Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

By your definition, I don't consider God 'supernatural'.



Quid pro qou:



Given that I (not necessarily you) consider God's existence a possiblity...is my belief in God irrational given the above evidence?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

I'm not sure. I guess I'd have to know what your definition of God is. I've never heard anyone who defined God as being subject to the laws of nature.

Does that mean we should be able to detect the physical evidence that God would have to leave behind?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Ok...this is an honest start.

I don't define Him as such...I don't 'define' God. God (to me) is a 'who' not a 'what'.


More to your point, I'm not claiming God is subject to the laws of nature. I hold that the laws of nature are subject to God. However, I am claiming that God is not confined to only existing 'outside of nature'. I'm not really sure how this sits with your definition of 'supernatural'.

Regardless, I think we both know who (and in your case what) we are talking about. Though I would make no such distinction...you most likely would typify God as 'supernatural'.


Absolutely. I consider most of the evidence above physical in nature in that most of it can be witnessed by people other than myself. And all of it can be experienced individually.


What are your thoughts?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

That would make God supernatural.


If you have physical evidence and that evidence is so substantial that similar evidence would be convincing of the existence of other supernatural entities, then your belief is rational. In other words, it is incoherent to reject Ramanujan's claims that Namagiri whispered his magnificent equations to him while citing your own performance in a 3-day programming challenge as evidence of your God. It is incoherent to reject the feelings of peace and contentment offered by others as evidence of their gods, while offering the same as evidence of yours. It is incoherent to dismiss the claims of answered prayers of non-Christians as something other than evidence of their gods while offering the same claims as evidence for the Christian God.


I have to confess that I feel a little uncomfortable speaking about why I believe your personal theism is irrational. I know these experiences were very important to you and it makes me feel a bit callous to be treating your specific experiences as point so be refuted in a debate. If your skin is thick enough or you feel that your individual experiences are more relevent than a general example, let me know and we can continue along these lines. If not, we can try to keep things general enough to prevent this discussion from seeming like a personal insult.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Yes and no. You stated that your idea of 'supernatural' was...

I don't hold that God exists only outside nature. In this case God wouldn't be supernatural.

I don't believe God is subject to natural law in the same way we are. Does this make us 'hyponatural' or God 'hypernatural'? I don't know. Does it really matter? To clear the ambiguity: I do hold that our universe is a proper subset of Reality. I guess you can interpret this as you wish.


I am making no statement about Ramanujan's claims.

I am making no statement about claims other people make.

I am making no statement about dismissals of others claims.


<SIDENOTE>This has been mentioned before K. I am not making a statement why you as an atheist should consider one belief over another. I'm not even making a statement as the why I have chosen the God of the Bible over other religions.
</SIDENOTE>

The only statement I am making is that 'God exists' and I have given the above reasons as to why I believe this statement.

I'm sure that you would concur that IF one is open to the possiblity of God's existence (ie me...not necessarily you) one can view the above as evidence for God*. Don't you agree?


* And again, I'm not stating anything about other peoples beliefs or stating why I chose one belief over another.





Not at all. I think this is enlightening. In fact the exact thing I am interested in is why you think my belief in God is irrational. That is why I asked the question.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

It sounds like we are on roughly the same page when talking about God. I don't think the disagreement is in this area. When I use supernatural from now on, I'll mean something that is not subject to the laws of nature.

By claiming the existence of a God that is incompatible would necessitate the falseness of these other claims, you are in fact making a statement about those claims.

A belief in a monotheistic deity is a de facto rejection of the evidence for other gods.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Cool.



Not true. Person A states 'X exists'. Person B states 'Y exists' and feels that 'X and Y are incompatible'. Person A doesn't even know person B exists. Person A is not claiming anything about person B's(who he doesn't even know exists) statement.

Concur?

All I am saying is 'I believe God exists...here is the evidence that supports my belief'. I make no other claims.





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

This is true assuming that person A has also heard nothing of person B's statement.


That is not true. There are claims implicit in nearly every definition of God.

You do know of other theistic claims. Many have been discussed right here. So unless your definition of God allows all of these other gods to exist equally, you are rejecting the evidence of others by specifying an attribute of your God. For instance, if you claim your God created the universe, then you are rejecting the arguments of those who claim that their gods created the universe.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
This is pretty disappointing K.


I am simply asking you to address the evidence I've given as it pertains to my belief in God.


You have not done this once despite my numerous (read over 5) requests.


Your reluctance to simply evaluate my belief in reference to the evidence makes me skeptical of your motives. Indeed this seems to be the complete opposite of 'freethought'.




Before we go any further can you please explain why you won't do this?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

I have done it many times now. I explained that your belief was incoherent - this was part of the definition you offered. Now it appears you are asking me to evaluate your belief in a vacuum - it's much easier to make beliefs coherent if you remove those contradictory facts.

The evidence you use to support your God is the same evidence that you reject when offered by others as proof of their gods.

You can't claim to be monotheistic and at the same time claim that you say nothing about the existence of others' gods. If you believe your God is the only god, then you reject the evidence of others. You don't have to explicitly state that you reject so-and-so's evidence. If the theory you present to explain your evidence is incompatible with their evidence, then you have rejected their evidence.

So, again you've asked why your belief is incoherent. And again I've answered. Simply pretending I haven't answered won't make the answers go away.