(December 26, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Delicate Wrote:(December 26, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So...
Once again we at the point where it is time for you to present your evidence (demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable), and show us how you have applied critical thinking to said evidence in order to determine that your god exists.
What are you waiting for?
Well, I'll be happy to do that. But there's a problem. The kind of evidence you're asking for is naively scientific. It fails to take into account non-scientific, non-experimental evidence (eg historical) and non-evidential (ie rational) bases of justification.
I'd like to make a case for a holistic (as in wide-ranging and multifaceted) as opposed to scientistic approach to justified beliefs.
It's worth pointing out that many intelligent atheists reject scientism, and rejecting scientism doesn't entail rejecting science.
To make my case, scientism must first be demolished.
So, present whatever case you believe is convincing.
How does historical evidence prove supernatural claims?
For example, Heinrick Schliemann, using Homer's Iliad and Odyssey discovered the city of Troy, withe evidence of a battle there.
In your mind, does the historical reality of Troy give any credence to the supernatural events that occur in the Iliad and Odyssey? If not, why should some historical accuracies in the Bible be convincing of the supernatural events therein?
What do you mean by non-evidencial (ie rational) basis for justification?
Are you referring to the various philosophical arguments (Kalam, ontological, teleological, TAG, etc)?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
