I'm coming back into the fray....I missed a lot of what has been going on...please summarize why Christians are wrong.....What is the discussion here?
TL <skepticdude@...> wrote:
> TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
> first place
> except in some people's fantasies.
> J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
> circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
> the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
> However, what one accepts as evidence depends
> entirely on their presuppositions.
Don't try to run out the back door. Science his
discovered many things people didn't know about
before. Just because your presuppositions get in the
way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
and force a change of mind.
> Yours are natural
> presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
> the supernatural.
Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
are, so you mistakenly attack my
presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
importance. They are not. Show me good evidence and
I will re-assess my presuppositions.
> Presenting evidential arguments
> to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
> the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
> autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
> not accept God.
Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
who became Christians because of what they called
"overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
write after their conversion....Remember Josh
> We don't answer the fool according
> to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
> rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
> folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
> worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what
Really? You intend to show the futility of my world
view? Did you suddenly discover that there are
arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
presuppositions? I thought you just said a few
seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
natural man will not and cannot accept the
> TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
> have drummed
> up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
> J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You? If
> God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
> that *is* proof of God.
The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.
The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
had a profitable discussion with
a certain kid when he
was about 5 years old.
You said you would show the futility of the
naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)
Please procede to do so. The only way you can do it
is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
data on or in the cosmos.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!