Human reason

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you don't think that the dimension that is just beyond your grasp might be part of the supernatural which you might be too blind to see?

Maybe, maybe not. What is your evidence?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]So I don't disparage "human reason" because it is often used as a reason for accepting irrational beliefs.

i'm not sure how to respond succintly except to say that, true to form, my head is dizzied by your personal arsenal of self-imposed definitions. something is clearly wrong with your framework if, within that framework, reason is employed as a means to justify that which is irrational.[/b]

My fault - I meant the disparagement of human reason is often used to justify the accepting of irrational beliefs. The sentence was confusing - hope that's clearer.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
All this raises the question as to why those we believe themselves filled with the Holy Spirit are particularly prone to errors in reason, far more so than the vast majority of those of us who wallow in our fallen state.

Sorry - I haven't seen the study which supports this. 🙂

My understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit leads to the conclusion that those truly filled with the Holy Spirit would be exceptionally logical in their reasoning - the HS is an essentially intellectual being.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]...the fact that something may not be fully disclosed to us through reason in no way justifies supernatural solutions, which only lead to more positive assertions that we cannot justify.

Does this fact in any way justify the non-existance of supernatural solutions?[/b]

Does this fact in any way justify the non-existance of supernatural solutions?

no.

i think this question of yours epitomizes one of the more pathetic defenses theists have tried. the way i see it, the exchange starts something like this between the theist (T) and the atheist (A):

T: god exists.
A: what is your proof?
T: well, can you prove me wrong?

indeed...and i'm rubber and you're glue, and what bounces off of me sticks to you, and i know you are but what am i?! i know you are but what am i?! i know you are but what am i?!......

in my mind there are at least two issues here concerning 'justification'. one is rational justification in the sense that the belief can be defended through reason and rational argument. the other i would classify as justification by some sort of entitlement in the sense that every person is 'entitled' to his own opinion.

your belief in the supernatural is justified in the sense that you are certainly entitled to your own opinion; however, your belief is not rationally justified because you cannot reasonably argue in its defense. in this respect, your belief in god shares argumentative lodgings with my little brother's belief in the tooth fairy.

you are a rational being. without your capacity for rational thought you would be as coherent and intelligent as a bunch of broccoli. why, without your ability to reason you would not even be able to read the bible or cut and paste new threads!

why would god give you the capacity for reason if he didn't want you to use it to full capacity? is it normal for a team coach to tell his players to be less than all they can be? why would god give you the ability to reason if it is indeed the weapon used by many to justifiably slay him?

Originally posted by Coletti
My view is the capacity for logical thought (abstract reasoning) is what it means when the Bible says we a made in the image of God. I think that is what differentiates us from animals - God gave man the ability to reason. So I don't disparage "human reason" because it is often used as a reason for accepting irrational beliefs. I do not think any true ...[text shortened]... arts with the correct premises (those from God), then one can understand God better using logic.

I do not think any true Christian beliefs are irrational (the Christian world view does not contain contradictory beliefs) and is completely logic.

lack of contradiction between beliefs is not sufficient for the belief system to be rational. what evidence do you have that the christian beliefs are 'completely logic'? if they are, then they are rationally defensible; but i have never seen any rational defense of theism.

Logic itself can not answer any questions

then since christian beliefs are 'completely logic' (from above), it follows from transitivity that christian beliefs cannot answer any questions.

I do not think any true Christian beliefs are irrational

if the christian god is a supernatural being; and if the supernatural is beyond our intellect and unknowable through reason; then how is the christian's belief in the christian god rational?

HERE IS MY HONEST TAKE ON YOUR WORLD VIEW SO FAR:

you've said before that your world view is complete (in a different thread). now you are saying it is also completely rational. therefore, as your world view is both complete and completely rational, it must be possible for man (specifically, coletti in this case) to explain everything through reason. however, your world view itself directly contradicts this by saying that, on the contrary, it is not possible for man to explain everything through reason because (in your own words), "man in general is flawed, he makes mistakes in reasoning...man's mind is finite."

so your world view is definitely not both complete and completely rational. for the theist who believes in a supernatural god, his belief system may be complete (he can always say 'god done it'😉, but it is definitely not completely rational. furthermore, being complete and being correct are not the same.

Originally posted by Coletti
My fault - I meant the disparagement of human reason is often used to justify the accepting of irrational beliefs. The sentence was confusing - hope that's clearer.

yes, this changes the meaning dramatically. i have no beef with this revised version.

Originally posted by bbarr
Maybe, maybe not. What is your evidence?

What type of evidence will you be willing to accept?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What type of evidence will you be willing to accept?

I will accept evidence that helps to establish that your claim is true or likely to be true. So, again, what is your evidence? It is one thing to point out that some supernatural realm is a logical possibility. I do not dispute that. It is another thing to show that the existence of such a realm is likely. You have yet to do the latter. So, why should I take your claim at all seriously? It is time to put up or shut up. Provide your evidence.

Originally posted by bbarr
I will accept evidence that helps to establish that your claim is true or likely to be true. So, again, what is your evidence? It is one thing to point out that some supernatural realm is a logical possibility. I do not dispute that. It is another thing to show that the existence of such a realm is likely. You have yet to do the latter. So, why should I take your claim at all seriously? It is time to put up or shut up. Provide your evidence.

I would go so far as to suggest that due to the intrinsic nature of the 'supernatural realm' that dj2becker talks about, no evidence can be offered. We will invariably return to the question of faith because a realm of supernatural qualities cannot be evidenced upon natural ones.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What type of evidence will you be willing to accept?

I would take very serious a Lie Group and its associated Lie algebra that makes sense of the gauge field that connects the supernatural to our own Minkowski space and gives us an exchange particle to look for.

Originally posted by bbarr
I will accept evidence that helps to establish that your claim is true or likely to be true. So, again, what is your evidence? It is one thing to point out that some supernatural realm is a logical possibility. I do not dispute that. It is another thing to show that the existence of such a realm is likely. You have yet to do the latter. So, why should I take your claim at all seriously? It is time to put up or shut up. Provide your evidence.

What I mean is this: Do you expect to receive tangible evidence for something which is intangible or will intangible evidence do?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What I mean is this: Do you expect to receive tangible evidence for something which is intangible or will intangible evidence do?

1)If it is intangible, you cannot provide tangible evidence for it.

2)Intangible evidence is no evidence at all.

Originally posted by Starrman
1)If it is intangible, you cannot provide tangible evidence for it.

2)Intangible evidence is no evidence at all.

So anything that is intangible does not exist?

Are you saying that is incorporeal such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes don't exist?

And are you also saying that there is no tangible evidence for any of this?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So anything that is intangible does not exist?

Are you saying that is incorporeal such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes don't exist?

And are you also saying that there is no tangible evidence for any of this?

Make you case , or stop bothering people with it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So anything that is intangible does not exist?

Are you saying that is incorporeal such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes don't exist?

And are you also saying that there is no tangible evidence for any of this?

In my first statement I was using the definition that intangible is something incapable of either being perceived by the senses or of being touched or realised. As such, although the potential of existence is possible, providing empirical data on such a thing is not.

Not everything incoroporeal is intangible. I could provide tangible evidence for the existence for any of those things, as such they are not intangible.