Demiurge

So... you're saying you have be a theist in order to have a basis for determining what would be meaningful evidence of a supernatural being in the first place? Think about what you're saying, theo. You're saying you have to be a believer in order to see the evidence for why one should believe.

CX

And this is completely in line with mainline Paulo-Xian theology. It is part and parcel of the doctrine that only the "spiritual man" can "discern spritual things". Look at 1 Corinthians 2:14. Here Paul comes up with a brilliant "out" against skeptical or critical arguments. Nevermind that it is unconvincing to the critical thinker, it is meant to sooth the doubt of the believer in the face of critical questioning. It is a last line of defense like faith. Basically you have to believe first without understanding and then, once you do believe, it will make sense to you. It is circular and silly, but it is an effective catch 22. This same argument can be used for disagreements over the meaning of scripture. A non-Xian can be refuted by simple virtue of the fact that understanding the NT requires the indwelling Holy Spirit. Where this argument falls short is that it is inconsistent since very often, in my own case anyway, my exegesis of difficult biblical passages concurs with that of the believer. Which leads one to conclude that sometimes the Holy Spirit is indwelling in me and sometimes not. Despite the fact that I am a rank unbeliever.

Quetzal

Demiurge and Cowboy:

I normally don't post on these boards - I have neither the background nor the interest to effectively argue EoG - but I was struck by theophilus's statement concerning believers being the only ones capable of evaluating evidence for belief. This seems to me to be very similar to the paranormalists' claims that their particular flavor of pseudoscience or paranormal ability won't function in the presence of skeptics. IOW, it seems to be an example of the "multiple out" violation of the rule of falsifiability.

Paranormalists, when faced with the lack of reliable physical evidence to buttress their claims, often use the multiple out as an excuse. Examples include psychic spoon benders, telekenetics claiming to effect random number generators, or water dowsers whose "powers" only work if not exposed to "negative vibrations" from skeptic observers. UFO proponents point to secret "government conspiracies" as to why there is no evidence for their claims. In short, an inexhaustible series of excuses intended to either explain away evidence that would falsify their claim OR explain why there is no evidence for their claim. Heads I win, tails you lose. There is literally no conceivable evidence that could falsify the claim.

Is this what I'm seeing here, or am I missing something intrinsic?

DarkBronzePlant

You've basically hit upon the central power of Christianity and religion in general. Christianity will feebly try to prove or simply provide evidence of its validity and, when unable to do so, will present excuses such as:

- God works in mysterious ways.
- It is/was God' will.
- You haven't listened hard enough for god.
- You can't experience God if you don't believe in him (hurray for circular logic!)
- It is God's word, so it simply should not be questioned.

Oddly enough, these excuses seem to meant as much for Christians and the "believers" as they are for us non-believers.

theophilus

No, I'm saying that knowledge "of" the supernatural can only come "from" the supernatural, i.e., self-disclosure, i.e., revelation, i.e., the Bible.

DarkBronzePlant

Interestingly enough, the Bible is a book, written on paper, and can only come "from" man.

I've always wondered why, if the Bible was really written by god, it wasn't written in flaming letters across the sky. Now THAT would have been self-disclosure and revelation!

theophilus

Invalid conclusion.

theophilus

I'm sorry you were struck by my remarks because I never said that. I said that unbelievers have no basis upon which to assert that they can evaluate evidence for/against God. This is an epistemological argument.
Since God is, by nature, supernatural, his existence (on non-existence) is not subject to natural "proofs," certainly not by any tests devised by natural men.

We do not arrive at faith by an intellectual process, although it requires that the intellect be engaged. Faith is the result of a spiritual encounter by which God makes it possible for the unbeliever to believe. This does not mean the unbeliever is excused from belief, because it is his willful rebellion which prevents him from believing.

theophilus

The "proof" for God is the impossibility of the contrary. Knowledge and understanding of human experience is impossible without objective definitions which cannot come from within the system itself.

theophilus

Well, wouldn't that have been uneconomical. Besides, you would have some explanation for that too: "atmospherice anomaly; dillusion; wishful-thinking." Besides, you've never really thought that, because that is a stupid thought and you risk being thought stupid for writing it. It's just one of those clever sounding slogans that give the impression that the Bible is defective when it is not.
The inscripturation of God's word provides a permanent, transmittable reference of God's working and speaking. It is an emminently reasonable means of communicating.