sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Scientism is also an interesting topic. Science has its limitations but there is nothing in my OP that could even remotely be associated with "scientism".
Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism.
The truth is you're a follower of scientism (in denial). And scientism is a philosophical position, in fact a metaphysical position.
I would like to see your position about the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Again here we go back to anecdotal evidence. Personal experiences are worthless.
Scientism detected.
Scientism is a metaphysical interpretation of the scientific method.
Why do you think the scientific method is a universal tool? Personal opinion?
The scientific method can't be properly applied to rare events (origin of life or origin of consciousness) and subjectivity.
Your view is self contradictory. It's just like someone realizing a hammer really works and deciding it can be used to brush the teeth and comb the hair. Wtf?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Theism is internally contradictory.
The vast majority of interpretations of theism truly are contradictory.
But good luck with the ontological argument from Saint Anselm.
My theism is based on his philosophical argument, in Pascal's wager and in a private revelation to me (a paranormal experience).
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
They will trigger the Great Tribulation...
I think they will do nothing.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Yet the Catholic Church certainly does NOT believe that contacting/communicating with demons is BS since it can lead to demon possession which in turn will require an exorcism.
This subject is full of popular misconceptions. Demons are much more subtle in their deceptions.
Do you mean you want some truth coming from a demon?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
In any event, I'm baffled that a devout Catholic like you views contacting demons as BS when the Catholic church is infamously known for its legendary exorcisms.
Exorcism is not communication.
What's the point of God creating an immaterial soul that does the same thing as the brain? Why the duplication?
Not necessarily duplication but enhancement. And the process is broken we don't know exactly how it meant to be. Probably it was not meant to be any duplication in the original plan.
How are you able to distinguish what your brain does from what your immaterial soul does?
The first step is to check out the animal behaviour in other species and see differences and similarities.
Non human animals don't have immortal souls.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Well, I guess if an AI ever does develop consciousness it would settle the debate, though I'm sure theists would still find a way to argue against it. That is if the AI doesn't wipe us all out.
Maybe I'm wrong but I can't think of how to argue against Al's consciousness.
This would settle the debate.
But something much stranger would be if this AI says to have a spiritual soul too.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
This is not true. I am sorry, but I have to say that you are being dishonest.
The Bible texts regarding spiritism (not all were included in my comments above) are very clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and explicit regarding the dangers of and penalties for engaging in spiritism.
For instance you interpret these events like being communication with the dead. But there's an interpretation this event is about communication with demons. And a lot more theological interpretations. These particular events say nothing to me.
BTW, where does your reason come from? Your immaterial soul or your brain?
Both if you mean reason as intellect.
But the ability to decide, the will, comes entirely from the soul.
the question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.
even informed christians who accept the reality of evolution feel a need to add an additional step where god imbued man with a conscience.. non-supernatural explanations of the origin of morality usually focus on simple examples of reciprocal altruism and the ability to empathise with fellow creatures.
secular moral systems most often rest on the single foundation of the effects actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures.
Slightly off-topic but Haidt's research shows that the liberal left are losing ground because they appeal mostly to the first of those moral intuitions, the concern about care/harm.
The right appeals to all six moral "taste buds", some of which the left don't even view as virtues.
Interesting.
I think the political left is very crazy.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
However you have totally failed to address the OP.
This is very subjective, cofty.
