Determinism And Rationality.

[seer]

According to the as I said. Or do you have objective, verifiable evidence of a non-material universe?

How could you have physical evidence of something that is non-physical? And why should we all adopt your narrow view of things?

[Stoic]

Well you are a materialist... No room for anything else...

Materialism is more of a tentative conclusion for me. Though I'll grant that that seems unlikely to change very easily.

[Tassman]

How could you have physical evidence of something that is non-physical? And why should we all adopt your narrow view of things?

Why should anyone adopt a purely subjective "view of things" NOT based on objective, verifiable evidence. Without such evidence one could end up believing all sorts of subjective nonsense - like gods and life after death and silly stuff like that.

[Stoic]

How could you have physical evidence of something that is non-physical? And why should we all adopt your narrow view of things?

What would non-physical evidence be like?

[seer]

What would non-physical evidence be like?

Ask Tass, he is the one asking for evidence of a non-material universe. But by its nature I think the supernatural could only be known by experience, or historical accounts. Not something you could put under a microscope.

[shunyadragon]

Shunny:

The mind is not independent of the soul it is an inherent property of the soul. Your very thoughts and reasoning, understanding comes from the soul. Nothing you just quoted contradicts that. So human reasoning is not a natural phenomenon, it comes from the immaterial soul.

We disagree, but nonetheless the issue is whether other higher animals have attributes. The objective verifiable evidence has determined that other primates, birds, elephants and sea mammals have attributes of self awareness.

[seer]

We disagree, but nonetheless the issue is whether other higher animals have attributes. The objective verifiable evidence has determined that other primates, birds, elephants and sea mammals have attributes of self awareness.

You don't get to disagree unless you want to contradict you faith. Our intellect, which includes our degree of self-awareness, did not come about by natural means. Whatever primitive rational abilities animals may have, they could never develop to the degree that humans have, because what human have is God given and immaterial.

[Stoic]

Ask Tass, he is the one asking for evidence of a non-material universe.

It's to be expected that when you want someone to believe there is a non-material universe, they're going to ask you why they should believe it.

But by its nature I think the supernatural could only be known by experience, or historical accounts. Not something you could put under a microscope.

So, the supernatural could only be known by the kind of evidence that might only exist inside someone's mind.

[seer]

It's to be expected that when you want someone to believe there is a non-material universe, they're going to ask you why they should believe it.

How is that possible when dealing with a materialist? What kind of evidence would they accept?

So, the supernatural could only be known by the kind of evidence that might only exist inside someone's mind.

No, not really. Clear violations of the laws of nature could point to the supernatural, like Jesus walking on water. Or the situation that happened to me a few years back.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=Fern

[Stoic]

How is that possible when dealing with a materialist? What kind of evidence would they accept?

Ideally, the evidence would be something we could experience for ourselves.

Eyewitness testimony is good for most things, but as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, not really. Clear violations of the laws of nature could point to the supernatural, like Jesus walking on water. Or the situation that happened to me a few years back.

From my point of view, these things are the kind of evidence that might only exist (or have existed) inside someone's mind.

[seer]

Ideally, the evidence would be something we could experience for ourselves.

Eyewitness testimony is good for most things, but as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I wonder who made that up?

From my point of view, these things are the kind of evidence that might only exist (or have existed) inside someone's mind.

Why would you say that? Were you there?

[Stoic]

I wonder who made that up?

It was popularized by Carl Sagan, but the basic idea goes back at least as far as Hume.

Why would you say that? Were you there?

I don't have to have been there to doubt whether something really happened.

[seer]

It was popularized by Carl Sagan, but the basic idea goes back at least as far as Hume.

Of course, atheists.

I don't have to have been there to doubt whether something really happened.

I like to have doubt in my doubts... But one wonders on what basis you would doubt my fern story.

[Stoic]

Of course, atheists.

Even theists make use of the principle, except where it might interfere with their religious views.

I like to have doubt in my doubts... But one wonders on what basis you would doubt my fern story.

A floating fern is a pretty extraordinary claim, the idea that it is supernatural even more so, and the only evidence I have for it is the word of someone on the internet whom I've never met.

Imagine how many natural explanations there are that are more probable from my point of view:

1) Your memory is faulty
2) You were hallucinating
3) You are not being honest
4) You weren't very careful in checking for a hoax
5) Someone was willing to create an extremely elaborate and expensive hoax, possibly using magnetic levitation
6) Space aliens used some incredibly advanced technology to trick you

I don't have enough information to choose between these possible explanations, but I would consider each of them to be more probable than any supernatural explanation.

[seer]

Even theists make use of the principle, except where it might interfere with their religious views.

Perhaps, but I have never seen that.

A floating fern is a pretty extraordinary claim, the idea that it is supernatural even more so, and the only evidence I have for it is the word of someone on the internet whom I've never met.

Imagine how many natural explanations there are that are more probable from my point of view:

1) Your memory is faulty
2) You were hallucinating
3) You are not being honest
4) You weren't very careful in checking for a hoax
5) Someone was willing to create an extremely elaborate and expensive hoax, possibly using magnetic levitation
6) Space aliens used some incredibly advanced technology to trick you

I don't have enough information to choose between these possible explanations, but I would consider each of them to be more probable than any supernatural explanation.

I could pretty much discount all but number six. But that is the point isn't, the materialist could always deny the supernatural - based on a naturalistic philosophy that is unprovable, and on severely limited knowledge and experience.