Forgiveness

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> DEREK

> <snip>

> The one thing I find amusing about the idea of the supernatural existing

> outside the human imagination is it's ability to affect the natural.  Does

> that not make it part of the natural?  It's like people who believe in the

> existence of the soul, which runs on the brain.  It's the Casper problem

> as Dennett put it.  Casper is completely intangible, but can touch and

> move solid objects.  The soul is completely intangible, but it can

> interface with both our neurons and the supernatural realm of which it is

> a part.

> 

> STOLTZFUS

> Assertion:  "The supernatural is completely separate from the natural."

> It is true (from my standpoint) that YHWH exists as pure spirit

> (although I'm not sure if the Incarnation contradicts this doctrine --

> to be honest, I haven't thought about it and it's not important to this

> discussion.  I only brought it up so that you don't have to.)

> 

> What I find curious is your conviction that the supernatural cannot

> affect the natural.  Are you saying that because matter cannot affect

> the immaterial, the reverse must also be true?  This is not a logical

> conclusion.  Especially since you're challenging the belief in the

> supernatural -- I don't know of anyone who believes in the supernatural

> who thinks that the supernatural is unable to manipulate matter.  And I

> challenge you to produce scientific evidence to support your claim that

> the soul does not interface with our neurons: maybe you've suddenly

> discovered something that you have yet to share with the rest of the

> world?  Last time I checked we didn't know everything there is to know

> about how neurological impulses are generated.

> 

> POOBAH

> Jason, you seem to have a habit of labeling statements you don't like as

> assertions (see your first statement above, which is not part of the quote

> Derek gave you).

> 

> Let's try to explain this so that your IQ can understand it: if the

> supernatural exists, then it can either affect the "natural" world, or it

> cannot. If it can affect the natural world, then the effects should be

> observable & quantifiable, which means that it is no longer supernatural, is

> it?

> 

> If on, the other hand, the supernatural can have no effect on the natural

> world, what use is there in theorizing about it? For all intents and

> purposes, it does not exist.

> 

> The point is, the definition of supernatural you operate on is incoherent

> based on the explanation of interaction with the natural world I gave above,

> and an incoherent definition is logically useless. The example we like to

> use in these parts is "invisible pink unicorn." Clearly since we can imagine

> such a thing it must exist, right? The problem is that "invisible" & "pink"

> are contradictory. The definition is incoherent. So it is with your

> supernatural. And your God, I might add, if you were courageous enough to

> offer up a definition.

> 

> Once again, the "scientific proof" that there is no supernatural is the fact

> that there is no observable evidence for it. If I'm wrong about that, and

> there is evidence, kindly point me in the right direction. Being the scholar

> that you are, you realize of course the only way to scientifically disprove

> something is to hypothesize observations consistent with that theory and

> demonstrate an inability to observe that behavior, or instead observe

> behavior counter to the theory. Would you care to give us a falsifiable

> claim about the supernatural? If not, what does that say about it being a

> scientific theory? If it is not a scientific theory, aren't you being

> disingenuous for demanding scientific evidence?

> 

STOLTZFUS
Gee, I guess I'm just taking it in the rear all over the place today. 
Well, I'm man enough to take it humbly.  And you have reason to treat me
with hostility, I suppose.  You know, I wish that there was someone here
on my side who was skilled in the use of logic so I could see a good
example of how to respond to your arguments.  This can't be fun for you,
either, to have to constantly correct my ignorance.  But failing the
presence of such a person, I've got to learn as I go.  The truth is,
I've never before tried to use science to disprove anything about
religion because I've never had the occasion to do so or want to.  I
appreciate the patience of those who have corrected me gently, and
understand the frustration and anger of those who haven't been quite so
gentle.  All I can say is that I'm making an honest attempt to see
things from your perspective and it requires time.  And all I can ask is
that you encourage me when I make progress, and gently correct me when I
make mistakes.  But when you insult me or patronize me, it only makes me
sullen and discourages me from trying again.  But I can't deny that your
hostility is justified; all I can do is ask for your patience.

Again humbly,

Jacob Stoltzfus

• Previous message: Forgiveness
• Next message: Forgiveness
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]