Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[fr0d0]

[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='625434' dateline='1395017668']

The "meta" in "metaphysical" is not about being non-physical, but about being ABOUT the physical, or rather, about existing things.

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

...And? That's exactly what I said, indicated by the underlined bits. Metaphysics is not about the "non-physical", which is what you said. It's about things that exist, which obviously includes physical things. You are either being very dishonest or you really don't understand what you're talking about.

That's not what you said at all.

So is God metaphysical or not? By your definition of metaphysical he is physically existent. Is this what you're stating?

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to metaphysics 2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural 3 : highly abstract or abstruse ; also : theoretical 4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery

It seems the dictionary disagrees with you.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. If I'm misusing language I'm grateful for the correction.

---

I think you've failed to understand the quote. It already deals with dissenters. Ryft is/was a hugely respected member here. I've linked the original discussion.

1) I did understand it and it completely fails to deal with "dissenters", the term which itself is question-begging the way you're using it here. It ignores 4 of the biggest heavy hitters in Christian philosophy and theology, so calling them dissenters is a bit like calling Galileo a poor scientist.

2) I could care less if it was made by a respected member here. Claims stand and fall on their own merit.

Your mistake is your interpretation of the Christian philosophers. You fail to see the subject matter they're addressing isn't related to what we're taking about here.

---

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Those caricatures bear no resemblance.

You as an atheist know better. Hmm. More substantive reasoning needed.