dennis, have you still not figured out yet that you are completely unable to differentiate the supernatural realm from a realm which does not exist? This is your biggest problem.By postulating not-real and supernatural as somehow equivalent, you are sneaking in an assumption into the logic.
True or false...
The supernatural world, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to the non-existent in all meaningful, provable, reasonable ways.
I'm not trying to be sneaky about it. There is no supernatural world. Its not real. That's my position.
The super-natural exists, whereas the realm that does not exist does not exist.
I think the second half of that sentence is self-evident.
If the qualities of both realms are the same, they are functionally equivalent.
The supernatural would much better be contrasted (or equated from your perspective) as being similar to random or inexplicable natural event. Or events that break the laws of nature.
Unexplained natural events are nothing more than events that await explanation. The past 200 years of human history has shown us that the things that were once thought unexplainable are not unexplainable, but just currently unexplained.
Like for instance a man being born from a Virgin. That is a real thing. That man existed. That is a Supernatural thing. I know you will object, so don’t bother. It is merely an illustration of WHAT super natural looks like. I don’t have DNA or scientific evidence of that particular person, so I can’t use that to prove that super-natural things exist, but MERELY that it is an example of something supernatural.
Supernatural CLAIMS look like that dennis. NOT the actual supernatural. If it didn't happen, then the supernatural, again, doesn't look like that. It doesn't look like anything. In other words it looks like nothing. It looks non-existent.
I'll grant you that the virgin birth is a supernatural CLAIM. My argument is that those claims are FALSE because the supernatural is not a real thing. We are trying to differentiate between supernatural THINGS and non-existent THINGS. Or in the case of the virgin birth, we are trying to differentiate between supernatural EVENTS and EVENTS that don't actually happen.
Let's go another route with this and try to think about something we probably both agree does not exist, but the claims of which, DO exist. Magic.
Magic does not exist. People can not do actual magic. I'm talking about Harry Potter type magic. Do you agree with this?
Lets say a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat. Is that a 'magic' act? Was there no rabbit to begin with and the magician conjured one out of thin air? Probably not, right? I mean, I guess it's possible that all the laws of nature were broken by one guy, a few words, and a stick, but the likelihood is so remote that it would be ridiculous to think he actually did. Conjuring a rabbit out of thin air, without any sort of trickery, would be something I would see as magic. That is what magic would look like.
So let's say a magician claims he can literally pull a rabbit out of thin air with no tricks. Would you believe him? What if he wrote a book, and inside that book he claimed he did it? Would you believe him then? I would think your answer is no. Mine is, for sure. But yet, that is a magic CLAIM. He is CLAIMING he can do magic. I do not believe he can do magic. This is exactly the same sort of thing I think when I hear that there was a virgin birth. The book CLAIMS there was a virgin birth, but there WAS no virgin birth.
Believing that the virgin birth actually happened as a supernatural event, is the exact same thing as believing the magician actually pulled a rabbit out of his hat, simply because you read it in a book. WTF? I mean seriously... WTF?
Now one can add to this a host of other miracles (walking on water, water becomes wine etc) and you see why I am saying that super natural is NOT the same as non-existent.
Again, these are CLAIMS. I do not, not for one second, believe that they actually happened. Without evidence, there is no reason to actually think they happened. It's ridiculous. I mean seriously let's say a man, today, comes to your door and claims that he walked on water. Would you believe him? No? Then why do you believe that a man did that 2000 years ago? Was reality different back then? It's stupid. It just didn't happen. None of the supernatural CLAIMS are true. They're just not.
The raison d’etre for this site is this very question, right? Give us an example of something that can be verified TODAY with science – something like an amputated limb growing back. That would constitute acceptable proof by everyone’s admission.
Is that such a bad thing to ask? If a magician said that he could pull a rabbit literally out of thin air, wouldn't you want to see it before you just blindly believed him?
Everyone rejects historical records, eyewitness accounts – despite that people were willing to be killed for bearing witness about those things.
100% outright, full blown, rejection. Yes. The accounts are false. It doesn't matter if they were willing to die for belief; that's been the case with hundreds of religions, up to and including the Aztec's who would literally KILL people as sacrifices to the gods. I reject, without a single ounce of reservation, that the bible miracle stories are true. I do this, based on many things, but most of all on simple logic. What's more reasonable... that some people lied, they were mistaken, or that the actual laws of nature were broken for one person, 2000 years ago? People lie all the time. People are mistaken all the time. The laws of nature are NEVER BROKEN. It's not reasonable to think the miracle stories are true. It's just not. I really think you have to have some sort of mental problem to think they're more likely true than false. That's the priming thing I talk about. You have to be primed to accept things like that. An un-primed mind wont do it.
Why can we not test’ God but all sitting around the table and light a Bunsen Burner and hold to an amputated limb and see it grow back?
Your answer is because God does not exist.
Exactly. This explains why we can't test God, right? It also explains why we can't see God, have no evidence for God, why amputees don't grow limbs back, why the laws of nature are never broken, etc, etc into infinity. Everything points to there being no God, dennis. It's really that simple.
My answer is, given that I arrived at Gods existence by reasoning about (as well) is to ponder this question seriously.
NO, again, NO. You didn't 'arrive' at God's existence. You STARTED with 'God exists' and asked yourself if reality fit with that. YES, you can get to belief in God that way. You can get to Allah that way. You can get to Ra that way. All because there is not a single falsifiable thing about the god or gods that people conjure up. Nothing. That is why the traits and characteristics of gods are so nebulous and unprovable. The moment you say 'god does X', it becomes testable, and it fails miserably.
To answer this question (here) one must have a sound Theology.
Every religion ever invented by man has had a sound theology to the adherents of the religion.
DO YOU ACCEPT THESE AXIOMS:
Spirituality is actually essential for understanding the human mind...
Whatever you think consciousness is (physically), the difference between that and consciousness is a subjective experience...
However much you know about physics, chemistry, and biology, you 'live' elsewhere. As a matter of your experience, you are not a body of atoms, molecules, and cells...
1. No. Spirituality is not essential at all for understanding the human mind. There is no such thing as a spirit.
2. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think of a brain like a computer. A computer just uses a series of 1's and 0's but the output is as incredible as an IMAX 3D movie.
3. No. I disagree. I am a function of physics, chemistry and biology. If you don't think that's true, then just look at brain injured people. Your brain IS you. You don't live elsewhere. If you have brain damage, it damages who you are.