The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.

What does the evidence show Phat?

Even if Jesus existed before the Buddha he taught nothing until he was in his late twenties to early thirties.

No but the Spirit was around. The question is whether there is more than one possible flow that is good. We are talking both source and content.

But there is no evidence of any Spirit Phat.

There is no evidence of any Demons.

There is no evidence of anything Supernatural, Good or Evil.

AbE: the fact remains there are no moral principals unique to Christianity.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

jar writes: But there is no evidence of any Spirit Phat. There is no evidence of any Demons. There is no evidence of anything Supernatural, Good or Evil.

Subjectively I have experienced enough vague sensations to not personally require any more evidence. Bad Burrito? Nahhh I don't think so. Others may require evidence in order to satisfy their argument. It appears that you have chosen to study the human attempts to describe, define, and quantify God as they understand Him. (or Her/It, for you) I have chosen to believe without objective evidence. Evidence is irrelevant to my understanding.

So tell me this: When you, a self-proclaimed Christian pray, do you have any conception of who it is you are praying to? Or do you consider the question impossible to assess or conclude?

For the record, I am clear on who I believe I am praying to. I prefer to call it "communicating with". Objectively I have no method of showing you what I feel, see, believe, or experience. My attempts at clarification may result in word salad, but you always cloud the issue (and frame the argument using *your* standards) when you use that term. This is hardly Language In Thought & Action, here. It is a simple discussion.

Phat writes: This is hardly Language In Thought & Action, here. It is a simple discussion.

But it most certainly is Phat. You are using words but they don't seem to make any sense.

Phat writes: Evidence is irrelevant to my understanding.

The above is a great example of where Language in Thought and Action is relevant to this discussion. How can you have any understanding without evidence? You can have beliefs or fantasies or thoughts or guesses or opinions or slogans or word salad without any evidence but how can anyone have understanding without testing and evidence?

Phat writes: For the record, I am clear on who I believe I am praying to. I prefer to call it "communicating with".

Again. Communicating is a two way transaction. You cannot communicate with something unless that thing can and does respond.

Phat writes: So tell me this: When you, a self-proclaimed Christian pray, do you have any conception of who it is you are praying to? Or do you consider the question impossible to assess or conclude?

When I pray I can use a placeholder, a symbol that I create and choose, but that is all that it is. There is absolutely no way for me to know who if anyone or anything is on the other end of the line. I can pray to God or Allah or Ganesha or Coyote or Raven or Shiva or Vishnu and it is all the same. If there is any answer it is the content that is relevant and important, not the source.

How can you have any understanding without evidence?

Are we talking objective evidence?

You can have beliefs or fantasies or thoughts or guesses or opinions or slogans or word salad without any evidence but how can anyone have understanding without testing and evidence?

I test my belief every day.

Is there a test I am missing? Just by hanging out here at EvC I allow my belief to be falsified by others...though I myself cannot simply throw it away...I don't see how you ever could unless you hold evidence and science in higher regard than Faith & Belief.

Phat writes: I don't see how you ever could unless you hold evidence and science in higher regard than Faith & Belief.

Of course evidence should trump faith and belief.

How can you have any understanding without evidence? Are we talking objective evidence?

There isn't any other kind.

If it is not objective then it is not evidence. It is merely conjecture and wishful presumption.

But the whole concept of God and whether there is one and how to determine if God can be found..etc etc...is beyond understanding.

But the whole concept of God and whether there is one and how to determine if God can be found..etc etc...is beyond understanding.

That is part of the untrue presumption. All above are well within human understanding. There is just nothing there to understand.

Yes, but how do you know you don't just choose to assume this? If nothing is more obvious than something, the reality is as it is. But if something exists, evidence awaits confirmation---or denial---within your own frame of reference.

It just so happened that I had a sufficient reason to believe. Not everybody does.

Phat writes: It just so happened that I had a sufficient reason to believe.

When you're three, "sufficient reason to believe" in Santa Claus is a pretty low bar.

I became a believer in roughly 1993. I was roughly 34. I don't see the correlation.

Phat writes: I became a believer in roughly 1993. I was roughly 34. I don't see the correlation.

I don't see the confusion. "Sufficient reason" is pretty empty.

One man sees empty and another sees full. Convince me that empty is better for society. So far all you have given me is the reason (evidence of a low bar) why belief is irrational. I already knew that!