ALTHOUGH I do not agree with a good many things said in this artile by Metacrock and others, and do regard basic evidencial means as useful in assertaining various aspects of the Christian faith, I do think, Reed, that your attitude is raher appauling.
Your condecension and childing oversimplifications which mislead rhe reader and which arent based on what is said are simply not a welcomed mean to discussion, and reveal that you aren't interested in discussion.
Can't you reign it in and listen for a change? Troll certainly has.
Its a cop out in terms of providing evidence for God.
Npt exactly, no. Although saying God transcends Empirical reasoning certainly may frustrate an Empiricalist, it is certianly not a Cop out in terms of a generalised statemet, since many things cannot be Emoircally shown. Even many accepted facts in ciene like Evolutionary theory cannot be Empiriclaly shown. Not by a long shot.
This is because it cannot be directly observed.
It does not nullify its veracity, it merley means that the concept goes well beyind what we are capable of determining with ordinary , day-to-day observation.
He "trancends" normal accepted methods of proof in the first place.
Not accpordign to many, many others who hve displayed arguments for God. What he is said to transcend in this thread is Empirical observation, which is not the only standard method of proof in existance for the use of the Human creature. Dispite the usual statement of reliance upon it by the General New Atheist community, the truth is a good many things aren't Emoirically verifiable, and not everythign is Empiriclaly dispayabe.
Of coruse, Metacrocks goes a bit beyind this, and I disagree with much of that, but the point is thay you arne't beign fait to what he has stated.
He is super dee duperdy magical.
This is the sort of phrase that leaves me cold. No oen said he was "Super dee duperdy Magical". Your use of this phrase only shows your own contemot, and unwillingness to consider the argument of your oponant, and doens't further anything but your own conspectuousness.
Then, of course the theist goes about providing evidence that relies on "normal human sense data" ANYWAY but he always falls back on his original statement, because the evidence is always lacking, inconclusive, vague and, well poor.
This is too much of a Generalisation, and not accurate. Its liek when soemone says the "Ahtiest always does this, then that".
Its not acutlaly true, either, sicne I actulaly reject the whole Religiosu A Priori, and have yet to see why one woudl say the evidnece is always lacking, vauge, inconclusive, ect...
Nor do all Theists make as their original staement "God is transcencant therefore beyind normal means of proof". I certiany don't, nor do others who hodl to traditional , classical thlogical thought.
I woudl argue that God olds up to routine methods for assertainign truth.
I never say he is "Transcendant", so what original sttaement do I, as a theist, flal back on Reed?
I think you shohdl be less careless and more open to what others have to say, as well as less terotypical in your thinking.
The apologist sets a trap. God doesnt apply to our rules. Hes magic. Here is evidence as to why God exists. the skeptic points out its flaws. The apologist says "Now now God is above all that in the first place".
No, this isn't true. No APologist says God is magical, and thats simply false. It is also false to say the Apologist ( which happens in your statement to mean anyone arguing for CHristainity) always says "Now now, God is above all that in the first place".
Again, I don't, and I'm not alone. Yoru statement is simply a vulgar oversimplification and caracaturisation of what is acutlaly stated.
Kant did not destroy empiricism. Poking holes in something is different than destroying it.
Nevertheless, Kant did not rely upon Empirical data only an dhsowed how it is impossible to do so.
Empiricism is still more reliable and superior to all ways of knowing.
No, Empiricassism is a method of gainign informaiton which is only superior to other sin certain limited situations, but not the best method in all given situations.
There are gaps in all knowledge. This is similar to the all encompassing "God of the gaps" argument. We dont know everything, therefore GOD. Well, no.
Actulaly this sin't the God of the Gaps argument, whuch, in truth, sin't actulaly used by most that I have seen in seriosu debate.
What Metacrock, and late Wordgazer, stated is that their beleif in God is transcendant to the observable world and is instinctuve, and Gods preasenc eis made known ot hem as a STill, quiet preasence in their lives.
THis is the core o it, anyay, and that is harldy equivolemt to "Gaps in Knowledge means God exists", just as its not "God is super dee duperdy magicval".
Empiricism is flawed and imperfect, therefore God is a good idea. It does not follow.
You are correct. Its a good thing no one actually said this,. Pity, its a lovely SCarecrow yo just knocked down.
Theists always think that gaps, and imperfections = God.
No THey don't.
The only way to disprove God in there eyes or to show that God is not a solid idea, is to have perfect knowledge of all that exists.
Isn't this like sayinf "All Ahtiests alwys htink that lakc of knowledge= God does not exist. THe only way to prove God in their eyes is to have perfect knwoeldge fo all that eists."
Its the szame sort of sweeping critism that isn't relaly fair to the oponants of your position.