Tcg wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:42 pm
brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:16 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:50 pm
brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:45 pm
Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.
This conversation can serve no purpose.
Yes. I suppose when you can't defend your position retreat is probably the best option.
Well, when one as encouraged to, "Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations." It is true that any further conversation can serve no purpose because this can't be demonstrated.
Tcg
You seem to believe that "demonstrate" is an absolute, objective activity but it isn't and this is where so many here err.
All we can do is show each other material artifacts, we must each then interpret and draw conclusions from those, if we use different lines of reasoning, different assumptions then we'll reach different conclusions.
It is not possible to demonstrate a truth when the recipient evaluates it in such a way that they reach a different conclusion about its meaning. Consider the wave particle duality, I can setup a lab experiment to prove that light is actually waves in a field, but you can setup another to prove that it is in fact particles, not waves at all.
For example it is quite clear to me that the universe was created, is the result of profound intelligence. That it is rationally intelligible at all is evidence alone of this. But you will not see it that way, you have a worldview that chooses to interpret the presence of all this in a different way. You chose that worldview as I have chosen mine, but they are choices, made for subjective reasons.
The difference between us is not one of science or facts or reasoning, it is the base assumptions from which we reason.
The assumption that a rationally intelligible system just happened to come along out of the blue is one assumption, that a rationally intelligible system is itself evidence of an intelligent source is another entirely reasonable one; frankly I have never seen the intellectual merits of the former view nor do I see any value in it. I'd be a bit embarrassed even to espouse it as so many do here, it really isn't much of a view at all.