timberlandko wrote:maliagar, my repetitions are of the empirically, forensically valid unarguable refutations to the arguiments you present.
Sorry, but you're not repeating refutations. You're repeating statements.
Quote:No matter how you attempt to twist reality to conform to the peculiar framework of your particyular superstition, reality trumps unreality.
Yes. To live I have to twist reality. But you... you just have a transparent understanding of the world, with no personal framework in between you and reality. [Give me a break... human fallibility applies only to those who think different...]
Quote:If there is any subjectivity to that, I fail to see it.
I can tell. You're "objective", period. Those who think differently are subjective and are, therefore, impaired in their ability to show you your own subjectivity.
Quote:That one assumes the occurrance of an observed, otherwise unexplained, phenomononn was the effect of supernateral intervention, as opposed to unknown or unrecognized natural casation neatly fits the definition of superstition.
Maybe your tacit definition (which you haven't bothered to provide). And by the way, you continue to disregard without discussion my definitions of faith and superstition.
IF YOU HAVE AN UNEXPLAINED AND SEEMINGLY UNEXPLAINABLE PHENOMENON, YOU CAN
ASSUME THAT IT
MUST HAVE A NATURAL EXPLANATION THAT
ONE DAY WILL BE FOUND, OR YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION MAY ALSO BE POSSIBLE. HOWEVER,
AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE (NOT OF EVIDENCE), YOU REJECT THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION FOR CERTAIN PHENOMENA AND CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE MUST BE A NATURAL ONE ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY. THAT'S A SUBJECTIVE LEAP OF FAITH. THAT'S A VERY PERSONAL DECISION. THAT'S CLOSING DOORS ON AN ISSUE THAT REMAINS UNKNOWN. THAT'S AN ARBITRARY DEMARCATION OF WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S NOT. THAT'S AN EX CATHEDRA DECLARATION OF WHERE THE WORLD BEGINS AND WHERE IT ENDS.
To me your "argument" (better, your declaration of principles) is not self-evident (let alone supported by reasons and external evidence).
Quote:"Faith" requires a suspension of disbelief...
Certainly. But this suspension may be totally unwarranted, or supported by different types of probable reasoning. If Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa offered to take care of me during an illness, I would have to make a decision and TRUST one of them, 'cause no certainty is available when it comes to human beings (it's always possible that Mother Teresa would go blood-thirsty on me). I wonder who would you pick to take care of you. And why.
Quote:reason requires not acceptance but skepticism and inquiry in the interest of achieving understanding.
This is a statement of principle, an act of faith. For a reason that is genuinely critical is also capable of being self-critical and aware of its own limitations and of the unknown and its possibilities. I suppose your reason hasn't reached this stage.
Quote:you by your "Faioth" have no "Right" to determine for yourself what may or may not be reasonable...
False. This is an open discussion among philosophers of all trends, even within the Christian tradition. Some Christian philosophers believe it is possible to prove the existence of God, and other Christian philosophers believe it is impossible. You have rationalist Christians and fideist Christians. So your understanding of what faith allows or does not allow a believer to do is at best biased, and at worst, thoroughly ignorant.
Quote:...but rather are required by your "Faith" to accept as reasonable only that promoted as so by your "Faith"...
Very wrong. Again, issues such as God, the soul, and morality have been discussed from all kinds of perspectives within the Christian tradition.
Quote:I have engaged and logically, referentially, and effectively refuted every one of your arguments, often in detail and at length.
Maybe to your own satisfaction. Not to mine.
Quote:"Proof" is not complicated at all; it is simple, direct, tangible, verifiable, reproduceable, and confirmable externally of itself by various means.
That's true only when we deal with external discrete objects that can be manipulated in some way. However, the formal sciences (math, logic) have standards of proof that are quite different from the natural sciences. And the standards of proof and certainty in the natural sciences are quite different from the social sciences or the humanities. But you're unaware of this little detail. For the Nth time: You have adopted an epistemology and a metaphysics that defines reality as the physical world, and knowledge of that reality as some sort of observation with our 5 senses. And you don't see why this is an act of faith on your part.
Anyway, we're walking in circles again.
Quote:Of what value is Christian Theology to a responsible, knowledgeable, well adjusted Hindu...
Nonsense. You've probably never heard of the Jesuit priests in India studying Hinduism to see what it can offer to Christianity. Or Buddhism, or the African religions... You forget why Christianity was appealing to the Romans and Greeks of old, or to today's Africans, Koreans, or Taiwanese. (See how the Church is growing in those areas).
Hope this helps (though I doubt it).
]
c.i.
