The Inner Life: Beyond Science?

[Adrift]

Mere claims are not credible evidence. Claims of revelation are not in themselves credible evidence. If I told you that I walked on water, if I told you that I spoke to God in a burning bush, if I told you that I saw someone floating up to heaven, if I told you that there were over 500 witnesses there etc etc., you would not believe me. The words of men in and of themselves are not evidence of truth. A better discription for these claims would be incredible, and few would be naive enough to believe them if their culture did not impress it upon them from their youth. The only objective evidence for a divinity that has ever been put forth is that the universe exists, ergo it must have been created. The universe is not evidence that the universe was created, nor does it make sense, since one could then make the same argument for the creator of it.

I didn't really have religious texts in mind when I wrote that post. I was mostly thinking in terms of natural theology which doesn't rely on revealed theology. There are a number of arguments in natural theology that do not specifically concern the cause or existence of the universe. At any rate, in this post, you're touching on something you probably saw me say when you replied to my post, "whether or not that evidence is actually credible is where the debate occurs."

If you'd like some resources for books on natural theology as a primer you can check out JP Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. It's a little dated now, but it's got some great stuff in it. Then there's Craig's Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Other books include Tim O'Conner's Theism and Ultimate Explanation, and Stephen Davis' God, Reason and Theistic Proofs, but there are so many books out there on the evidences for a divine being.

[JimL]

Like I said, I don't think we'll make much more progress here. You seem incapable of understanding what the bowling ball/pillow analogy is in reference to, and seeing how the conversation is going currently, it doesn't appear that I'll have any success in helping you see your flawed analysis. Also, these aren't my arguments. I'm simply parroting arguments by far more intelligent thinkers than I. Nor am I attempting to make an argument here by parroting these arguments, I was simply attempting to set you straight on what the arguments actually stated, because it doesn't seem like you understand them very well (though, it appears that you've read them in the past). Finally, I don't see much that lilpixie needs help with so far. It sounds like she has the basic gist. I suggest you buy and read the book I suggested earlier. I think it will really help clarify a number of issues that you seem to be having with the arguments concerning God, time, and creation. You can currently buy Time and Eternity for about $14 on Amazon.

Well, thanks for the effort anyway. But, and btw, calling it my flawed analysis doesn't make it so. Since you admit to this not being your strong suit, and merely to be parroting the arguments of others, then perhaps the flawed analysis is your own.

[Adrift]

Well, thanks for the effort anyway. But, and btw, calling it my flawed analysis doesn't make it so. Since you admit to this not being your strong suit, and merely to be parroting the arguments of others, then perhaps the flawed analysis is your own.

Well, again, it wouldn't be my flawed analysis if all I was doing was parroting someone else's argument. It would be those philosophers and theologians who I am parroting who would be flawed. That said, I can actually see the flaws in your interpretation of the arguments. It's as if you're familiar with the words in the arguments, but not in the concepts and logic that make those words go together. I'm uncertain how you yourself can not see them with a little reasoning, but like I said it doesn't appear that I have the ability to steer you back in the right direction. That's why I highly suggest you pick up Time and Eternity. I think maybe if you had a book where you could read the entirety of the argument and see the big picture, and see how everything fits together, you'd get that "OOOhhh!!" moment where everything pops back into place. You might still not agree with the overall theory, but at least you'd understand how it all goes together.

[JimL]

Well, again, it wouldn't be my flawed analysis if all I was doing was parroting someone else's argument. It would be those philosophers and theologians who I am parroting who would be flawed. That said, I can actually see the flaws in your interpretation of the arguments. It's as if you're familiar with the words in the arguments, but not in the concepts and logic that make those words go together. I'm uncertain how you yourself can not see them with a little reasoning, but like I said it doesn't appear that I have the ability to steer you back in the right direction. That's why I highly suggest you pick up Time and Eternity. I think maybe if you had a book where you could read the entirety of the argument and see the big picture, and see how everything fits together, you'd get that "OOOhhh!!" moment where everything pops back into place. You might still not agree with the overall theory, but at least you'd understand how it all goes together.

Okay, thanks Adrift.