, I don't mean your ***, you pre-pubescent gnat.
banned: No, because God can be percieved within the Natural realm (cosmology, miracle). Certainly his totality may not be able to be known, but this does not prove non-existance.
Or perhaps could it be that God is unknowable directly but reveals Himself indirectly through manifestations?
Brainpolice:It is not possible for the immaterial to be proven. It can only be a matter of faith. The very attempt to prove the immaterial would have to rely on the material, and hence be self-defeating. It amounts to using the tools of materialism to disprove materialism. It simply falls apart logically, we need not even get into the nitty gritty of natural science to see the problem.
No one has even started to propose how electrochemical pulses provide subjective experience. I can tell you about red all day, every scientific aspect of it, and you would have no idea what the experience of red was like. We experiecnce the immaterial every waking moment, as much as materialists try to deny it. We are the immaterial. Who reads this now? Who asks the question?
There are recorded circumstances of near-death experiences, where the patient saw specific details of what was going on around them, when all guages said they were brain-dead. Statistically significant and consistent effects have been shown in well-documented and large laboratory studies of ESP.
I think, therefore I am. In truth, it is the physical which cannot be proven. You know something mental is experiencing, at least at this moment, because you are. Everything else could be illusion. This demand for proof ultimately invalidates the universe.