For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 353
#151
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Science does not answer questions about God or anything other than what we study in our physical universe,
God has never been shown to exist hence there are no questions to answer.


This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot
Yet you or anyone else has never provided any valid methods of attaining knowledge or information. Navel gazing doesn't work.

Science constantly changes
Nope, science continues to use the same methods to attain knowledge and information, it's called the Scientific Method.

incapable of currently answering questions about any Creator and doesn't even pretend to actually.
The Creator is just a fantasy in your mind, hence science has no interest in it.

look at religion and spirituality as a whole, look at all the NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters, spiritual insights, soul travel
Those are just more fantasies created in peoples minds. They are as valid as Leprechauns riding Unicorns.

I've seen and had many spiritual experiences and I study NDE's and spiritual based testimonies and there is no single other subject or topic that is as vast and numerous as the amount of evidence from so many sources as spirituality, it's actually stunning all the information and experiences that are available.  
That's merely the result of ignorance of the world around you and an overactive imagination.
#152
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Scientific knowledge never accounts for all that exists it will always be an incomplete system because it only moves with our own inquiries, 200 years ago science doesn't say what it does now and 100 years from now it will be the same as it grows, that's why this is so important for people to understand this and not hang their hopes on it. Science does not answer questions about God or anything other than what we study in our physical universe, that we are capable of. It has no knowledge in and of itself, it's simply a reflection of what we are happening to examine, it is just a method of study. 

Scientific knowledge, science itself however isn't you are correct. However, it is a means of studying reality that seems to get pretty good results (I'm unaware of a better method though I'd be very interested in hearing suggestions). 

This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot, this would be the arena and vast body of facts and evidences called spirituality/religion, this is the method of study that correlates with the nature of the Divine.
Here we are running before we've shown we can stand. How do we verify there is a divine for spirituality and religion to correlate with?

Science constantly changes, evolves as we continue to study the natural world and so no one should be putting their life and beliefs in something like this, it's a different study and incapable of currently answering questions about any Creator and doesn't even pretend to actually.

To begin I would like to know how we can verify there is a creator. Then I'll begin asking for information on said creator.


Science is a neutral study it has no ideologies or opinions so if you want to consider something beyond the laws of nature (meaning beyond our physical sense perception alone) then look at religion and spirituality as a whole, look at all the NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters, spiritual insights, soul travel that all point to the reality that we are leaving this body when it hits the dirt, IMO there is no doubt about it.
What exactly do you mean by 'our physical sense perceptions'? Also, we come back to the question of verification. As for NDE's we come back to my question on how we can know the difference we'd expect between a situation where the brain creates consciousness and the consciousness exists outside the brain. Considering the large spike of activity in an NDE, why would it not fit the brain creates consciousness position as well as your own?

I've seen and had many spiritual experiences and I study NDE's and spiritual based testimonies and there is no single other subject or topic that is as vast and numerous as the amount of evidence from so many sources as spirituality, it's actually stunning all the information and experiences that are available.
Care to share these spiritual experiences so we can discuss their means of how they are verified and how we can determine they fit your world view better than a materialists world view?

If you want to experience higher experiences you have to be willing to examine, and apply things and let go. Flexible but not dumb or naïve, allow yourself to be free to examine things outside your current beliefs. 
It isn't about experiencing anything, it's about how we can determine our experiences are accurate with reality.

I don't have any thing against science BTW, I'm only against people using it as a means to answer questions where it certainly has no means of answering. We need science, we need spirituality because we need to understand both the physical world and the higher spiritual worlds. Both are realities and no need to reject one for the other, they are compatible if we don't try to use science to disclaim things it is not capable of and vise versa. 
I must be honest in saying I've not seen anything that suggests spirituality verifies its claims. I don't discount it out of hand, but I have yet to see anything that verifies it. For me it all hinges on how we can determine that supposedly spiritual experiences aren't rooted in that very large area of human ignorance as to hpw the physical reality works.
#153
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Scientific knowledge, science itself however isn't you are correct. However, it is a means of studying reality that seems to get pretty good results (I'm unaware of a better method though I'd be very interested in hearing suggestions).
Did you not read my explanation, it was in the part you didn't include here? I said it is certainly needed, both studies are needed to reflect the truth about one or the other as it pertains to them. It does have good results about learning the physical world, I already acknowledge that. However it is unable to reach what we are discussing, this is where we look to spirituality and now we have the correct method of study and observations. That IS my suggestion, because it would be the accurate source to reflect any facts about the spiritual.
This is what I wrote...
"This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot, this would be the arena and vast body of facts and evidences called spirituality/religion, this is the method of study that correlates with the nature of the Divine."

And so I'll get to your question about it below...
#154
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Here we are running before we've shown we can stand. How do we verify there is a divine for spirituality and religion to correlate with?
I'm not running anywhere and I will answer your questions as we go and show you how they stand, but give me a chance to expand on some things if you need me to, these questions involve a lot of dynamics so I'm not going to write everything I could, it's already getting really long so I have to keep things short and simple yet precise. Spirituality is directly related to the Divine, this again is commonsense as the knowledge we have correlates with the nature of God and wouldn't be there without the Divine. The "spiritual" exists because first God exists, otherwise there is no experience beyond the physical world. In order to "verify" there must first be an application.....of types, or an observation or inquiry.

Experiences with the Divine take place on the inner level or the soul level itself and so these revelations are not something you perceive with any of the physical body, there is no object so we verify our own experiences by cross referencing with other sources that are congruent with the same nature of the experience as I said before. We actually do this with all our observations......hey, "I saw a tree" (personal observation)….now I want to learn about it, make sure I really saw it lol.....make sure other people see trees ect ect….so then we learn about the tree through what we collectively observe about trees, same thing with spirituality and God.....we say hey, I observed something or perceived something outside the normal perception....now I can take that observation to vast body of spiritual facts and correlate as well as learn about it thereby verifying it.
It would be commonsense that spirituality wouldn't exist if the Divine didn't exist, it reflects its own purpose…..just like science wouldn't exist if the physical world did not exist.

#155
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
To begin I would like to know how we can verify there is a creator. Then I'll begin asking for information on said creator.
You would first have to consider the evidence available. Which is what I've been saying, you have an extraordinarily vast body of spiritual facts at your finger tips that correlate with the nature of God. It is not proof, but certainly we can VERIFY that a Creator exists by looking at the overwhelming evidence. From there, you can begin to ask for information and weigh it.

#156
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000

What exactly do you mean by 'our physical sense perceptions'?
I mean precisely what you experience just through the physical body alone.....taste, tough, hear, smell ect ect….spirituality transcends that observation because it exists at a different frequency and vibration of what the body experiences. And so you to learn this and practice getting outside those limitations.

Also, we come back to the question of verification.

Perhaps you are unable to accept my answer on verification on this because perhaps you just refuse to accept spirituality/religion as a means of verification or that it is possible? that would be the same as rejecting science as a means of verifying what we want to learn about the natural world....which would be silly, likewise it's silly to reject the study of the spiritual as a means to verify what facts or observations exist about God or spirituality.

 As for NDE's we come back to my question on how we can know the difference we'd expect between a situation where the brain creates consciousness and the consciousness exists outside the brain. Considering the large spike of activity in an NDE, why would it not fit the brain creates consciousness position as well as your own?
I've answered this several times now, if the brain produced consciousness there would be no conscious experience away from the brain, no NDE's and no spiritual experiences. It's a no-brainer, all experience would be confined only to a brain and that is not the case in human experiences as a whole. NDE's are specifically the consciousness traveling OUTSIDE the body and brain after brain death, that is only possible due to the soul, and the fact it is not produced by the brain or mind.


#157
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Care to share these spiritual experiences so we can discuss their means of how they are verified and how we can determine they fit your world view better than a materialists world view?
The means of how they are verified have been thoroughly covered, hopefully you get what I've been saying about it thus far, the same way you verify something through science is the way you would verify something spiritual in nature which would be through a congruent method of study or source. My experiences include encounters with spiritual beings, these are obviously not your average human, and while the form is similar the spirit body is much different at sight than a physical body, spirit beings can also be perceived without visually seeing them if you are used to operating on that level. So spiritual beings do not fit a materialistic worldview. Spiritual based experiences take place at another state of conscious awareness, and so my experiences are varying....I've had spiritual visions and insights from applying things I perceived at the soul level or spiritual level, things that transcend the normal physical experiences. There is an application process to spirituality, because you get involved and begin to apply things to yourself that are applicable and you observe the effects. None of my spiritual observations fit with a materialistic view, and neither do religions and their spiritual observations, this should be pretty obvious but don't take that as an insult. I would say the average spiritual experience is very different than the human experience, and it is not confined to the physical world and its limitations.

#158
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
I question whether there is such a thing as a 'spiritual facts'. The fact that the existence of spiritual facts can be seriously questioned means, at the very least, they are subjective.

This begs the question: Why should subjective experiences be considered as evidence shaping our understanding of our shared reality - especially when these experiences are often incompatible with one another?

The reasonable answer is that without the ability to validate and/or verify these 'facts', they should not be considered evidence in any meaningful objective way. 
#159
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
question whether there is such a thing as a 'spiritual facts'. The fact that the existence of spiritual facts can be seriously questioned means, at the very least, they are subjective.

This begs the question: Why should subjective experiences be considered as evidence shaping our understanding of our shared reality - especially when these experiences are often incompatible with one another?

The reasonable answer is that without the ability to validate and/or verify these 'facts', they should not be considered evidence in any meaningful objective way. 

These sound like all opinions, did you have any particular argument other than you won't trust spirituality for no real reason? spirituality is not subjective because it is not dependent upon personal feelings and opinions, quite the opposite really and the process and cultivation of spirituality opposes that, it does not allow an individual to cultivate based on their own perceptions and opinions. 
How would you know what spiritual facts are subjective? rather than OBJECTIVE. I've written several times now how verification works, it's no different than verifying something through science. It's your opinion and choice that none of it exists objectively but that is unfortunate. You are the only one that can change your opinions or consider another possibility. I can only make sense of it for you.
#160
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
I see dismissal rather than a sincere effort to answer criticism. I cannot force an open and honest discussion, but I sincerely hope others whom you wish to sway are taking note of this avoidance.

#161
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
What avoidance? what you stated are not arguments they are your personal opinions, which of what you stated would you like me to reply to specifically? I would appreciate you not asserting things about my intentions and efforts. You did not show any effort, so what effort do I need to make? It's your opinion spirituality is subjective and not objective....so your question in the middle is based on a misconception, you believing its all subjective....and your last statement/assertion is based on you thinking it is subjective lol, I mean what is there to work with here? 
Topic's author
#162
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
IMO, it is an unwarranted leap for those who only think within the box called "Nature." They don't want to think of anything that science cannot prove ("If I can't see it, I won't believe it."). Yet, from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. They don't have the grounds for certainty. 

Until such a time as you can show that god can be known to exist (something no one I'm aware of has done) rather than simpy believed to, then you have no more grounds for certainty than anyone else. You can either look for answers to the unknown, or pretend it isn't unknown. Once the necessity of the creator can be demonstrated then why assume one?

I can show the reasonableness of the belief in God, via the biblical documents (i.e., His word), especially via prophecy which is based in history. I can also point to the reasonableness of creation over chance. I can offer the case of making sense of ultimately anything without first presupposing God. I believe I can do this in a logical and rational manner. As for my own personal belief, I am certain of God's existence. I speak in terms of 'ifs' for those who doubt. 

As for the unknown, just like you, I am limited in my knowledge. Thus God's existence would provide certainty of what others view as unknown. If God did not exist or had not revealed Himself I would be in the same uncertain boat as everyone else. My understanding of origins relies on me correctly interpreting His Word. If I incorrectly interpret His word I'm in the same boat as an unbeliever. The point is that it is not what I say, but whether what I say conforms to His word. 

As for your degree of certainty outside of God, and His existence and revelation, how can you ever be sure of origins and meaning and all kinds of other factors? The question of why is void, outside of God. 

Why does something exist rather than nothing? 
Why is there meaning in a supposed meaningless universe? 
Why is there moral 'right' without an objective, universal, unchanging measure?
Why is what you believe any BETTER than what anyone else believes?
Why does life (supposedly) originate from non-living, non-conscious material?

Then the question is, HOW can it? You just presuppose it can because you construct a worldview on the house of cards of chance happenstance. 

It is all meaningless in the greater outcome without first presupposing God. So, if you want to make sense of these whys then God is necessary. 

#163
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
"This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot, this would be the arena and vast body of facts and evidences called spirituality/religion, this is the method of study that correlates with the nature of the Divine."

Such as? Give me some examples. From my experience we have a vast bodies of claims and suppositions, but I've yet to see any evidence of a god entity existing. I'm quite happy to discuss claims of evidence if you'd like. This is circular reasoning. You're confirming the existence of divine by using the collection sources that correlates with the nature of the divine. Essentially the flaw is that if there is no divine then the texts correlate with nothing. You're missing the first step of verifying there is a divine.
#164
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
I'm not running anywhere and I will answer your questions as we go and show you how they stand, but give me a chance to expand on some things if you need me to, these questions involve a lot of dynamics so I'm not going to write everything I could, it's already getting really long so I have to keep things short and simple yet precise. Spirituality is directly related to the Divine, this again is commonsense as the knowledge we have correlates with the nature of God and wouldn't be there without the Divine. The "spiritual" exists because first God exists, otherwise there is no experience beyond the physical world. In order to "verify" there must first be an application.....of types, or an observation or inquiry. 
This assumes that there is a 'divine' with which these texts can correlate, how do you propose to confirm this is the case? This is actually what I mean when I say you're running before you can stand. What evidence is there that god exists? That the religious texts are at all accurate in their claims of whatever entity they claim to be god exists at all? If all spirituality rests upon the existence of god, then lets move to that discussion. Firstly how do you define god? 'first god exists, otherwise there is no experience beyond the physical world' how can you know there is experience beyond the physical world? How can you be sure that what you think you're observing beyond the physical world isn't just a product of your mind? That you're not creating the worlds and experiences you have? 
#165
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Experiences with the Divine take place on the inner level or the soul level itself and so these revelations are not something you perceive with any of the physical body, there is no object so we verify our own experiences by cross referencing with other sources that are congruent with the same nature of the experience as I said before. We actually do this with all our observations......hey, "I saw a tree" (personal observation)….now I want to learn about it, make sure I really saw it lol.....make sure other people see trees ect ect….so then we learn about the tree through what we collectively observe about trees, same thing with spirituality and God.....we say hey, I observed something or perceived something outside the normal perception....now I can take that observation to vast body of spiritual facts and correlate as well as learn about it thereby verifying it.
Again, why dismiss the possibility that the human brain is on some levels very similar and so it creates similar experiences under similar circumstances? Also, what about the vast variation within the different spiritual experiences people have (lets say NDE's)?

It would be commonsense that spirituality wouldn't exist if the Divine didn't exist, it reflects its own purpose…..just like science wouldn't exist if the physical world did not exist.
This isn't commonsense at all. To give an example of reasons spirituality could exist without an actual divine. We are story telling creatures, we experience things that we don't understand, so we frame them in terms we do understand, gods, spirituality. While I'm not going to assert that's what happens (I don't claim to know), it certainly isn't unreasonable, we don't like not knowing and experience has shown me time and again that people are good at tricking themselves.
#166
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
I mean precisely what you experience just through the physical body alone.....taste, tough, hear, smell ect ect….spirituality transcends that observation because it exists at a different frequency and vibration of what the body experiences. And so you to learn this and practice getting outside those limitations.

How can you be sure that it's not because it's simply a product of your mind?

Perhaps you are unable to accept my answer on verification on this because perhaps you just refuse to accept spirituality/religion as a means of verification or that it is possible? that would be the same as rejecting science as a means of verifying what we want to learn about the natural world....which would be silly, likewise it's silly to reject the study of the spiritual as a means to verify what facts or observations exist about God or spirituality.
No, it's because you move straight to verifying traits about them, without having ever addressed how you verify god exists. Or that any spiritual experience you have isn't the product of the brain. The trouble with looking to spiritual/religious texts to verify external consciousness/god is that they're the source of the claim. Not one thing you have discussed is able to dismiss the possibility that what you experience hasn't been the product of your brain, you haven't even managed to make points that show it must be less likely than your position.

I've answered this several times now, if the brain produced consciousness there would be no conscious experience away from the brain, no NDE's and no spiritual experiences. It's a no-brainer, all experience would be confined only to a brain and that is not the case in human experiences as a whole. NDE's are specifically the consciousness traveling OUTSIDE the body and brain after brain death, that is only possible due to the soul, and the fact it is not produced by the brain or mind.
Again, I shall ask. Can you show a case where someone was confirmed brain dead and came back? Where they had absolutely no brain function (not simply the lack of higher brain function) and then came back? To my knowledge there's no such case. If there were then the legal system would need to change drastically. As for the consciousness traveling outside the body, how do you know this isn't just an effect of higher brain function stopping? Studies have shown time and again that brain activity spikes at the moment of death, this would be more than capable of accounting for NDE's as would the cessation of higher brain function (not the same as the cessation of all brain function, which is considered irreversible). You keep saying it must be what you propose, but never address in any meaningful way why it can't be what other propose. 
#167
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
You would first have to consider the evidence available. Which is what I've been saying, you have an extraordinarily vast body of spiritual facts at your finger tips that correlate with the nature of God. It is not proof, but certainly we can VERIFY that a Creator exists by looking at the overwhelming evidence. From there, you can begin to ask for information and weigh it. 

As of yet I've not got a single piece of evidence for a creator. I have a lot of claims, but no evidence. I'd be happy to take a look at your vast body of evidence for a creator. It would of course be circular reasoning to say 'we can verify spiritual evidence because it correlates with god's nature' and then also argue that spiritual evidence proves a god exists.
Topic's author
#168
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
What is more reasonable, Creator or chance? (Hint, there is no reason to chance - so why do you continually find reasons from it?)

What were the variables at work? What were the conditions and physical limitations (if there were any) before this universe? Without that information it's impossible to form an informed opinion on the likelihood of either. 

When you bring up the question of the variables at work you also bring up the question of whether the present is the key to the past. We look at data available today and assume that what we currently see is an indication of what was all those many years ago that we were not present to. Thus, we INTERPRET the data by what we presently know and what we presently suppose. 

You also bring up the possibility of someTHING existing before the universe. You suppose something before the Big Bang, perhaps a multiverse. Energy is dissipating and the universe is supposedly dying a heat death. By positing "before this universe" you presuppose the universe is not the start of time. Are you proposing an infinite time frame?

As for the rest, you seem to be simply stating that order cannot exist without intelligence. I have yet to see any reason to assume this is the case. In an ordered universe with consistent and predictable forces at work it should be expected that we find constants from these we as intelligent beings find reason. The real question is does such a universe necessitate an intelligent creator. Having found no evidence to allow me to conclude either way it remains for me at least an unknown.

You won't find a reason without intelligence. Why do we continue to find reasons, meaning, purpose in a supposedly meaningless universe? Why do we continually find order in a chaotic, mindless, random chance universe? You just ASSUME it is possible. Why would we see the uniformity of nature (laws that govern the universe and without which it would not exist)? How does random chance happenstance sustain anything (laws)? You just ASSUME it must because there is no view other than God that can account for it. You don't like that alternative. It means, if God exists, then you are ACCOUNTABLE to Him. You are not autonomous after all. That is a frightening thought to many, so they rationalize away God as they build their house of cards.   

Your real question shows just that, the intelligence of creation. It shows it from the microscopic to the macroscopic, from the small picture to the big - information and intelligence. How do you explain intelligence without an intelligent being? You have no reasonable answers for this, nothing that makes sense. Sense depends on sensible being(s). 

Why would you find laws in a random, chaotic, happenstance universe? WHY? There is NO REASON. Yet you continue to find reason in these laws. These formulas express order and thought. Why do we DISCOVER them in a meaningless universe?  

Why do we discover information in our DNA, the genetic code? From one end of the spectrum to the other we continually find meaning and purpose. How can something without personhood produce consciousness, intelligence, logic, truth, order? Secularists dogmatically assert that these things can happen without making sense of any of them. 

So, of the two possibilities, God can and does make sense of the universe, of being, of life, of morality, of meaning. The universe does not, nor can it do so. You are welcome to such absurdity, but I believe you (generic) act on blind faith. There is no reason to believe otherwise. 



#169
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
I can show the reasonableness of the belief in God, via the biblical documents (i.e., His word), especially via prophecy which is based in history. I can also point to the reasonableness of creation over chance. I can offer the case of making sense of ultimately anything without first presupposing God. I believe I can do this in a logical and rational manner. As for my own personal belief, I am certain of God's existence. I speak in terms of 'ifs' for those who doubt. 
As for the unknown, just like you, I am limited in my knowledge. Thus God's existence would provide certainty of what others view as unknown. If God did not exist or had not revealed Himself I would be in the same uncertain boat as everyone else. My understanding of origins relies on me correctly interpreting His Word. If I incorrectly interpret His word I'm in the same boat as an unbeliever. The point is that it is not what I say, but whether what I say conforms to His word. 
This seems more a support for solipsism than theism. How exactly is it that you can know god exists? Rather than that we cannot know anything?

As for your degree of certainty outside of God, and His existence and revelation, how can you ever be sure of origins and meaning and all kinds of other factors? The question of why is void, outside of God. 

Why does something exist rather than nothing? 
Why is there meaning in a supposed meaningless universe? 
Why is there moral 'right' without an objective, universal, unchanging measure?
Why is what you believe any BETTER than what anyone else believes?
Why does life (supposedly) originate from non-living, non-conscious material?

This is an argument from ignorance (and possibly an appeal to emotion), you're not presenting reasons god must exist, simply stating solipsism must be true if god doesn't exist. Can you show that we can know anything? Can you disprove solipsism? If not then your argument doesn't prove god.

That said, I would say that meaning in the universe begins and ends with us, we give our lives and our world meaning, meaning is merely a product of intelligence.

As for why is what I believe better than what anyone else believes? Whatever makes you think that is the case? If I thought my beliefs were better than others then I wouldn't waste my time discussing their beliefs, it wouldn't be at all informative. I discuss because maybe people do have better beliefs than me or at least that their beliefs are different enough from my own to be informative. It seems somewhat arrogant to think that what you believe is better than what others believe.

Then the question is, HOW can it? You just presuppose it can because you construct a worldview on the house of cards of chance happenstance. 

I don't have a presupposition. I simply don't accept as true the god claim. I don't claim to know how the universe or life began. I don't presuppose god because there's insufficient information to warrant god. I don't presuppose not-god for the same reason.

It is all meaningless in the greater outcome without first presupposing God. So, if you want to make sense of these whys then God is necessary. 

Not quite true. If you want to think you've made sense of them, then god is helpful. However, if there is no god then you've in fact made sense of nothing. You give a lot of reasons why one might prefer that god exists, but not one reason that god does exist. It's a compelling argument on the surface I'll give you that. It tries to assert that by believing in god you can know, yet all you do is get to feel like you know. If god doesn't exist you'd be as devoid of knowledge as the rest of us and making an incorrect conclusion. It all comes down to if you can be sure god exists.
Topic's author
#170
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
Science does not answer questions about God or anything other than what we study in our physical universe,
God has never been shown to exist hence there are no questions to answer.


Huh! This is a thread on prophecy which would be one verification of the truth of God, yet nobody but SkepticalOne has bothered to investigate the claim further. No one has disputed what I claim is historical fact, except by giving unsubstantiated hearsay about prophecy being written after the events. No one went to the Bible to prove prophecy was not written to the 1st-century audience of address. No one has disputed the accuracy of OT prophets such as Daniel, but again claimed unsubstantiated reasons why the book was not written during the Babylonian Empire. 

Prophecy is proof and evidence that is most reasonable and logical. Try disputing it.  

Topic's author
#171
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

I question whether there is such a thing as a 'spiritual facts'. The fact that the existence of spiritual facts can be seriously questioned means, at the very least, they are subjective.

This begs the question: Why should subjective experiences be considered as evidence shaping our understanding of our shared reality - especially when these experiences are often incompatible with one another? 

The reasonable answer is that without the ability to validate and/or verify these 'facts', they should not be considered evidence in any meaningful objective way. 

I don't support EtrnlVw's view of the spiritual, but I believe the Bible gives us a very convincing view of the spiritual truth of God contained in the OT and explained in the NT. There is a spiritual reality that is expressed by the actual history of OT Israel, Adam, the Fall, the sacrificial system, worship, etc., etc. I can go into extensive detail on these spiritual truths, as expressed in Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 2:12-14 (NASB)
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Luke 24:44 (NASB)
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”


who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”

[ One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient ] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

So much of the OT points to and is a type and shadow of Jesus Christ, a picture of what was to come and arrived with Jesus Christ.


BTW, I'm waiting on DebateART.com for confirmation that he is resetting the debate. Otherwise, we will have to start over. I think we should get a confirmation from the individual judges before we initiate the judicial vote next time (if he can't fix the current proposed debate). I also expressed to DebateArt.com the flaw in the current judicial system. He talked about a census to find out whether to change it or keep it as it is. 

Topic's author
#172
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
PS. I'm having a hard time discerning who you are directing your posts at because you are not using the reply button. 

I can show the reasonableness of the belief in God, via the biblical documents (i.e., His word), especially via prophecy which is based in history. I can also point to the reasonableness of creation over chance. I can offer the case of making sense of ultimately anything without first presupposing God. I believe I can do this in a logical and rational manner. As for my own personal belief, I am certain of God's existence. I speak in terms of 'ifs' for those who doubt. 
As for the unknown, just like you, I am limited in my knowledge. Thus God's existence would provide certainty of what others view as unknown. If God did not exist or had not revealed Himself I would be in the same uncertain boat as everyone else. My understanding of origins relies on me correctly interpreting His Word. If I incorrectly interpret His word I'm in the same boat as an unbeliever. The point is that it is not what I say, but whether what I say conforms to His word. 
This seems more a support for solipsism than theism. How exactly is it that you can know god exists? Rather than that we cannot know anything?

First, you have to believe He exists. That would be the first step. How would you either believe or trust God if you did not believe He existed (per Hebrews 11:6). Then, by trusting Him He would supply the confirmation as He promised. Even without believing God there is a host of evidence for the reason that this is His universe. He created it and understands every aspect of it. I continue to ask you what is more reasonable, chance happenstance or mindful being? I continue to ask you to make sense of the universe devoid of God. The questions are somewhat sidestepped. It is easier to avoid the difficult questions than to answer them. 

Make sense of your worldview. You are making as many claims as I am. AND, I offered you reasonable explanations and evidence via prophecy. I have yet to see anyone other than SkepticalOne address the heart of this thread. Stephen bowed out by stating that he wasn't interested in it. 


As for your degree of certainty outside of God, and His existence and revelation, how can you ever be sure of origins and meaning and all kinds of other factors? The question of why is void, outside of God. 

Why does something exist rather than nothing? 
Why is there meaning in a supposed meaningless universe? 
Why is there moral 'right' without an objective, universal, unchanging measure?
Why is what you believe any BETTER than what anyone else believes?
Why does life (supposedly) originate from non-living, non-conscious material?

This is an argument from ignorance (and possibly an appeal to emotion), you're not presenting reasons god must exist, simply stating solipsism must be true if god doesn't exist. Can you show that we can know anything? Can you disprove solipsism? If not then your argument doesn't prove god.


I'm giving examples of how your worldview system of belief is incapable of answering the why questions by listing some of them that others have sidestepped.

You claim it is an argument from ignorance, PROVIDED God does not exist and has not revealed Himself to His creatures - humanity. 

That is what we are discussing with the question of what is more reasonable to believe - blind, indifferent chance happenstance over time, or a personal omniscient Creator. You substitute the universe as this creator, so as Roman's says, you worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

So, an appeal is made through the text. The creation speaks of God. The evidence for His existence is clearly seen. 

Topic's author
#173
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000


That said, I would say that meaning in the universe begins and ends with us, we give our lives and our world meaning, meaning is merely a product of intelligence.
Does it begin with YOU? I know it does not begin with me. I see it did not begin with those who are born after me. People before me thought these meanings existed before I did. 

Which person did the laws of the universe begin with?

If you make up qualitative meanings and I make up qualitative meanings, then why are your meanings any better than my meanings, or are they? If they are no better then why hold them? 

So, are these laws something we make up to explain the way the universe is governed or are they discovered and applied?
 In other words, do they exist before we think of them? 

Yes, 'meaning' is a product of intelligence, but whose intelligence? In a qualitative system, there has to be a best to arrive at the good. Who establishes that 'best' and why is it best? Why do we continually see the meaning shift, depending on who is in power? It is because people can't identify a best. They do not have what is necessary to arrive at best. What is necessary is an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, benevolent being  - God, the necessary Being. Otherwise, I challenge you to make sense of qualitative values. 

As for why is what I believe better than what anyone else believes? Whatever makes you think that is the case? If I thought my beliefs were better than others then I wouldn't waste my time discussing their beliefs, it wouldn't be at all informative. I discuss because maybe people do have better beliefs than me or at least that their beliefs are different enough from my own to be informative. It seems somewhat arrogant to think that what you believe is better than what others believe.

Why would you hold a belief in something if it was not superior to some other belief? (I have an answer to that question) Only because you don't know any better or because you don't like the consequences of believing the other (as you admit and I underlined).

You can't throw around terms like better unless there is a final, fixed measure of better - best. Do you have one? If not, then how do you know what you believe is right, or good, or ought to be the case? You plead ignorance.

You have not demonstrated the ability to reason on why I SHOULD believe you. 

Then the question is, HOW can it? You just presuppose it can because you construct a worldview on the house of cards of chance happenstance. 

I don't have a presupposition. I simply don't accept as true the god claim. I don't claim to know how the universe or life began. I don't presuppose god because there's insufficient information to warrant god. I don't presuppose not-god for the same reason.

You have many. Maybe you do not understand them. Many, many people do not realize their worldview bias. No one is neutral. If you don't presuppose God then you presuppose some other beginning. You build on those beginnings from a worldview that excludes God as the, or the likely, explanation.

Topic's author
#174
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000


It is all meaningless in the greater outcome without first presupposing God. So, if you want to make sense of these whys then God is necessary. 

Not quite true. If you want to think you've made sense of them, then god is helpful. However, if there is no god then you've in fact made sense of nothing. You give a lot of reasons why one might prefer that god exists, but not one reason that god does exist. It's a compelling argument on the surface I'll give you that. It tries to assert that by believing in god you can know, yet all you do is get to feel like you know. If god doesn't exist you'd be as devoid of knowledge as the rest of us and making an incorrect conclusion. It all comes down to if you can be sure god exists.

I've either made sense of them or not. It is either true or it is not true. If it just appears I have yet I have not, then I am delusional. I believe a lie. If there is no God then making sense of anything is ultimately a delusion. The question is why can we make sense of so much in a senseless universe? Why SHOULD we be able to make sense of anything? Why do we continue to see patterns and intelligence in a dumb indifferent, meaningless universe? And in such a universe it matters for nothing. 

As I said, test out prophecy. See how compelling it actually is. See whether other arguments make more sense and are more logical or not. 

Test out your worldview. Discover what makes it tick, what its nuts and bolts are, how they hold everything together. Open the hood and find out whether your you can make sense of what's under the hood. Go back to the origins of the engine. Did it make itself (self-creation, a contradiction) or is there a maker that can help you understand it better? Is there intent and order to it or is it just thrown together haphazardly? 


If God did not exist I admitted I am in the same boat as everyone else who doesn't believe in God. There is no ultimate purpose in living, and I give you a quote from Razi Zacharius, Can Man Live Without God, p 42-44:

If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.


#175
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Such as? Give me some examples. From my experience we have a vast bodies of claims and suppositions, but I've yet to see any evidence of a god entity existing. I'm quite happy to discuss claims of evidence if you'd like. This is circular reasoning. You're confirming the existence of divine by using the collection sources that correlates with the nature of the divine. Essentially the flaw is that if there is no divine then the texts correlate with nothing. You're missing the first step of verifying there is a divine.
First lets get something straight because most atheists I've discussed with actually have no idea what evidence consists of because they are used to thinking that we have to observe a physical object to collect "evidence" for it. This is true only for physical objects but it is in no way the boundaries of what evidence consists of. Lets supply a definition and see if we can agree what we mean by "evidence". Because your claim that you have yet to see any evidence of God is false, as testimonials is most certainly a part of evidence. So there is more evidence than you could ever know what to do with in the spiritual arena. Anyone who claims there is "no evidence" has no idea what they are saying. Examples of evidence would be the vast body of testimonial facts and experiences. This includes the whole of spirituality and all experiences associated with it. They may be "claims" because they are made by individuals but testimonials are a part of evidences and that is something you cannot deny. 

Evidence-
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,[2] and physical evidence.

Not a single one of these definitions contradict or show there is no evidence for a Creator, quite the opposite if you know how to read.

#176
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
No one has disputed what I claim is historical fact
That's because you have yet to show it is historical fact.

#177
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
This assumes that there is a 'divine' with which these texts can correlate
Again, I'm NEVER assuming anything. These little word plays of yours are getting in the way and becoming a problem. I show you I'm not assuming things by giving you explanations and reasoning. But you have to consider my reasoning at face value if it makes sense and stop with the assumptions and ask anything you need to. My argument is that the spiritual would not exist if the Divine did not exist, you're not arguing the point you're just claiming it is an assertion.

 This is actually what I mean when I say you're running before you can stand. What evidence is there that god exists?

Read what evidence consists of, which includes testimonial evidence and not just physical object evidence. There is no running, you just don't accept what evidence consists of. When you do, then we can have a decent discussion.

 If all spirituality rests upon the existence of god, then lets move to that discussion.

That's what I have been pushing for lol. But first you have to concede what are facts, what is true. As of yet you are still denying there is in fact evidence for God that is congruent with the nature of God.

 Firstly how do you define god?

Creator, formless, omnipresent conscious reality. The first cause of all that exists.....the originator of both the created worlds and the soul. This can work as a basic understanding. If you want to know specifics just ask.

how can you know there is experience beyond the physical world?

From evidence as well as my own experiences. If you haven't got that far I'm questioning whether or not you are reading what I supply.

How can you be sure that what you think you're observing beyond the physical world isn't just a product of your mind? That you're not creating the worlds and experiences you have?

I've answered this plainly. Spirituality produces that which transcends the physical sense perception and that of the mind. It opposes those things, because it is an objective reality not a subjective one.

you're not arguing the point you're just claiming it is an assertion.

I've given you the reasons, you aren't absorbing them.


#178
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
Evidence-
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,[2] and physical evidence.

Not a single one of these definitions contradict or show there is no evidence for a Creator, quite the opposite if you know how to read.
There are no body of facts or information on any Creator.
There are no things or set of things to form conclusion or judgment on any Creator.
Testimonials and documents cannot be corroborated with any body of facts or information on any Creator.
Assertions are not corroborated with any body of facts or information on any Creator.
This is not a court of law, this is an investigation into the existence of any Creator.

All of those show contradictions to the existence of any Creator. There is no evidence of a Creator.
#179
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Again, why dismiss the possibility that the human brain is on some levels very similar and so it creates similar experiences under similar circumstances?
You are the one dismissing the possibilities and assuming things are not what they are, not me. So I ask you the same question, why dismiss the experiences as they are what they are? sorry, but I've explained why consciousness can't be experienced away from the brain if the brain produces it, you are the one not accepting things at face value, and that is only do to your reluctance to accept any spiritual transcendent reality.

Also, what about the vast variation within the different spiritual experiences people have (lets say NDE's)?

Because the spiritual worlds are so vast, they contain many different types of experiences and I explained why in my responses. However, the same experience of leaving the body and what they experience are very congruent. The soul leaves the physical body the same for every person. However if I sent 100 people across a country they would report back with all different experiences of the same land. Same with spiritual experiences and NDE's....while the science of consciousness leaving the body is identical in every case, what the soul experiences could vary because it depends on where the soul goes and what they are destined for.

It would be commonsense that spirituality wouldn't exist if the Divine didn't exist, it reflects its own purpose…..just like science wouldn't exist if the physical world did not exist.

This isn't commonsense at all. To give an example of reasons spirituality could exist without an actual divine. We are story telling creatures, we experience things that we don't understand, so we frame them in terms we do understand, gods, spirituality. While I'm not going to assert that's what happens (I don't claim to know), it certainly isn't unreasonable, we don't like not knowing and experience has shown me time and again that people are good at tricking themselves.

Thanks for the assertion/opinion. Would you like to discuss why those things actually exist? you can assume they're stories but that is not going to help your case any. I've given you reasoning why spirituality is not tricking oneself but at some point you will have to recognize my answers. Spirituality does not produce what the individual wants or feels, it's the opposite of that. So there is no tricking oneself, sorry but spirituality is an objective reality not a subjective one.

#180
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
How can you be sure that it's not because it's simply a product of your mind?
We've discussed this but you have yet to acknowledge it. Your mind does not produce your experiences because it is not a being or an entity. It doesn't produce experiences, it categorizes them. The mind is not a conscious entity, it's a storage compartment.

Perhaps you are unable to accept my answer on verification on this because perhaps you just refuse to accept spirituality/religion as a means of verification or that it is possible? that would be the same as rejecting science as a means of verifying what we want to learn about the natural world....which would be silly, likewise it's silly to reject the study of the spiritual as a means to verify what facts or observations exist about God or spirituality.

No, it's because you move straight to verifying traits about them, without having ever addressed how you verify god exists. Or that any spiritual experience you have isn't the product of the brain. The trouble with looking to spiritual/religious texts to verify external consciousness/god is that they're the source of the claim. Not one thing you have discussed is able to dismiss the possibility that what you experience hasn't been the product of your brain, you haven't even managed to make points that show it must be less likely than your position.

This post in and of itself tells me that everything I'm writing is for no use. Go back and read what I wrote in every question of yours and this is thoroughly answered. I'm not going to address the product of the brain anymore until you recognize my answers and respond to them directly. I said that if consciousness were produced by the brain it would be impossible to experience consciousness away from the physical body, and you have yet to argue that point. Only keep repeating "why would it not be a product of the brain". So it is not me that hasn't answered the riddle, it is you.

I've answered this several times now, if the brain produced consciousness there would be no conscious experience away from the brain, no NDE's and no spiritual experiences. It's a no-brainer, all experience would be confined only to a brain and that is not the case in human experiences as a whole. NDE's are specifically the consciousness traveling OUTSIDE the body and brain after brain death, that is only possible due to the soul, and the fact it is not produced by the brain or mind.

Again, I shall ask. Can you show a case where someone was confirmed brain dead and came back? Where they had absolutely no brain function (not simply the lack of higher brain function) and then came back? To my knowledge there's no such case. If there were then the legal system would need to change drastically. As for the consciousness traveling outside the body, how do you know this isn't just an effect of higher brain function stopping? Studies have shown time and again that brain activity spikes at the moment of death, this would be more than capable of accounting for NDE's as would the cessation of higher brain function (not the same as the cessation of all brain function, which is considered irreversible). You keep saying it must be what you propose, but never address in any meaningful way why it can't be what other propose.

As for the consciousness traveling outside the body, how do you know this isn't just an effect of higher brain function stopping? Studies have shown time and again that brain activity spikes at the moment of death, this would be more than capable of accounting for NDE's as would the cessation of higher brain function

Because just before and at death there IS a spike in brain activity, because the soul is experiencing something it normally does not. Aagin this is equivalent to measuring activity on an electrical board and thinking that the board produces electricity.