A man went to a barber shop to have his hair and his beard cut as always. He began to have a good conversation with the barber who attended him. They talked about so many things and various subjects. Suddenly, they touched on the subject of God.

The barber said: "Look man, I don't believe that God exists."

"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

Well, it's so easy, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God does not exist. Oh, tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God exists, there would be no suffering nor pain. I can't think of loving a God who permits all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but he didn't respond because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barber shop, he saw a man in the street with long hair and a beard. It was very long, and a long time since he had his hair cut. He looked dirty and unkempt.

The customer entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:"You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the surprised barber. " I am here and I am a barber. Why I just worked on you!

"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist, because if they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like that man who is outside."

"Ah, barbers do exist, what happens is that people do not come to me."

"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God does exist.

What happens is people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Yeah, I have heard or read this somewhere before, but it sure stir some reminder about getting closer to God. Thanks for the post.

Nothing like a straight talking Xtian to make me want to 'renounce' my scepticism.

The barber is not all-knowing, all-wise, or all-powerful. He also did not create the men with beards, and has no right to tell people to cut their beards. God, however, if he exists, created the world both good and evil. That means that there is evil to be found in him. Either there is no God, or he is a horrible God. A holy God doesn't exist.

That is why He is God, he is above all things, all thinking and all comprehension. He has His reason for creating evil. He is all knowing, and He has His reason for allowing things that should not have happened to happen. He is not questionable because He is above everything, He is not subject to be querried because He is Mighty over all things. God does exist, and it is through His mercy and blessing that we all survive.

He has His reason for creating evil

What gives God the right to condemn men for engaging in evil when he is guilty of the same thing?

Such a God, is he exists, is not only wicked but unjust. Or are you saying that might is right?

@ seun, what is your problem with God, U know, u acknowledge him or not will not make God less, He is still the awesome God, the Beginning & the End. U know u sound kind of annoyed with God.

He is waiting!

u acknowledge him or not will not make God less

Your belief in an imaginary God will not make him to exist. People believe in all sorts of things that are not true!

Comparing a barber to God is preposterous and so was the original post.

If the barber gives someone a bad haircut; humanity is not affected however as the bible decribes on numerous occasions, when God gets pissed off or makes a mistake people die.

a family of five can raise thives, doctors, lawyers and politicians and that does not make the existance of parents a doubt.
the case of this doubt about God is not worth discussing, let all people go ahead with their beliefs but for me i know " GOD EXISTS" and i believe he knows all things and my belief has been working for me so for u all out their' choose ye today the god ye shall serve.

God definitely exists
so does satan, angels & demons
its left to us to believe or disbelieve, it does not change the fact!

God died of AIDS in 1986.

The most evil invention the devil ever came up with was the belief in God
or maybe not
if people believe something to be real, it is real in it's consequences

@nferyn, you're trying ever so hard to wax philosophical at things you cannot understand nor explain.
You'd have to convince me that belief in God was the invention of the devil; and then you'd have to prove to me that the devil is real. Then you'd still have to prove the reality of the consequences of your own belief.

syrup:

@nferyn, you're trying ever so hard to wax philosophical at things you cannot understand nor explain.
You'd have to convince me that belief in God was the invention of the devil; and then you'd have to prove to me that the devil is real. Then you'd still have to prove the reality of the consequences of your own belief.

That's exactly the point. It's rather idiotic to make any claims about the existence of deities without evidence to back it up. There's no evidence for the existence of God, only conjecture

Seun:

God, however, if he exists, created the world both good and evil. That means that there is evil to be found in him. Either there is no God, or he is a horrible God. A holy God doesn't exist.

@Seun,

Try something else. How do you explain that God created the world both good and evil? You're introducing an ingredient that makes it easy enough for you to allege that if evil is real and in the world today, then by default evil is to be found in Him. Look harder - your own arguments do not prove or disprove anything about the non-existence or existence of God. You may call Him horrible, but accuse Him all you want, it still does not negate His existence.

There is a holy God, and just by asserting that "A holy God doesn't exist" does not make it true. Your lack of belief in a holy God does not make Him less likely to exist.

@nferyn,

You haven't added anything to the point nor actually answered my questions, which is not surprising because that's the narrow and convenient backdoor escapist theories atheists appeal to. Make it simple for yourself - you don't believe in God because you don't want to; not because there's no evidence for the supernatural. I've read your inputs in other threads about the issue, but when guys like 4get_me took you up on the weakness of your arguments, you did the right thing back then to recognise the fact that atheists do not have proof for their own assertions.

It's easy: what you pedantically call 'evidence' is an appeal to some form of limited tool - perhaps more suited to the field of natural science and mathematical determinations. What you have to understand is that when philosophers try to explain everything about reality by mathematical or scientific methodolgies, they are missing the point, because spiritual issues are not scientifically determined.

When people ask for 'evidence' for the supernatural, they should be willing to apply spiritual laws and language to what lies outside the natural. If that is denied by philosophers who want to cajole everything into the natural, then it is not religious people who are ignorant - it is rather the skeptic that is quite ignorant of these issues because he denies the reality of the supernatural simply on the basis of his lack of an understanding of spiritual phenomena. I don't see you as an ignorant skeptic, but to go that way would be highly suggestive of just wanting to deny the reality of the supernatural - which would be very surprising indeed.

syrup:

@nferyn,

You haven't added anything to the point nor actually answered my questions, which is not surprising because that's the narrow and convenient backdoor escapist theories atheists appeal to. Make it simple for yourself - you don't believe in God because you don't want to; not because there's no evidence for the supernatural. I've read your inputs in other threads about the issue, but when guys like 4get_me took you up on the weakness of your arguments, you did the right thing back then to recognise the fact that atheists do not have proof for their own assertions.

Please define those narrow and escapist theories atheists appeal to. You're just asserting something you do not have evidence for.
I don't believe in God because I have no reason to. Belief is not something one can just summon at will. It is a condition based on prior knowledge/experiences/exposure.
As long as theists are not precise in their definition of God and can change the meaning of their God concept as they see fit, it's no use debating as the goalposts are shifting. That's the reason I gave up on debating 4get_me. If you make your God specific and we'll have a starting point for a debate.

syrup:

It's easy: what you pedantically call 'evidence' is an appeal to some form of limited tool - perhaps more suited to the field of natural science and mathematical determinations.

Evidence is what is found in the natural world and is the only thing people with different metaphysical outlooks can agree upon (except maybe for logic, but then concepts neeed to be defined precisely). If you go beyond that you're just asserting again and make it impossible to falsify your claims.

syrup:

What you have to understand is that when philosophers try to explain everything about reality by mathematical or scientific methodolgies, they are missing the point, because spiritual issues are not scientifically determined.

Define spiritual. That concept does not have any meaning as long as it's not defined

syrup:

When people ask for 'evidence' for the supernatural, they should be willing to apply spiritual laws and language to what lies outside the natural.

Please be precise. I have no idea what you're talking about

syrup:

If that is denied by philosophers who want to cajole everything into the natural, then it is not religious people who are ignorant - it is rather the skeptic that is quite ignorant of these issues because he denies the reality of the supernatural simply on the basis of his lack of an understanding of spiritual phenomena.

For the sake of argument, left's just call the spiritual pink unicorn[/i]s. If you don't define [i]pink unicorns in such a way that they can be distinguished from non-pink and/or non-unicorns, it's not use talking about them, as the object of discussion can be anything you want it to be. So, please define spiritual and supernatural

syrup:

I don't see you as an ignorant skeptic, but to go that way would be highly suggestive of just wanting to deny the reality of the supernatural - which would be very surprising indeed.

Please give a precise definition of the supernatural, as the concept is meaningless to me.

syrup:

Second, you're quite an apprentice atheist - neither here nor there. An atheist who knows what he's talking about does not go about with probability in cases of absolutes, thus your use of "either. . .or" is as horrible as your assertions. There is a holy God, and just by asserting that "A holy God doesn't exist" does not make it true. Your lack of belief in a holy God does not make Him less likely to exist.

You're guilty of exactly the same thing you're accusing Seun of. You asert without the evidence to back it up, the only difference is that you make positive claims about the existence of God. Positive claims require evidence.

nferyn,

First, I don't read you giving up on the debate in the other thread with 4get_me simply on the premise that there was no adequate definition of God. The definition of God was not the issue - you rather gave up after he put you on proper grounds for a balanced discourse on the definition of atheism, to the effect that the same goalposts you pressumed are and have many times shifted as to what really is atheism.

Then, of course, for me personally as a Christian, I'd just say that God is who He says He is - the "I AM THAT I AM." Besides that, I know no other way of describing (rather than 'defining') Him. This may seem preposterous to you, and I really don't mind that. The issue is that when people try to define/describe Him in other ways than who and what He says He is, then there's bound to be grounds for differing opinions. So, point there - the accusation that I'm as guilty as Seun, because I don't see evil 'to be found in Him' as he supposed. The only difference is not about my positive claims, but that if my experience does not attest to the claims I read of about who and what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible, then I'd have no reason at all to believe. God is spoken of in other religions, and I haven't found those claims about God to hold true in most of the questions I've asked - and that's the reason why I don't hold to those claims. So, I'd rather we keep things in proper perspectives and understand here that between Seun and me, the issue is not about the existence or non-existence of God, but rather about the qualities ascribed to Him - "both good and evil", or otherwise "horrible".

I've asked that you make it simple for yourself - it is not 'evidence' that you need, but a clear statement of what you really are attuned to: unbelief. I'm sorry to state it so, but when you say that "Evidence is what is found in the natural world", you're actually saying the same thing that brings you closer to my presuppositions about your claims. We don't deny or shy away from "evidence" - the problem is that the evidence presented are often decried by those asking for them. That is why I said earlier that to deny the supernatural (as opposed to what is natural) is to be irrational about what actually falls within reality. So many skeptics have difficulty believing in God, but an honest skeptic is not one to deny supernatural phenomena even though he may not be able to explain its nature. It is not 'evidence' you need, but an "interpretation" of the evidence for the supernatural. Unfortunately, these evidences are only denied by skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own position.

Let me state it simply: a skeptic who denies the supernatural is denying what falls within reality. So, if you're prescribing that all realities be merely on the natural plane, you're trying to hold a very narrow view of what is beyond the natural.

That's why the concepts of spirituality and the supernatural make no sense to you - and just because you don't understand them does not mean they don't exist. Concisely, it shouldn't be difficult to understand what 'supernatural' is - that which is outside the natural realm and not subject to natural laws.

syrup:

nferyn,

First, I don't read you giving up on the debate in the other thread with 4get_me simply on the premise that there was no adequate definition of God. The definition of God was not the issue - you rather gave up after he put you on proper grounds for a balanced discourse on the definition of atheism, to the effect that the same goalposts you pressumed are and have many times shifted as to what really is atheism.

Excuse me my french, but his is bull. I have always clearly stated what atheism is. Dictionary definitions don't change that fact, neither do accusations of revisionism. I have not even once shifted my goalposts regarding atheism. When someone continuously uses a definition you don't subscribe to and uses that definition to discuss your position, he's putting up a strawman and I'm tired of defending strawmen.
I grant you that I didn't really discuss the God concept with 4get_me in detail, it must have been with other people.

syrup:

Then, of course, for me personally as a Christian, I'd just say that God is who He says He is - the "I AM THAT I AM." Besides that, I know no other way of describing (rather than 'defining') Him. This may seem preposterous to you, and I really don't mind that. The issue is that when people try to define/describe Him in other ways than who and what He says He is, then there's bound to be grounds for differing opinions.

How do you know that was God speaking in the first place? I also am that I am, everybody and everything is.

syrup:

So, point there - the accusation that I'm as guilty as Seun, because I don't see evil 'to be found in Him' as he supposed. The only difference is not about my positive claims, but that if my experience does not attest to the claims I read of about who and what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible, then I'd have no reason at all to believe.

I don't understand.

syrup:

God is spoken of in other religions, and I haven't found those claims about God to hold true in most of the questions I've asked - and that's the reason why I don't hold to those claims. So, I'd rather we keep things in proper perspectives and understand here that between Seun and me, the issue is not about the existence or non-existence of God, but rather about the qualities ascribed to Him - "both good and evil", or otherwise "horrible".

Isn't

syrup:

There is a holy God, and just by asserting that "A holy God doesn't exist" does not make it true. Your lack of belief in a holy God does not make Him less likely to exist.

talking about the (non-)existence of God?

syrup:

I've asked that you make it simple for yourself - it is not 'evidence' that you need, but a clear statement of what you really are attuned to: unbelief. I'm sorry to state it so, but when you say that "Evidence is what is found in the natural world", you're actually saying the same thing that brings you closer to my presuppositions about your claims. We don't deny or shy away from "evidence" - the problem is that the evidence presented are often decried by those asking for them.

Evidence needs to based in a shared area of communication, otherwise it is meaningless. You may talk about a bloorg, but without a demarcation of what a bloorg is and what isn't, it's impossible to say anything meaningful about that bloorg. In that regard, most of the evidence presented by theists is based on an a priori acceptance of theistic claims. Hardly a shared space of communication.

syrup:

That is why I said earlier that to deny the supernatural (as opposed to what is natural) is to be irrational about what actually falls within reality.

I'm not denying it,I would just want to see a clear definition of the supernatural that would make it tangible. I don't deny the fact that there are many things we don't understand yet or that there are things that science cannot yet explain, but that doesn't make those phenomena super-natural, it only makes them (yet) without explanation. Mind you, most of these phenomena crumble under close scrutiny.

syrup:

So many skeptics have difficulty believing in God, but an honest skeptic is not one to deny supernatural phenomena even though he may not be able to explain its nature. It is not 'evidence' you need, but an "interpretation" of the evidence for the supernatural. Unfortunately, these evidences are only denied by skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own position.

You're projecting. I don't feel uncomfortable about my position

syrup:

Let me state it simply: a skeptic who denies the supernatural is denying what falls within reality. So, if you're prescribing that all realities be merely on the natural plane, you're trying to hold a very narrow view of what is beyond the natural.

No, he doesn't. He rejects the claim of that phenomenon being supernatural. Even though there are many dimensions of reality that are hard for us humans to detect or understand, these dimension are not any less natural.

syrup:

That's why the concepts of spirituality and the supernatural make no sense to you - and just because you don't understand them does not mean they don't exist. Concisely, it shouldn't be difficult to understand what 'supernatural' is - that which is outside the natural realm and not subject to natural laws.

Now you're just closing off an area of investigation to natural enquiry by definition. What by definition is not subject to natural laws cannot be investigated and thus is inscrutible, no truth claims can ever be established for such a thing, less you devaluate the meaning of truth.

@nferyn,
Until you come up with something new, this would be a meaningless exercise for both of us. You're going round again and again, so I'll try and make things a bit easier.

Granted that you now see the issue with 4get_me was not about definition of God, but about atheism. Even so, what you hold to be atheism is not shared by many atheists, and that's why I suggested that the goalpost shifting you see in theism is actually closer home with atheism. As far as I'm concerned, there was no strawman in his reply just before you left off, because he actually showed how atheists themselves are the ones defining the concept of atheism that differ from yours.

Then, I've stated that God is spoken of in other religions than Christianity, but if the claims in those religious movements do not hold true, I do not deny the fact of the religion in question, but I don't anchore my faith there. If in my experience I find the claims of God contrary to His declarative "I AM THAT I AM", then I would have no basis to believe in Him. Example: He says He is good and blesses those who seek Him by faith. If I find Him to be 'evil' instead of 'good' even after having followed that requirement, then it stands to reason that I find to my shock He is "horrible". This does not presuppose a denial of His existence, but rather a concern about His quality.

What you might have been enquiring in my response to Seun's post is about existence; but I'd corrected that while it apparently seems so, it is more a matter of qualities acribed to Him. How do you accuse a non-existent being if not somehow presupposing that He exists? There are two statements in my reply to his: the first is an attempt to show that his assertions are not substantiated by his accusations; the second is to the effect that his claims do not justify the non-existence of God. What then? The first is about the qualities ascribed to God to make it easy to allege that evil is to be found in Him, thus suggesting that He is "horrible". Just because there are statements about (non)existence of God does not mean that the central concern about qualities ascribed to Him should lose their significance.

Shared communication goes both ways, and you just cannot demand that spiritual/supernatural issues be explicated otherwise than by terms of spirituality; otherwise it no longer becomes spiritual. Think about it: I don't understand everything about science, but that does not make scientific realities non-existent: and for me to deny them simply because the scientist is not using spiritual terminologies is to fall victim to the same thing you're doing. The supernatural is not inferior to the natural, and the natural scientist who insists that the supernatural should cower under naturalistic terminologies is playing chief over an issue he knows nothing about.

Good that you're not denying the supernatural - and what does that mean to you?

Even then, I'm not projecting - I know a lot of skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own positions and I alluded to that in general terms. If you don't fall within that delineation, no need to react as though you do.

Second, I don't know what to make out from your position. On the one hand, you're not denying the supernatural; and on the other hand you want to defend a skeptic who denies it ("He rejects the claim of that phenomenon being supernatural". If the "many dimensions of reality that are hard for us humans to detect or understand" are "not any less natural", why is it taking the scientific world forever to determine, detect and explicate them?

Lastly, you come back to the same excuse you've always held as a lifesaver in issues like this (and that is a little frail by now). I'm not "closing off an area of investigation to natural enquiry by definition" - simply because you don't understand the supernatural is by no means grounds for you to think that it must be a "natural enquiry by definition". If the supernatural is simply natural by definition, why does it continue to perplex the scientific community who by now ought to have detected it as such? You don't determine everything about the realities of all phenomena on just naturalistic explications - to do so is untenable; and to insist that it is so will only lead to denial where the enquirer is himself asked to explain what undeniably exists.

syrup:

@nferyn,
Until you come up with something new, this would be a meaningless exercise for both of us. You're going round again and again, so I'll try and make things a bit easier.

Well, so are you. I guess we don't have a shared language when it comes to communicating about these issues.

syrup:

Granted that you now see the issue with 4get_me was not about definition of God, but about atheism. Even so, what you hold to be atheism is not shared by many atheists, and that's why I suggested that the goalpost shifting you see in theism is actually closer home with atheism. As far as I'm concerned, there was no strawman in his reply just before you left off, because he actually showed how atheists themselves are the ones defining the concept of atheism that differ from yours.

Obviously, my definition of atheism will not be shared by all atheists, just as your definition of christianity won't be shared by all christians. Ethymologically, atheism is quite clear, it is the absence of God belief. Undere that umbrella, many positions can be taken (among them strong, weak, gnostic or agnostic atheism). It's not because some people don't agree with the meaning of a word that the meaning changes. Just as it's not because the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army claim to be Christian that they are.

syrup:

Then, I've stated that God is spoken of in other religions than Christianity, but if the claims in those religious movements do not hold true, I do not deny the fact of the religion in question, but I don't anchore my faith there. If in my experience I find the claims of God contrary to His declarative "I AM THAT I AM", then I would have no basis to believe in Him. Example: He says He is good and blesses those who seek Him by faith. If I find Him to be 'evil' instead of 'good' even after having followed that requirement, then it stands to reason that I find to my shock He is "horrible". This does not presuppose a denial of His existence, but rather a concern about His quality.

I'm not denying you your religious perspective, only that the statement I am that I am [/i]is void of information.

syrup:

What you might have been enquiring in my response to Seun's post is about existence; but I'd corrected that while it apparently seems so, it is more a matter of qualities acribed to Him.

OK. It was maybe not your intention to talk about the existence of God, but you clearly made that a point of your post.

syrup:

How do you accuse a non-existent being if not somehow presupposing that He exists? There are two statements in my reply to his: the first is an attempt to show that his assertions are not substantiated by his accusations; the second is to the effect that his claims do not justify the non-existence of God. What then? The first is about the qualities ascribed to God to make it easy to allege that evil is to be found in Him, thus suggesting that He is "horrible". Just because there are statements about (non)existence of God does not mean that the central concern about qualities ascribed to Him should lose their significance.

I may possibly not understand what you're getting at, but Seun's reasoning was perfectly logical, deducting qualities of God out his characteristics. That doesn't give them any value outside of the initial assumptions though.

syrup:

Shared communication goes both ways, and you just cannot demand that spiritual/supernatural issues be explicated otherwise than by terms of spirituality; otherwise it no longer becomes spiritual.

Then define spirituality and spiritual terminology because I have no idea what you're talking about.

syrup:

Think about it: I don't understand everything about science, but that does not make scientific realities non-existent: and for me to deny them simply because the scientist is not using spiritual terminologies is to fall victim to the same thing you're doing.

No it isn't. I just don't grasp spirituality. Defining it would already go a long way.

syrup:

The supernatural is not inferior to the natural, and the natural scientist who insists that the supernatural should cower under naturalistic terminologies is playing chief over an issue he knows nothing about.

I don't even know what supernatural is. If it is that what does not follow natural laws, then you are, by definition, making it inscutible. What else can we use but our (natural) faculties to study anything.

syrup:

Good that you're not denying the supernatural - and what does that mean to you?

I'm not denying it a priori, but nothing can be said about it, it is totally inconsequential.

syrup:

Even then, I'm not projecting - I know a lot of skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own positions and I alluded to that in general terms. If you don't fall within that delineation, no need to react as though you do.

It was us having this conversation, so naturally, I assumed you were implying me, if not, why bring it up in the first place?

syrup:

Second, I don't know what to make out from your position. On the one hand, you're not denying the supernatural; and on the other hand you want to defend a skeptic who denies it ("He rejects the claim of that phenomenon being supernatural". If the "many dimensions of reality that are hard for us humans to detect or understand" are "not any less natural", why is it taking the scientific world forever to determine, detect and explicate them?

We are mortal, limited beings with a limited capacity. Our knowledge grows, but we will never be all knowing. It must be said though that most of what once thought to be of supernatural origin, is now well within the grasp of science and can easily be explained through scientific means. We no longer believe e.g. lightning to be coming from (an) angry god(s).

syrup:

Lastly, you come back to the same excuse you've always held as a lifesaver in issues like this (and that is a little frail by now). I'm not "closing off an area of investigation to natural enquiry by definition" - simply because you don't understand the supernatural is by no means grounds for you to think that it must be a "[i]natural enquiry by definition". If the supernatural is simply natural by definition, why does it continue to perplex the scientific community who by now ought to have detected it as such?

I have no clue what you're getting at. Can you be more precise?

syrup:

You don't determine everything about the realities of all phenomena on just naturalistic explications - to do so is untenable; and to insist that it is so will only lead to denial where the enquirer is himself asked to explain what undeniably exists.

Can you be more precise. It's not because a phenomenon exists and we don't have an explanation yet, that the answer must be: it's supernatural. We don't know would suffice and is a much more prudent position.

nferyn,

There's nothing prudent about a position that tries to hold that everything must be natural where clearly there are phenomena that cannot be explicated by naturalistic terms, or they would long ago have been so explicated. You keep saying that you have no idea what I'm talking about simply because you have no idea of what "spirituality" and "the supernatural" are. "We don't know" is more respectable for the skeptic to admit than an outright denial about what exists. If everything is to be communicated by the language of natural science, why has it been ever so perplexing for the natural scientist to explain the supernatural even when he cannot deny it?

"I AM THAT I AM" has been explained - and it is not void of information, unless you just want to hold on to that notion because you still will come back to tell me you don't understand what I am talking about.

Seun's reasoning is not logical - how do you accuse someone who doesn't exist? For the accusation to have any value is to suggest that such a being exists, albeit Seun finds him to be "horrible". And if you insist his reasoning is logical by deducing qualities of God out of His characteristics, you perhaps might care enough to tell me how it is possible to deduce qualities of a being who you believe to not exist? There again, it's more a matter of quality than of outright denial of His existence. Or, you might have to come back with a denial of His existence where you cannot possibly talk about His qualities and characteristics. It just doesn't operate both ways: it's either He does not exist and thus describing Him as "horrible" then does not arise; or He actually exists but you don't like to believe in Him.

Now I'm surprised that you'd confirm my suspicion that anything (and perhaps everything) must be subjected to the natural faculties. Then it is not in my place to explain what the supernatural is to a person who will see no more than the natural. Whether or not you understand the concepts of spirit and spirituality, you cannot demand that supernatural phenomena be submitted to natural laws, or you would have been able to provide an explanation for what you still don't have answers to.

What I'm getting at is this: there are issues that are clearly inexplicable by "natural" deductions - they lie outside the natural laws. Let me offer you two examples outside my Christian position: levitation and telekinesis. Natural scientists have not been able to explain the "natural laws" of levitation because it is not subject to the physical law of gravity. To deny that levitation is a real phenomenon outside the explanations of natural science is to assume a weak position. Again, how do you scientifically explain "mind-reading" - telling the thoughts of someone else? Please don't even try to explain it away under the excuse that science is growing up to explain that. What scientific laws exist to explain these phenomena?

These are just a few examples outside my Christian principles, for Christianity does not deny their reality. They may not be very strong examples unlike more involving events in the paranormal and spiritism; but what I have just attempted is to make you understand that if everything is to be explained by natural faculties, why is it taking forever for you, at least, to explain these issues "naturally"? That's why I agree with you that "we don't know" is a more respectable response from the skeptic than to demand that everything be subjugated to the natural faculty. Supra-natural phenomena are not explained naturally, otherwise you would have been able to provide an explanation by the deductions of natural science for what lies outside its purview.

syrup:

nferyn,

There's nothing prudent about a position that tries to hold that everything must be natural where clearly there are phenomena that cannot be explicated by naturalistic terms, or they would long ago have been so explicated. You keep saying that you have no idea what I'm talking about simply because you have no idea of what "spirituality" and "the supernatural" are. "We don't know" is more respectable for the skeptic to admit than an outright denial about what exists. If everything is to be communicated by the language of natural science, why has it been ever so perplexing for the natural scientist to explain the supernatural even when he cannot deny it?

The supernatural explanation is not explanation but rather a categorisation of what we don't understand. If no causal connections can be established, it does not explain anything. But once again, please define the supernatural precisely in such a manner that it can be distinguished from the natural. What are the defining characteristics of the supernatural?

syrup:

"I AM THAT I AM" has been explained - and it is not void of information, unless you just want to hold on to that notion because you still will come back to tell me you don't understand what I am talking about.

It has not been explained. If you say that it means that God is what he says he is, than please tell me how you can establish what God says.

syrup:

Seun's reasoning is not logical - how do you accuse someone who doesn't exist?

Do you know what logic is? It is not a test do determine truth, only a tool to connect premisses to conclusions.
One of the premisses was Gods existence. Under that assumption he exposed a contradiction in the nature of God, the conflicting attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, nothing more. This is perfectly logical.

syrup:

For the accusation to have any value is to suggest that such a being exists, albeit Seun finds him to be "horrible". And if you insist his reasoning is logical by deducing qualities of God out of His characteristics, you perhaps might care enough to tell me how it is possible to deduce qualities of a being who you believe to not exist?

To determine the truthfulness of a claim, you can look for internal contradictions in the context. If you find these contradictions, it exposes the lack of validity of the caim in the first place.

syrup:

There again, it's more a matter of quality than of outright denial of His existence. Or, you might have to come back with a denial of His existence where you cannot possibly talk about His qualities and characteristics. It just doesn't operate both ways: it's either He does not exist and thus describing Him as "horrible" then does not arise; or He actually exists but you don't like to believe in Him.

So you cannot reason logically from a premisse if you don't believe in it in the first place. That's weird reasoning.

syrup:

Now I'm surprised that you'd confirm my suspicion that anything (and perhaps everything) must be subjected to the natural faculties. Then it is not in my place to explain what the supernatural is to a person who will see no more than the natural. Whether or not you understand the concepts of spirit and spirituality, you cannot demand that supernatural phenomena be submitted to natural laws, or you would have been able to provide an explanation for what you still don't have answers to.

Declaring something supernatural doen't make it supernatural, only positive evidence of the supernatural nature of that phenomenon is sufficient to conclude something like that. Obviously, this would imply:
* a clear definition of the supernatural
* a causal connection between said phenomenon and supernatural agency
Neither have been provided, all we have is ignorance

syrup:

What I'm getting at is this: there are issues that are clearly inexplicable by "natural" deductions - they lie outside the natural laws.

There is no evidence of such phenomena.

syrup:

Let me offer you two examples outside my Christian position: levitation and telekinesis.

Neither levitation, nor telekinesis have been established in a controlled experiment. Those phenomena vanish the moment they're scrutinised.

syrup:

Natural scientists have not been able to explain the "natural laws" of levitation because it is not subject to the physical law of gravity.

Obviously, it has not been observed under controlled circumstances, so an explanation is not even necesary

syrup:

To deny that levitation is a real phenomenon outside the explanations of natural science is to assume a weak position.

Why? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No evidence is forthcoming. Mind you, I'm not even talking about an explanation, only the phenomenon

syrup:

Again, how do you scientifically explain "mind-reading" - telling the thoughts of someone else?

Why would I need to explain something that has not been established as a truthful phenomenon? What exactly is mind-reading?

syrup:

Please don't even try to explain it away under the excuse that science is growing up to explain that. What scientific laws exist to explain these phenomena?

I don't need to. As far as mind-reading is concerned, I could hypothesise, but then I need to have a clear definition of mind reading.

syrup:

These are just a few examples outside my Christian principles, for Christianity does not deny their reality.

I do, at least in their implicit context, but maybe you can be a little more precise so that I might explicitely deny or accept them.

syrup:

They may not be very strong examples unlike more involving events in the paranormal and spiritism; but what I have just attempted is to make you understand that if everything is to be explained by natural faculties, why is it taking forever for you, at least, to explain these issues "naturally"?

I provisionally (that is untill you define them in a precise enough manner) reject these phenomena to exist. be more precise and I might accept or deny them.

syrup:

That's why I agree with you that "we don't know" is a more respectable response from the skeptic than to demand that everything be subjugated to the natural faculty.

We don't know is always provisional. There are few phenomena that cannot be studied further. The only thing we have to determine the validity of any claim are our natural faculties or do you care to propose another method to study those phenomena?

syrup:

Supra-natural phenomena are not explained naturally, otherwise you would have been able to provide an explanation by the deductions of natural science for what lies outside its purview.

Why? Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes contradict each other. Is light now all of a sudden [u]supra-natural[/y] because we have not been able to fully comprehend the nature of it ?

@nferyn,

While not holding brief for syrup, I think you shouldn't belabour the point.
No rational skeptic denies what he does not understand, and that should
suffice for you. The question here is simple for me:

               Do you deny that the supernatural exists?

What you need is not "definitions" but a humility to not quickly write off people
as ignorant over issues that you have no explanations to. I perfectly agree
that what lies outside natural explications are not necessarily defined in
naturalistic terms, and to insist otherwise is to be additionally arrogant.

Seun's post is illogical by your definition of logic, and as far as I can see,
syrup used it perfectly well to show that Seun's views are untenable. One
could well reason logically from a premise, and it's baffling to me that you
couldn't see that syrup has done that by showing the fallacy of your
arguments. I don't believe in the Allah of the Quran, though I can reason
logically, based on the premise presented by Muslims. That does not mean
the same thing as denial of a reality.

@ Gwaine
Maybe you can give a operational definition of the supernatural. Only when I actually know what the supernatural is, can I determine whether or not it exists.

As for the rest of your post, I really don't know what you're getting at. Maybe you can explain why my arguments are fallacious. Assertion is not the same as evidence.

@nferyn,

Why do you always write off people as ignorant simply because you cannot
understand what they are talking about? I really don't think there's any
point in trying to offer any defintion of a term to you because you haven't
demonstrated that you have anything to contribute other than sit as judge
over what you cannot understand. But to be fair to you, I'll condescend and
offer you some:

The supernatural is what is not easily detected by the natural, and I mostly
use the term when discussing issues of faith and religion. One may determine
natural causes by natural means; but supernatural causes can be understood
by the sensitive part of man known as the spirit. This is that part of man that
is incorporeal but is capable of experiencing the supernatural, not by natural
and "controlled" determinants as are best applicable to the field of natural
enquiry.

I hope this helps. If you don't understand, it is quite normal and honourable
to say that you 'don't know' what and how the supernatural operates. But to
go further to deny something that you can neither understand nor explain is
quite another thing.

@Gwaine
Thanks for attempting to explain the supernatural. It's obvious that I can neither detect nor understand the supernatural because I do not have a spirit, I do not have a conscience that is incorporeal. My mind and conscience are a direct result of my neurological state, i.e. the electro-chemical reactions in my central nervous system.

Maybe the supernatural is only applicable to those who believe in it or, as sociologists would put it, when something is perceived to be real, it is real in it's consequences

God dey! God dey o!

@nferyn,

I'm not surprised that you'd deny you have a spirit or conscience and
just simply consign it to some neurological state. I understand that,
and even then, not all materialists and naturalists would agree with
you. Sociologists try to explain these things away, so it does not add
anything new to the subject of spirituality and the supernatural, and
if you insist on your own view, no qualms about that. . . except that
the same sociological rule applies to you.

M a christian nd i believe in d existence of God. But for an atheist to claim dat GOd doesnt exist outrightly, without even conider his existence, 2 me is outright proud and ignorant. How can one be sure dat God deosnt exist, dere is evidence that points 2 d existence and non existence of God, it all depends on Faith. So if someone, opens deir mouth and balantly tells me dat God doesnt exist without an iota of doubt in his or her mind, i'll conceive dat person as a fool.


Ok, if we argue dis philosophically. Feurebach claims dat Man makes his God wat he's in need of. E.g if man needs a father, he makes unto God a father figure. However, if dat is the case, isnt it appropriate 2 believe in d existence of God, wen all we do is make God a greater person 2 the intellect of man, wen we fully know that wen in times of trouble, dis father figure hears us nd helps us out. Nd before ppl start yappng dat God hasnt heared dem, wen in trouble nd u've called on God, hasnt that alone calmed ur nerves, which alone allows u 2 be more efficient at ur job or whatever it is u had the problem in?

You know what? I actually don't understand how people just sit up
and think everyone who's religious is ignorant one way or the other.
But I must say that in the journey of life and faith, I've learnt always
to respect people for their convictions - whether atheists, deists or
theists.

Apart from the philosophical stretch, it's really hard for anyone to just
dismiss the supernatural, whether or not they understand what the
term is. One thing I know is that the realm or field of spirituality is a
very broad one, and Christianity is only one expression of it, albeit
not classed along with all other forms of spirituality.

What for me holds sway at the end of the day is that I've experienced
God's power and love for myself in circumstances that can only be
described as supra-natural (to borrow from syrup). It is this and
this alone, perhaps, that science doesn't deal with - faith, and that is
the one requirement that is key into the supernatural experience of
God's power. . incidentally, faith is the one thing that most scientists
ask us to throw away - and then what is left of spirituality and the
supernatural?

My convictions are that faith and science are both legitimate concerns
in their own rights; but when the scientist or philosopher thinks himself
superior to all others, that's where some things go wrong.

Thankfully, that's something I benefitted from today in church from the
preaching referenced on I Tim. 6:20 -

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

The Bible does not reject science outrightly; rather it is the baseless
arguments of "science falsely so-called" that is in question. One of such
would be this: science or not, I had a supernatural encounter with the
living God in 2004 (even though I was born again much earlier) - and
from that day, anyone appealing to science as "proof" that God does
not exist will have to kill me first to convince me later.

You just cannot explain away an experience that is supernatural.