(August 15, 2013 at 1:59 am)oukoida Wrote: This is actually a (badly) disguised argument from ignorance. The fact you cannot link something to your previous experience does not necessarily mean this something is supernatural or unexplicable or goddidit.
You’re right, it does not necessarily mean that, but no one’s making an argument for God based on ignorance alone. There are two fallacious extremes. One is the argument from ignorance, employing no evidence whatsoever. The other is the “false until proven true” position. I stand on the middle ground, weighing evidence, albeit unverified evidence. God is spiritual. We can only observe natural processes—every event, spiritual or not, must manifest itself in some natural way. Reason is the bridge between the realms. It allows us to look at natural events and judge—using prior experience—whether those events are normal or aberrant. If the aberrant events are drastic enough or numerous enough, we are led to contemplate the supernatural. We see if our experiences fit within a coherent worldview, and bam!—belief is born. Have you been in a meaningful relationship? Tell me if you came to the realization of your girl’s love for you any differently. Did you make the conclusion out of ignorance, saying, “I cannot think of what she may be gaining by making me a sandwich, so she must love me.” Or did you say, “She doesn’t love me until she proves it beneath a yet-to-be-invented brain emotion scanner.” Or were you more deliberative, weighing all the evidence, even though you could never be completely sure that she’s not just playing you?
