(November 19, 2011 at 6:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There can be no [empirical] evidence, for that would defy logic. (There simply cannot be natural evidence of the supernatural, or it would cease to be supernatural)

FFS how many times can a person say there can be no natural/and or empicial evidence for the supernatural? SAYS WHO? WITH WHAT AUTHORITY?

I see no reason whatsoever why there can be no evidence of a god if he exists.

It is a clear point of logic Norfolk. Take your time with it. There's no rush

The supernatural is illogical.

William Fielding put it this way:

The believers in, and advocates of, supernaturalism, take a most illogical and contradictory position. They postulate an All-powerful, Omnipresent Creator, and yet the major portion of their theological presentation and philosophy is a tirade against the evil influences that pervade the whole of creation, and which variably baffle, confound and frustrate the Omnipotent. It would seem that God has veritably created a Frankenstein, and that all that saves the supreme being from this evil genius of his creation is an army of inspired theologians.

Theology is the "science" of the incomprehensible! Its sovereign is obscure and invisible, even if omnipotent, with the results mentioned aforesaid. Its realm is the unseen, the mysterious, the unintelligible, the unknown, and unknowable, as far as acting upon any of the senses with which the human nature is concerned. Hobbes has called it "the kingdom of darkness." Unlike all other sciences, its secrets cannot be learned by observation, investigation, research, experimentation, comparison, testing, analysis and synthesis.

Its "truths" may only be made known through revelation-but not revelation to you, dear reader! That is asking too much. It so happened that the revelations in question, which must be accepted in order to be a Christian believer, were made many centuries ago to a group of primitive, superstitious, largely illiterate people in Judea. Then again, the revelations in question were not committed to writing, in many cases, until long after they occurred, but were handed down verbally for generations in some instances, with what fidelity to fact the reader's guess is as good as mine.

There were at that time enlightened, cultured, educated people in Alexandria and Athens, to name two outstanding examples, not only capable of writing down completely any divine communications, but also anxious to seize upon any opportunity to learn new truths.

Later, and pointedly on this line of thought, Fielding arrives at,

If God is incomprehensible to the human mind, it would seem reasonable and logical to never think of him at all. But such is not the way of the theological mind. Jean Meslier, in his famous Testament, makes this devastating comment on the theistic paradox: "Nature, you say, is totally inexplicable without a God; that is to say, in order to explain what you understand so little, you need a cause which you do not understand at all. You pretend to make clear that which is obscure by magnifying its obscurity. You think you have untied a knot by multiplying knots."

Fielding cannot find order because he does not presume God. The 'truths' are known through rational process. Nothing mysterious and/ or unknowable. If evil were a problem then theology wouldn't be able to overcome it, but it does successfully. That is why without this theology it is hopeless and an atheist, with no rationale with which to understand purpose, must be devoid of hope.

Hope and faith, as bed buddies, are much the same as the boogeyman and the monster under the bed: They help maintain certain behaviors, but they are not necessary for happiness.

(November 20, 2011 at 4:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Fielding cannot find order because he does not presume God. The 'truths' are known through rational process. Nothing mysterious and/ or unknowable. If evil were a problem then theology wouldn't be able to overcome it, but it does successfully. That is why without this theology it is hopeless and an atheist, with no rationale with which to understand purpose, must be devoid of hope.

So in order to find god you must first presume god exists.

Can you not see the flaw in your argument?

If you presume fairies exist then you can see their evidence everywhere.

I know this to be true because I found out today that my wife DOES believe in fairies.

I think she saw the look of disappointment in my eyes.

(November 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It is a clear point of logic Norfolk. Take your time with it. There's no rush

There is no logic in anything you say. It may be logic to you, but you are deluded.

Quote:Fielding cannot find order because he does not presume God.

That makes sense. Why assume the absurd and proceed from there?