RE: Realm here
September 8, 2010 at 8:31 am
(This post was last modified: September 8, 2010 at 8:38 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Realm,
Now, I'm not going to ask how your personal experiences are evidence of God. I'm going to ask how you think any personal experience can possibly be evidence for God. How is not any alternative more probable?
Considering the fact you believe your own personal experience is why you believe in God, that cannot possibly be absolute proof because it's inductive at best. And because of the problem of induction, no amount of experience can prove something to be real. So from your position, it is only intellectually honest if you are agnostic on the matter of your belief. Claiming absolute knowledge when you believe via personal experience is irrational. It is only if you have analytic, deductive, proof that it could be possible to rationally be gnostic instead of agnostic. And, if you have analytic, deductive support for your belief as opposed to just personal experience, then the personal experience isn't needed at all because you have proof elsewhere (and as I said, personal experience can't be proof).
Now, I'm not going to ask how your personal experiences are evidence of God. I'm going to ask how you think any personal experience can possibly be evidence for God. How is not any alternative more probable?
(September 7, 2010 at 11:35 pm)Realmleader Wrote: A quick question, how exactly does Agnostic Christian work?[referring to Watson] I am in my dorm right now, munching on McD's from last night, I laughed (mouth full, so it didn't end well) and shook my head at the sight. I mean no offense, but it is air to admit I am skeptical. Just a quick elaboration (look at me using big words xD) on what your definition of Christian and Agnostic should clean it up.
Considering the fact you believe your own personal experience is why you believe in God, that cannot possibly be absolute proof because it's inductive at best. And because of the problem of induction, no amount of experience can prove something to be real. So from your position, it is only intellectually honest if you are agnostic on the matter of your belief. Claiming absolute knowledge when you believe via personal experience is irrational. It is only if you have analytic, deductive, proof that it could be possible to rationally be gnostic instead of agnostic. And, if you have analytic, deductive support for your belief as opposed to just personal experience, then the personal experience isn't needed at all because you have proof elsewhere (and as I said, personal experience can't be proof).
