Meaning of John 6:43-44

[Newbirth]

No.

Then you cannot be educated in the matter.

You said God did not call anyone to be a Christian.

He didn't

Unbelievers call those who believe in Jesus Christians.

Yep...Just as you call everyone who believe in Jesus a Christian

Pseudo-believers think that it is a good thing to be called a Christian.

Yep

Ergo,

How you should know what? All that tells you is that they are pseudo-believers. It does not tell you who are the true believers... And since you do not believe that God exists you would be unable to fathom a person believing in God

Your logic, not mine.

Actually, it is your logic. You assume that all you need to know is who are pseudo believers

You put out a real Professor Irwin Corey vibe.

How so? You make a better fit since you seem to be an authority on everything.

Does that work for you anywhere?

I haven't tried it. But you seem very good at it.

 

[Caroljeen]

Here is a link to the beginning of my opening statement at a Veritas forum that it was my great pleasure and honor to participate in with Christian Ian Hutchinson, and it will lay out my perspective on this issue. My opening statement starts at about 10 minutes into the entire video, but if you want to cut to the chase, at 13:37, I say, "It's one thing to say God is an experience in your head, but if you want to make your god an objective fact in the real world, you'll need real objective evidence, and not your subjective experience."

Did you read Ian Hutchinson's book, Monopolizing Knowledge, before the debate?

I'm listening to your debate again.

 

[Caroljeen]

I don't deny the existence of subjectivity. No one can ever know what my experience of the color blue is, and that seems to be beyond science. Assuming it is beyond science (even though it may not stay that way forever, but let's assuming for now), that is an area that is beyond science, but it's also beyond being an objective statement about the real world. And that's the difference with claiming that God is objectively real based on an internal, subjective experience. One doesn't need to claim that my experience of the color blue is something objectively true in the real world for me to still claim that experience as an internal, subjective experience. But you cross the line when you say your internal, subjective experience of God means that God is objectively true in the real world.

How have I crossed the line? What line is that?
Not all of my experiences of the Spirit of God are internal. When I say that I sense his presence, it can be either internal or external.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Did you read Ian Hutchinson's book, Monopolizing Knowledge, before the debate?

I'm listening to your debate again.

Oh my gosh I sure did. I read that book six ways to Thursday.

 

[Gus Bovona]

How have I crossed the line? What line is that?
Not all of my experiences of the Spirit of God are internal. When I say that I sense his presence, it can be either internal or external.

An internal experience on which you base an objective claim crosses the line. If you have objective evidence of god, external to you, we can discuss that to see if it is sufficient to accept belief in god.

 

[El Cid]

So what? That doesn't mean you can believe in anything that's not based in science, because adopting the principles of logic are necessary to even have a conversation. They are the bare minimum. Just assuming all sorts of things would violate Occam's razor, which is a logical principle.

So unlike in your debate, you admit that you believe some things that have not been confirmed by science?

 

[Gus Bovona]

So unlike in your debate, you admit that you believe some things that have not been confirmed by science?

Do you have an exact quote and time-stamp? The details really matter for whether I'm consistent.

However, I'm happy to say that, if I didn't, then I should have qualified my scientism in the debate by including assuming the three basic laws of logic, as well as subjective, internal experiences, as things that are outside of science. And, that doesn't mean you get to keep on assuming whatever you like, though.

 

[Caroljeen]

Maybe it's not a logical principle like the 3 biggies, whether it is or not is not crucial, but it is logical to apply Occam's razor to claims. Otherwise, you'd be left having to accept claims with no limit to unnecessary elements, some of which could be contradictory.

Rule out the most common and obvious culprits and when they fail to explain the phenomenon, you should put the supernatural on the differential especially if the supernatural is what is being ascribed to from the beginning.

But you don't. You rule out the supernatural from the beginning with a swift flick of Occam's razor. Then you say, well, it isn't and it isn't that. We don't know what it is, *shrug*, but it can't be the supernatural!

 

[Gus Bovona]

Rule out the most common and obvious culprits and when they fail to explain the phenomenon, you should put the supernatural on the differential especially if the supernatural is what is being ascribed to from the beginning.

But you don't. You rule out the supernatural from the beginning with a swift flick of Occam's razor. Then you say, well, it isn't and it isn't that. We don't know what it is, *shrug*, but it can't be the supernatural!

If we have an supernatural explanation that has extraneous elements in it, Occam's razor rules it out because of the extraneous elements, not because it is supernatural.

 

[The Pixie]

Rule out the most common and obvious culprits and when they fail to explain the phenomenon, you should put the supernatural on the differential especially if the supernatural is what is being ascribed to from the beginning.

But you don't. You rule out the supernatural from the beginning with a swift flick of Occam's razor. Then you say, well, it isn't and it isn't that. We don't know what it is, *shrug*, but it can't be the supernatural!

The problem you have is that mankind has been extremely successful doing just that. All the technology you see around you, and indeed use to post here, is thanks to science disregarding the supernatural with that swift flick. We no longer think thunder is God angry, or whatever.

Rejecting the supernatural has a long track record of success, and the "we don't know" has a long history of becoming science.

 

[Furion]

The problem you have is that mankind has been extremely successful doing just that. All the technology you see around you, and indeed use to post here, is thanks to science disregarding the supernatural with that swift flick. We no longer think thunder is God angry, or whatever.
.

lol

My goodness the atheist apologetic has gone downhill.

Looky, we have indoor plumbing!!!

That means no God!...or whatever

 

[The Pixie]

lol

My goodness the atheist apologetic has gone downhill.

Looky, we have indoor plumbing!!!

That means no God!...or whatever

Not just plumbing, but we have landed a man on the moon, we have electric cars, we have the internet, we have the genome project, we have a survival rate for cancer of over 50%. All these things are built on science. All of them illustrate how successful science is - how successful disregarding the supernatural with that swift flick is.

 

[Furion]

Not just plumbing, but we have landed a man on the moon, we have electric cars, we have the internet, we have the genome project, we have a survival rate for cancer of over 50%. All these things are built on science. All of them illustrate how successful science is - how successful disregarding the supernatural with that swift flick is.

So for the atheist is an epic battle of God verses Science.

Yep, atheist apologetics have hit rock bottom.

Now's the time you start asking people whether they eat shellfish. lol

 

[The Pixie]

So for the atheist is an epic battle of God verses Science.

Yep, atheist apologetics have hit rock bottom.

Now's the time you start asking people whether they eat shellfish. lol

The issue is about whether it is reasonable to just flick off the supernatural as an explanation. The success of science justifies that.

I get that you want to re-frame that, given you have no argument.

 

[Furion]

The issue is about whether it is reasonable to just flick off the supernatural as an explanation.

What are you talking about?

You flick off the supernatural like a booger?

That's some serious hard atheism there pal.

The success of science justifies that.

So you do worship science.

I get that you want to re-frame that, given you have no argument.

Anyone who thinks "God verses Science" is an idjit.

 

[The Pixie]

What are you talking about?

You flick off the supernatural like a booger?

See post #248. Maybe you should have looked at the context of the discussion...

That's some serious hard atheism there pal.

So what is your point?

So you do worship science.

No. Why are you making stuff up?

Anyone who thinks "God verses Science" is an idjit.

My discussion is about rejecting the supernatural.

You are the one trying to turn it into "God verses Science". So on that basis, I agree.

 

[El Cid]

Do you have an exact quote and time-stamp? The details really matter for whether I'm consistent.

No, it is not that big of a deal.

However, I'm happy to say that, if I didn't, then I should have qualified my scientism in the debate by including assuming the three basic laws of logic, as well as subjective, internal experiences, as things that are outside of science. And, that doesn't mean you get to keep on assuming whatever you like, though.

So you admit that you cannot prove that your wife loves you scientifically?

 

[BMS]

It can never be otherwise since it happens within your mind and is only shared by a fraction of humanity that performs the exact same internal mental exercise. There is no external common "revelation" that you enjoy here. None.... and let's try and drop the Tercon bit, eh?

Of course there is the same revelation. I guess one has to have it before onf knows it in others

 

[Gus Bovona]

No, it is not that big of a deal.

So you admit that you cannot prove that your wife loves you scientifically?

Now that’s a different question, and it depends on which aspect of love you mean. We can’t use my wife’s internal subjective feeling as evidence for much of anything for the reasons I’ve stated above. She can say that she has those feelings, certainly, but we can’t know if those feelings are what we call love, or that they are anywhere close to what other people experience when they describe their feelings as love, just like we don’t know if her internal subjective experience of blue is the same as anyone else’s.

But the external manifestations of love can be confirmed by objective evidence: her statements, her behavior, her subtle body language, etc. Those externalities might make us think we can infer what her internal subjective experience is, but only to the extent that we can say that my blue is the same as her blue.

 

[Whatsisface]

Now that’s a different question, and it depends on which aspect of love you mean. We can’t use my wife’s internal subjective feeling as evidence for much of anything for the reasons I’ve stated above. She can say that she has those feelings, certainly, but we can’t know if those feelings are what we call love, or that they are anywhere close to what other people experience when they describe their feelings as love, just like we don’t know if her internal subjective experience of blue is the same as anyone else’s.

But the external manifestations of love can be confirmed by objective evidence: her statements, her behavior, her subtle body language, etc. Those externalities might make us think we can infer what her internal subjective experience is, but only to the extent that we can say that my blue is the same as her blue.

I have a bee in my bonnet about the colour thing. Because our physiology is more or less the same, would it not be reasonable to conclude that my experience of blue would be more or less the same as anyone else's?