stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Oh, there's another problem with this, too. Because it's all internal to your mind,
.......... go no further until you prove that conjecture..
Oh, there's another problem with this, too. Because it's all internal to your mind,
So, you're saying that Christ is external to your mind, but you don't perceive him through the 5 standard senses? Is he located in space? If not, then how do you know that he is external to your mind, which is located in space between your ears?You are wrong. Christ is just as external to me as a tree, and equally if not more real.
God doesn't have to cooperate in the slightest if he doesn't want to, and I never said he did, so bringing this up is a complete straw man, it has nothing to do with what I've said. The issue is what we are warranted to conclude given logic and certain evidence. If God doesn't want to provide us with certain evidence, that's perfectly fine, and we can then base our conclusions on that lack of evidence.To expect God to cooperate as a guinea pig in a controlled experiment isn't going to happen. He is not an errand boy to satisfy out wandering desires.
You're merely re-asserting your claim, which does nothing to address the epistemological issues we've been talking about.He is no more a mere product of my mind than is this keyboard on which I type.
This issue is addressed in my post #42........... go no further until you prove that conjecture..
I think you have described Christianity quite well right there.If I'm suffering from delusion as you claim, I MIGHT try to talk the leprechaun into getting off his butt and setting me free.
So, you're saying that Christ is external to your mind, but you don't perceive him through the 5 standard senses?
Is he located in space?
If not, then how do you know that he is external to your mind, which is located in space between your ears?
God doesn't have to cooperate in the slightest if he doesn't want to, and I never said he did, so bringing this up is a complete straw man, it has nothing to do with what I've said. The issue is what we are warranted to conclude given logic and certain evidence.
This whole thought experiment suffers the issue of god needing to use you, a failed spiritual build from birth, to tell another of His own failed spiritual creation something about the truth of God's spiritual nature and presence. Not a good position for team theism.You and Helen Keller are tied to chairs bolted to the floor six feet away from a table upon which sits a pair of scissors. Your hands are free and your chairs are close enough together so that by the sense of touch your are able to communicate some hope to Helen with regard to the existence of the scissors. But Helen thinks you are either hallucinating or lying. She demands empirical proof. Your inability to offer any is disparaged by Helen as indicative of your deception regarding the scissors. What do you do?
I think you have described Christianity quite well right there.
#46... But more specifically, Jesus is the dancing Leprechan you are asking to get off his butt and free/save you.... but the proof that that is going to work comes after the table, the chairs, the scissors, and the 2 people have all gone away. Kind of silly when you think about it.Elaborate. Or can you?
This whole thought experiment suffers the issue of god needing to use you,
No, your thought experiment explicitly involved you convincing someone without your vision that scissors exists that the other person should know about. Problem is that the characteristics of these scissors imply that they can tell poor Helen themselves.No it doesn't. God doesn't need me. I need Him.
No, your thought experiment explicitly involved you convincing someone without your vision that scissors exists that the other person should know about. Problem is that the characteristics of these scissors imply the that they can tell poor Helen themselves.
No, imply and used accurately to the scenario. This experiment is pretty simple. It's not hard to follow. It's just hard to defend as allegory to our relationship to god and each other. I don't possess any less capability than you to see what's on the table. You are adding things and attempting to say I am subtracting them. You possess no special vision.IMPLY? You mean you INFER. And fallaciously.
Right. So I reject your claim of having a 'spirit sense' because you cannot demonstrate it to me. If you could see something with your spirit sense and then we could verify it with our normal, human senses, then we could believe you.BINGO! (Unless he found you to be credible.)
No, imply and used accurately to the scenario. This experiment is pretty simple. It's not hard to follow. It's just hard to defend as allegory to our relationship to god and each other. I don't possess any less capability than you to see what's on the table. You are adding things and attempting to say I am subtracting them. You possess no special vision.
Right. So I reject your claim of having a 'spirit sense' because you cannot demonstrate it to me. If you could see something with your spirit sense and then we could verify it with our normal, human senses, then we could believe you.
For now we just say that you may have a spirit sense but there is no reason to believe it without evidence.
I don't think the lack of evidence for god or your spirit sight proves anything. However, I think it is silly to believe in either god or your spirit sight without evidence.Correct. Just stop making the mistake of thinking your own lack of evidence proves anything.
I agree. But I don't know anyone who does. Do you?I don't think the lack of evidence for god or your spirit sight proves anything. However, I think it is silly to believe in either god or your spirit sight without evidence.
All believers in what? God?Wrong. All believers have spiritual eyes. I, like you, was once blind, but now I see.
You mean Whom. Jesus Christ.All believers in what? God?