RE: God, Energy and Matter
September 4, 2019 at 5:58 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2019 at 5:59 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 4, 2019 at 4:32 pm)Lek Wrote:(September 4, 2019 at 2:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: SO, I noticed in your special pleading response, you ignored the most important part of my post.
Here it is again: So please, demonstrate that faith is a reliable path to knowledge.
I've been asking theists this one, seeming straight forward question for decades, and not one had been able to answer. Including some pretty well known apologists.
So please, let us know how faith is reliable.
I think nobody could tell you how it is reliable because they can't demonstrate to you in words how they know. Someone who has had faith in God and then had a mystical experience of God would say that their faith was shown to be true by that experience. We really don't know if faith gives us knowledge until we encounter the God in which we have faith. So, as far as it applies to your criteria, the answer is I don't know. If you're using your criteria you won't gain knowledge of God or the supernatural. You've already ruled it out.
So...
You do understand, that if you can't demonstrate how something is reliable, that would make it.... wait for it... unreliable.
If a god exists, and has the ability to demonstrate to me that it does exist, then it would certainly have the ability to know how to do so, despite my criteria.
So, either it doesn't have the ability to demonstrate it exists, *doesn't care to demonstrate to me it exists, or does not exist.
*Despite several decades of being a sincere believer, praying for this god to let me know it exists, reading dozens of books on apologetics, etc, 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.