Can any theist answer this?

Debate Room
341

My point is that things that are considered to be supernatural may not be supernatural at all. We may all just be a bunch of monkeys shaking our fists and putting inept labels on processes and forces that there are yet inadequate words for.

I call God, because everything in the universe had one starting point. Be it a golden egg or the big bang. Everything has a source that brought it into being. I say God because that’s the designation I learned.

I say father because my personal relationship outside of anyone else’s interpretation feels like provision.

I’ve had a lot of crazy things happen in my life and several different perspectives. My own perspective that includes both elements is ideal for me.

I no longer feel like it’s necessary to squeeze the way I think into an ill-fitting box. I don’t want to limit myself from understanding because I’m using someone else’s labels to define the way I think or feel.

I’m not going to judge you. I don’t have that right.

The teachings of Jesus tell us:

judge not let you be judged.

I think it’s a way of instantly helping people to experience empathy. Some people don’t have empathy. It is my perspective that empathy exists so that we can understand and fortify each other.

By the way, when I said that I was going to get empirical evidence that everyone could accept I was talking about my son.

We have avoided conventional medicine for some time because of the poor experiences that Josh has had. I haven’t wanted to put him through that again unless absolutely necessary especially with covid.

Because I joined this forum I have felt prompted to revisit the idea of conventional medicine. We are going to have him communicate with a neuroscientist. I’m going to get whatever proper paperwork I can, so that we never Josh does talk about what he’s going through he can just walk through the red tape.

I understand all of your position. I’m really not trying to convince you of anything. You are welcome to your views as I am mine.

I do hope that we can help each other learn. I may not tell you some factoids you didn’t know but maybe I’ll help you have a perspective you didn’t have that will help you to understand.

I don’t think there’s anyone that can honestly say they know everything on this forum or anywhere else for that matter. We are all here to learn.

Hopefully we can continue to help each other. Thank you for your thoughtful response and your time.

342

I think criticisms are fine. I just didn’t want him to be insulted if he tried to talk. Josh doesn’t talk like I do.

He those are something more but he doesn’t talk like I do. I wanted to give him a chance to speak for himself and for people to ask him questions for themselves.

But I’m also his mom and I know that this is the first year he’s ever done this. he’s never seemed to really care if someone outside of our family understands him.

But I will heed the warning of the people who are more familiar with this forum and its people and let him try somewhere where he’s invited. I totally understand. I don’t want you to feel like you have to censor yourself either. I just wanted people to be polite.

I’ve never experienced a legitimate debate that has had name calling-- theological or otherwise. I realize that there are just rude people or people that are defensive because people have been rude to them. I get it.

Judgment and ignorance was one of the main hings that kept me from coming to Faith.
I actually had someone tell me that they were sorry for my son that I was going to hell.

I had simply posed a question they couldn’t answer. It’s a question that I now know the answer to even though I didn’t then because I was too busy trying to be snarky.

I’m not going to try to do that with you or anyone else. Although I have the determining tools, I’m not in a position to judge anyone as I’ve said before. I don’t think anyone is. we are just in different places on the same path from birth to death.

One day I hope we can all help each other.

343

The things we call supernatural (presumably) can’t be measured. Now of course, I explain this fact by suggesting that the supernatural doesn’t exist. Perhaps you have another explanation; but that doesn’t really change anything. Until someone can start getting measurements, it is a fantasy.

To paraphrase Feynman: if your explanation disagrees with experiment; it’s wrong. Have you done any experimentation at all?

1 Like
344

Well whilst I can’t disagree, I think I’d state it differently. Natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, whereas no can demonstrate any objective evidence for anything supernatural. They can’t even properly or accurately define it.

Again this is pure assumption. The big bang is the best model science currently has for the formation of the current observable universe. Its important to remember it currently tells us nothing about the state or condition prior to this.

I think that oversteps the mark, since we cannot know that is true for the big bang.

I don’t believe in any deity, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Well I can only reiterate, and with respect, the teachings assigned in the bible to Jesus have no special meaning to me, why would they? I can only judge them based on their own merits, and of course do not accept they are divinely inspired, as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim.

I think it’s a facile tautology, masquerading as something profound and moral. It has also ironically always sounded to me like a judgement. I have no problem with people judging others, as long as they accept we are all evolved apes, and all morality is subjective.

It’s more likely that empathy is an evolved instinct that helps maintain social cohesion, and aids group and individual surivival in animals that have evolved to live in societal groups. Hence it being “selected” by natural selection.

Yes I understood that, empirical evidence of what though? That something as yet inexplicable has happened to his condition, that contradicts the current expert medical prognosis?

Why would that matter? We already know such things are not that uncommon. Even if it were a one off, it still doesn’t remotely represent objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.

Again with respect, I’m not sure either of those is accurate. You don’t seem to have addressed the fact your son’s changed condition, however remarkable or unexpected you perceive it to be, is not evidence for anything supernatural. Or that what you’re doing, as is almost always the case with claims for miracles, is using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I’ve certainly never seen anyone on here claim or even imply that tbh.

You’re welcome, it is a debate forum after all.

345

And again…did you use the historical method? If you had you would not have written that. The fact is that the existence of a Jesus figure as described in the gospels is, at best, not proven.
“The teachings attributed to the Jesus figure of the gospels are:” try that in future.

Good. Doctors are human. However they also know that a heart is a pump, not a generator of feelings.
I hope you and your some get a very positive outcome.

346

That was a very civil and thoughtful post. I agree with you actually.
My thought on it is this, and I’m going to use a similitude:

How do you think prehistoric people would have described the aurora borealis?

Certainly there would have had some naturalistic elements to explain what could be understood and some fantastical elements to explain what couldn’t.

Just because those people were incapable of measuring it or quantifying it at that time, it doesn’t diminish the legitimacy of the Aurora Borealis’s existence.

Similarly, if some of those people rejected the authenticity of the Aurora Borealis when they heard about it because it sounded outside the realm of nature–it wouldn’t diminish the legitimacy of the Aurora Borealis’s existence either.

Neither does calling it by different name.

I don’t discount things just because no one’s measured them yet.

Whenever I think on subjects like this I think of ignaz semmelweis (1818-1865), a Hungarian physician, scientist and early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and germ theory. You’ve probably heard about him.

Semmelweis noticed that women who had their babies outside of the hospital that he worked at in vienna had a far less incidence of death then those who were treated inside the hospital.
The discrepancy caused him to investigate the matter.
The germ theory of disease had not yet been accepted in Vienna.
Semmelweis concluded some unknown “cadaverous material” caused the childbed fever that was making the mothers ill.
He instituted a policy of using a solution of chlorinated lime (calcium hypochlorite) for washing hands between autopsy work and the examination of patients. He did this because he found that this chlorinated solution worked best to remove the putrid smell of infected autopsy tissue, and thus perhaps destroyed the causal “poisonous” or contaminating “cadaveric” agent hypothetically being transmitted by this material.

Even though the mortality rate in the worst of the two clinics Semmelweis worked at for women in Vienna declined by 90% in 2 months.

Instead of being applauded, good ole ignaz was ostracized and ridiculed. All of his peers thought he was accusing them of murder and they were pissed.

Ignaz was committed to asylum by a colleague. He was beaten in the prison just after arriving and died 2 weeks later of infection due to the wounds he received.

Had Ignaz claimed that there are evil spirits that kill mothers when the doctors don’t wash their hands, it would not have diminished the authenticity of germs.

I try my best not to disbelieve things simply because of my own limitations or the limitations of those around me.
But it’s just my perspective

347

Which has an entirely natural explanation, thus filling in the gaps in their knowledge with superstition was shown to be a flawed rationale. As we already know of course since I have gone to great lengths to explain it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Well that sounds like semantics to reverse the burden of proof. Do believe all claims until they’re falsified? I can fly you know, but only when none can see or record it.

Now that’s an unfalsifiable claim, that contradicts known scientific facts, but it can’t be disproved. Do you believe it or not? Do you believe it is even possible, or not?

This is a very common tactic for those who wish to maintain superstitious beliefs.

348

No indeed, he’d just have been wrong. Note your story involves the rejection of objective evidence. I feel like I’m not getting this point through somehow…

1 Like
349

Do you disagree with the big bang theory?
Would you argue it with the same veracity?

If that is so please do it. The big bang theory is considered to be a subject of science. Science is quantifiable in most cases.

Disprove The big bang theory.

If you don’t believe it but you can’t disprove it–it can’t still be tool to discount what I am saying.

Either we have the perspective that the big bang is an accurate model of the initiation of the universe or it’s not.

You know what I mean?

I’m fine to leave the subject of the big bang to the side. I wasn’t there.

But if we’re not going to leave it to the side, if we’re going to say that is the most widely acceptable model within the scientific community–then I am allowed to see the similarity between it and many of the other creation narratives that I’ve read or heard.

That was said softly but I don’t know if it translates as such.
In regards to my son:

I think there’s been some misunderstanding. I really don’t feel like I have to validate him with anyone. I was just trying to share our experience. Josh became interested and that got me excited about the possibilities.

He’s never communicated with other people in this way. We are very private people.

In October of last year Josh refused to go outside. He hasn’t left the house in over a year.

When he showed interest I wanted to support it… To do that I feel like it’s necessary that you know that I’m genuine to the best of my ability. Some on this forum are ready to condemn me before they even understand what I’m trying to say.

I didn’t want anyone to do that to Josh when outside communication is new to him. I don’t feel like I have to validate him though to you or anyone.
This is a new area for us and I really don’t know where to start or stop.
I’m just trying to share our experiences. You can never convince a flat tire that it’s round. Or maybe you can, but you still won’t get very far.

350

A word of caution. From my position I am under the impression you are attempting to fit all unknowns into the “god box”. I suspect you are doing the very thing you desire not to, to cram your thoughts into a box. That is because you are presupposing all explanations can come from your god.

Give PROPER medicine a chance. It is the result of real world observations and trial-and-error. Modern medicine is not made up or depend on voodoo.

1 Like
351

No, and the same veracity as what? I’m not sure I’ve “argued it” either. Just accepted it has scientific merit, based on the available objective evidence.

That would depend what you’re saying, and I’ve not remotely claimed that I don’t believe the big bang, so you’ve lost me.

Not really, I think you may have misunderstood my meaning.

You’re allowed to say what you like, that doesn’t make it so. The comparisons in my experience are both tenuous and facile, and more than a little ironic given how hostile most creationists are towards scientific facts when it suits them.

I disagree.

Which is why I mirrored Nyarl’s concerns and cautioned against it.

For clarification here are my comments relating to the big bang …

SHELDON…Again this is pure assumption. The big bang is the best model science currently has for the formation of the current observable universe. Its important to remember it currently tells us nothing about the state or condition prior to this.

So I neither said nor implied I disagreed with the big bang.

Here’s the other response.

So my only point is that you were incorrect to make an assertion that the big bang had a"source" as there is currently no evidence to support such a claim

352

Life is not that simple or so binary.

Over thousands of years mankind has built a picture of the universe. As we learn more, that model is continually refined.

Aristotle described his vision of reality, Newton later added to and refined it. He just replaced some concepts with more accurate ones. Einstein built on Newton’s work. My point is that as each scientific discovery yields new perspectives the scientific model is refined. Even Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding is old news in the physics world.

The research into dark energy and dark matter is underway, and we are learning new stuff every day. For example, the distribution of dark matter is not uniform.

Edit: I wish to add that the big bang is the best current explanation, based on known science and observations. The scientific community is very aware that eventually, the big bang theory will be supplanted.

1 Like
353

I need to have like an introduction that says the same thing every time before I write something else. I haven’t done that yet and I don’t have The time right now… But I don’t want to just leave you hanging since you thoughtfully addressed a matter concerning my son.
I guess I’m strange. I can accept conventional medicine for what it is and see where it lacks.

I feel the same way about theology and other forms of science.

I don’t have to be limited. That’s all I’m saying. For the things that I don’t understand I don’t have to argue them…although I must admit that it’s hard not to get sucked into conversations about things that are beyond my current expertise in certain areas such as astrophysics.
I’m not a philosopher I don’t know the best ways to argue a point. I don’t know the rules all I know is my perspective at this current point.

354

Welcome to AR. The whole purpose is to “push” yourself into these areas, recognizing that a 20min YouTube video isn’t going to “cut” it. To recognize that many people devote their lives to a subject and yet, even they don’t have all the answers relating to their area of expertise.

To understand that to be “human” is to recognize our limitations, yet expand them inch by inch…and to raise one’s standards (if a person chooses to).

Welcome to the forum where most of us “Do not know” and those that “do” are challenged relentlessly.

Edited to add: I personally reserve the right to change my mind based on evidence and accurate information.

355

We are here to learn and grow. I am basically a mechanic, theology and philosophy are above my pay grade. :wink:

FYI my wife works in the field of assisting those with handicaps. I can never claim to have walked in their shoes, but anyone with a disability has my full support.

356

Presumably people in the past had eyeballs, so they could measure it. Not sure where you are trying to go with that.

357

If you can measure the Aurora Borealis with just your eyes you need to teach me!

358
  1. Open your eyes.
  2. Go outside.
  3. Look up.
  4. You just measured if it is currently visible or not; congratulations.
359

Where I live, I enjoy the pleasure of the right conditions producing this wonderful sight.

Firstly, “I see”. Then I check with kids. They see. We are agreed upon the reality that we are witnessing a phenomenon based in material reality (as opposed to a hallucination which can be induced). Perhaps though, I have fed us “mushrooms” in our meal…

So the next day, in speaking with others, I ask if they saw the night sky. Yes! In today’s technical environment, some may have capture it on camera. Whew! The mushrooms were safe :wink:

However, I have no understanding of what conditions created the Northern Lights. I can, now-a-days google it.

Good. A layman’s understanding. I could dig deeper, but my curiousity is satisfied.

In olden days, a reach for explaining natural phenomena entered the realm of magical thinking.

https://global.hurtigruten.com/inspiration/experiences/northern-lights/north-american-myths-and-legends/

The point? The Inuit and other northern people’s had observable evidence, however their thesis was incredibly flawed and their conclusions without evidence. Perhaps a simple “I don’t know” would have sufficed until others were able to eventually evidence the processes involved. BUT no - “god of the gaps” was the brain’s natural go-to. After all, stories again have served the survival of the species.

1 Like
360

That wasn’t what the conversation was about. I don’t like copying pasting parts of people’s conversations because its misleading. I would have to copy and paste the whole thing.

The conversation was:

People in the distant past might of attributed supernatural qualities to the Aurora Borealis. No matter what those people thought about the Aurora Borealis, it wouldn’t affect the fact that it still exists just like you said. You look up, it’s there… no matter what you believed about it.

I’m sure there were people who when they heard about glowing green and purple lights in the sky that they totally discounted the notion as fantasy.

What they did not believe about the Aurora Borealis would still not have affected its authenticity. Go outside, look up, it’s there