Jobar

Theo:

Well, this is hoplessly circular, since it must be your senses that tell you they are reliable. This is really "I believe my senses are reliable because they tell me they are."

Bingo! We make this presupposition because it is necessary. We have no extra-sensory way to test our senses.

If we do *not* assume our senses are reliable, we are left with solipsism- our internal reality is all that's real or true. Then what? How do we live, how do we think, how do we act? I'll tell you how- WE LIVE, AND THINK, AND ACT *AS IF* OUR SENSES ARE RELIABLE! Because if we do not do so, we die- or get put in an asylum where we can curl up and be fed through a tube. The presupposition of reasonable sensory accuracy is required for survival in the world.

Since you seem quite alive, theophilus, and not being fed through a straw in some rubber cell, I can say with certainty that you act on the information of your eyes and ears, your tongue and your nose, and your touch. So you demonstrably trust your senses. QED.

Now. For your instruction, a conversation between Student and Teacher.

S: Master, what is true, and real?
T: Well, since I'm not wearing my Zen robes, I will refrain from beating you with a stick, and tell you that what is true and real for us both may be learned through our senses.
S: But master, how do I know my senses are trustworthy?
T: Well, kiddo, have they ever let you down? Have they ever lied to you?
S: Well... there was one time a few months ago, when one of the other students (it wasn't me, I swear!) slipped the acid into the school lunchroom drink machine, when my senses became quite untrustworthy!
T: Ah yes, I remember *very* well. (And if I catch the miscreant, he will wish that he was hallucinating.) But that was an extraordinary occurence, wasn't it? And you did in fact come down, and your senses once again started reporting impressions similar to what they did before you were drugged, didn't they?
S: Yes, master. Pretty much, anyway.
T: Don't worry lad, the flashbacks go away after a while. But let me ask you this. Remember how that Jones boy thought he could fly? And how he climbed out his window, and we had to pile up mattresses underneath him? What do you think would have happened to him if we had not done that?
S: He would likely have broken his neck when he jumped.
T: Right! He would have died because his senses were not reporting trustworthy information, yes?
S: Yes, sir. But... well... don't we think he would have died, because that is what our senses tell us?
T: Well, look at it this way. If we distrust our senses, we have no way of interacting with the world, so it is not only instinctive that we trust them, it's philosophically necessary. We have no choice in the matter.
S: But, master...
T: Quiet, or I'll go get my Zen robes.


I want to challenge *you* now, theophilus. Can you offer us a proof of your contention that your own presupposition of God is necessary in the same way trusting our senses is necessary? A logical construction would be good; or a little tale like mine would work, too. Can you demonstrate that atheism leads to a clear and insoluble contradiction?

phillip millar

Hi there,

In my opinion there is much which is commendable in the general thrust of Buck Swope's comments.

It occurs to me that attempting to prove by any vehicle the existence of the invisible God to a determined atheist is as futile as attempting to prove or demonstrate the concepts of light and color to a man blind from birth ( I say this by way of metaphor, not insult). No amount of logic, evidence or rationale will satisfy those who have not the faculty to perceive it. I might just as well offer a cure to a corpse on the condition that he takes it.

Best Regards

Shadowy Man

Your response is so rife with ignorance I no longer feel compelled to even respond.

Good day.

Cozmodius

Not 1 of the biblical references you use here is evident of a trinity concept in any matter whatsoever, nor will you find 1. Furthermore, I believe that you realize it.

You are either lying to yourself, which makes you delusional, or you are lying to others in God's name, which is an insult to the very name and true idea of the religion to which you claim to belong.

theophilus

I don't mind your disagreeing with me, but I do mind when you don't read carefully. As I said, the concept of the Trinity was "latent" in the Old Testament. Perhaps you need to look up the difference between latent and manifest.

Why do atheists find it necessary to constantly accuse Christians of lying or being delusional? I don't use those kinds of terms. They are not really helpful and don't adavance your argument. It just makes it appear that you have no real substantial response and so resort to name calling. Like using profanity.

theophilus

Well, Grasshopper, I'll do my best.
First, merely asserting the reliability of your senses, even if it "necessary" does not prove empiricism as a sufficient basis for making sense of human experience.

The "proof" is just the inability to make sense of human experience without some external authentication, i.e., the creator.

Now, here's a question for you. When did you ever "sense" the law of (non)contradiction?

Cozmodius

I am BY FAR more Christian than you are. It is precisely the type of closed mindedness that you exhibit that was behind the persecution and destruction of the majority of the early Christian movements (not to mention the biblical crucifiction of Jesus as well). Much of what you practice now is an abomination set into motion by a pagan emperor. Ever wonder why most of Christianity worships not on the Sabbath, as commanded by God, but on a Sunday...the day of Apollo the Sun God...(also known as Lucifer in some quarters)? Try and find some vallidation for THAT in the bible.

Yes, there was a trinity at the head of YOUR Christianity...their names were Paul, Constantine, and Augustine.

Jobar

phillip millar:
It occurs to me that attempting to prove by any vehicle the existence of the invisible God to a determined atheist is as futile as attempting to prove or demonstrate the concepts of light and color to a man blind from birth ( I say this by way of metaphor, not insult). No amount of logic, evidence or rationale will satisfy those who have not the faculty to perceive it. I might just as well offer a cure to a corpse on the condition that he takes it.

Hello phillip, welcome to Internet Infidels.

You *can* prove the existence of light and color to a man blind from birth. Start by taking him out in the sun, and let him feel the heat from the sunlight. Explain frequency and wavelength; demonstrate that sighted people do indeed possess ways of sensing things he does not; let him experiment with instruments which convert visible frequencies to audible ones. Although he will never actually perceive color- just as we cannot experience the difference between x-rays and ultraviolet- it is fairly easy to convince him that color does exist.

Those of us who come here and discuss God(s) without believing in him (them) are not asking for any more than what you would ask if someone tried to convince you that Santa Claus, or elves, or Thor, existed. Do you think you would believe any of those, if nothing but words were ever offered as proof? Would you believe that Santa had a flying sleigh just because someone showed you a department-store Santa? Would you accept a magical journey around the world each year just because children received toys on Christmas?

If you would not- then you know how we feel. And if you *would*- then I hope no one sells you any bridges. At least until I can sell you mine.

fishbulb

You miss the point entirely, Theophilus. Our senses *are* our experience. Without senses, we would experience nothing. It doesn't matter whether what we sense corresponds to some objective external reality; our senses *are* our reality.

"Fact" is that which can be reliably observed. "Truth" (in the philosophical sense) is a metaphysical concept. Interesting to think about, perhaps, but fundamentally not very useful, except as an emotional crutch.

Sometimes, we don't all agree on what we see. Perception is flawed, which is one reson we don't judge something to be factual based on a single observation by a single person. Sometimes, many people can make identical but inaccurate observations of the same thing. Our powers of observation are limited, and we must constantly re-check to make sure we haven't made a mistake. This is a limitation of perception. It means that things may not always be as they seem, but it does not mean that we should abandon our senses because they are not 100% reliable, or that we should assume the existence of things that cannot be objectively verified.

It is quite certain that there are things that exist which we cannot, at least at present, perceive. The existence of a creator god is a possibility that we cannot empirically rule out. But there is a big difference between not being able to disprove the existence of something and having evidence that the thing does exist. No verifiable facts have ever been presented that could properly be called evidence for the existence of a creator god in general, let alone the existence of the god of the Bible. Certainly, facts have been brought forth, but these facts provide as convincing a case for the existence of god as Erich von Daniken's facts provide for the involvement of extraterrestrials in ancient societies.

God may well exist, but if he never acts in a perceptible way, he may as well not exist. What is the difference between a God who sometimes answers prayers and a world of chance and probability where sometimes things turn out well and sometimes they don't? What is the difference between someone who feels love and inner peace because they believe in a god who doesn't really exist and someone who feels the same way because they believe in one that does?

Jobar

Theophilus, can't you hear yourself? Can't you read what you yourself are writing? HOW ARE WE TO MAKE 'SENSE' WITHOUT USING SOME SENSE- vision, hearing, smell, whatever?

"Make sense". You object to people calling you deluded or less than sane, but it really looks to me that all your efforts to prove the sanity and sensibleness(!) of your ideas demonstrate that you are in fact deluded and irrational.

And of course I can sense the law of identity; A is A. There. Read it. You sense it, don't you? If you don't *understand* it, I could offer a short discussion of logic and semantics, and explain it- by way of your senses.

And I note you make no attempt to demonstrate the correctness of your presupposition, as I have challenged you to. Why, you haven't even stated it! All you have done is to try to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of sensory experience- which trustworthiness you yourself must also assume.