[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> You appear to have missed my point about "evidence."
>
> [Arlo]
> Which was?

"Tue Feb 24 10:46:19 PST 2009
MP: I would agree but note that "evidence" is a very rationally loaded term. I
see "evidence" of a loving God every day, but forget about trying to translate
that "evidence" into rational language."

MP: That "evidence" as used linguistically in this discussion implies an event or 
fact that is consistent, un-changing and objectively quantifiable toward proof of 
a hypothesis. You will not find such evidence of God any more than you will find 
evidence of Quality that allows you to prove *that* term either.

You, in your examples, insist on rational evidence. You insist on evidence being 
valid toward proving God only if it fits into the rational system in which you work. 
But God is infinite. God precedes and supersedes reason. God is beyond 
rationality. Any attempt to prove rationally that which exceeds rationality will fail. 
The failure to be proven is not God's, its in the attempt to "prove" in the first 
place.

This is not to say you should accept God exists absent "proof." This is only to 
say you can't *prove* God using *evidence.*


> [Arlo]
> My point is that "evidence" we see is very selective, and often
> ridiculous when taken in full context.
MP: I got it, I see your point. But it is misguided because you presume faith 
works on rational evidence. It doesn't. Its empirical, esoteric and inconsistent.

 
> [Arlo]
> The NASCAR winner felt he was experiencing proof of god's existence through his
> victory.
MP: I don't know what he felt, and am not sure how you can be so sure you 
know it either. From personal (theistic) experience, I know that a lot of what you 
see in that sort of thing is not so much people thanking God for making them 
win, for singling them out so to speak, so much as it is them simply thanking 
God for the blessings they receive in their lives as a matter of humility; of saying 
"God is responsible for good, I am only the beneficiary of the goodness as I 
strive toward it in my simple life, thank you God for allowing me to partake in 
that goodness."

There's a difference.

> [Arlo]
> But what of the other drivers?
MP: Maybe they thank God they didn't crash and burn?

> [Arlo]
> The survivors of the Hudson River crash
> all likely feel very strongly that their survival is evidence of god, but what
> does that say about the total loss of life in the Buffalo crash?
MP: Thank God they died quickly.

> [Arlo]
> If you look at
> a Cezanne and see in it proof of a god, then what do you see when you look at a
> photograph of a child covered in burning napalm?

MP: I see the extent of man's depravity *and* the presence of God: Had those 
responsible for using the napalm been more cognisant of God's love they would 
not have used it, and having done so nonetheless results in conditions that 
make it painfully obvious to us all the degree to which the absence of God is a 
bad thing.

btw: Who invented napalm? Who funded its manufacture? Who authorized its 
inclusion in a weapons arsenal? Who ordered its use on humans? God or man? 
Priests or scientists?

You are looking for God through reason alone. By definition you will not 
succeed, so its no surprise you ask what you ask. By finding no evidence that 
God is a puppeteer, you only prove that an infinite, ineffable, inconceivable and 
eternal God is not just a puppeteer.

That's a little like proving the obvious, no? What's the point?

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."