If any of you were following my prior posts, where I was talking about my Atheist friend who said “God Cannot exist” and “all visions are of the mind,” well I took much of all your advice, and he’s answered back. Wondering what you all think. Here’s his response to some of the things we were saying:
To most historians, the four gospels fail the historical method. The other gospels were from a similar period, (Gospels of Peter, Thomas, etc.) they were rejected if you ask me, because they were more demonstrably false than the others. It’s picking and choosing.
We cannot know anything absolutely, I cannot say absolutely that there are no such things as leprechauns, I am pretty sure there are not, but I cannot say that at no time, in all the universe and all possible universes than no leprechaun has ever existed.
However I am not using the impossible absolute knowledge, I am using objective knowledge and reason. It is not a matter of history; it is a matter of logic, mathematics (which is built upon logic) and scientific methodology.
To the degree we can know anything, including to the degree you can know you are reading this text, we can start to build an objective foundation of reason.
“Prove that the natural world is the totality of existence.”
Okay, in science the word “natural” means “actual” this is the context in which I am using it. However, how do we determine if this dimension is the only one?
The same way we determine everything around us, the same way you determine that the text you are reading exists. Objectively.
When there is no evidence for a claim, then such a claim can be dismissed. Similar to Bigfoot, alien abduction stories, leprechauns and so on.
However, remember this, when a positive claim is made (such as the existence of a god, or a spiritual realm) the onus of proof lies upon the person making the claim, not the person dismissing the claim.
“Prove that if God exists he must be a *natural *being.”
In science natural means actual. If you are not actual, then you are fictional.
Can you do the same now? Can you justify your belief that the natural world is not the totality of existence? Remember, since you are making the positive claim, that there is something beyond the natural world, the onus of proof is upon you.
“You can claim anything you’d like, but that doesn’t make them true.”
I couldn’t agree more, any positive claim must be backed up with evidence, it is the only path to objective truth.
Perhaps miracles of Christ never happened. Or Perhaps I am failing to see, but remember the onus lies upon the person making the positive claim, not the person who is dismissing the claim. If this were not so then you could be thrown in court for being a serial killer and you would have to prove you were not, rather than them having to prove you were.