10 Aug '05 10:34>2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloArgument from analogy is perfectly acceptable, of course; and one can argue (well or badly) for the “supernatural” from evidence found in the natural cosmos (though I no longer find such arguments particularly compelling) but—
the point, dj2, is that your analogies here are really sucky: you are referring to natural things and trying to generalize to supernatural things.
that is why no one is giving you the time of day in this thread.
…you are referring to natural things and trying to generalize to supernatural things.
And that is the dividing line! Well and succinctly put! Have not theists on here accused non-theists of doing exactly that? Concluding from natural evidence that there is (or at least need be) no God? Appeals to the Holy Spirit, etc.? Has not bbarr inquired of rationalist theists why "mystical experience" (for terrible want of a better term) should not be admitted to the bar of knowledge, or why the divine ground of being should even be effable (and I agree with him)? Do not some "supernatural theists" object to "naturalizing" God (e.g., Zen Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism) as much as some non-theists object to "supernaturalizing" nature? "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," as the old saw goes.
How much clearer the debates might become if we kept ourselves at least aware of that “dividing line,” no matter which side of the debate you’re on. Kudos, LJ. I will take some time today to ponder that “dividing line” a bit….