So then, you make the claim that the universe as it is came about by entirely natural processes?
Could it perhaps be a different claim? I get the idea that you’re probably making the claim that Anarchists believe humans are inherently good - I find more commonly that there is no inherent human nature, and those that present the thesis that there may be, only do so as a projection of themselves onto an aggregate - and I believe that, though perhaps it is true for some, for others it may not be.
Perhaps Anarchists believe that humans are inherently bad and thus human monopolies on the use of power would be bad and the only way to effectively check this bad, would be to decentralize that monopoly. Could that not be the case?
What do you mean by “superstition”? What exactly do you think religion is? Do you believe in no divine presence? Do you believe that all spiritual claims are bunk?
Then perhaps you should consult the clergy in Lanciano, IT.
Now, admittedly this is not proof of the Holy Trinity or the Christian God, but it is proof of a spiritual realm and evidence of the Christian God.
So does someone who believes in gods, because for them the gods are natural.
That’s like saying “100% real ingredients”. Well of course, since none are imaginary.
Maybe you meant to ask a different question? I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please try again.
Well, no, it is merely proof that they have flesh and blood. Anything beyond that is supposition until demonstrated.
Well no, whatever process nature came by is “natural”. The claim atheists make is that it [the universe] came about randomly or was not purposeful.
The issue is not whether it is proper to use coercion only whether there is an alternate option. If we can not demonstrate that there is a viable alternative to the state then statists are correct.
Ah, except it was demonstrated.
Did you look at the tests below? The eucharist itself, though definitely understood and given as a part of the miracle, is not so much the interesting part about the science.
Scientifically, how is it that the flesh does not spoil and the blood does not evaporate without additives, without preservatives, and without a climate controlled environment?
If this is not proof of spiritual (or supernatural) activity, then you are willfully blind.
That they have flesh and blood. Yes. I said that.
An excellent question. I look forward to when the causes for it are demonstrated.
-
If there are gods, then they are natural. Saying “supernatural” is a non-sequiter.
-
Why can’t I buy blessed meats that never spoil, without refrigeration, in the grocery store? Because what you have there has not been demonstrated to be what you believe it to be.
I’m not going to say it isn’t, because I don’t know what it is. You think you know what it is, so prove it.
I’m becoming very frustrated with the god-types who think anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what they believe is therefore wrong. No wonder religion has been the cause of so much death and destruction throughout history.
So, you’ve never heard of the term “supernatural” before? Sorry to hear that.
OK, so I see you’ve heard of it. You just deny it. You have a metaphysical (definitional?) devotion to the idea that everything which exists is natural. Praytell, what is your definition of natural? Because it seems to me natural phenomena must obey laws of physical cause and effect, which non-physical beings acting on the physical universe would clearly violate.
Very well, you believe that the universe and the life in it are unplanned?
Natural in the sense that nature itself is defined by God’s existance. In that way, miracles are natural.
Talk about non-sequitur.
If god created nature, then god exists outside of nature. If god exists outside of nature, then god cannot be percieved. If god cannot be percieved, then there is no point to talking about the matter to begin with. If god is a part of nature or if god is nature, then god must abide by the laws of nature, which would eliminate all of the transcendental attributes of a god. From a materialist perspective, something that exists outside of nature is the same thing as non-existance.
Therefore, god doesn’t exist.
Using natural science in the attempt to prove the supernatural makes no sense, and in fact it runs counter to the entire point and meaning of “faith”. Science in and of itself can have nothing to say positively or negatively about the supernatural, pro or con. It deals with natural phenomenon.
I’m not a fan of David Hume, but I did like this :
[Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 4 (1794-1796): the Age of Reason](http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4583>Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
This is pretty good as well :
<a href=)
Well, right, but the use of that argument necessitates that you confirm materialism as the valid metaphysic for reality, which has not yet been done.
No, because God can be percieved within the Natural realm (cosmology, miracle). Certainly his totality may not be able to be known, but this does not prove non-existance.
It is not possible for the immaterial to be proven. It can only be a matter of faith. The very attempt to prove the immaterial would have to rely on the material, and hence be self-defeating. It amounts to using the tools of materialism to disprove materialism. It simply falls apart logically, we need not even get into the nitty gritty of natural science to see the problem.
True.
True.
Well, isn’t that subjective preference ?
True…from a materialistic perspective.
You atheists are such arses. No. It was demonstrated that something paranormal occurred. When placed in the context of the Church, it is evidence of the Christian claim.
It is quite simple actually. It is abnormal, and thus specifically paranormal.
According to who?
That doesn’t seem to be any kind of logical statement. Why could it not be that they are only found in Lanciano - or other geographic areas around the world?
Even accepting that nothing spiritual exists, your statement is illogical. This is common, however, among militant atheists; you usually are the most close minded of people.
Now run along back and suckle at the teet of Ayn Rand.
**
It’s been proven. My claim was that it is proof of (spiritual) paranormal activity. Paranormal activity is any activity that lacks scientific explanation.
Science attempted to explain it; science failed - because humans are failures and their reasoning capabilities are small at best. Thus, it is paranormal.
Your atheism is false. Deal with it.
What are you talking about?
I presented evidence of the Christian God and you said, “NO IT’S JUST SPOILED MEAT, LOLZERZ”
And for the record, I am much more open to other religions and consider myself a catholic in the sense of accepting the messages brought about by Christ and anyone that adheres to those same ideals (including Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, followers of the Baha’i faith, etc.) delivered by similar manifestations of the LORD.
Talk about needing to get a grip of yourself - no, I don’t mean your dick, you pre-pubescent gnat.
Or perhaps could it be that God is unknowable directly but reveals Himself indirectly through manifestations?
No one has even started to propose how electrochemical pulses provide subjective experience. I can tell you about red all day, every scientific aspect of it, and you would have no idea what the experience of red was like. We experiecnce the immaterial every waking moment, as much as materialists try to deny it. We are the immaterial. Who reads this now? Who asks the question?
There are recorded circumstances of near-death experiences, where the patient saw specific details of what was going on around them, when all guages said they were brain-dead. Statistically significant and consistent effects have been shown in well-documented and large laboratory studies of ESP.
I think, therefore I am. In truth, it is the physical which cannot be proven. You know something mental is experiencing, at least at this moment, because you are. Everything else could be illusion. This demand for proof ultimately invalidates the universe.