What makes you unbelieve Crash ?

You misunderstand me MrH. I have already admitted that you win in regards to MN not including God. He is seemingly untestable, but if you are now saying that it is likely he isn't there then I now have to be cynical about the previous discussion. People have suggested MN either says nothing - which is fine by me, or it concludes his none-existence. If it is the latter then like Buzsaw, I have to complain. To say there is no God because we have scraped the surface with a usable mechanism is speculation of the highest order. MN might not show a God. Personally, I see evidence all around me. I understand that you can not conclude he exists, is it more reasonable to conclude he doesn't exist? Do you conclude he doesn't exist? - Why is that more reasonable with our limited knowledge?All I am doing is concluding he exists because I have read the bible and followed the prayer instructions. As it was written, it has been done. I have followed and the prayers are succesful.I do not see my prayers as anything other than personal evidence. I completely understand if you utterly reject my PE as total fantasy, yet I myself am convinced. Is that so bad? This is why my prayers are a good example. If you want something that can only happen outside of your senses, then you will know that it is not yourself "making it happen". If I prayed for say - freedom, and recieved it, that cannot be caused by delusion.

quote:

---

I understand that you can not conclude he exists, is it more reasonable to conclude he doesn't exist? Do you conclude he doesn't exist? - Why is that more reasonable with our limited knowledge?

---

Going back to the planet that is made of cheese, for now, I will conclude that there is no such planet. If I have to conclude that everything that we've ever imagined exists, then the tooth fairy, along with the easter bunny, along with santa clause, along with the 7 dwarfs and snow white should really exist also.The lack of evidence in something suggest that it doesn't exist for now. Like I said before, if we start having hard evidence that God exists, I will be more than happy to change my conclusion.

quote:

---

This is why my prayers are a good example. If you want something that can only happen outside of your senses, then you will know that it is not yourself "making it happen". If I prayed for say - freedom, and recieved it, that cannot be caused by delusion.

---

If you prayed for freedom and got it, there are many many explanations that can be used to explain why or how you got freedom, not just God. With this said, I challenge you to pray for end in world hunger and actually have that prayer answered. There is a first step to making me accept there is a higher power out there.By the way, it is not proof that God exists if an alien race from the planet Vulcan makes contact with Earth and help us wipe out world hunger 200 years from now.

You are assuming that God is something we imagined - like a cheese planet or an easter bunny.Then again -Easter exists, bunnies exist and planets and cheese also exist. We imagine these things to an extent, yet they all contain some reality. Should you so easily dismiss that there could be some reality to God? So then you think for now, there is no alien life in the universe, and no other possible earth-like planets? Lack of evidence is not necessarily helpful to a conclusion.What would be evidence of God in the natural anyway? Crash is asking for something new that someone has never seen before. You guys want evidence of God yet you think MN makes no conclusions. Therefore - you have to accept what I am saying, evidence can be negotiated - belief and faith IS required in itself. If say MrH said "this and that would be evidence of God" what would stop me from saying "no it isn't" ? -- ? -- ?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2004]

quote:

---

So then you think for now, there is no alien life in the universe, and no other possible earth-like planets? Lack of evidence is not necessarily helpful to a conclusion.

---

This is why alien abduction stories are not taken seriously by mainstream science. About life on other planets, no scientist in his right mind would say there are life on other planets. We can hope that there are life on other planets, we can theorize that there are life on other planets, we can even write stories and make movies saying there are life on other planets, but for now there is no evidence that there are life on other planets or moons.You kinda lost me in your last paragraph there.

No offence Mike but if a couple of billion people believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing....

Mike,No, you misunderstand. Of course Methodological Naturalism says nothing about things that can't be defined, verified, or tested. If that silence sounds mocking or scornful of your precious beliefs, it should. Not only does it conclude God's nonexistence, it assumes that as a matter of course. Good for you if you want to believe 'personal evidence' (whatever that is), but if something has no objective support for its existence or influence on natural phenomena, then MN makes a point of ignoring it.regards,
Esteban Hambre

No. But if God is supposed to be an entity that takes unique action in the world, then we can test for that. The only kind of God you can't test for is the one who acts like he doesn't exist. Is that what you expect of the God of the Bible?I can't prove that no God exists. But if you say that God takes action in the world, I can prove that your God doesn't exist, by showing you that no such action ever occurs. Your personal testimony is insufficient. Prayer studies show that prayer is not effective in casuing any sort of effect. The studies are designed to eliminate a very specific human problem - the same problem that you ave right now. It's called "response bias" and it's the tendancy to re-interpret events so that you're proven right no matter what actually happened. See? Response bias. You shouldn't have made an appeal to numbers, then.

If MN says nothing about things that cannot be tested, verified etc, why then do you conclude:
" Not only does it conclude God's nonexistence, "Sorry to dissapoint you, but if you'd have read the topic that I made, with your name on it, you would have seen how easily I conceded that MN can have no view on God. I couldn't give a monkey's uncle what it says. However, if YOU say it says nothing about that which cannot be tested and verified and then you say " Not only does it conclude God's nonexistence " - well, how would it conclude anything? There is a contradiction in your post.I think the truth is, MN doesn't say God doesn't exist but you do. Science cannot judge that which it cannot see.'You can't hit what you can't see' Muhammad Ali

I was thinking more SETI, search for extra terrestrial intelligence (hope thats what it stands for ). You know, those guys who scan the universe for easter bunnies and santa claus. Well, my point is, if you seek evidence in order to believe in God you would then call it personal evidence. Because it is evidence that would satisfy you personally as to God's existence. However, what if you did think of something that would satisfy you, and MrH came along with his MN whip, and said that infact it is not evidence of God?So you see, evidence can be negotiable, and many would still not believe, and your personal evidence would sink, and eventually be forgotten. Take off the worldview glasses you have on for a moment, and think about it. I hope you'll see the point.

Raw statistics indicate that not only is there life on other planets, there is also intellegent life on other planets. If Microbrial life is discovered on Mars, those statics should increase exponentially.

Explain further and I might take heed.Are you saying that I am biased because I am somehow making them hits and won't admitt to none hits? I am aware that my prayers are insufficient for you - however, I am the witness, and for me they are sufficient. Especially in the way they have happened.If you conclude my "hits" are coincidence fair enough. I've only ever touted them as personal evidence. I am willing to admitt that I may unwittingly suffer a small level of response bias, I assume everybody believer might, but i don't think it can get rid of the "hits" - especially when they are independant of me - as in, if I prayed for freedom and I was free the next day, that is not something that bias would effect.Prayer studies are also insufficient, in that - God could add or take away too much hydrochloric acid. IOW, he might not want to play, especially if he knows that these are studies. Prayer is not just for asking for things so we can study results. But many have been healed. I have seen many testimonies of God taking action and has also taken action with me. "If they do not believe Moses, then they will not believe even if one rose from the dead". The bible also states that unbelief is the problem.

So are we to assume that you have been keeping meticulous records of what you say to God when you pray; exactly what you pray for, and have you determined in advance exactly what constitutes the fulfillment of the request?I mean, you can't actually know how many times your prayers have been answered compared to them not being answered unless you keep detailed records, and unless you are that specific about what constitutes a "hit".Your general impressions are likely to be heavily influenced by your wanting a certain outcome to be true.

Mike,

quote:

---

MN doesn't say God doesn't exist but you do. Science cannot judge that which it cannot see.

---

Oh, but it does. If science can't 'see' something, it judges it irrelevant. How else could you conduct scientific investigation? In essence, Methodological Naturalism is concerned with relevant factors in explaining natural phenomena. If a factor can't be detected, verified or tested, then MN ignores it. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to conceive.I already said that MN could in fact 'see' God if there were any objective physical evidence that He exists. Plenty of believers here claim to have such evidence, but in every case it turns out to be wishful thinking. I'm fed up with being accused of dogmatism because I say science demands evidence, as if empirical evidential inquiry can be conducted without empirical evidence.Since you want to assert the existence and relevance of God but admit that the only evidence supporting your assertion is personal, you'll just have to accept that MN has no need to recognize God. The only reason we use terms like 'metaphysical' and 'supernatural' in describing God is because there's really nothing we can say about the concept that's based in what we know about physical reality.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

As for the bible, I seriously don't understand why christianity even holds to the OT. I understand that the teaching of jesus are contained in the NT, and therefore have little to do with OT. However, considering that the whole reason there are any christian creationists is the OT, it seems that the OT is fair play.

---

Christians need the OT because the prophecies from the OT, which were supposedly fulfilled by Jesus as recounted in the NT, are used to show that Jesus is the true messiah.

But what if evidence for God is the universe? Or the earth? Or the stars? Or you?You see, it is only opinion that tells us these things cannot be evidence. CANNOT? Says who?Tell me now MrH, what would be your personal evidence? Oh? I thought it concluded none-existence? now it ignores it. So then why not just ignore this topic? It is your opinion that God doesn't exist. Many would conclude from nature that he does exist. Even I do, and WHO is to say otherwise that I should listen to THEIR opinion?
So I ask again, what would be your personal evidence? You can't have it both ways. If you say MN concludes his none-existence then tell me NOW what evidence would conclude it. I say that to the hell bent on being athiest, closed minded dis-contents - NO EVIDENCE would conclude it.