“I’m not assuming any such thing. I’m examining the claim that they do.”

You said that the question was wether or not the supernatural world interferes with the natural world. That question presupposes the two are separate to begin with. That is, that the supernatural already isn’t needed to keep the natural going.

“No, because my belief is a falisfiable hypothesis which is yet to be falsified. It’s perfectly rational for me to hold my belief.”

You’re deluding yourself about the scope of science, and ignoring the point of prayer. Specifically, you’re attempting to say that science can test the spiritual. It’s a ridiculous position. I already gave you the scenario in which you could test “prayer can’t heal” and so I won’t repeat myself. Also, you’re treating God like He’s your own personal trick monkey. That when a human being prays then God MUST act, like a monkey called on to do a flip. God works how He wills, to think of God as a formula is a presupposition you hold to, not anything science informed you about.

Oh, and just because studies have been done, doesn’t mean the experiments or the conclusions were scientific.

” The thing about people in a church is that they’re self-selected as a group who are very willing to accept a supernatural explanation for mundane events. I’d get the same result if I went to a New Age convention or a meeting of UFO enthusiasts. It doesn’t prove anything.”

You are exactly right. Also, going to a group of atheistic scientists and showing evidence of a supernatural event is equally pointless, because they’ll just find a hypothetical, speculative naturalistic explanation and call it a day. Abiogenesis anyone?

“Don’t you think that’s a little strange? I’m curious: do you have such an example? And it needs to be from your own personal experience, not hearsay or something from a friend-of-a-friend or something from the bible.”

I’ll just tell you right now Matt, the reason you didn’t see God working around you, is because you had already defined was qualified as “God working” in your mind. Just don’t be surprised when God doesn’t fit your definition of Him. Secondly, you’re absolutely right, you’ll always have a naturalistic, speculative answer for everything if you want there to be one.

“Abiogenesis does not violate any natural laws. Just because something is not well understood doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a natural explanation. This is the classic “God of the gaps” argument. You go right up to the edge of our knowledge, point to what is unknown and say “God did it” as if that explains anything.”

Just because you say something, doesn’t make it true Matt. I gave you a natural law that abiogenesis DOES violate, the law of biogenesis, if you actually have a counter argument, or some evidence for this law being observed and tested to be violated, then please present it. But since I know you don’t . . .

But that is exactly what you’re doing. “Just because something isn’t fully understood . . .” is a science-of-the-gaps argument! But your situation is much worse than that. The “God-of-the Gaps” canard that atheists like to use, is based on a particular view of God. Just because we can explain how something happens with empiricism doesn’t mean that God is absent of that phenomena. Your idea of God, even hypothetically, is an entity that created the natural laws and then “left them alone”. This is not the Biblical view of God. If God never left the natural laws alone, and is fully involved in them even now, then there are no “gaps” for God to fill, because He’s already in everything!

“Two things to remember: first, knowledge is advancing all the time, so this boundary too will be pushed back. And second: “God did it” is not an explanation (as previously pointed out).”

Are you really going to ignore that God did it is a metaphysical explanation, pretend that “everything is material” is NOT a metaphysical explanation and keep pretending that the only explanations that exist are empirical explanations?

” You agreed that empiricism is acceptable in a purely material universe. So I assume that the universe is purely material. This both gives me a justification for empiricism and it gives me a tool for identifying the supernatural: it’s where empirical methodology breaks down.”

Whoa, whoa. When did I ever agree with that? I agreed that empiricism would be you’re only source of knowledge in a material universe, not that it is “acceptable” or “reliable” in such a universe. In either universe, since empiricism can’t prove empiricism, you have no way of knowing it is reliable. The question still stands, and you haven’t even tried to answer it. ESPECIALLY in a material universe, you have no explanation for empiricism and reason for considering it reliable. You are just blatantly ignoring the implications of the question. But that’s ok, it’s a question you can’t answer if you stick with your empirical presupposition, which you’ve done this whole time without fail.

“It’s false logic for you to claim superiority for your particular supernatural belief just because it supposedly “explains” empiricism. The point (very well made by Zhatt) is that any supernatural deity will fulfill this very basic requirement.”

Well done. You completely ignored the point. In fact, you admitted the point and yet, you’re not disturbed by it. It seems that you have no problem not being able to explain why you consider empiricism reliable, and how you know it works. You don’t have answers to this question, and yet you don’t mind that. Well, I guess there is just nothing left to talk about. You’re going to blindly follow your empirical presuppositionalism without question, even when the question is brought to your doorstep. I guess that’s it.

And you’re right, ANY orderly, rational and all-powerful supernatural deity will explain empiricism better than empiricism. That’s the point. You can say, “Well it’s not necessarily the Christian God”, but that’s tantamount to sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem this presents to your knowledge of the reliability of empiricism and WHY you consider empiricism reliable. But, you’re being a good atheist, never waiver in your faith Matt. Never waiver.

When I use the term faith, I define it as “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”. If any evidence is supporting the belief, then it’s not faith, but just more empirical inductive logic. Do you believe in God because you feel it’s the most reasonable explanation based on the evidence or do you believe in God no matter what?

I know that my wife loves me. Can I actually observe and prove this love? Of course not, but I know it. Now, if she cheats on me and then kills my parents, I might be begin to doubt this love, to say the least.

Your wife most likely loves you based on your history together. You’ve gathered evidence that she cares about you, such as maybe the backrubs she gives you or how she bought you that book you’ve always wanted. If she goes on to kill your parents, then you have evidence that she no longer loves you, or maybe never had. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, you can’t know for certain, but it’s unlikely that she’s been tricking you all the time you’ve been together. If you had faith that she loves you, than you’d believe that she loved you no matter what she did.

Firstly, in the Christian worldview, God claims to be the only more times then I can count, so you’re actually wrong.

But what if God just doesn’t understand the higher existence above him and dismisses the idea? God is a-uberistic in the same way I’m a-theistic.

…you’re just grasping for straws here. I understand you’re dilemma, I really do. You’ve just been shown, by a YEC Christian (who you’ve been taught in all your atheistic reading are country bumpkin nincompoops), that you have no reason to trust empiricism, and you can’t explain why you find it reliable.

Uh, I don’t really appreciate the high-and-mighty tone here. I don’t really want to debate if you’re just going to say “I just showed you how right I am and you’re just having trouble dealing with it! Na-na bo-bo.”
I’m not grasping at straws as I’m not trying to make a direct argument for empiricism right now; I’m just trying to show you how your explanation sounds to me.

I have my reasons for understanding a natural, ordered, empiric, monist universe and they serve me quite well. You may see them as circular, but so far every belief system I’ve seen looks circular. You have faith because of god and you have god because of faith. You believe you have evidence that God exists, but you’re presupposing god in the first place. Hopefully I’ll have some time this weekend to start writing up my reasons.

And no, I don’t think all Christians are country bumpkin nincompoops. You seem quite intelligent and you’re starting to grow on me (at least you were until you got all high-and-mighty). I wouldn’t still be talking to you if I didn’t think you were capable of reasonable thought. I generally ignore the nincompoops. And I admit, that I actually haven’t done any “atheistic reading” (though I’ve been meaning to (but I’ve also been meaning to read the bible)). Most of my beliefs have come about though talking with my friends, and lately though browsing a few blogs and even talking with some Christians in person.

Are you being the one who thinks that all atheists are hard-assed book worms disconnected from the world?

But, seriously, if you reply to only one thing give me one good reason why Mr. Uber cannot and must not exist.

…your argument basically boils down to, “Well, just cause you can explain empiricism and I can’t, doesn’t make Christianity ‘true’.

Part of my argument in this thread is that just because you can conceive a way to explain empiricism by means of the supernatural, doesn’t make the supernatural true. I’m not really concerned about God being a Christian god, but the idea of there being any sort of god or gods at all.

It’s because convincing anyone that something is true is impossible. That’s completely up to the individual.

Maybe, but you can convince a rational person that something is the most reasonable explanation. As for faith, I don’t know how you convince someone of that other than by indoctrination or brainwashing.

You are either seeking God or you’re not. You’re either honestly considering a different worldview, or you’re not.

I’m seeking answers. Either you are wrong or I am and I’m hope that one of us might be enlightened or, at least, we gain a better understanding of other’s worldviews.

In the atheistic universe, souls don’t exist….So, if you constructed a worldview in which God doesn’t exist but souls do, that’s not atheism and then you’ve got a whole ‘nother set of problems.

Huh? Sorry if I’ve misrepresented myself, but I don’t believe in souls.

If I see a random dead guy on the street I don’t know that guy, but I still call the cops, or cover his body. I still have respect for the dead wether or not I knew the person, absent of emotional attachment.

I’m sure there would be a lot of people who would just walk on by. I can’t say for certain that I’d do, but I’d probably do something. That’s not because I have an innate respect for this guy, but because there’s probably a family out there who’s missing. I don’t like the idea of a family worried to dead about this guy when I could have helped quell that anguish. These things often come back around to you in a practical karma sort of way.

Even if there is no practical reason to do something about the dead guy, it was the way I was raised and I’d feel like crap if I didn’t. But not all people are raised that way.

I call it “respect for the dead” and you called it an “emotional attachment”. The question still stands, why would we have such respect in a universe where souls don’t exist…..atheism can’t explain it, and the Christian worldview can. So, when you have respect for the dead, you are literally standing upon the Christian worldview.

I have my reasons for why I might have respect for some random guy, why I want to make people happy and why I do selfless things, but I doubt you’d listen to those explanations seriously as they include things like evolution, theory, induction logic, and maybe even a few “I’m not too sure about this part”s.

By the way “atheism” doesn’t explain anything. It’s not a theory; it’s just the state of not believing in theism. If someone just never happened to think about a god, this person would technically be an atheist. Just not a self proclaimed one in the same way I’m not a self proclaimed azaburbist (The zaburb is a magical animal I just made up that lives in-between layers of earth).

…a random beginning does not lead to the apparent order that allows the universe…

No? Why not? A drop of water may land haphazardly into a lake, but the ripples it makes propagate in quite an orderly fashion. The beginning of the universe may be a “random” event, but that doesn’t mean that the event itself must be totally chaotic.

Atheistic metaphysics also cannot explain the existence of immaterial, abstract absolute laws.

These abstract absolute laws are our explanations of the natural world. These laws only live in are head and are, as you said, abstract. Our understanding of the natural world is imperfect.

…let me ask you a question. What would it take for you to be convinced of God’s existence, or of the Christian God’s existence?

Hum. Well, since I don’t believe that you can have natural evidence for something that is supernatural (because then the supernatural is understood by us and becomes the natural) than I would necessarily need supernatural evidence. I don’t know what supernatural evidence would be, but then I shouldn’t, as the supernatural is incomprehensible by empirical means. I guess I would have do just start believing via faith; ignore all the evidence and make the leap. But if I ask myself why I would do that, I have no answer and there is no reason to start believing. But asking “why” is empirical rational, so I’d just have to have faith in faith. You see that I have an unattainable starting point unless I was born into it.

“Oh, and I’m going to steal your bloding technique because the blockquoets are gaudy.”

Yea, I think Matt did that first and I liked it so much I stole it as well.

“No? Isn’t all faith blind? Do you support your faith with evidence? If so, is it truly faith?”

I was under the impression that faith had something to do with being unable to observe or prove something. I can have evidence for God, but I still can’t see Him, so I must have faith. Not all faith is absolutely based on nothing.

“If, somehow, all your evidence for God was thrown out the window (maybe all your friends and family admit they have played a very cruel joke on you and have completely made up the Bible, God and the entire religion) would you still have faith in the Christian God?”

Let me put it this way. I know that my wife loves me. Can I actually observe and prove this love? Of course not, but I know it. Now, if she cheats on me and then kills my parents, I might be begin to doubt this love, to say the least. Likewise, if I had had faith in God and/or Christ, and yet when push came to shove there was no merit, evidence or truth in that faith, I wouldn’t have held on to it.

“The Uberealm also explains the Christian worldview quite elegantly as well, so shouldn’t we both start praying to Mr. Uber?”

Firstly, in the Christian worldview, God claims to be the only more times then I can count, so you’re actually wrong.

Secondly, and more importantly, you’re just grasping for straws here. I understand you’re dilemma, I really do. You’ve just been shown, by a YEC Christian (who you’ve been taught in all your atheistic reading are country bumpkin nincompoops), that you have no reason to trust empiricism, and you can’t explain why you find it reliable. In place of this, the YEC puts “God”, and the frustrating part is that God really does explain the universe you live in, and empiricism, better than atheism can. So, in rebuttal, you attempt to draw a correlation to a fictional “Mr. Uber” and your argument basically boils down to, “Well, just cause you can explain empiricism and I can’t, doesn’t make Christianity ‘true’ “. Zhatt, I agree with you. I haven’t convinced you that the Christian worldview is true. But that isn’t because of any fault of the arguments, or of the Christian worldview. It’s because convincing anyone that something is true is impossible. That’s completely up to the individual.

You are either seeking God or you’re not. You’re either honestly considering a different worldview, or you’re not. There are a thousand ways that you can explain away the Christian worldview, and so my goal is not to convince you. My goal is to show you that the Christian worldview explains the universe you live in better than the atheistic worldview can. But not only that, but atheistic metaphysics must stand upon Christian metaphysics to make any sense. That’s my point, I showed that clearly. And that’s where my point ends.

“Part of the answer is in what you said: “We respect the bodies of the dead because they are representative of the souls who have left them…” “

But see, Zhatt, that’s the point. In the atheistic universe, souls don’t exist. We are nothing more than biological and chemical bells and whistles. So, if you constructed a worldview in which God doesn’t exist but souls do, that’s not atheism and then you’ve got a whole ‘nother set of problems.

“The body is representative of the person who was. There’s a lot of emotional attachment to that form and image for those who knew the person.”

Firstly, that’s not even true. If I see a random dead guy on the street I don’t know that guy, but I still call the cops, or cover his body. I still have respect for the dead wether or not I knew the person, absent of emotional attachment. Secondly, did see what you did there? You just begged the question. I call it “respect for the dead” and you called it an “emotional attachment”. The question still stands, why would we have such respect in a universe where souls don’t exist, and the person is literally annihilated at death? Where would we even get such an idea?

The point isn’t that you, as a thinking person, can’t explain away this respect for the dead. The point is that atheism can’t explain it, and the Christian worldview can. So, when you have respect for the dead, you are literally standing upon the Christian worldview.

“So far I’ve only seen you argue that empirical beliefs stand upon metaphysics. I haven’t seen you argue that they must be Christian metaphysics.”

OK, I’ll be more clear this time. Atheistic metaphysics consist of a purely material world, since the world is only material, therefore the beginning of the universe was random (unguided). Atheistic metaphysics cannot explain the absolute laws that nature seems to follow. That is, a random beginning does not lead to the apparent order that allows the universe, this earth, and us on it, to exist. Atheistic metaphysics also cannot explain the existence of immaterial, abstract absolute laws. One example of these laws, are the Laws of Logic. For instance, the Law of Non-Contradiction is an absolute, unbreakable law that is also immaterial, and yet it exists just as much as any material thing does.

Christian metaphysics not only explains these phenomena that the atheistic worldview cannot, but every single time an atheist depends upon, believes in, and uses the uniformity of nature and the Laws of Logic, they are using the Christian worldview wether they like it or not, wether they realize it or not, or wether they’ll admit it or not.

“Even if you do happen to argue me out of my purely empirical understanding (and you are giving me a lot to think about), why would I go straight to Christianity? What does the Christian God have over Allah or Zeus?”

That’s a great question Zhatt. Before I can answer it accurately for you, let me ask you a question. What would it take for you to be convinced of God’s existence, or of the Christian God’s existence?

There should be a preview button!

I’m not assuming any such thing. I’m examining the claim that they do.

“Isn’t your belief that ‘prayer doesn’t heal’ just as metaphysical as my belief ‘God can heal through prayer’? “

No, because my belief is a falisfiable hypothesis which is yet to be falsified. It’s perfectly rational for me to hold my belief.

“Neither can be tested empirically.”

Wrong. Your belief can be tested empirically. You could examine the recovery rates for people who have been prayed for versus people who haven’t. In fact, such studies have been done, and what’s more, have been inconclusive.

“You walk into any church in this nation, and ask for examples of supernatural events, and you’ll have a hundred people in line to tell you their encounter with God’s supernatural power before you can blink. And yet, all their stories are rejected based on your presupposition, without any empirical evidence for doing so.”

The thing about people in a church is that they’re self-selected as a group who are very willing to accept a supernatural explanation for mundane events. I’d get the same result if I went to a New Age convention or a meeting of UFO enthusiasts. It doesn’t prove anything.

And it’s actually very easy to get me to accept their stories. I only have to see one genuine violation of natural laws. In all my years as a devout Christian, I never once saw anything or heard any story that must have had a supernatural explanation. Not once. Don’t you think that’s a little strange? I’m curious: do you have such an example? And it needs to be from your own personal experience, not hearsay or something from a friend-of-a-friend or something from the bible.

“Abiogenesis violates all known natural law, namely the law of biogenesis, and was, theoretically, accomplished by forces we have no empirical knowledge of.”

Abiogenesis does not violate any natural laws. Just because something is not well understood doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a natural explanation. This is the classic “God of the gaps” argument. You go right up to the edge of our knowledge, point to what is unknown and say “God did it” as if that explains anything.
Two things to remember: first, knowledge is advancing all the time, so this boundary too will be pushed back. And second: “God did it” is not an explanation (as previously pointed out).

“Empiricism cannot prove empiricism, so then how do you know it’s reliable?”

I addressed this with my previous comment. You agreed that empiricism is acceptable in a purely material universe. So I assume that the universe is purely material. This both gives me a justification for empiricism and it gives me a tool for identifying the supernatural: it’s where empirical methodology breaks down.

“The true point isn’t that my worldview is better, but that your worldview is standing upon mine.”

It’s false logic for you to claim superiority for your particular supernatural belief just because it supposedly “explains” empiricism. The point (very well made by Zhatt) is that any supernatural deity will fulfill this very basic requirement.

To Zhatt you said “Your Uberealm explains the universe you live in better than your atheistic worldview does.”

Zhatt’s point was that it also explains the universe better than your Christian worldview does. And we know the Uberealm is completely fictitious! Therefore, using your “self-explanation” criteria as an argument for the reality of a particular belief is clearly a fallacy.

My faith in God isn’t “blind”

No? Isn’t all faith blind? Do you support your faith with evidence? If so, is it truly faith? If, somehow, all your evidence for God was thrown out the window (maybe all your friends and family admit they have played a very cruel joke on you and have completely made up the Bible, God and the entire religion) would you still have faith in the Christian God? If so, your faith is blind. If not, then you were simply believing based on hearsay and misunderstanding.

Your Uberealm explains the universe you live in better than your atheistic worldview does.

The Uberealm also explains the Christian worldview quite elegantly as well, so shouldn’t we both start praying to Mr. Uber? What’s a good reason not to? I mean, the supernatural realm must come from somewhere, right? God was very well designed indeed to be able to grasp everything within His and the natural realm as well as all that He creates within it.

“Why do we consider the dead something to be respected if the person truly has literally ceased to exist?”

Part of the answer is in what you said: “We respect the bodies of the dead because they are representative of the souls who have left them…” The body is representative of the person who was. There’s a lot of emotional attachment to that form and image for those who knew the person. Personally, I don’t really care what people do with my body after I’m dead. And I’m really not going to care what you do with it after I’m dead. I’ve considered donating my body for science, but throw it in a dumpster if you like. But that would be a great disrespect to my family and friends. Unless they secretly hate me; then whatever.

Why do we have this idea and the animals don’t?

Many animals are different because they don’t have the same understanding of time as we do. An animal may not connect a body with the live creature it remembers. Thing is, it seems some animals do recognize the connection. Elephants often go to a specific spot to die and other elephants will visit the “grave site” on roughly a yearly basis.

My goal is merely to show you that your empirical beliefs stand upon the Christian metaphysics…

So far I’ve only seen you argue that empirical beliefs stand upon metaphysics. I haven’t seen you argue that they must be Christian metaphysics. Even if you do happen to argue me out of my purely empirical understanding (and you are giving me a lot to think about), why would I go straight to Christianity? What does the Christian God have over Allah or Zeus?

…and why isn’t there a preview button?

“Gah! I’m sorry for butting in, but you just blew my mind Eric.”

Gah! I’m GLAD you butted in. Feel free to do so anytime.

“Your saying that our understanding that empirical inquiry is based on blind faith, but don’t you do the same?”

My faith in God isn’t “blind”, it allows me to explain many things that empiricism can’t (empiricism being one of them). This is called the transcendental evidence/argument for God’s existence.

“You might be able to work a way to explain empirical inquiry from your supernatural presupposition, but you belief in your presupposition is based on faith as well!”

Correct.

“Something else I’m wondering is if your beliefs are based in faith and, as you say, ours are as well, how can you really say one is better than the other?”

You answer that for me by saying . . .

“Just because one explains the other, doesn’t mean it’s better.”

Actually, that is exactly what it means. But let me put it a different way.

You and I are living in two completely different universes. In your universe, only the material exists, empiricism is the only way to knowledge, and everything you see was brought about by matter and chance (the beginning of the universe and life was unguided). As we’ve already discussed, you cannot explain how you know empiricism is valid, and you also can’t explain how nature seems to be behaving uniformly every where we go. A chance universe cannot explain the uniformity we see all around us. Not only this, but you are unable to explain many other things.

Let me give you one: it also seems that every human being has an innate sense of the dignity of human life. Specifically, we bury our dead. If humanity actually existed in a universe where we have no immortal soul, no after-life and death is all around us in nature all the time, death is literally necessary in such a universe, where would we even get the idea of dignity? Why do we have this idea and the animals don’t? Why do we consider the dead something to be respected if the person truly has literally ceased to exist?

In my universe, on the other hand, everything is guided by an all-powerful Creator who is the source of all knowledge and also created our immortal souls. So not only can I explain the apparent uniformity in the universe, but our obvious dignity and respect for life and the bodies of the dead makes sense. We respect the bodies of the dead because they are representative of the souls who have left them, not merely the shell of a biological creature who has ceased to exist. Our idea of respect for the dead would have a rational origin.

The true point isn’t that my worldview is better, but that your worldview is standing upon mine. You have respect for the dead do you not? This idea originates from, and is explainable, in my universe, not yours. You believe the universe to be uniform do you not? and you depend on this uniformity to do your science right? This idea originates and is explained by my universe, not yours. You are standing in my universe, with ideas, philosophies and metaphysics that only make sense in my worldview.

“Now I’ve either converted you to start believing in the Uberealm (or something like it) or you think this is a load of bull. But this is basically what you’re trying to tell us (that there’s a higher existence that we can’t see or understand) and we, as well, see it as a load of bull.”

Your Uberealm explains the universe you live in better than your atheistic worldview does. So thank you for proving my point.

I don’t expect you to convert to Christianity, I would love it if you did, to have another brother in Christ added to the Kingdom, and I will pray for you. But my goal isn’t to convert you. My goal is merely to show you that your empirical beliefs stand upon the Christian metaphysics, and that your metaphysics are only explanable by the Christian worldview, and not your own. What you do with this information is up to you. You can think it’s bull all you want, but you’re still standing in my universe with all your respect for the dead and empiricism that depends on nature’s uniformity.

That’s what my supernatural presupposition has over yours. I can explain why and how I know empirical inquiry is reliable. You must take it on blind faith.

Gah! I’m sorry for butting in, but you just blew my mind Eric.
Your saying that our understanding that empirical inquiry is based on blind faith, but don’t you do the same? You might be able to work a way to explain empirical inquiry from your supernatural presupposition, but you belief in your presupposition is based on faith as well! You have faith that empirical inquiry is validated though the super natural.

Something else I’m wondering is if your beliefs are based in faith and, as you say, ours are as well, how can you really say one is better than the other? Just because one explains the other, doesn’t mean it’s better.

For example, lets say I believe in the “Uberealm” where “Mr. Uber” exists. Let’s say that I believe that Mr. Uber created an existence with the Natural and the Supernatural. Then Mr. Uber made God within the supernatural so God could create the substance in this existence and the natural existance (for example: Earth). God may have said that he has always been, and in his level of existence, it’s true, but Mr. Uber created that existence. Mr. Uber gave god unlimited power and choice withing both the natural and super natural, but since Mr. Uber made God, he knew God would make the Earth as it is. Ie: Mr. Uber made the Earth.

While the Uberealm is beyond the comprehension of any Man or God since it is outside the realm of science or faith, I have evidence that it exists: The natural and super natural combined universe exists. Without the support framework of the Uberealm, the universe, both natural and supernatural, would cease to function.

This belief explains the Uberealm, the supernatural and, finally, the natural. Since you can’t tell me where god came from, and since the Uberealm explains it, the Uberealm must be a better and higher ideal than yours. And if you just think about it, both in mind and spirit, you will understand and truly know why and how our universe works.

Now I’ve either converted you to start believing in the Uberealm (or something like it) or you think this is a load of bull. But this is basically what you’re trying to tell us (that there’s a higher existence that we can’t see or understand) and we, as well, see it as a load of bull.

—-

And yes, I’m still working on a formal reply to the “why believe in an empirical world when you can’t empirically test it” question.

Sure. If only the material existed, then empiricism would be the only reliable source of knowledge about the world around us.

“We also agree that once in a hypothetical supernatural universe, empiricism breaks down because material senses are no longer a reliable source of information. We can’t make empirical conclusions about supernatural entities.”

If by “supernatural universe” you mean “in a universe where the supernatural exists”, then sure.

“Here’s my problem: religious claims involve an intersection of our material world and the supernatural realm.”

You are assuming that the two are mutually exclusive and can’t co-exist together. It is your assumption that God, if He existed, would be content to create the natural laws of the universe and sit back and watch, intervening when He willed, but staying out of the way most of the time. This is not the Christian worldview, this is not what the Bible teaches. You are assuming that the natural world is completely self-sufficient and doesn’t “need” God to function on a day to day basis. “Of course a hypothetical God has the power to influence the natural world, but He isn’t necessary for the natural world to maintain”. This is your contruction of the hypothetical God we are arguing about, not the Christian one. If we were to argue, even hypothetically, about the Christian God, it would be a God that is necessary, is in and through all things, and in Him we all move and have our being. That isn’t to say that the natural and the supernatural aren’t made of different substances, they are, but that is to say that the natural wouldn’t exist without the supernatural. Not just in origin, but in function.

“If this were the case, then we would see violations of empirical observation as evidence of this intersection. And we don’t. Prayer doesn’t heal. Miracles don’t happen. Prophecies are not fulfilled.”

But see, this is where your position becomes ironic, circular and hypocritical. You may be able to argue hypothetically about an existence in which the supernatural exists, but you actually live in a world where only the material exists. That is, your presuppositions inform you about what you consider “reasonable”. For instance, your presuppositions tell you that the supernatural doesn’t exist, therefore the Bible, and all it’s accounts of supernatural events, are rejected on the basis of this presupposition alone, it has nothing to do with evidence. Any evidence you see, you filter through this presupposition. You walk into any church in this nation, and ask for examples of supernatural events, and you’ll have a hundred people in line to tell you their encounter with God’s supernatural power before you can blink. And yet, all their stories are rejected based on your presupposition, without any empirical evidence for doing so.

Ironic: You hold Christianity up to the light of empirical inquiry, but not your own beliefs about Christianity. You say, “Prayer doesn’t heal”. Really? In order for that claim to be held up to the rigors of empirical inquiry, and be deemed “rational”, you’d have to observe every single instance of prayer and every single instance of every sort of healing, neurological, orthopedic, psychological etc and find that there is no causal relationship. Is such an empirical study possible? No? Since your claim “Prayer doesn’t heal” can’t be empirically valid, why do you believe it? Isn’t your belief that “prayer doesn’t heal” just as metaphysical as my belief “God can heal through prayer”? Neither can be tested empirically.

Hypocritical: This has two parts. 1. “Miracles don’t happen” I can paraphrase with, “The supernatural doesn’t happen”, can’t I? Ok, so this is a hypocritical statement because you again can’t empirically verify that “The supernatural doesn’t happen”. In order to hold this claim up to the rigors of empirical inquiry, you’d have to view every single instance of natural phenomena and then determine that only the natural is involved in every instance. Can such a thing be empirically accomplished? Of course not. 2. The definition of supernatural is something that “is outside all known natural laws or forces”. You are fooling yourself into thinking that you also don’t believe in supernatural events. Abiogenesis violates all known natural law, namely the law of biogenesis, and was, theoretically, accomplished by forces we have no empirical knowledge of. We have speculations and words, but all empirical evidence points to abiogenesis being “outside of all known natural laws or forces”. You believe in the supernatural too, you just disguise it by calling it something else.

Circular: You have still not been able to answer the big question. And with every post your situation becomes more dire. You must ignore that your only source of reliable knowledge can’t tell you that your knowledge is reliable. Empiricism cannot prove empiricism, so then how do you know it’s reliable? The longer you can’t answer this question, or refrain from admitting your inability to do so, the more dogmatic you become.

That’s what my supernatural presupposition has over yours. I can explain why and how I know empirical inquiry is reliable. You must take it on blind faith.

You’re right, we have been getting a bit off-track, particularly given your point in the original post! I’ll attempt to bring it back.

I would like to further pursue the homosexuality-in-the-New-Testament issue, but I’ve put a post on that over at my own blog so feel free to jump in there if you want to.

I think we agree that empiricism is acceptable in a purely material universe, because it involves only logical inference and conclusions based on our material senses. Experience has shown this to be reliable. As you put it: “God doesn’t seem to be tricking us.”

We also agree that once in a hypothetical supernatural universe, empiricism breaks down because material senses are no longer a reliable source of information. We can’t make empirical conclusions about supernatural entities.

Here’s my problem: religious claims involve an intersection of our material world and the supernatural realm. This is where we disagree, when it’s claimed that the supernatural world can influence the material world through such things as, for example “divine revelation”.

If this were the case, then we would see violations of empirical observation as evidence of this intersection. And we don’t. Prayer doesn’t heal. Miracles don’t happen. Prophecies are not fulfilled.

In fact, some violation of empirical observation is the only thing that would genuinely indicate the presence of the supernatural.

The absence of any such evidence is obviously not evidence for the absence of a supernatural realm, but it is certainly evidence for the absence of any intersection between that realm and ours.

“I am enjoying this discussion!”

Me too!

“Not at all. I recognise it and admit it freely.”

That’s not the point. The point is that you no reason for subscribing to it. Responding to your next point will explain.

“But I do claim it to be reliable within its particular sphere of reference.”

This statement requires circular reasoning. Calling empiricism “reliable” begs the question of how you know it’s reliable. Empiricism can’t tell you that empiricism is reliable. Since empiricism, your only source of reliable information, can’t inform you that it is itself reliable, you have no reason for believing it is actually reliable, and you especially have no reason to believe it is alone reliable. In other words, you have no way of explaining to me why you consider only empiricism to be reliable.

“If you want to get into the realms of the supernatural then of course empiricism goes out the window. But so does objective reliability.”

Firstly, this again begs the question of how you know empiricism is reliable. Also, I never want to force empirical evidence “out the window”. That’s not what I’m trying to do. My attack on empiricism as an absolute presupposition of the non-theist worldview, as you hold to it, is only to point out that since empiricism is unreasonable, the only truly reasonable source of knowledge, even if the argument is taken hypothetically, is God.

Secondly, there is no such thing as “objectivity”. Sure, in a given situation we can try to be as objective as possible, but any attempted objectivity will not reach deep enough to absolve us of our presuppositions. That objective reliability exists, and empiricism is the only source of such reliability, is your presupposition. To state that objective reliability goes out the window with the supernatural is to pretend that 1. objective reliability exists in the first place, is to 2. restate your presupposition of empiricism, and is to 3. again beg the question that you can’t answer.

Let me ask you a question though. Hypothetically, let’s say I give you that empiricism is the only reliable source of information. My question to you is . . . and? This is a question about the scope of empiricism. To whit: what empirical evidence, what knowledge based on empiricism, tells you that God is not needed for this world to exist and to function? And, when that answer is “nothing”, then why do you believe it? (Remember that you can’t include logical inference into this since it’s not “empirical”, more on that later)

“Absolutely. And so it is. Without empiricism you’re left with anecdote and subjective “feelings” and leaving yourself wide open to charlatans of every stripe.”

You have set up a false dichotomy. Not only are you pretending that empiricism is not subjected to “feelings” and empirical charlatans don’t exist, you are manufacturing a scenario in which there is no middle ground. Surely, those who open themselves up to any spiritual “truth” or experience will get tossed about by the whims of each “next big thing” and any fellow who claims to have found “it” (kind of reminds me of science actually, with it’s constant fluctuations). However, someone who is seeking a rational experience from a rational God has several options.

1. There are many fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. It isn’t a circular thing where, “The Bible says that the Bible fulfills prophecy”. The Bible, the OT and NT, was written over the course of thousands of years. Prophecies that were written of a thousand years before they occured (and we know about when they were written due to manuscript evidence) were then fulfilled and written down by eyewitnesses.

2. Eyewitness accounts of supernatural events as recorded by the NT, namely the works and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And not just one dude who saw one thing, try five hundred people who saw the risen Christ and those who knew where He was buried could not refute them.

3. Logical deduction of the truth of such events and of the Christian worldview in general. For our purposes, your inability to explain to me why you find empiricism reliable, while only the Christian doesn’t have to subscribe to circular reasoning and begging the question in regards to empiricism. We can actually explain why empiricism works and why nature appears uniform.

4. Personal interaction with this God and supernatural phenomena either regarding an outside manifestation or the evidence of a changed inner person.

The combination of all these things make a personal experience with God reliable. In fact, since God is the source of all knowledge, only God’s knowledge is reliable knowledge (this can include empirical knowledge of course, but thinking of empiricism as “God knowledge” actually gives us a reason to find such knowledge reliable instead of just blindly believing it is without a reason to do so as you are).

“Sure, but it doesn’t really get us anywhere.”

(You said this in relation to a God explanation) The only reason you are able to say this with a straight face is because you consider empiricism to be the only source of reliable information, which, you cannot explain why that is so. Since you can’t explain why empiricism is the only source of reliable explanation, this statement is void of logic. God absolutely allows us to explain things in a metaphysical, and logical, way that empiricism can only shrug at.

“It’s just as likely that the supernatural entity is NOT a reliable source of knowledge. It may be capricious and devious. How would you know?”

That’s certainly possible. But since nature seems to be uniform, understandable, and we can discover things about it, God doesn’t seem to be tricking us.

“But your assumption that the supernatural exists is no better or worse than my assumption that empiricism is reliable.”

Ah, but see, that’s the problem, it IS better. As I’ve already said, God allows me to explain why I believe empiricism to be reliable. He also allows me to explain why nature appears uniform, why the universe seems to follow certain abstract, immaterial laws, why the Laws of Logic exist (also immaterial and abstract), why humans have a sense of dignity, why humans have a universal sense of morality, why humans feel they should act morally, how life came about: and those are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

The empirical answer to these questions is not existent. In fact, empiricism can’t have anything to say about metaphysics because metaphysics are simply outside of it’s scope.

“You believe that God is the only reliable source of knowledge, and you rely on that belief because you also believe that your knowledge and ability to reason come from this reliable God.”

More like God allows me to explain why I find my reason reasonable. Without an absolute reason-giver/reason-maker, what do I have to compare my reason to, in order to call it reasonable?

You then go on to critique the Bible and Christianity based on the criteria I gave you of the prophetic, historical, archeaological. I don’t mean to ignore your points, I don’t want to, but those answers are just too lengthy here. I will dedicated posts to them and then we can discuss accordingly. I can’t promise anything on the time frame of those posts, but I do want to address them.

“No, that’s incorrect. The claim is that prayer heals the sick . . .”

The Bible never claims that prayer DOES HAVE power. The Bible claims that God can, if He so wills, act through prayer to heal those He wants to. It’s a God, supernatural, thing, not a “prayer does X” thing.

“The bible is only one account. Where are the other contemporary accounts? The bible is not a even a true contemporary account. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, or anyone who had met Jesus.”

That’s just straight up false. But again, the answer is too lengthy to put here.

“We know how the natural laws of the universe work because we see them in action, consistently, again and again and again. That’s observation.”

I know that you’re not saying that we observe the entire universe acting with the same natural laws that we observe around us, because that’s not possible. We can’t observe the entire universe, we can only observe the world around us, which amounts to a tiny, insignificant fraction of the entire universe. We then take those observations and extrapolate and conclude that the whole universe acts that same way. This is the assumption of the uniformity of nature. It’s an assumption because empiricism can’t give us evidence regarding it.

Also, look up the assumptions of “induction”, this will also help you with the scope of empiricism.

“We can examine the consequences of our theories and see if they are represented in reality. That’s experiment.”

So, in reality, do you see one kind of animal turning into another kind? Of course not. So you can’t say that qualifies as experiement. Macro-evolution, the large scale changes, are inferential conclusions made by scientists, there is no way to observe and test it directly and any honest evolutionary scientist will tell you the same. Therefore, you can’t call the macroevolutionary conclusion “empirical”.

But here is the important part: When I challenged empiricism, and you defended it, you literally called logical inference “empirical”. You have now, smartly, backtracked. Logical inference is not observable and testable.

“I don’t need to recreate the birth of the universe to understand it, any more than I need to generate an artificial gravity field to understand how gravity works. We can still see, examine and measure its effects.”

I never said anything about “understanding” it. We’re talking about “empiricism” not, “understanding”. You can understand the logical inference that is made about a theory, that doesn’t make the logical inference “empirical”. You don’t need to generate an artificial gravity field because GRAVITY IS ALL AROUND US! Observable! Testable! Is the beginning of the universe all around us? Are you saying you can observe the beginning of the unvierse? Examine the beginning of the universe?

Please, get a hold of your credulity regarding anything that is labeled “empirical”. Just because someone tells you it is, doesn’t make it so. Please, think for yourself, and examine the scope of what is “observable and testable”, and what is inferential conclusion masquerading as science.

“That’s exactly right. Don’t dismiss this as not worthwhile, though. Your “quotes” indicate that you think such arguments could not possibly have any value.”

I’m not dismissing the worthwile value of logical inference. We must do it on a daily basis to survive. I’m merely pointing out that logical inference is NOT empirical. It’s just not. I’m also pointing out that logical inference is informed by our presuppositions, which makes logical inference not “objective”.

So, I really want to respond to the rest of what you have to say. However, this comment is just getting too long. I’d like to stick with our argument about the scope and circular reasoning of empiricism. The first post I will dedicate some time to is one about Biblical prophecy so we’ll get there first.