mnkbdky

If you can explain how we detect our thoughts with one of the five senses, then you will have accomplished what no man has. That is, if you can demonstrate how one might touch, smell, hear, taste, or see their thoughts, then, you will have no problem publishing a book and getting tenure at some university.

Furthermore, I am not satisfied with the way the question is asked. You ask if I am sure about the "nature" of thought. Really the question should be, am I sure about the detection of thought? I am fairly convinced, for I can "see" no way the five senses can detect thought.


Though God may be experience as a literal voice, the experiences are not normally described that way. However, the fact that people may mix the two up or mis-identify an imaginary voice with the real "voice" does not disprove anything. Mis-identification happens with all senses; a bent stick in water, water vapor off a hot road, backwards suicide messages in KISS or Ozzy albums, these are all mis-identifications of the senses.

Pointing these out only shows, there are authentic and inauthentic experiences of God.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. By saying you were new I was insulting you, or at least I did not mean to insult you. Everyone is new to something at sometime. I still consider myself new to philosophy, for I have only been studying it, though intensely, for four years. There are many aspects I don't know or just cannot understand at this point. If I offended you, I apologize.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
So... if we can’t explain something, we should just label it as being either divine or supernatural, right?

I’m not sure – But someone I know, who is into brain science, told me that thoughts are nothing more than a series of electrical processes within the brain. Our fives senses are “tools” for our thought’s use, in the same way that a hand is an extension of an arm, and so on. You’re asking a philosophical question, and making philosophical comments for a naturalistic process.

If its all happening within your head, it all could be caused by your head. The brain [specifically the Temporal Lobe] is a very complicated / fallible thing.

How can you tell the difference? What is the difference?





== Unanswered Statements ==
You do not need to know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. But you do need to everything about the natural world to know [for sure] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural].

So you KNOW that the “sensus divinitatis” exists? Since you KNOW this, you have the proof for it, yes? Could you please provide your proof?

How can you make the quote “I don’t believe you” turn into “You’re wrong”? Those are two completely different quotes.

You’re saying ”God exists.”
I’m saying “I don’t believe you.”
I’m NOT saying “You’re wrong.”

This goes back to my job interview point. If someone came into my office and said that they could type 300 words per minute, it would not be up to me [the person who is denying the claim] to disprove anything. The person who is making the claim should have evidence to support their claim. If this weren’t true, anyone would be able to say anything, and by default all claims would be considered truth.

If I said that Pink Unicorns exists, would it be up to you or me to prove my claim?

” However, perhaps there are those who are persuaded by the arguments and/or have experienced God.”

And when people can’t give naturalistic explanation to this question, they assume that a god must have been responsible. It’s the easiest way to feel comfortable in the light of mystery.

The assumption that your “experience” was caused by a god.

Its okay.

By the way - I'm not new to philosophy.
I've been studying it [on and off] for about 9 years now.

mnkbdky

If you are now using supernatural to mean natural phenomena or laws of nature, then, this is an argument against miracles not against the existence of God.

Given a broad enough definition one may completely do away with miracles. That is, it is normally considered that if Jesus was resurrected from the dead then that would be a miracle. However, it could be said that the resurrection was accomplished by the restructuring or the Jesus' cells through a natural process and that which comes forth from a natural process is not a miracle, therefore, the resurrection of Jesus was not a miracle.

The fact is, anything that God does with material must be manifest in some material form. If Jesus was resurrected then God must accomplish this through Jesus' body. If God is going to take dead cells and make them living again he must do this in some material way.

With broad definitions you may either make everything a miracle or nothing a miracle.

For great discussions about miracles take a look at Douglas Geivett's and Gary R. Habermas' book In Defense of Miracles.

Have you read Plato's Republic? If so, do you remember the story about the cave?

Another simple analogy is trying to prove to a person who refuses to open theirs eyes, or believe they have eyes, that they can see if they would only use their eyes. You cannot prove that sight exists to someone who will not open their eyes.

Actually you are not saying that you just "don't believe me." You are saying because you are not sure that God exist that I cannot know that God exists. You are saying that my statement that I know God exists is false. You are saying that I cannot know this.

"I don't believe you" is a much weaker claim. This claim says, maybe you do know that God exists, but I do not believe you."

Much like someone saying, "I caught a red-fish this big," with there hands spread apart about 72 inches. You may not believe that they caught such a fish, but they may have and if they did then they don't have to prove that they did in order to believe that they did.

However, this is not what you are saying. Rather you are trying to tell the fisherman that he could never know that he caught a red-fish that big, because no one knows (or atleast you do not know) if red-fish grow that big.

I am saying that if he caught one that big, regardless of whether people know red-fish grow that big, or if you don't believe that red-fish grow that big and thus do not believe he caught it, and even if he has no evidence of catching the fish, he can still believe that he did.

Evidence or public knowledge is not criteria for rationality. The experience alone makes the fisherman rational for believing he caught such a fish.

You are not saying, "you don't believe." You are saying, "no one can know."

Which is false, unless you know all that can be known--including what others know.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
NOTE: Please do not respond until you have an answer [or comment] for each of my statements. I don’t appreciate it when people skip through my responses.


Well, I’m not. God fits into the category of a supernatural being, yes? He can not be detected, and he has magical [supernatural] powers, yes?

My Original Point
You do not need to know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. But you do need to everything about the natural world to know [for sure] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural].

[In Response To: So you KNOW that the “sensus divinitatis” exists? Since you KNOW this, you have the proof for it, yes? Could you please provide your proof?]

Faith does not require evidence, but statements about “truth” do. If you KNOW something is a fact, you should have evidence to prove that it is a fact.

Please refer to my comments for the above statement.

I would believe the big fish story before I would believe in a supernatural god story. You must understand that, to an atheist, stories about magical gods are really no different from hearing about magical pink unicorns. Why should either exist?

I repeat:
You do not need to know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. But you do need to everything about the natural world to know [for sure] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural].





== Unanswered Statements ==
So... if we can’t explain something, we should just label it as being either divine or supernatural, right?

I’m not sure – But someone I know, who is into brain science, told me that thoughts are nothing more than a series of electrical processes within the brain. Our fives senses are “tools” for our thought’s use, in the same way that a hand is an extension of an arm, and so on. You’re asking a philosophical question, and making philosophical comments for a naturalistic process.

If its all happening within your head, it all could be caused by your head. The brain [specifically the Temporal Lobe] is a very complicated / fallible thing.

How can you tell the difference? What is the difference?

How can you make the quote “I don’t believe you” turn into “You’re wrong”? Those are two completely different quotes.

You’re saying ”God exists.”
I’m saying “I don’t believe you.”
I’m NOT saying “You’re wrong.”

This goes back to my job interview point. If someone came into my office and said that they could type 300 words per minute, it would not be up to me [the person who is denying the claim] to disprove anything. The person who is making the claim should have evidence to support their claim. If this weren’t true, anyone would be able to say anything, and by default all claims would be considered truth.

If I said that Pink Unicorns exists, would it be up to you or me to prove my claim?

And when people can’t give naturalistic explanation to this question, they assume that a god must have been responsible. It’s the easiest way to feel comfortable in the light of mystery.

Or have interpreted an unexplained natural phenomenon as being the touch of a deity.

davros4269

mnkbdky , you said:

For example, one may have never seen a black swan. It is possible, though, that a black swan exists. In order for me to say that a black swan does not exist I need to know all the swans that do exist.

However, one need not know all existent swans to know that a black swan does exist. They only need to a black swan.

The same applies here, I need not know all about the human body and its senses to know that the sensus divinitatis exists. I need only know that it does. To claim that it does not, though, one needs to have exhaustive knowledge of the human body and its senses.

As I pointed out above, I don't accept this analogy because it's flawed. A black swan isn't that hard to accept; having an innate sense of an all powerful supernatural being is. Even if one doesn't seek out all swans, we can easily imagine a purple swan. If it doesn't exist, than we have at least made a decent supposition. After all, we know there are white swans and we know that swans are just birds. We know other animals in nature, even some birds, are purple, so, why not?

How does this compare to an innate sense of God? What else is similar to an innate sense of God? If some folks have an innate sense of Angels or ghosts, and this was a proven and established fact, then your annology would hold against having such a sense for God.

Since no one has any innate sense of anything supernatural, your comparison, my friend, is apples-oranges.

You also said in another post that any negative statement can be turned positive and therefore, the "burden of proof" doesn't apply.

This is merely a clever use of words. A negative statement, put into a gramaticaly positive manner is just that - a negative statement worded in a positive manner! To prove either requires the same herculean effort.

There is nothing in our natural world which is god-like. No invisible sentient beings, no floating spirits playing pranks on people, no goblins and self-burning bushes.

If I were to say to you that there is an invisible red dragon floating around, which can breathe fire, would you accept this as the "default" position? If I wanted convince folks about this, where would the burden of proof reside?

What if I say I have an innate sense of this red dragon? Couldn't your innate sense of god really be an innate sense of my dragon God? How can you tell, unless you preassume God, perhaps a Biblical God? Your argument is sounding alot like the circular logic of Argument from Design. If we start a debate about God, lets say, then we can't assume properties about said God as a starting point; the starting point must ne neutral. Therefore, I can claim that if you feel this "sense", it would be about a vast, green, misty-void.

Lastly, from another section of one of your recent post, you mentioned that we can't see, touch, taste, or smell, thought. We can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell energy either. But we can test for it's presence indirectly, and observe it's affect on matter. As I'm sure you know, feeling heat, seeing lightning and so forth are the indirect effects of energy, not the energy itself.

We can most certainly determine if someone is thinking by monitoring brain activity. Machines are already available to pick up certain thought patterns - controling video games without hands, for example, is already possible and has been for some time.

We can see the biological affects of emotion as well. We know a little something about patterns of neurons, and their responsibility at "internaly rendering" information, that is, "seeing" something in your head.

Thought will become a quantifiable process, regardless of your phylisophical inclinations.

We can't detect god, directly or indirectly. Please provide an example of god's detection.

Davros

mnkbdky

You continue to use natural and supernatural in equivocal ways. You are using three or four definitions of supernatural interchangeable, each of which have different out comes to the argument.

Frankly, this is getting quite annoying.

You say God fits into a supernatural category. Then you say he cannot be detected and he has magical powers. Do you see that you are using two definitions here?

1) That which is natural is detectable and that which is supernatural is undetectable. God is undetectable. Therefore, God is supernatural.

2) That what is natural does not have magical powers and that which is supernatural has magical powers. God has magical powers. Therefore, God is supernatural.

What the does magical mean? What does detectable mean? Talk about a straw man.

In the first you must be saying that what is detectable is material, since you only think the five senses constitutes evidence of what exists; though you are willing to say that humanity can create machines to detect things that are not normally detectable, such as radiation. Machines, however, can only detect that which is material. So, if something is not detected by the five senses or by a machine, it does not exist. The five senses and machines are limited to detecting material objects. Therefore what is undetectable is immaterial. Thus supernatural means immaterial.

In the second argument you are using supernatural to mean events that happen contrary to the law of nature. This is entirely different that the immaterial use of supernatural. Furthermore, you are saying that anything that happens at all is natural or not contrary to the laws of nature, therefore, there are no supernatural occurrences or nothing happens contrary to the law of nature. This is an argument against miracles.

Stick to a definitions. Grab a book on logic and look up what equivocation means. Philosophy, in case you have not notice in your 9 years of study, has very much do with being very precise in defining your terms. Those who do not define there terms carefully are doing very sloppy philosophy.


Here you are using natural and supernatural to mean laws of nature. If you cannot recognize this I am terribly sorry. And again this would be an argument against miracles. Though, a very bad one since you define as natural as, what ever may occur with respect to material objects.

Below you said you would believe the big-fish story before the God story, though, both are equally lacking sufficient evidence. Perhaps, it is your irrational belief that immaterial things cannot be detected or you broad definition of natural evidence that leads you to believe that the two scenarios are different.

Again, this is an argument against miracles. In order for some one to say that a miracle (i.e., something supernatural) occurred [for sure] they need to everything about the natural world (i.e., all the laws of nature, or how material events happen and why they occur with such uniformity.)


Do you notice how you are using your words here?

Supernatural may mean both, 1) cause by God or a being who is immaterial and 2) an event that goes against the laws of nature.

In the case of (1), you are saying because we cannot currently explain some phenom by some law of nature that does not mean we should attribute it to some immaterial being.

However, even if there is an explanation that does accord with the laws of nature that does not rule out that an immaterial being was behind it.

In the case of (2), you are saying that we could not say that it was a miracle or something that went against the laws of nature because we do not now all the laws of nature. This is an argument against miracles, in which you define natural occurrences so broadly that a miracle is impossible. The theist would have no problem with, though. As was in the former post a material event, such as the resurrection, necessarily has material origins. However, this does not rule out that an immaterial being was behind these material events.

Perhaps, you think people of ancient times were stupid and didn't think of this stuff; that atheism is a more tenable position now than it was then because we have modern science to tell the law of nature. If this is your opinion you need to take up some reading in the history of philosophy. Ancient peoples knew that all material events had material causes. They were smart enough to know, however, that material events may have their ultimate origin in immaterial causes.

You are not sure but somebody, who is into brain science, told you that thoughts are nothing more than a series of electrical processes with the brain. Again, perhaps you think the ancients were stupid and believed they thought with their toes. The ancients did all sorts of experiments on the brain to see how it effected thought. The soul, an immaterial substance, was not created so that people could have thought. The soul was thought to exist because it was considered, and still is by many philosophers today, to be the only way to maintain identity.

You must think that because modern science allows us to see the electrical processes that occur in the brain during thought this now absolutely proves that there is no immaterial soul that could cause the brain to act is such ways. Even more, machines that measure electrical processes of physical events rule out the existence of God.

Do you think the ancients had better vision than we do? Could they see immaterial things? No. They were just as limited as we are. Machine that allow us to material events that they could not put us in any better epistemic position for the propagation of material than say Leucippus or Democritus.

You place entirely too much trust in science. Actually, you give science a power which it was never suppose to have, the ability to exhuast our knowledge of the world. Do not get me wrong science is a good thing and tell us how the physical universe works. It has sufficiently proven the big bang and that evolution has occurred. Perhaps, someday it can tell us everything about the physical universe--I doubt it but it is not impossible. However, that will never rule out the possibility of the immaterial or that the immaterial causes the physical. We are in no better a situation concerning these topics than were the ancients.

It is a fallible thing. However, it is also capable of getting things correct. The brain is able to grasp immaterial truths, such as mathematical truths, logic, and propositions.

This was answered in my last post. You are not saying you don't believe me. You are saying a theist cannot know if God exists. I am saying they can, if they experience him or have reasonable arguments that proves his existence--the latter fails in my opinion.

You, however, rule out experience of God. That is, impossible for you. The fact remains though, that if they do experience God then they are rational for believing in God.

Well, I don't know why I would want to prove your claim. And a theist does not expect an atheist to prove God's existence.

This is, much like the big-fish scenario. I may not believe you, because I have never seen I pink unicorn. However, if you really saw a pink unicorn you would have every right to believe that they exist, regardless of what people believe.

If you claim to have seen one then I might choose to believe you, though my experience tells me they do not exist; much like Bigfoot and Nessy.

Do I have reason to believe you are lying to me? Do you have something to gain by telling me you saw a pink unicorn, have you shown a history of mental instability, do you lie often? These would all be factors in the decision to believe or not to believe. Though, if you really saw one, you did and you have every right to believe you did--even without proof, your experience is enough.

But then again the theist does not expect anyone who has not experienced God to believe in God.

Maybe you will say though that it is an invisible or immaterial pink unicorn. Well, I would say that that is logically impossible since invisible and immaterial things cannot be colored. An immaterial substance does not take up space or does not have extension and, therefore, cannot be colored. Only material things may be colored. A material thing may be invisible, though, but if it is invisible it does not have color. So, either way you’re screwed.

Again you must think theists are morons. Though if you do any research at all you will find that among some of the top thinker in all of history, in every discipline there have been theists or at least Deists. Even today some of the brightest scientists are theists (and I am not talking about the Creation Research Institute and Duane Gish, which is not science).


Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

You are not saying you don't believe me. You are saying a theist cannot know if God exists. I am saying they can, if they experience him or have reasonable arguments that proves his existence--the latter fails in my opinion.

I am not merely saying "God exists."

I am saying "I know God exists."

You are not merely saying, "I don't believe you."

You are saying, "You do not or cannot know God exists, you may only believe or assume that God exists."

You are saying, "I am wrong concerning my knowledge that God exists."

Can it be that you don't even know what you are doing or what your claim is? Would you like me to quote you? Ok, here it goes:


Notice here you say that with out complete knowledge one cannot know anything for an absolute fact.

Later, however, you say,

This appears to conflict with the first statement. First you say one needs to know everything to know anything, then you say one need not know everything to affirrm (i.e., know) one thing.

How can a person have a reasonable argument or conversation with someone who keeps changing their position. It is like trying to tack Jell-O to the wall. If you cannot remember what you are arguing please do not argue. Actually, I am the one at fault. I should realize that it is not worth while to argue or conversate with chameleons.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

SecularFuture is doing a fine job in the debate, but this topic fascinates me, so, although you have thus far ignored my posts, i am compelled to respond to your last post.

You seem a bit obsessed with definitions. "what does detectable mean?" I'd say, in order to say that something is detected, then it's been detected Seriously, I'd say that it must be detectable, in the same way, by anyone who tries to detect it using similar means. This is why we detect radiation, atoms, computer software and not any gods.

Supernatural is anything outside of nature. That statement is an oxymoron, of course, because we know of nothing outside of nature. We can speculate until our red dragon gods turn blue, but where does this get us? What next, "Do we exist?"!?

Supernatural doesn't mean immaterial. Energy is immaterial, though we can measure it's effect. Thought in our brains as well as software in a computer is a combination of energy and it's effect on matter - these can be detected.

Your unicorn comparison is interesting. All we have is your word that god exists. Outside of your brain, your god is undetectable. So, what worth or relevance is there to your god/placebo to anyone or anything else except a debate topic?

One issue I think you have is that you've spent too much time studying philosophy and not enough studying biology. The hard sciences have a certain advantage in that they are factual. Philosophers can debate existence itself, but, to what end? Can't we, for the sake of the debate, assume we exist, for example?

You refer to the ancients as if they had our science and technological sophistication. Do you ever consider that perhaps they thought up the god concept precisely because they lacked out science and technology?

What reason do you have to consider that thought is anything besides signals in the brain? This is the default position, since we know of no other explanation. We know of no ghosts or angels - creatures that are supernatural but can also think and have sentience. We only have ourselves, machines and animals to study. See my response above to Paul for some concrete biological science related to animal brains.

A pre-science culture can think that giant coconuts are the seat of the soul - what relevance does this have on what we know today?

If the ancients thought the soul was what makes us unique, then we must interpret this to fit into our modern knowledge, which far exceeds theirs, and say that the soul is the combination of brain cells and their interactions. We have pinned down their concept, just as we have pinned down the “atom” concept the Greeks came up with.

I've written several research papers on AI, over 10 years ago, and I can tell you with confidence that when we start to connect computer chips in a neural-network type fashion, we get everything from machines that can learn to some extent, to low-idle, dream like state. Of course, if we connected 10,000 chips to each other, via 10 million connections, we may approach the smarts of a bumble-bee, so we are a long way off. But we certainly have the foundation. Intelligence may be an Emergent Property; construct a system with simple rules and intelligence rises from the simple - all without a soul - similar to how ducks fly in formation using a few very basic, simple, rules. Their seemingly complex flight pattern is an emergent property.

Your views on science give you away. Here is the key difference between science and religion - if science would show, tomorrow, that the Big Bang is no longer the theory with the most evidence for universal origin, my feelings wouldn't be hurt. I follow the evidence.

Perhaps your dislike of science is it's failure to agree with your notions of the world. Since your god is undetectable, quit believing - it couldn't be simpler Why believe? Faith?!

To misquote Forest Gump, "science is as science does". Why do you think SecularFuture gives science "power"? Science brings us closer to any truth than any other "thing"; certainly more than religion and philosophy. Science is observation and testing. If your notions don't agree with this, then perhaps you should switch notions.

Actually, the problem with religion is that it gets it's tail ruffled when science fails to support it and it's supernatural claims. It's a bit like when the tribal medicine man gets caught with his pants down because the princess had a child, even though she was told, with certainty, that eating goat shit would be an adequate contraceptive.

Finally, avoid being provincial. This innate sense of God that we have – would pre-humans and other sentient animals have this sense as well? Will machines, when they can think? Will aliens, if we meet any? Do you really think humans have the market cornered in intelligence? Would each “race” have a different God?

Would you agree that if we meet aliens who do not believe in god, and, if they ever did in their primitive epochs and these gods were complete different than any gods on this planet, would that then make you doubt your faith?

Why or why not?

mnkbdky

Without precise definitions you get the garbled mess that has occurred with SecularFutures argument. Read Plato, he is nothing if he is not about precise definitions.

This is the process of detection, not what detection is. Detection is the act of detecting. It is the process of discovering, uncovering or revealing that which exists. In fact, the Latin infinitive root detegere means to uncover or reveal.

If one were to experience God, and I am not saying anyone is, but if one were to experience God that would qualify as revealing the existence of such a being, whether anyone else knew it or not.

Can you really be saying this? You really think energy is immaterial? First, maybe you should explain to us what energy is. From my knowledge, energy requires work, were work is defined as the forced exerted and the distance an object moves when force is applied. One type of energy is mechanical energy, which consists of both Kinetic energy and gravitational energy. Kinetic energy is the due to an object being in motion, which is express as:


KE = mv2 / 2

(the 2 by the v means squared)

m = mass
v = speed/velocity

Gravitational energy is also due to motion and is measure relative to the height and weight, which is expressed as:

GPE = wh

w = weight
h = height

Both types of Kinetic energy require material objects. Another type of energy is Potential energy. Potential energy is stored by some object. The amount of potential energy is equal to the amount of work done and proportional to the square of the displacement. For both Kinetic and Potential energy material objects are needed. All types of energy require material objects. Energy is the result of the "work" of material objects

Perhaps, one might ask if energy is materially caused, then, how does God do anything? This I cannot answer. Is energy required for the action of immaterial being? I do not know. It does not seem that it could be though since energy is caused by material.

Outside of your head the content of your thoughts are undetectable. So, what worth or relevance is there to your thoughts. That is, no one else but you can be sure that you have a mind which contains thought with content. Since, then, they are undetectable by others they are worthless--according to that argument.

I spent four years studying anthropology. I have friends who got their degrees in biology and physics. However, those disciplines do not satisfy the wonder of the human mind. If they did, then, we would not have philosophy. Perhaps, you should study the philosophy of science as well. Look into people like Thomas Kuhn, Alister McGrath and Jaegwon Kim (technically McGrath is not a philosopher; he is a theologian who has his doctorate in Physics from Oxford and has thought hard about the relationship between religion (God) and science.

If you ever read the ancients you will find that there are many argument against the existence of God which are very similar to the ones used today (i.e., materialism). Materialism is not a new concept. It is as old as dirt.

[quote]A pre-science culture can think that giant coconuts are the seat of the soul - what relevance does this have on what we know today?[/quote

Great straw man!

Perhaps you need to read why people think the soul exists. It is not that it makes us unique; material can do that quite nicely. The soul is the only way one can retain numerical identity over time. Greek, Indian and Chinese views of the soul are to maintain identity over time, not uniqueness.

Did you even read my post. I recall saying science is a good thing. I have the utmost respect for science. Your silly idea that religion and science are enemies is a cultural idea that you are mindlessly perpetuating. Both the scientist and the religious are at fault for this false dilemma. Science and religion, true religion, go hand in hand. Approaching science with an atheistic view point is just as guilty of metaphysical bias as approaching it with a theistic concept. No matter what one does they have metaphysical presuppositions. They will either approach their work believing God is behind all being or they will approach it with the belief that God is not. There is no escaping that. However, neither position is in a better position to ascertain the truth than the other. Metaphysics is a philosophical matter, Physics is a scientific matter. To mix the disciplines is serious error.

You are exactly correct, science is as science does. Science deals with what is physical. Science deals with what has occurred in history. To take an idea from Heidegger and Derrida, science is history. Science is the study of the patterns and events of material substances. It can do no more. The person who thinks science can give any answers to metaphysical question is conflating the two topics, a serious error. Science cannot answer whether or not the soul exists, whether there are necessary truths, or whether there are abstract ideas or if nominalism is true. The person who thinks it can is giving science power it does not have. To say that, though, is not to denigrate science. It is to know its limits.

Furthermore, the person who depends on science for the formation of their metaphysical beliefs is caught is a self-destroying box. That is, one believes that only material things exist because we can only detect material things. The assumption underneath this is the claim that one should only believe what they can detect. However, can one detect the truth of that belief? Can one detect that one should only believe what they can detect. It is a self-defeating belief.

Yuck! Keep throwing up your straw men.

In order for something to have a personal relationship with a personal being they must first be personal. We can, therefore, safely rule out all beings that are not personal as having a personal relationship with God.

The harder question is what qualifies as personal. Are chimps personal? I think the evidence suggests they are. They certainly seem to have self-awareness. They demonstrate emotions. They get depressed when their mothers die. In fact, some become so depress, they become ill and die themselves.

Are dogs personal? They have emotions, but sometimes I doubt they are self-aware. My dog use to bark at herself in the mirror. Perhaps, though that was cause by her running full force into a closed garage door.

If aliens exist and were created by God and he wished to have a personal relationship with them, then, I see no reason why they could not detect God.

Machines will never be personal. Machines will never be able to think as humans do. Many serious scientific philosopher, atheist and theist alike, know that that A.I. will never be personal.

Do not be under the assumption that theists do not doubt God's existence. They do, including me. However, this does not mean that I do not know he exists. For example, there are times that I doubt the physical world exists. Sometimes, when I contemplate the concept of time (of which I have no clue what it is) or space, I also wonder if idealism is not true. Matter or material things need not exist in order to have experiences of objects. Here I am referring to Berkley. However, this doubt of material existence does not get in the way of saying that objects exist. The doubts are normally overcome by ones trust in their experiences. If all trust in their faculties is taken away, then, all knowledge goes out the window--even scientific knowledge (you might want to read Hume on that one). The fact is, though, for the most part our faculties do produce true beliefs. The are reliable, provided they are in their right environment. The same goes with God. The times I doubt are when I doubt my experiences. When I trust them, then, I have knowledge.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Damn theres a lot of words in this thread! I really hope that this debate doesn't turn into a part time job. I'll have a huge response for all that has been posted so far before the end of this day [June 3rd, 2003].