Reply to Who has changed their minds about religion on this forum?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Who has changed their minds about religion on this forum?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Larry Sanger (founder of Wikipedia) embraces Christianity.

https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIZbqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTfnFT6sVHFqCr23l4ypJ1YM3rtDXeIN8-dg8E_c_444pW4IZ_PLBqUSQA_aem_KkhDMlE-a3APyZhWQrTwbw[/quote]

That's interesting -- doesn't make Christianity true, though [/quote]

What would make Christianity true?[/quote]

Actual scientific proof that Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead, then ascended into heaven.  There is none, because there is no scientific proof of God and no proof of the ability to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven - and there's no proof that heaven exists.  In fact, there's now proof that as far as we have traveled into the heavens (space), it's impossible to breathe. [/quote]

The short answer is you're seeking a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural entity. Saying that, I would posit that you probably believe many things that can't be scientifically proven: The mind. Ethics and morality. Love. Science itself.[/quote]

DP.  Your response is illogical.  Here are some reasons why:

1. If supernatural entities exist as defined, they interact with our natural world in some way.  If they don't, then we need not care about them except for analytical ways - like the multiverse.  Certainly few of the thousands of god definitions there are fit that definition (maybe some forms of deism?)  All of the Abrahamic religions tout constant interaction with our natural world, so you response cannot be applied to them.

2. The mind exists and we can demonstrate that.  Love, ethics and morality obviously exist as defined, and can also be demonstrated.  So this point is demonstrably illogical.

3. "Science itself"?  Not sure what that means but it makes no sense.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics