RE: The "Cultural Context" Excuse
August 31, 2016 at 9:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2016 at 9:50 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(August 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Whateverist Wrote: It isn't quite that simple. There are many things undetectable to my five senses which I do not reject, including: my feelings for my loved ones; their feelings for me; the dictates of my own conscience; the value of my own artistic efforts. There are many things I accept which cannot be vouchsafed empirically. But I count all of that as natural.
Love is the epitome of supernatural.
Love defies logic and reason. It cannot be measured or explained. Yet you know it exists.
What if I said love = God
You ask why evil exist in the world? If everyone had love (Agape) then evil couldn't exist.
(August 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I don't actually ask for proof for anything outside of mathematics. But this doesn't really fit here. I wouldn't call it as you do where I bolded, but I do have a felt sense of what is significant, important, moral, beautiful and more. I can accept plenty of things without empirical evidence. But I consider it a natural byproduct of my being, a capacity which transcends the bounds of reason. But why should I expect that what I am is only my capacity for reason? I don't. When you say it is from God, I just think you're projecting what is happening inside the totality of yourself to something 'out there'. I don't think you are factually correct to do so, but I don't see a lot of harm in it either.*emphasis mine*
One thing I will pointedly disagree with you on is your attribution of your "spiritual sense" to something "supernatural". How do you know so clearly what are the limits of the natural world? How can any of us be sure that anything is not natural. Frankly I don't think you 'elevate' God by such a categorical assignment. This is what we disagree on.
That's just it, God isn't "out there" he's right here where we're at.
As far as what determines the limits of the natural world, I've explained that our natural senses determine what we perceive as natural. And even those don't perceive things as they really are... does not science state that there is no such thing as a solid? reconcile that with your natural senses.
(August 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Our disagreement doesn't regard what is detectable by the senses or verifiable empirically. It is instead over the limits of the natural and the source of what is beyond reason.Fair enough.