On Atheism vs. Christianity

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Are you unwilling or unable to provide further information on the supernatural object, entity or ocurrence that you perceived or witnessed?

If I told you, would you believe? So why would I bother telling you?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Have you ever seen anything supernatural anywhere other than in a movie? Is a movie of this universe?

Yes I have.

Please describe for me the method you used to confirm that what you allegedly observed was "supernatural."

What happened was impossible to explain in any conceivable normal way. Observation was about 5 feet away. Confirmation by another individual who was not present at the time of the occurrence. For me this is not really relevant- what I saw does not influence my beliefs one way or the other. I was already aware of such things.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

What we know about the universe through our scientific research indicates that things don't come from nothing.. but somehow this universe did.

Wrong. We do not know this.

We know it according to what we know now.

No, we simply do not. We do not observe an origin of the universe, so we cannot say that it "came from" anything.

It is not a definite , but everything relevant that we know from science points to this.

False.

From what we know at this point, it is unreasonable to say that the universe has always been, including all parts of matter and time.

There is nothing logically inconsistent about an infinite regress. We do not observe a

Explain to me how an infinite regress is logical.

The negative integers. Do you want to claim that the negative integers are illogical?

Negative integers? There must be more to it b/c that seems kind of weak. Explain some.

You can disagree all you want, but the things we know about our universe tell us that matter and time are finite. Are there things that we know about this universe that tell us otherwise?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Negative integers? There must be more to it b/c that seems kind of weak. Explain some.

The negative integers regress infinitely. Do they represent some kind of logical contradiction?

You can disagree all you want, but the things we know about our universe tell us that matter and time are finite.

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

Are there things that we know about this universe that tell us otherwise?

I don't think its sensible to talk about the universe or things within the universe in terms of finitude or infinity. Infinity is a characteristic of sets of numbers, and numbers don't exist "out there" in the universe. They are abstractions.

I have to go now, and I realize that you have another post to which I've not responded. Unfortunately beer and bong hits have a higher priority than internet debates on a Friday night.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
s: Assuming you are making an attempt to decipher another's meaning, how is it possible to not infer? And once you make up your mind about what someone means, how can you take your understanding other than seriously?

M: I take it seriously. I infer from what you are saying that what you infer is not correct because I can't infer it except if I take myself seriously. And I'm serious about not taking myself too seriously.

---------------
s: You're sidetracking again. You wrote earlier, "I could infer that, but it would be a guess." But my point was that EVERY response you make is based on inferences you make about the meaning of the other, regardless of whether you're correct or incorrect. You take your best guess, and then you respond. That's what communication is. You want to pretend that in writing posts in response to others that you're doing something else. Nonsense.

Again, stop playing games. Stop pretending. When you read these words you come to an understanding of what they mean. THAT is an inference. You are doing it this very moment.

M: I don't see where I am saying, in writing posts responding to others, that I am not inferring. I am inferring.

s: That's not to say you must be invested in your inferences - you can certainly be open to the possibility that you haven't understood what the other person intended. But at the moment of decision, you've made inferences that (at least for that moment) you're taking seriously, if only for the purpose of responding.

M: Not being invested is what I am talking about. You are invested in logic because you infer its value, but I do not make such an inference seeing it as only that one of my two hemispheres that does the talking while my right hemisphere laughs at me.

s: Another game. I stated that I value objectivity. That wasn't a normative statement. In fact, I stated that I thought others valued other things (a just universe, for example), and that is just fine with me (as long as they don't harm others).

By pointing out a contrast ("I do not make such an inference [about logic]") you pretend a non-existent disagreement.

M: I don't see this. You said you value objectivity. I said that my experience with valuing objectivity has no meaning for me because when I look at myself objectively, I don't know what objective is. I am not trying to tell you you don't value objectivity but that I don't because I distrust my capacity to know what it is. I don't see where I am setting up a disagreement that does not exist. You value objectivity, I reject the notion that what I want to think is objective is. You are telling me what you think and I am responding with what I think. I don't see where the disagreement is a fabrication, that I am making you believe something you don't. I take it that you value objectivity.

s: This is your typical method of discussion. You pretend that the other person is making assertions they never made, and then argue against those assertions. If you want a serious discussion with me, stick to what I say, not to what you pretend I say.

M: I see this kind of reasoning used against me all the time and am quite familiar with it. I don't think much about what I say. I get intuitive reactions to what is said. I might be right or wrong. I hope I am objective enough to hear any complaint you have regarding me putting words in your mouth. I hope I will see if I am. So far I don't, but I am not actually very smart.

s: To "behave" in this context means to not knowingly be difficult in your responses. To not respond in ways that sidetrack the discussion.

M: But I AM difficult because I AM having difficulty inferring what you infer.

s: Nonsense. You understand exactly what I'm writing. Stop pretending.

M: Hehe, I will slap myself and see if that helps.

[s: When I wrote that I apparently value beliefs based on testable hypothesis, that was a serious example intended to move the discussion forward. When you responded regarding my "preconceived notions" of what "testing" means, you were sidetracking our discussion. You were letting your ego interfere. And you know EXACTLY what I mean by this.

M: I have to be difficult again, I guess, and tell you I see nothing here to do with my ego. All I saw was you moving the discussion into an area I can't go because I can't make the assumptions you do. I didn't sidetrack the discussion so much as point out you fell in a pot hole. I know you value beliefs based on testable hypothesis but I maintain the test is what you consider to be a valid test. You are arguing, I think, that the only way I can know that candy is sweet is if sugar can be shown to fires neurons in my tongue.

s: You're confused again. It doesn't matter whether I mistakenly value an invalid test. My assertion was that I value testability. Period. How I implement those values - whether rightly or wrongly - is irrelevant to what I told you.

M: Very true but your results are worthless if your test is and that is my point.



s: To see how ridiculous your response is, imagine I say "I like movies." And then you respond, "You want to deny that spectator sports is fun because you've never held a baseball bat."

That example is typical of your discourse. You try to move discussions sideways by inventing positions not held by the other person. Then you argue against those invented positions.

M: I don't think so. I would say that if you lived your life more you might not be so interested in vicarious experience. I know you like movies. I just don't know why.

s: If you insist on willfully misunderstanding simple, declarative statements, pretend they mean something they don't, and use this technique to push the discussion sideways, you are either cognitively impaired, playing games, or both. In either case, I won't continue with you if you persist in doing this.

M: For my part I make no demands on you.

s: You want to deny intoxication because you can't prove pink elephants when what you need to do is lay down the scientific tools and have a drink. There are tests you can run out there in the world and ones you experience internally. But the state of the observer determines what he sees. The science of states is in its infancy to the modern western mind but has been here pretty unnoticed for a long time.

Sorry. Not gonna work. I see exactly what you're doing. More games, cloaked in metaphoric language.

M: I don't accept that you see what I am doing if you don't tell me what it is. Oh wait, I see what you're doing, hehe.

s: You're a VERY smart guy, but I apologize for being smarter than you. I can't help it.

M: I am interested in the ideas, not in who is smarter. I know I am quite dumb. I say what I feel.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Well... I read some of the responses that were posted to my earlier state about science and religion and atheism.

I was happy to see that some appreciated the post (more than expected) and I saw that some didn't (not surprising at all).

I also wanted to say that I didn't used to be Christian or 'religious' at all. I didn't really start believing in God until I started getting deep into the nuts and bolts of science. The more i learned the more i realized that science can't answer the most interesting questions that face humanity, at least the most interesting questions in my opinion?

Call me dimwitted, call me stupid... but my questions are answered.

But for the of sake argument, to the folks who called me dimwitted... answer these questions for me:

1) where did all this mass and energy that we observe in the universe come from? or do you not think this question is important? If you say 'the big bang'... what cause 'the big bang and what was the form the matter and energy before the big bang and where did that come from? If you don't know where mass and energy came from do think science will eventually figure out the end sum of this problem? What give you 'faith' that science will do so?

2) what is the purpose of life/existence? Or do we have no purpose? If we have purpose, what gave us purpose? If we have no purpose, then is our very existence and possibly the existence of the universe completey arbitrary and accidental? If we have no real purpose why do you adhere to a moral or ethical code and why should others do the same?


I had one additional question for CoinOperatedBoy:

You stated:
Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak.

I ask you why is such a question intellectually weak? And if it is so weak why have so many great minds contemplated and discussed this very question? The entire realm of philosophy basically began trying to answer this question.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, miniMUNCH's post is every bit as much of a red herring as all the rest, and it completely misrepresents atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in a deity, and it is founded upon the complete absence of any evidence for one. While some atheists may ALSO believe that science will someday 'solve all the mysteries of the universe' (although I have yet to meet one and I know a lot of atheists), that belief is certainly not a tenet of atheism, nor would it ever be.

This is why if you talk to an informed atheist about these things he will talk to you about what is most probable, not what is. The concept of supernatural sky beardo creation of the universe is vastly less probable than any of the other explanations and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Other ideas for the existence of the universe have slightly more evidence and are less complex, therefore more probable. Atheists may believe that naturalistic explanations are by far the most probable, but that's because every single explanation for anything that we've ever discovered has been naturalistic. It's certainly not unreasonable or 'religious' in nature to assume that the pattern of discovery that has governed all knowledge throughout the entirety of human history will continue.

I really hate the whole 'if you are an atheist your god is science' argument, because it attempts to lump atheists in with theists without cause. It's the same argument you see in those creationist threads where people say 'evolution is your religion then!'. One requires its beliefs to be grounded in evidence, and one does not. THAT is the difference between atheism and theism.

Modern religion my ass.

I dig your post... good stuff. However, one thing that philosophy and even science have made clear is that is it impossible for humans to remain objective and indefinitely in psychological hiatus. By hiatus I mean when confronted by a fundatmental rational/emotional gap we have to fill someway somehow... so when confronted by a rather important consideration of "why do i exist?", we have to come to a conclusion, however tenuous, rash, or briefly held our conclusion may be.

So no atheist stops short of a conclusion of sorts in their thought about the 'origins of our world'... and as I earlier classified, people who don't think about the 'these sort of questions" are dimwitted in my opinion.

In deciding what is most probable an Atheist weighs the credibility of available data and information.... in order to say science provides the simpler explanation to the universe than some religion, the Atheist is making a judgement call that science is more truthful than some religion.

In some aspects of debate science has a good track record of truth and honestly... and most importantly, success.

But the questions of the metaphysical origins of the universe? Science has never answered this question and there is a gapping problem which shows that some aspect of science is fundamentally flawed. There is a huge problem you see because we have all this amazing mass and energy and a law of thermo that says that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed... and all the particle physics and multiverse arguments can't get rid of this problem. In fact, the ideas of various cosmologists are a bit like the cat in the hat with the ring around the bath tub... the more complex the ideas we try to come up with to explain this mass and energy problem, the more insurmountable the problem appears because the scientific explanations get more and more outlandish, albeit possible.

So an atheist is choosing to weigh 'we can't explain all this energy and mass or where it all came from fundamentally but we'll sort it out eventually" as more probable than believing in a God... that is a faith based decision, my friend. Call it what you want... but you have no 'good reason' to be happy with the present scientific status or future prospectus for the origins of the universe, except by faith... a belief that science will get it right and explain everything and so for the present you satisfied in not knowing.

That is my opinion... and statements contrary are also merely opinion.

As a former Atheist and elbows and armpits scientist, the science hurdle/problem posted above is much bigger show stopper to me and actually demonstrates to the existence of the 'super natural'.

I am no Hawking, but I don't think science will ever get it right wrt to the origin of the universe and explain how something can literally come from nothing... I personally think the very concept that science could explain this is insane, per some of the things that Skoorb said.

Science is about cause and effect... when there is 'nothing', according to natural law, before and suddenly then there is something... there is no cause to the effect that science can explain except to make up some previously unthought of 'effect' that was the cause of the first effect we were trying to explain. But now we have to find the cause for the new effect... and so on, and so on... it wouldn't stop. To think it would requires a significant leap of faith.

Hence why I turned to religion instead.

Edit: Oh and lumping theist and atheist together in religion is one thing... calling evolution a religion is something else entirely... ignorant. That comparison is silly.

In fact... evolution i think is a true fingerprint in nature of the supernatural. Read papers on the astronomical odds of humans evolving'? And yet here we are And people still think we are just the product of 1 in 10^20 luck (don't remember the numbers anymore but it is something like that, or worse).

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Are you unwilling or unable to provide further information on the supernatural object, entity or ocurrence that you perceived or witnessed?

If I told you, would you believe? So why would I bother telling you?

I expressed a genuine interest, but fair enough.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Are there things that we know about this universe that tell us otherwise?

I don't think its sensible to talk about the universe or things within the universe in terms of finitude or infinity. Infinity is a characteristic of sets of numbers, and numbers don't exist "out there" in the universe. They are abstractions.

Yeah, that was my problem with your use of negative integers. However, saying that something exists for a certain length of time or for infinity is not just an abstract use of math.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

In this case, the description of finite or infinite, if applied to time and space, would also be a description of the universe b/c of how the properties of time and space are attributed to the universe. The universe is made up of matter and "passes through time." So, if time is finite and matter are finite, so is the universe that has those properties. It is in the definition of the properties as it applies to the things they describe.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Are you unwilling or unable to provide further information on the supernatural object, entity or ocurrence that you perceived or witnessed?

If I told you, would you believe? So why would I bother telling you?

I expressed a genuine interest, but fair enough.

Ok, but the way you phrased the question sounded... not very open to hearing it.

I was 13. My family and I had just come home from church and all got changed upstairs. I was the first to get changed and I went downstairs into the kitchen. From the kitchen there is a flight of stairs that go down to the basement with a landing after the first couple of steps with a door that goes outside. I went to the flight of stairs, and hovering over the landing I saw something that is best described as a black sun. It was about the size of a soccer ball, maybe a little bigger, and it was just opaque black. We had one of those screen doors with the "hydraulic" closing mechanisms that prevented it from slamming- so it would kind of lurch closed a bit, bounce, lurch closed a bit more and bounce, until it closed. Anyway, that door was wide open and in the process of closing when I saw the thing. After about 3 seconds or so, it zipped out the closing door and over the fence and was gone. I told my parents about the incident.

Later that day we had some people over for Easter dinner (it was Easter of course). They had a kid who was about 5 or 6. After dinner, we were sitting around the living room, and the kid just out of no where says "Black Ghost!" And his father asks him, "What?" and he said again, "Black ghost!" We didn't see whatever he was looking at.

You asked me if I had seen anything like this, and this is the story. To me, it doesn't make much difference b/c it was just one "sighting." If I had never seen it, you could have asked if I had ever seen anything "supernatural", and I would have had to say no. Most people haven't and would have to say "no" regardless of what they believe. So I would not exactly chalk that up to evidence. But yes, I have seen something to answer the specific question.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Are there things that we know about this universe that tell us otherwise?

I don't think its sensible to talk about the universe or things within the universe in terms of finitude or infinity. Infinity is a characteristic of sets of numbers, and numbers don't exist "out there" in the universe. They are abstractions.

Yeah, that was my problem with your use of negative integers. However, saying that something exists for a certain length of time or for infinity is not just an abstract use of math.

Yes, it is. You are quite literally abstracting values from your perspective on reality. Those values don't exist in reality -- they exist in your mind.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

In this case, the description of finite or infinite, if applied to time and space, would also be a description of the universe b/c of how the properties of time and space are attributed to the universe.

Ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite set of finite elements. Again, the integers are an easy example. Every single integer is "finite," but the set of all integers is infinite.

The universe is made up of matter and "passes through time." So, if time is finite and matter are finite, so is the universe that has those properties. It is in the definition of the properties as it applies to the things they describe.

You're simply wrong, and you don't appear to have to capacity to recognize it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spittledip

What happened was impossible to explain in any conceivable normal way.

You must realize that a great many natural things are also impossible to explain in a "normal" way. That doesn't make them "supernatural."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

But the questions of the metaphysical origins of the universe?

What "metaphysical origins"???

So an atheist is choosing to weigh 'we can't explain all this energy and mass or where it all came from fundamentally but we'll sort it out eventually" as more probable than believing in a God...

I'm an atheist and that does not describe me, so obviously your generalization is a false one.

That is my opinion... and statements contrary are also merely opinion.

No, it is quite literally a fact.

As a former Atheist and elbows and armpits scientist, the science hurdle/problem posted above is much bigger show stopper to me and actually demonstrates to the existence of the 'super natural'.

Let me get this straight... you were a retarded atheist, so you naturally conclude that the rest of atheists are just as retarded as you were?

I am no Hawking, but I don't think science will ever get it right wrt to the origin of the universe

WHAT ORIGIN???

and explain how something can literally come from nothing...

Nobody credible believes that!!! It is a caricature invented by the minds of ignorant theists!

Science is about cause and effect... when there is 'nothing', according to natural law, before and suddenly then there is something...

Nobody, scientist or otherwise, has ever observed "nothing." Where do you get these ridiculous ideas?

Hence why I turned to religion instead.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Edit: Oh and lumping theist and atheist together in religion is one thing... calling evolution a religion is something else entirely... ignorant. That comparison is silly.

In fact... evolution i think is a true fingerprint in nature of the supernatural. Read papers on the astronomical odds of humans evolving'? And yet here we are And people still think we are just the product of 1 in 10^20 luck (don't remember the numbers anymore but it is something like that, or worse).

Umm... you don't really understand the nature of probabilities and evolution.

 

[Moonbeam]

spittledip, isn't the function of faith the capacity to believe without proof. You seem to want to able to prove your God which would obviate the need for faith and not make you a religious person, it seems to me. Look at the atheists you are arguing with. They have faith in their doubt. They have faith that when faced with the unknowable the logical thing is not to have any faith. Look at LunarRay's posts. He isn't the slightest bit bothered by what atheists believe because he is a believer. The doubt of others does not touch his faith because his faith is for him. He has it and it requires nothing to sustain. He isn't frantic defensive or argumentative. You can shoot a cannon through him and it won't touch him because there is nothing to hit. He has faith.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

So an atheist is choosing to weigh 'we can't explain all this energy and mass or where it all came from fundamentally but we'll sort it out eventually" as more probable than believing in a God... that is a faith based decision, my friend. Call it what you want... but you have no 'good reason' to be happy with the present scientific status or future prospectus for the origins of the universe, except by faith... a belief that science will get it right and explain everything and so for the present you satisfied in not knowing.

That is my opinion... and statements contrary are also merely opinion.

As a former Atheist and elbows and armpits scientist, the science hurdle/problem posted above is much bigger show stopper to me and actually demonstrates to the existence of the 'super natural'.

I am no Hawking, but I don't think science will ever get it right wrt to the origin of the universe and explain how something can literally come from nothing... I personally think the very concept that science could explain this is insane, per some of the things that Skoorb said.

Science is about cause and effect... when there is 'nothing', according to natural law, before and suddenly then there is something... there is no cause to the effect that science can explain except to make up some previously unthought of 'effect' that was the cause of the first effect we were trying to explain. But now we have to find the cause for the new effect... and so on, and so on... it wouldn't stop. To think it would requires a significant leap of faith.

Hence why I turned to religion instead.

Edit: Oh and lumping theist and atheist together in religion is one thing... calling evolution a religion is something else entirely... ignorant. That comparison is silly.

In fact... evolution i think is a true fingerprint in nature of the supernatural. Read papers on the astronomical odds of humans evolving'? And yet here we are And people still think we are just the product of 1 in 10^20 luck (don't remember the numbers anymore but it is something like that, or worse).

You're putting ideas in my mouth that I never put forth. I don't believe in any origin of the universe. I think that the naturalistic explanation is more probable, but I most certainly am in no way wedded to such an explanation. Either way, the validity of the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe as it currently stands has no effect on the validity of a supernatural origin.

The origin of the universe is currently pretty much impossible for us to discern. It might always be that way, who knows? Just because we have difficulty understanding something doesn't mean that rational people decide a sky beardo did it instead.

This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

 

[Moonbeam]

E: This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Intelligent Design pretends to be a theory and so the burden is on those who believe it to prove it, but God is a matter of faith and if you could prove He exists it would not be faith to believe, would it?

 

[babylon5]

A lot of people in this thread should move back to the 9th century. They would be way happier living with plenty of others with same supernatural DSM-IV delusional fantasies.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
E: This is also a common issue with evolution/creationism debates. Creationists center on trying to disprove evolution instead of offering evidence for their own case. In this debate like that one, the burden is on you to prove your idea is right.

Intelligent Design pretends to be a theory and so the burden is on those who believe it to prove it, but God is a matter of faith and if you could prove He exists it would not be faith to believe, would it?

Holy shit. The whole point of all this has just been to believe in something unprovable? To have faith in your (or someone else's) imagination or fantasy abilities? This god and related dogma put forth is just a sideshow?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Please do not confuse properties of the members of a set for properties of the set itself.

In this case, the description of finite or infinite, if applied to time and space, would also be a description of the universe b/c of how the properties of time and space are attributed to the universe.

Ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite set of finite elements. Again, the integers are an easy example. Every single integer is "finite," but the set of all integers is infinite.

The universe is made up of matter and "passes through time." So, if time is finite and matter are finite, so is the universe that has those properties. It is in the definition of the properties as it applies to the things they describe.

You're simply wrong, and you don't appear to have to capacity to recognize it.

First of all, you seem to think of the universe as a separate thing- like a bubble that surrounds all the "stuff" of the universe. I see the universe as a description of all the stuff. I do not see it as something separate. But even if it were something separate, that "bubble": the reason why everything within the universe is finite is b/c the universe itself has the properties of matter and time, and the "stuff" of the universe shares the properties b/c it is part of the universe.

And again, your "infinite regress" is just an application of math that has no bearing in how this world works- the same thing you are accusing me of. It is in your head.

 

[darkhorror]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Are you unwilling or unable to provide further information on the supernatural object, entity or ocurrence that you perceived or witnessed?

If I told you, would you believe? So why would I bother telling you?

I expressed a genuine interest, but fair enough.

Ok, but the way you phrased the question sounded... not very open to hearing it.

I was 13. My family and I had just come home from church and all got changed upstairs. I was the first to get changed and I went downstairs into the kitchen. From the kitchen there is a flight of stairs that go down to the basement with a landing after the first couple of steps with a door that goes outside. I went to the flight of stairs, and hovering over the landing I saw something that is best described as a black sun. It was about the size of a soccer ball, maybe a little bigger, and it was just opaque black. We had one of those screen doors with the "hydraulic" closing mechanisms that prevented it from slamming- so it would kind of lurch closed a bit, bounce, lurch closed a bit more and bounce, until it closed. Anyway, that door was wide open and in the process of closing when I saw the thing. After about 3 seconds or so, it zipped out the closing door and over the fence and was gone. I told my parents about the incident.

Later that day we had some people over for Easter dinner (it was Easter of course). They had a kid who was about 5 or 6. After dinner, we were sitting around the living room, and the kid just out of no where says "Black Ghost!" And his father asks him, "What?" and he said again, "Black ghost!" We didn't see whatever he was looking at.

You asked me if I had seen anything like this, and this is the story. To me, it doesn't make much difference b/c it was just one "sighting." If I had never seen it, you could have asked if I had ever seen anything "supernatural", and I would have had to say no. Most people haven't and would have to say "no" regardless of what they believe. So I would not exactly chalk that up to evidence. But yes, I have seen something to answer the specific question.

Lets assume you saw what you said you saw, what makes that supernatural?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
spittledip, isn't the function of faith the capacity to believe without proof. You seem to want to able to prove your God which would obviate the need for faith and not make you a religious person, it seems to me. Look at the atheists you are arguing with. They have faith in their doubt. They have faith that when faced with the unknowable the logical thing is not to have any faith. Look at LunarRay's posts. He isn't the slightest bit bothered by what atheists believe because he is a believer. The doubt of others does not touch his faith because his faith is for him. He has it and it requires nothing to sustain. He isn't frantic defensive or argumentative. You can shoot a cannon through him and it won't touch him because there is nothing to hit. He has faith.

Faith is not blind. Reason and faith coexist. That is why you can read of Jesus reasoning with people. Faith is not a non-thinking thing. The thing is, there are always elements that require faith, no matter what. But that does not exclude reason. People are very mistaken when they think that reason does not go into belief. Everyone has beliefs, and reasoning goes into every belief, no matter how simple or complex the belief, and no matter how simple or complex the reasoning is.

I appreciate your concern, but I actually enjoy this type of thing.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: darkhorror

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Are you unwilling or unable to provide further information on the supernatural object, entity or ocurrence that you perceived or witnessed?

If I told you, would you believe? So why would I bother telling you?

I expressed a genuine interest, but fair enough.

Ok, but the way you phrased the question sounded... not very open to hearing it.

I was 13. My family and I had just come home from church and all got changed upstairs. I was the first to get changed and I went downstairs into the kitchen. From the kitchen there is a flight of stairs that go down to the basement with a landing after the first couple of steps with a door that goes outside. I went to the flight of stairs, and hovering over the landing I saw something that is best described as a black sun. It was about the size of a soccer ball, maybe a little bigger, and it was just opaque black. We had one of those screen doors with the "hydraulic" closing mechanisms that prevented it from slamming- so it would kind of lurch closed a bit, bounce, lurch closed a bit more and bounce, until it closed. Anyway, that door was wide open and in the process of closing when I saw the thing. After about 3 seconds or so, it zipped out the closing door and over the fence and was gone. I told my parents about the incident.

Later that day we had some people over for Easter dinner (it was Easter of course). They had a kid who was about 5 or 6. After dinner, we were sitting around the living room, and the kid just out of no where says "Black Ghost!" And his father asks him, "What?" and he said again, "Black ghost!" We didn't see whatever he was looking at.

You asked me if I had seen anything like this, and this is the story. To me, it doesn't make much difference b/c it was just one "sighting." If I had never seen it, you could have asked if I had ever seen anything "supernatural", and I would have had to say no. Most people haven't and would have to say "no" regardless of what they believe. So I would not exactly chalk that up to evidence. But yes, I have seen something to answer the specific question.

Lets assume you saw what you said you saw, what makes that supernatural?

seems to fit.

 

[darkhorror]

Seems to fit what? Wouldn't just the fact that it existed such that you were able to observe it make it natural?