EbuksAllison7: apply your brain, it says majority of the people not all. think re.tard

I don't know whether re.tard is what your community called u when told them u are an atheist, but the theory remains invalidated because it pretends to know why people remain in the faith they were born to when in fact tons of people have continually questioned aspects of their faiths indicating people aren't just in faith just because they were born into it! And the challenge remains unanswered, apply your theory to your atheist self and see what it evolves to, (we hope you do not invalidate your existence) another product of skepticolosis. We are beginning to see a dogmatic faith in the rightness of the theory, which again shows the porous logic of its proponents!

EbuksAllison7: you do realise I was a christian before right. I already have. You are biased

vedaxcool, you seem to be blind, on the very first page mr annoying asked as well

Here’s another explanation of the Outsider Test I have developed, which is based upon some hard sociological facts. People overwhelmingly adopt the religious faith of the culture they were raised in. Therefore, my challenge to believers everywhere is to test their faith just like they do the ones they reject, test your own faith as if you were an outsider. Investigate it with a healthy measure of skepticism. Agnosticism is the default position given the outsider test, and I further argue that agnosticism leads to atheism. For in rejecting the religion one was brought up with, many people become agnostics, and/or simply reject religion as a whole. Here's why: A believer in one specific religion has already rejected all other religions, so when he rejects the one he was brought up with he becomes an agnostic or atheist many times, like me.

Let me argue for this further:

You either admit the basis for the outsider test, or you don’t. If you do then you should treat your faith as if you were an outsider. Test your beliefs with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Let’s say you take the test. If you do then you ought to be an agnostic because no faith can survive that test in my opinion, although it should if there is a God who wants us to believe in his specific religion. If God exists and he doesn’t care which religion we accept, then that God might survive the outsider test, but we would end up believing in a nebulous God out there with no definable characteristics, perhaps a Deist God, the god of the philosophers. This God is far and away from any full blown Christianity or any specific religion though.

Let’s say you don’t think you should take the outsider test. At that point I can ask you why you apply a double standard here. Why do you treat your own specific faith differently than you do others? That’s a double standard. Why the double standard?

As I have said, the overwhelming reason why someone becomes an insider to a particular religious faith in the first place is because of when and where he or she was born. Start there for a minute. Do you deny this? Yes or no? Surely you cannot dispute that. The adherents of these faiths are just as intelligent as other people around the world too, and you could no more convince many of them they are wrong than they could convince many Christians. Even with the meager missionary efforts on both sides of the fence, a major factor in why people change is still because of the influence of a personal relationship with someone (a missionary?) they trust.

You might turn my own argument against me by claiming that I myself cannot think outside my own upbringing if what we believe is based to an overwhelming degree on when and where we are born, but that simply does not follow. It would only follow if I said it’s impossible to think outside one’s own upbringing, which I haven’t said.

I was once an insider to Christianity, having been brought up in a Christian culture, so I can argue that Christians should evaluate their faith as an outsider, since I have done so. You say that if I can do it then anyone can, but that too does not follow. I’m not so sure I did in fact do it. There were influences in my life that led me in the direction I am now going. I don't deny this. I am saying that to do so is the exception to the rule, and that you must explain the rule. The overwhelming numbers of people who examine their religious faith, perhaps myself included, follow the influences in their lives. No one knows for sure on such matters. Even so, just because there are some exceptions to the rule does not mean anyone can do it, if it can be done at all. And it does no good whatsoever to claim that because you did escape your upbringing that therefore you are right about what you believe, including me. I might be wrong.

I might be wrong that there is no God. He might exist. But I have put together a solid argument that a full blown Christianity is false, and as a former insider to the faith I had approached it with the presumption that it was correct, trying to fit the facts into my former Christian world-view. But even by approaching the Christian faith from an insider and with an insider’s perspective with the presumption of faith, it does not hold up under intellectual scrutiny, and I ask Christians to deal with the arguments I present here on this blog and in my book. I consider them to be solid, based upon what they themselves believe. To me it’s like believing in the inspiration of Homer to believe in the Bible.

Evangelical Christians must continually argue against all other non-evangelical brands of Christianity, for if any one of these brands are correct, they are wrong. I've said elsewhere, there are so many beliefs that evangelical Christians must believe in order for their faith to be true, that the more they believe the less likely it’s true. If they are wrong on just one of the following beliefs their faith is wrong. Here are a few of them: 1) They believe the Bible is the inspired and innerrant word of God (for the most part)as a collection of books which were continually edited until the time of canonization, and canonized by those believers who chose them out of the number of potential candidates because of their beliefs at the time. [Christians must continually defend the Bible from errors if they think inerrancy is dogma (Bart Ehrman stumbled over Mark 2 in which it was said that David did something when Abithar was the high priest, but II Sam. 21:1-6 tells us Ahimelech was the High priest at the time). Gleason Archer has a 450 plus page book defending these "Bible difficulties," but if one error is found in the Bible, inerrancy falls. What are the odds of that?] 2) Christians must believe there is a God with three persons (what's the likelihood of even one eternal God-person?) who never had a beginning and will never cease to exist (even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end). 3) Christians believe God is all-powerful and good (even though he shows no signs of helping while a child slowly burns to death). 4) Christians believe God did miracles in the ancient past (but we see no evidence he does so today, which is our only sure test for whether or not they happened in the past). 5) Christians believe that God substantiated his revelation in the Bible through miracles (and yet if he chose the historical past to reveal this message he chose a poor medium to do so, since practically anything can be rationally denied in history, even if it actually occurred). 6) Christians believe God became a man (although no Christian has yet ever made logical sense of this). 7) Christians believe Jesus atoned for our sins on a cross (even though there is no rationally coherent understanding of how this supposed God-man’s death does anything to eliminate sin). Christians believe Jesus arose from the dead (even though the evidence is not there and what evidence we do have is based upon the superstitious claims in the past. Would YOU believe a report that someone was raised from the dead today? Wouldn't YOU demand to see for yourself? Doubting Thomas is not you. All we have is a report about what he saw, which I think is flawed). 9) Christians believe Jesus ascended into heaven (indicating an ancient three-tired universe which is rejected by modern science). 10)Christians believe Jesus is in heaven where the believers will join him (but does that mean the 2nd person of the Trinity is forever encapsulated in the body of the man Jesus, or was this body of Jesus discarded, or are there now two separate beings in heaven, the man Jesus and also the 2nd person of the Trinity? And what about free will in heaven for the believers? If they have free will and never sin then God didn't need to create this earthly existence with its pain and suffering and hell for the "many." He could just have created us in heaven in the first place. If there is the chance of rebellion in heaven then it could happen all over again, and no one is eternally safe). 11) Christians believe Jesus said he will return again “in this generation” from the sky heaven where “every eye will see” him (notice the three tired universe again, over a flat earth. Somany failed predictions of Jesus' return have caused Christians to adopt Preterism, since they cannot make sense of such a claim which never happened. Talk about scoffers who will arise in the last days...Christians are now the scoffers!). 12) Christians believe Jesus will judge all people of all lands (and yet those outside of Christ were simply born in the wrong place and the wrong time, as I argue with the basis for the Outsider Test).

Twelve is a good superstitious number multiplying the four corners of the earth by the three vertical planes of hell, earth and heaven, so I'll stop here. [Seven is a superstitious number too, by adding them rather than multiplying them].

None of this makes rational sense. None of this has any good evidence for it. This faith is false if tested from the outside, or even from the inside as I have done. The only reason Christians believe it is because they were influenced to believe it by people they trust, by their parents, and by their culture.

The Evangelical Christian faith fails the outsider test miserably (as well as other brands).

Lol! You're actually the blind one here, the request pertains to you being an atheist, so get to work! And while on that do have an "outsider" perspective on your theory that seems to be the foundation of your self delusion that is termed atheism "medically" called skepticolosis!

vedaxcool: Lol! You're actually the blind one here, the request pertains to you being an atheist, so get to work! And while on that do have an "outsider" perspective on your theory that seems to be the foundation of your self delusion that is termed atheism "medically" called skepticolosis!

You really should learn to read or just shut up.

What is the use of Faith? To soothe the complex mind of man or seek out reality?

mazaje: Martin I love how you are handling Anony. . . .He comes with this confidence of an elusive supernatural world, now that he has been asked to describe it he is applying the same old tactics. . . .I laugh in Aramaic. . . .

Martian: It always fall apart when they are confronted and asked to give a coherent description.

Ok Martian, It appears you have finally pushed me to the wall especially with mazaje's laughter. So here goes;

Quite simply, the supernatural transcends the natural, It is an immaterial realm (in the sense that it is not defined by physical matter). It also isn't limited by space and time as we know them. I believe that man is a supernatural being in a natural body and that the inner-man (the soul) cannot be expressed in terms of space, time and matter. It is because there is a supernatural God that we have the miracle called the universe or any meaning to our existence. Satisfied now?

I know the next thing you'll want to do is to pester me to explain it in physical terms.
But this will not work until you can tell me objectively how your physical senses are the ultimate tool for evaluation.

I'll live you with a little parable to explain what I mean. Assuming we created a virtual world/universe software much like ours containing free-willed sentient individuals and ran it on the the intelligence of a supercomputer.
This created world will obey the rules we have coded into it. the units for measurement will be bytes of information. They will never be able to truly understand mass and space and time in the true sense i.e. physicality would elude them.

Some will say that there is no such thing as physical, they will be wrong and foolish because they are judging all existence based upon their limited senses (which we coded into them).

Others will say there is probably a physical, they would be wise because even though they don't know for sure, they are not writing of the possibility (they are acknowledging their limitations)

Others will say there is definitely a physical, these would be right even though they describe it in different ways, however in their descriptions of the physical, it is either one of them is telling the truth or all of them are lying. there cannot be multiple truths

Moral of the story: We can only truly know God by revelation. And to me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation of Himself, He is the perfect man and the perfect example upon which I base all morality and value.

I am sure we've had this conversation before.

EbuksAllison7: Wrong, it is not.

How so?

Mr_Anony:

Ok Martian, It appears you have finally pushed me to the wall especially with mazaje's laughter. So here goes;

Quite simply, the supernatural transcends the natural, It is an immaterial realm (in the sense that it is not defined by physical matter). It also isn't limited by space and time as we know them. I believe that man is a supernatural being in a natural body and that the inner-man (the soul) cannot be expressed in terms of space, time and matter. It is because there is a supernatural God that we have the miracle called the universe or any meaning to our existence. Satisfied now?

wouldn't creating a causal chain btw the nature and "supernatural" commit to physical laws as we understand them? Since defining wood as not water leaves a blank image in the mind, the definition of supernatural/spirituality as immaterial isn't helpful either.

I know the next thing you'll want to do is to pester me to explain it in physical terms.
But this will not work until you can tell me objectively how your physical senses are the ultimate tool for evaluation.

If your senses aren't reliable, how do you bacome aware of your existence?

I'll live you with a little parable to explain what I mean. Assuming we created a virtual world/universe software much like ours containing free-willed sentient individuals and ran it on the the intelligence of a supercomputer.
This created world will obey the rules we have coded into it. the units for measurement will be bytes of information. They will never be able to truly understand mass and space and time in the true sense i.e. physicality would elude them.

Some will say that there is no such thing as physical, they will be wrong and foolish because they are judging all existence based upon their limited senses (which we coded into them).

Others will say there is probably a physical, they would be wise because even though they don't know for sure, they are not writing of the possibility (they are acknowledging their limitations)

Others will say there is definitely a physical, these would be right even though they describe it in different ways, however in their descriptions of the physical, it is either one of them is telling the truth or all of them are lying. there cannot be multiple truths

Moral of the story: We can only truly know God by revelation. And to me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation of Himself, He is the perfect man and the perfect example upon which I base all morality and value.

I am sure we've had this conversation before.

Information and how it works is natural and physical, the software is a mere extension of our world. Aslo if our senses are unreliable, how do we percieve revelations in the first place??

EbuksAllison7: You really should learn to read or just shut up.

maybe you should learn to follow your suggestion first before giving it to others . . . skepticolosis

EbuksAllison7:
vedaxcool, you seem to be blind, on the very first page mr annoying asked as well

@vedaxcool @ea7. So I have now become Mr Annoying abi? Lol, it's all good.

Mr Ebuka Allison, Reasons why your "objective" test is not really objective and why you are not really thinking out of the box:

1. Your test is biased: You are laying out a test with the presumptions that there is no God and the physical is all we know now prove your God exists......and you are calling it an objective test?
How can this be an objective test when God by nature is not described as a physical being. how can any test demand physical proof of a non-physical entity and call itself objective?
If I lay out a mathematical test e.g. 1+1=? for this test to have any meaning, there must be laws of mathematics which this test must submit to. I cannot expect an alphabet as the answer.
In the same way, if you are going to test for something spiritual, you must first assume that the spiritual exists, secondly you must be conversant with all spiritual laws to which God must conform if He exists and then you can test for Him. It is a bias to physicality to test for a spiritual God and expect Him to conform to it. therefore it is not an objective test.

[b]2. The basis of your test is insufficient:[/b]If we wanted to test for length for instance and you brought out a ruler, we must agree that your ruler is calibrated properly before you go on to measure the line. You cannot get any accurate measurement of any line if your ruler isn't calibrated right, you must also be sure that what you have in your hand is indeed a ruler. I asked you how you know for sure that you senses are ultimate and in perfect working condition and your answer was that you will just assume that it is (a necessary leap of faith according to you). How then can you objectively judge anything based on an assumed tool?

Now, you see the point is that there is always a bias and this makes it difficult to judge properly for God's existence. A true objective method to me would be to accept all biases as a given and then explain from each view point the phenomena we can observe.
For instance assuming that we didn't know what the answer to 1+1 is, some think it is 3 while others think it is 2. The best way would be to bring 1 orange and then add another orange and we will have our answer. This would solve our biases the 3 camp would be wrong because their bias cannot explain anything. This is a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Now let us come to God. The reason for God is not really an explanation of how but an explanation of why. E.g. Why does the Universe exist? What is the purpose of man? Why are we here? What is good and why should we do good? e.t.c.
Science is how we answer the how. E.g. How does the universe work? How does man function? How did we come about? e.t.c.

The atheist worldview cannot explain these intrinsic whys. In the atheist worldview, good and evil have no meaning, there are no absolutes, there is no value anywhere because nothing is better than the other, everything happens by random chance and order came from disorder.
According to Martian, meaning is just an illusion or a trick our mind plays on us and there really is no hope outside the physical existence yet he cannot point out how he knows this for sure. (...and yeah nothing is sure)
All these are logically nonsense because in our reality, we depend on things being sure, we believe that our existence has a meaning. we evaluate things and compare intrinsic qualities. We never believe that disorder ever produces order. We believe that there is good and evil as distinct from each other. The atheist worldview simply ignores these things and yet atheists don't live their day to day lives as their world view would dictate. All they do is simply reject God even though they live as if there is a God.

As a christian theist, I believe in a perfect God who is ultimate creator and moral giver who gives order and meaning to all exisence. My value and meaning comes from God.
I'll put it like this:
For us to say that something is imperfect, It implies that there must be a perfect from which the imperfect deviates.
It is from this perfect that everything else gets it's meaning.
I believe in a perfect God from whom I draw meaning and value. To say that this perfect God does not exist is to say that there is no way to evaluate anything therefore, everything would be both equal and unequal in value at the same time. This is meaningless.

I hope you get my point now.

Kay 17: wouldn't creating a causal chain btw the nature and "supernatural" commit to physical laws as we understand them? Since defining wood as not water leaves a blank image in the mind, the definition of supernatural/spirituality as immaterial isn't helpful either.

Funny enough this is the same negative way you define atheism as a non-belief, well, that's by the way.
The closest thing I can give you that is an immaterial person is your mind(not your brain) Your mind can't be defined by matter and yet it exists

Kay 17: If your senses aren't reliable, how do you bacome aware of your existence?
Information and how it works is natural and physical, the software is a mere extension of our world. Aslo if our senses are unreliable, how do we percieve revelations in the first place??

Also in the same manner, the natural is an extension of the supernatural, man is a supernatural being living in a natural body therefore I believe you can know something in an extra-sensual way (i.e. beyond our senses, much like the way a person knows that he/she exists: "I know because I know".
We can perceive revelation through our senses yes but you would realize that there is a difference between what is revealed to and what is physically investigated much like there is a difference between fact and meaning.

@Mr. Anony, no your not Mr. Annoying! Lol well atleast your lyrical response to this thread has made the skepticolosis people annoying!

Mr_Anony:
According to Martian, meaning is just an illusion or a trick our mind plays on us and there really is no hope outside the physical existence yet he cannot point out how he knows this for sure. (...and yeah nothing is sure)

If you want to dispute this, address it to me and do it after you describe the "supernatural". I've you thought about how to articulate your "supernatural" world?

And yes, there is no inherent meaning for our existence. Your cherished god was meant to give jews a sense of meaning. My views can be observed inp with reality.

Some are born into relative wealth and some are born into constant strife, while a multitude are born into the middle of these two extremes without their consent. That's the first evidence of the randomness of nature.

^^^^ The same materialist Martian who has admitted of recent that non-physical things exist - saying only that the non physical things are products of physical things.

https://www.nairaland.com/972251/understanding-religious-delusion/3#11287413

Deep Sight:
The same materialist Martian who has admitted of recent that non-physical things exist.

Take your "self existent", "non physical", "inherently" existing idea of god somewhere else but you are welcome to describe your "non physical" dimension.
i ddn't agree with your "non physical" things. All I said was that ideas and thoughts are products of physical processes in the brain.

Martian:

Take your "self existent", "non physical", "inherently" existing idea of god somewhere else but you are welcome to describe your "non physical" dimension.
i ddn't agree with your "non physical" things. All I said was that ideas and thoughts are products of physical processes in the brain.

O, i edited my post above to include your full statement.

It still speaks for itself.

You have still admitted that non physical things exist.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:
O, i edited my post above to include your full statement.
It still speaks for itself.
You have still admitted that non physical things exist.
Thanks.

Grasping at straws. My views don't relate to your nonsensical ideas "son". Saying they are not physical has nothing to do with your "non physicsal" ideas.
Your "unembodied mind" is also nothing but an idealized human brain...............without the brain.

Martian:
Ideas and thoughts are not physical, but they are the products of a physical entity which is the brain.

Martian:
"son".

Get over this already.

Saying they are not physical has nothing to do with your "non physicsal" ideas.

They don't have to have anything to do with my ideas. It is sufficient that they show that YOUR ideas are contradictory and inchoate.

Deep Sight:
Get over this already.
They don't have to have anything to do with my ideas. It is sufficient that they show that YOUR ideas are contradictory and inchoate.

"son" was a joke. Sorry, "kid".

Anyway, lmao at MY ideas being contradictory!!! They contradict yours but they don't contradict the world we inhabit. "unembodied minds" do not exist in this world, but they definitely exist in yours.
Your "non physical","extra universal timeline" and "eternity infinity" ideas are inchoate.

@Deepsight and Anony

Both of you probably wouldn't exist if at the moment before your conception, your parents had stopped having s3x. If they had, you wouldn't exist and the next union of their s3exual gametes would have resulted in someone else thats not you. You are nothing but a product of chance. You should feel lucky that you survived and grew from those cells and now you can argue about how you really are special creations of some god.lol

Martian:

Anyway, lmao at MY ideas being contradictory!!! They contradict yours but they don't contradict the world we inhabit.

Forget about my ideas: this is about YOUR ideas.

They are indeed manifestly contradictory.

1. You insist that only physical things exist.

2. You accept that ideas and thoughts exist.

3. You say that ideas and thoughts are not physical things.

Inescapable contradiction. How do ideas and thoughts - which you say are NOT physical - exist - and yet you say that ONLY physical things exist. Lol.

If you were wise, now would be the time to simple appear intelligent by acceding the obvious.

Bro, its a wrap. No escape.

You see, I don't expect you to accept the obvious. Adamant people never concede the obvious when outwitted. They just stick to their illogical guns and thereby appear even more illogical. However my prize is not your concession. My prize is that other readers can see the contradiction clearly, even if you deny it from now till dooms day.

Deep Sight:
Forget about my ideas: this is about YOUR ideas.
They are indeed manifestly contradictory.

Allow me to start by , LOL.

Deep Sight:
Forget about my ideas: this is about YOUR ideas.
They are indeed manifestly contradictory.
1. You insist that only physical things exist.
2. You accept that ideas and thoughts exist.
3. You say that ideas and thoughts are not physical things.
Inescapable contradiction. How do ideas and thoughts - which you say are NOT physical - exist - and yet you say that ONLY physical things exist. Lol.

Physical things as defined in our physical universe. Even light which is not "physical" is the product of a physical body. When I "insist" that only physical things exist, I mean this world(universe) is the only one we are sure exists and it doesn't contain things like the ones you deem "non physical".

Ideas and thoughts not being "physical" things themselves but being the result of "physcial" things is different from what you term "non physical". Ideas and thoughts exist because physcial brains exist. LOL at that.

Deep Sight:
Inescapable contradiction. How do ideas and thoughts - which you say are NOT physical - exist - and yet you say that ONLY physical things exist. Lol.
If you were wise, now would be the time to simple appear intelligent by acceding the obvious.
Bro, its a wrap. No escape.
You see, I don't expect you to accept the obvious. Adamant people never concede the obvious when outwitted. They just stick to their illogical guns and thereby appear even more illogical. However my prize is not your concession. My prize is that other readers can see the contradiction clearly, even if you deny it from now till dooms day.

You, outwit who? Maybe the people around you and the siblings you mesmerize with your word play who can't quite tell you how ridiculous your ideas are because they hold similar inanities as worldviews. . There is no contradiction about ideas and thoughts existing as products of processes in a physical brain. I already used anencephaly as an example and you didn't have anything to say but ask questions about the cerebrum and cerebellum. The other readers who agree with you are mostly theists so that's no skin off my back because they already believe in a variation of your silly superstitous ignorant clap trap.

Now, you describe your "non physical" world where ideas and thoughts exist independent of brains. Try not to be inchoate, but that's impossible, isn't it?

Martian: @Deepsight and Anony
Both of you probably wouldn't exist if at the moment before your conception, your parents had stopped having s3x. If they had, you wouldn't exist and the next union of their s3exual gametes would have resulted in someone else thats not you. You are nothing but a product of chance. You should feel lucky that you survived and grew from those cells and now you can argue about how you really are special creations of some god.lol

Anony, please describe the "supernatural" world where your god lives. If he lives there that is. You know, the place where your "soul" came from.

Martian:

Anony, please describe the "supernatural" world where your god lives. If he lives there that is. You know, the place where your "soul" came from.

He has already described it. . . . .

Mr_Anony:



Ok Martian, It appears you have finally pushed me to the wall especially with mazaje's laughter. So here goes;

Quite simply, the supernatural transcends the natural, It is an immaterial realm (in the sense that it is not defined by physical matter). It also isn't limited by space and time as we know them. I believe that man is a supernatural being in a natural body and that the inner-man (the soul) cannot be expressed in terms of space, time and matter. It is because there is a supernatural God that we have the miracle called the universe or any meaning to our existence. Satisfied now?

I know the next thing you'll want to do is to pester me to explain it in physical terms.
But this will not work until you can tell me objectively how your physical senses are the ultimate tool for evaluation.

I'll live you with a little parable to explain what I mean. Assuming we created a virtual world/universe software much like ours containing free-willed sentient individuals and ran it on the the intelligence of a supercomputer.
This created world will obey the rules we have coded into it. the units for measurement will be bytes of information. They will never be able to truly understand mass and space and time in the true sense i.e. physicality would elude them.

Some will say that there is no such thing as physical, they will be wrong and foolish because they are judging all existence based upon their limited senses (which we coded into them).

Others will say there is probably a physical, they would be wise because even though they don't know for sure, they are not writing of the possibility (they are acknowledging their limitations)

Others will say there is definitely a physical, these would be right even though they describe it in different ways, however in their descriptions of the physical, it is either one of them is telling the truth or all of them are lying. there cannot be multiple truths

Moral of the story: We can only truly know God by revelation. And to me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation of Himself, He is the perfect man and the perfect example upon which I base all morality and value.

I am sure we've had this conversation before.

^^^^^

oh, i didn't see that. Gracias.

After reading his first sentence, I can say that somtimes laughter is the best medicine if you catch my drift.

Mr_Anony:
Quite simply, the supernatural transcends the natural, It is an immaterial realm (in the sense that it is not defined by physical matter)

In this "natural realm" immaterial is defined as
1. of no real importance; inconsequential
2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual

So all I can deduce from this sentence is that the supernatural world exists beyond the limit of the natural world and it's immaterial .In physical terms, the definition of the "immaterial" is NOTHING.

Mr_Anony:
I believe that man is a supernatural being in a natural body [/b]and that [b]the inner-man (the soul) cannot be expressed in terms of space, time and matter

If man is a supernatural being in a natural body, are other animals supernatural beings in natural bodies too?
If a "supernatural inner man" cannot be expressed in space and time, how come you claim it inhabits a natural man's body? Isn't that an expression of the "soul" in terms of space, time and matter?

Mr_Anony:
It is because there is a supernatural God that we have the miracle called the universe or any meaning to our existence. Satisfied now?

Yes I am satisfied. Everything you wrote is made up hogwash......in my not so humble opinion lol. But the bolded is my whole argument and you do agree with me. You make up your gods, what they look like, what they say,what they like and what they want you to do just so your lives can have meaning.

Mr_Anony:
I know the next thing you'll want to do is to pester me to explain it in physical terms.
But this will not work until you can tell me objectively how your physical senses are the ultimate tool for evaluation.

Now he is going to blame his inability to be lucid on the Martian. Let me to remind you since you forgot so fast.

Mr_Anony:
Quite simply, the supernatural transcends the natural, It is an immaterial realm (in the sense that it is not defined by physical matter).

You already implied that you can't explain it in phyical terms because in physical terms it means NOTHING.

Mr_Anony:
I'll live you with a little parable to explain what I mean. Assuming we created a virtual world/universe software much like ours containing free-willed sentient individuals and ran it on the the intelligence of a supercomputer.
This created world will obey the rules we have coded into it. the units for measurement will be bytes of information. They will never be able to truly understand mass and space and time in the true sense i.e. physicality would elude them.
Some will say that there is no such thing as physical, they will be wrong and foolish because they are judging all existence based upon their limited senses (which we coded into them).
Others will say there is probably a physical, they would be wise because even though they don't know for sure, they are not writing of the possibility (they are acknowledging their limitations)
Others will say there is definitely a physical, these would be right even though they describe it in different ways, however in their descriptions of the physical, it is either one of them is telling the truth or all of them are lying. there cannot be multiple truths
Moral of the story: We can only truly know God by revelation. And to me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation of Himself, He is the perfect man and the perfect example upon which I base all morality and value.

I am sure we've had this conversation before.

Your "parable" is just you fancying yourelf as a God who created a universe and watches his creatures argue about his existence. You also used the "natural" world's computer science and human conversations about metaphysics as models for your parable. You've done nothing but assume that this is how your god views the world from his immaterial supernatural world. You then topped it off with platitudes about your god and his son jesus being the perfect man bla bla bla bbla

And no, you've never described your supernatural world before;but now that you have, it seems like an awesome immaterial place

Mr_Anony:
Funny enough this is the same negative way you define atheism as a non-belief, well, that's by the way.
The closest thing I can give you that is an immaterial person is your mind(not your brain) Your mind can't be defined by matter and yet it exists

yes, atheism is sufficiently defined even as a negative.

Also in the same manner, the natural is an extension of the supernatural, man is a supernatural being living in a natural body therefore I believe you can know something in an extra-sensual way (i.e. beyond our senses, much like the way a person knows that he/she exists: "I know because I know".

the natural is not an extension of supernatural, cos as you have always said natural is NOT supernatural. I'm not aware of any extrasensual organ!

We can perceive revelation through our senses yes but you would realize that there is a difference between what is revealed to and what is physically investigated much like there is a difference between fact and meaning.

both pass through the same medium: senses. You are skeptical about truths through the senses, yet have no problem with revelations! Hypocritical.

Kay 17:
the natural is not an extension of supernatural, cos as you have always said natural is NOT supernatural. I'm not aware of any extrasensual organ!

both pass through the same medium: senses. You are skeptical about truths through the senses, yet have no problem with revelations! Hypocritical.

Wrong my friend, before you start screaming "hypocrite!" I have never said that we cannot possibly know anything through our senses. All I have said is that our senses are not ultimate and that we can know something beyond using our physical senses. Like for instance, How do you know that you exist as you and not someone else? You just know!
If hypothetically we could extract your consciousness and transfer it into the body of a Chinese woman somewhere, you would still know that you are yourself even though you entire body and hence your senses have been changed.
All I have been saying is that to claim that all knowledge must submit to your physical senses is to claim that your physical senses are ultimate. This would mean that you must be able to explain exactly how you know that your senses are working perfectly.

@mranony sorry for calling u annoying, some insect on this thread was bugging me.

The test requires us to be objective and assume a few things, some of which is that we exist and reality works as advertised. Have you even taken it, this is the problem with you guys. All bluster, no matter how much fanfiction there is to explain the workings of harry potter and make it consistent with our world, it's still fiction.

Mr_Anony:
All I have been saying is that to claim that all knowledge must submit to your physical senses is to claim that your physical senses are ultimate. This would mean that you must be able to explain exactly how you know that your senses are working perfectly.

You know your five senses are working properly because you use them everyday to smell, feel, touch, hear and see. If you can't do any of that at a satisfactory level then your senses are not working properly. Other than those five, do you have any other senses? Those five are how we all percieve the world unless you evolved and now have more senses than those five. If so, you should say how they work.

they are also some people who list up to 9 senses, but they all have to do with our physical nature and none of them can sense your supernatural.