Replies

I asked you a question first, and have not received a hint of a reply.

On the contrary. You have directed none of your previous postings to me.

Why don't you agree that there is a God, and therefore none of us should steal?

You will need to define "God" before I can even consider it as a possible entity. Once defined, you will need to provide a reason to believe that such an entity exists.

One reason is that we do have a sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? Religion has an answer. I A definition is in order. Naturalism is the belief that everything has natural causes, sometimes described as the interplay of chance and law.

Such a description is somewhat misleading.

It is basically the assumption that there is no God.

This is an unsatisfactory claim. You are positing that naturalism accepts the definition of a specific deity, and then rejects it. You have not given reason for assuming the particular deity that you posit in the first place, however. Ultimately, naturalism is simply a lack of statement regarding the supernatural, not an outright denial.

Neuro-scientists believe there is no self.

I was unaware that this was a belief of neuroscientists. None of the neuroscientists with whom I have conversed have ever suggested such a thing.

Self-conciousness is an illusion. They believe there is no you in there. There is merely brain-matter, chemistry, and electricity.

This is not only an unsupported generalization of all neuroscientists, but also an appeal to the division fallacy, in that you assert that self-consciousness cannot be a result of the interaction of brain matter and chemistry.

They believe, as do I, that any other position introduces a supernatural element.

Incorrect. It is possible to accept that the final result of multiple processes acting in concert is more than the sum of the parts without invoking supernatural elements.

Billions of people living today believe in the self, and billions more in the past. On the assumption of naturalism, neuro-scientists blithely say that "it is all an illusion"; these billions of people are wrong. It seems to me they are ignoring billions of data points, which is bad science.

Even if I accepted your inaccurate generalization of the beliefs of all neuroscientists, which I do not, you have yet to establish any actual data points. You are appealing to the popularity of a belief, which is not itself evidence for a claim.

Evolution seems certain to many because they were taught at an impressionable age - and by golly it's going to stay that way!

On the contrary; I have found those most convinced that the theory of evolution is an accurate representation of reality are those who have studied it extensively in their adult years.

But I suspect it does not stand up to scrutiny any better than the works of Malthus, Marx, or Freud I think we've been sold on junk science, much of which assumes naturalism and acts to advance it.

You are certainly free to assert this, but your assertion does not amount to evidence against the theory of evolution. Your claims would carry credibility if you supported them with evidence; as you do not, your claims have no merit.

Dawkins says that in biology all appears to be designed, but that is (just another) illusion.

I am aware of Dawkins's claim on the subject, as I have encountered it used by creationists in the past. Dawkins uses the claim in explaining how examination of complex biological systems that, on the surface, appear as though they were designed are actually able to come about without any deliberate act of design at all. Dawkins does not make his claim without supporting it with evidence.

There is also the testimony of miracles in the Bible.

Please reference this specific testimony.

Sure there all sorts of way that those who were not there can dismiss the testimony of those who were there. Witnesses are not always right, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Bur witnesses are not always wrong either.

You have yet to demonstrate that the books of the Bible were actually written by those who witnessed any of the miracles claimed within.

I believe that all the Apostles, with the exception of John, had the choice to deny or die. They all died. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

It does not. Martyrdom is not evidence of the validity of faith. If it were, then Islam would carry a great deal of credibility.

Er, if I may add a tidbit in your discussion with Chessexpert concerning your challenge for evidence of his faith.

There is evidence, but it may not be available to you.

Christians have “ears to hear”. When the Word of God is spoken, they hear and Christ knows them and they follow Him. (John 10:26-27). The words He speaks are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)

Moreover, they are born again (John 1:12-13, John 3) – not of blood or by their own will, but of God. They are not the same people they used to be. They know this new life is timeless, hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3).

This means that Spiritual knowledge – particularly the direct personal Spiritual revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord – is overarching Truth to the Christian. God is Truth.

Therefore, for the Christian, all other forms of knowledge are subordinate - whether sensory perception, reasoning or whatever.

Freeper research project on the subject

Conversely, the person who does not have “ears to hear” has no concept of Spiritual knowledge whatsoever. For him, if the knowledge does not accrue from sensory perception, reasoning and such - it is not “real”.

Thus the evidence not only exists to the Christian but it is Truth. Reality or “all that there is” is understood within that framework.

But that evidence is unknowable to one who does not have “ears to hear”.

And that was God's plan so that no one could know Him through reason alone. (I Cor 2:9-16).