Spirituality
28 Oct 12
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59I fully agree that there is no evidence for let alone proof of the supernatural.
I think you and I would agree that there is not (nor ever can be)
any proof for the supernatural. Therefore anyone who believes in
the supernatural either does so on faith alone or on flawed logic/evidence.
We point out at length flaws in arguments supporting the existance
of gods, souls, an afterlife, etc.
The only theists we can take serious ...[text shortened]... port their beliefs! Therefore I do not take their position as
iinappropriate. (Just illogical)
However I am going to need some convincing that there could never be evidence or proof of it.
You can certainly have god concepts that would be provable given the right evidence.
The same goes for souls and the afterlife.
The laws of physics could be different in such a way as to allow for the existence of souls and
the afterlife, and we could in that hypothetical universe detect that the laws of physics allowed
such things and detect souls and the afterlife. (either directly or indirectly)
I see no reason why we couldn't detect these things IF THEY EXISTED.
Which is why the fact that we can't detect them is evidence that they don't exist.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrYes, but I was unsure whether you were permitting in your definitions only picking part of them.
That seems like the first construal of (4).
This meaning is entirely and emphatically pejorative and in the latter stages of (4) you went on
to discuss non pejorative meanings.
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloDid i say that I had no good reasons, if i did then I retract the statement, Christ is the
So you don't see any incongruity in a situation where one agrees that he has no good reasons to believe that P and yet says that he does believe that P?
reason.
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59If you take such a position to be "illogical", then presumably you think the position is noetically or epistemologically irresponsible in some way. So, I am still not sure where we would disagree in substance.
I think you and I would agree that there is not (nor ever can be)
any proof for the supernatural. Therefore anyone who believes in
the supernatural either does so on faith alone or on flawed logic/evidence.
We point out at length flaws in arguments supporting the existance
of gods, souls, an afterlife, etc.
The only theists we can take serious ...[text shortened]... port their beliefs! Therefore I do not take their position as
iinappropriate. (Just illogical)
I do not agree with the idea that there could not, in principle, be theistic or supernaturalistic belief that is warranted; or justified; or based on sufficiently good evidence; or some such. I tend to take seriously those theists who at least try to present considered argument for their theistic or eschatological belief or for the justification of such belief, etc.
I see now, though, that Robbie is denying that his position is one with no good reasons. So, let's see what he has by the way of good reasons for it.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think robbie means that Christ Jesus is the reason he has hope of being resurrected. Jesus told the Pharisees that when this temple (of His body) was destroyed he would raise it up in three days, which He did.
How is Christ a good reason for your belief that you will be resurrected? I thought Christ was a person, not a reason.
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
(John 2:19 NASB)
They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'"
(Mathew 26:60-61 NASB)
Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"
(Mark 14:57-5* NASB)
Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself, and come down from the cross!"
(Mark 15:29-30 NASB)
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 11:25-26 NASB)
P.S. Maybe I should explain the last reference. Jesus is first referring to the person that believes in Him will live, that is his soul will live, even though his body dies. Then he goes on to say everyone, meaning every soul, that believes in Him will never die.
Originally posted by RJHindsThanks RJ.
I think robbie means that Christ Jesus is the reason he has hope of being resurrected. Jesus told the Pharisees that when this temple (of His body) was destroyed he would raise it up in three days, which He did.
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
(John 2:19 NASB)
They did not find any, even though many f he goes on to say everyone, meaning every soul, that believes in Him will never die.
However, I don't think you're helping Robbie's case here.
In fact, parts of what you have posted here seem to directly contradict Robbie's position. For instance, you say that Jesus is referring to the soul of a person that continues to live on even when the body dies. Well, that contradicts Robbie's position because Robbie has explicitly stated that there is nothing at all within/about him that will immediately survive death.
Also, this resurrection of Jesus as it is outlined here does not square with Robbie's description of what his resurrection will be like. What you outline here is Jesus' resurrecting himself. But, that cannot accord with Robbie's description of the resurrection process because he maintains that nothing survives the initial death; and, obviously, if Jesus is resurrecting himself (supposing that is a coherent idea; and talk about a do-it-yourself job), then at least something about Jesus must have survived Jesus' initial death.
Also, none of this addresses the concern that was brought up earlier by bbarr. Again, the concern is roughly the following. Robbie has stated that the resurrection process is one in which entity S1 dies and absolutely nothing about S1 survives the death; then, sometime later, God brings about entity S2, which is supposedly personally identical to S1; but, the problem is, Robbie states that it is an unanswerable question in what ways S1 and S2 are similar and he gives no real account of in what the personal identity here consists. It's not clear that this account given by Robbie is intelligible; and bbarr's concern is that we have no more reason to assume S1 and S2 are personally identical as we do to assume that S1 and S2 are somehow similar but in fact different persons. This is actually the point that I am interested most in Robbie addressing. The resurrection of Jesus as you outline it has nothing to do with addressing this point because, as I already made clear above, Jesus' resurrection does not square with the resurrection process that Robbie has described (because, again, something within/about Jesus must have survived his initial death if we are to believe that he resurrected himself).
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloMy post was not meant to support robbie in all his JW beliefs. It was only my idea of what he probably meant by Christ Jesus being the reason.
Thanks RJ.
However, I don't think you're helping Robbie's case here.
In fact, parts of what you have posted here seem to directly contradict Robbie's position. For instance, you say that Jesus is referring to the soul of a person that continues to live on even when the body dies. Well, that contradicts Robbie's position because Robbie has expl ...[text shortened]... t have survived his initial death if we are to believe that he resurrected himself).
Originally posted by googlefudgePretty bad evidence.
Which is why the fact that we can't detect them is evidence that they don't exist.
Given that mainstream science laughs up its sleeve at the supernatural, even if they could detect it, it would never be accepted, since that would prove the supernatural exists, which they would never do.
Just because science "can't" detect something is no proof whatsoever that it doesn't exist.
Could science detect gamma radiation in 1215? Did it only come into existence once science could detect it?
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by SuzianneYou make an assertion about Science then give a contrary example.
Pretty bad evidence.
Given that mainstream science laughs up its sleeve at the supernatural, even if they could detect it, it would never be accepted, since that would prove the supernatural exists, which they would never do.
Just because science "can't" detect something is no proof whatsoever that it doesn't exist.
Could science detect gamma radiation in 1215? Did it only come into
existence once science could detect it?
(gamma radiation is accepted!) No wonder you always lose arguments.
Science is driven by observations - any scientist would give his eye-teeth
to document a new phenomenon. (Of course once verified it would no
longer be supernatural ... perhaps unexplainable)
Originally posted by rwingettThough capital punishment can be seen as a failed deterrent; it's not solely an attempt to deter the crime. It is a message to society that the lives of innocent, law-abiding citizens are so valuable, that if you end one, you forfeit your own.
Texas has executed 488 people since 1976, but there are no shortage of new murders in Texas. If fact, they're 18th in murder rate out of the 50 states.
Again, what precedent does society set if, when someone murders another in cold-blooded, heinous fashion, the sentence we hand down is for that person to have to live in a small room for about 25 years, where he will eat free, enjoy daily recreational activities, have almost all his rights intact, get a reduced sentence for behaving nicely, and drain the rest of society of their resources in the process? To lay down a sentence like that is to completely reduce the value of human life.
The argument against CP is typically something like, "by murdering the criminal, you show no value for human life."
But that is an apples to oranges comparison. First of all "murder" is never defined as the lawful execution of a murderer. Secondly, the murderer killed an innocent bystander who was the undeserving recipient of a heinous, violent attack--whereas the execution of a cold-blooded murderer is the taking of life from someone who is clearly *not* an undeserving, innocent bystander.
To oppose capital punishment is akin to opposing defending the country against would-be invaders. A society with iron-clad rules to never end the life of another--if it follows that rule to the letter--will eventually be wiped out by aggressors who don't live by those rules.
Capital punishment wouldn't even be on the table if it weren't for the fact that truly evil, cold-blooded killers exist in the first place. To jump to their defense is unconscionable in my opinion.
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59Just so I know, what is it you think of when you use the word "supernatural"?
You make an assertion about Science then give a contrary example.
(gamma radiation is accepted!) No wonder you always lose arguments.
Science is driven by observations - any scientist would give his eye-teeth
to document a new phenomenon. (Of course once verified it would no
longer be supernatural ... perhaps unexplainable)
If we are going to talk about it, it would help if you share what it is you think we
are talking about. If you've already given this, please point me to it, I really don't
want to read 10 pages of posts on the off chance you have.
Kelly
01 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidI do not think capital punishment is a failed deterrent, I ask you to produce one
Though capital punishment can be seen as a failed deterrent; it's not solely an attempt to deter the crime. It is a message to society that the lives of innocent, law-abiding citizens are so valuable, that if you end one, you forfeit your own.
Again, what precedent does society set if, when someone murders another in cold-blooded, heinous fashion, the se ...[text shortened]... ers exist in the first place. To jump to their defense is unconscionable in my opinion.
person who did more crime after they were put to death for another crime.
Kelly