Tony wrote:JustJim wrote:I didn't start out with an aversion to the idea of God. And I've never been happy with ignorance, either. I also don't reject the possibility of God. I just think it's more intelligent to say, "I don't know", than it is to accept an extremely improbable answer to a possibly unanswerable question. You disagree. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant, stupid, or blinded by my "presuppositions", which, by the way, were fully Christian ones for the first 20 - 30 years of my life, and were well-fueled by many years of religious education, indoctrination, and training, including preparation for and some experience in the ministry. And, as you already are aware, Mitch grew up in an environment of experiences that probably gave him atheistic 'presuppositions', yet he was able to reason his way out of them based on his life experiences. And neither of us has come to the same conclusions you have, even though he and I disagree on many things related to God.
So much for your 'presuppositions' theory....
Everybody has presuppositions, it is impossible not to. But if you know what they are and understand how they influence your world view, then you can think outside the box and seek what is true from a broader perspective. I don't think it is out of line to point out that those who prefer "I don't Know" to God have a bias towards naturalism if they have understood all the evidence for design, purpose, personhood, morals, the big bang, the cosmological arguments and the testimony of others having trusted God.
So, IOW, if people have studied and understood all of your arguments and reasons for your belief in God and are still not convinced, then it must be because they have a bias toward naturalism? It couldn't possibly be because, like you, they've considered all those things and all their counter-arguments and evidence, but came to a different conclusion from yours? Do you have any understanding at all of how arrogant of you that is? Is the entire world that agrees with you absolutely right, and everyone else is absolutely wrong?
I can step fully into the materialist world view without any problem and I fully empathize with how they think.
No, you can't, and what you say next proves that.
The idea of God is considered "supernatural" and science is always better than supernatural. The whole "God-of-the-gaps" issue keeps materialist drinking the cool-aid (sic). It is a modern revelation that design is just an illusion, purpose is subjective, and morals are emergent properties from society. It is a whole connected theology without the "theo" part. Scientist in scientism congratulate each other for keeping the faith even against overwhelming odds in that intellectual integrity is displayed in being ignorant, (I don't know) and skeptical to the infinite degree. The more skeptical, the higher moral and intellectual you are.
Like I said, that proves you have no understanding whatsoever of the naturalist/materialist world view and are without question unable to "step fully into" that world view.
Now, obviously there are times when being skeptical is useful...
It is ALWAYS useful to be skeptical.
The discussion of God is a metaphysical truth that is a higher question than that of the scientific subject, yet science is a tool to determine metaphysical truth as is math a tool for scientific truth. Those members of the faith of scientism reject the question of metaphysical truth from the onset, as they claim it is meaningless. "Only scientific truth is meaningful".
The discussion of God is a DISCUSSION, not a metaphysical truth. But nevermind... I think Mitch could handle this pack of inaccuracies much better than I....
Yet there are a lot of things that cannot be determined by science.
And therefore God exists? Do you know what a non sequitur is?
At what point does skepticism become skeptical of itself?
Maybe at the same time people stop asking stupid questions like that?