Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[fr0d0]

---

@MFM agree on all. Not sure what you say about metaphysics. It includes both physical and nonphysical, yes?

Yes. My point was that Fr0d0 is using 'metaphysical' as if it were a synonym for 'non-physical', which isn't what the word means.

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?

I did say that, I even underlined where I did.

No. Saying "God is metaphysical" makes no sense. He is no more metaphysical than I am. The closest thing to what you're saying that could make sense is when aoologists say that God is the 'metaphysical ultimate'. But even that is a description about God's ontology, it's not saying He's metaphysical.

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 don't see where it disagreed with me.

You're misuse of the word metaphysical is what I'm on about. 'Metaphysical' is not synonymous with 'non-physical'.

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.

You were discussing the nature of the relationship between rationality and faith, and I demonstrated that there have been differing views on that amongst Christian philosophers and theologians. So yes, I both understood them and brought up their views related to this topic.

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.

Again, are you so arrogant (or blind) as to think there is - or ever was - a set, "the Christian view" on this. That is absurd and false, as I demonstrated via Kierkegaard (faith is necessarily irrational and requires a "leap to faith"), Kant (Christian faith requires an irrational affirmation, even if Christianity is internally consistent), Pascal (Christianity requires faith in the face of irrationality) and Wittgenstein (Christian faith's rationality must be "pased over in silence").

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

I think I've given plenty.

---

@MFM "Is God metaphyical?" The Father, YHVH, is the fully transcendent aspect, the glorified Christ is the visible manifestation, and the Holy Spirit is the divine in operation...at least that's New Church doctrine. Not sure how that fits with your question.

Me neither. :p "God is metaphysical" just makes no sense, no more sensical than saying "I am metaphysical" does.

---

Thanks for the correction about my misuse of the word.

To be clear, you aren't saying that God is solely physical right?

There have been differing views on faith, sure. I fully acknowledge that. You haven't addressed my objection that they either a. don't address the route to belief , or b. are simply incorrect. The standing of the philosophers bears no relation to their correctness. Much of philosophy, I find, is simply wrong. It lacks basic common sense answers. For me, the mainstream view as presented by Ryft is true for me and most Christians that I know. So in my immediate sphere of experience it is true, and national and international speakers confirm it also. I don't find, therefore, that I'm either arrogant or blind on the subject.