It's unhealthy to be an atheist...

Yes! The answer is all of them. The proper vaccination is a full dose of the Holy Spirit. Yes! to the satellite and computer scenarios. All knowledge comes from God.

 

Well you claim to speak to the holy spirit daily. You share zero knowledge. So what good is this knowledge from god since their is none or can't be shared?
You have no ability to compel anyone.

 

Why would I want to compel anyone to do anything? I am not a slave owner or slave driver. Every man and woman have free will, why would I want to interfere with that free will? That knowledge from God is beneficial to me because I accept it and use it for my benefit and to the benefit of those who do not attempt to ridicule that/those benefits. If someone does not desire to accept those benefits, then that option is his/hers.

 

You remind me of the joke about the religous man stranded in a tree during a flood turning away rescue boats and helicopters because "God will rescue me!".

 

My knowledge didn't come from god. I actually specifically remember being taught information by my professors, and reading and rereading information from notes and textbooks while an undergraduate. No god was involved there, I assure you.

 

OK, so this alleged knowledge is of no use. It is of no good. That is what I said.

 

Seems you cannot provide a source for these claims.

Un-named studies are meaningless.

 

At the end of that story it is reported that the helicopters ran out of fuel because there was no place to land and the boats were all overturned by this giant fish that was in search for more people like Jonah.

 

And here we go on that infinite regression scenario. Where did the information that you received come from? You know, the information that the professors gave to you, the information contained in those text books, etc.?

- - - Updated - - -

Because that information is no use to you, does not preclude it from being useful to someone else. Remember the definition of the term 'viable' and by extension, the definition of 'practicable'.

 

Oh, well that's simple; Something was observed in the natural world, then it's cause was proven through repeated experimentation (the scientific method) until solidified as theory, and published.

 

That does not explain where the information came from. That only explains how you obtained it. Where did the information come from?

 

There are no atheists in foxholes.

 

"Seeing is believing" is a good safe position to take (from a secular point of view). I also take that position when it comes to some of the things that scientists claim. As an example. They claim that an electron has x amount of weight, yet they have never seen a solitary electron, nor have they been able to smell a solitary electron, nor have they tasted a solitary electron or heard a solitary electron or felt (touched) a solitary electron. Yet they proclaim proudly this claim that they know how much one weighs. The most practical thing that scientists can say about electrons is that they can see, hear, feel, and even smell the EFFECTS of billions upon billions of electrons as they act upon a substance. Just like your parents providing to you examples of things that they experience and attribute to an unseen God, scientists do the same with one of their unseen gods. Where is the difference? Which God or gods came first, the Creator God or the created gods?

 

So you can't explain what is subjective or unreal about the objective reality we exist within, qu'elle surprise.

 

Again, they know that because they performed experiments. That's the beauty of the scientific method, we can learn something without even having to see/hear/feel what it is we are studying.

I don't really understand the experiments performed that proved the existence/weight of a solitary electron because physics of that depth is way beyond me, but I am pretty certain no such evidence has been gathered to support the existence of a god.

 

On the contrary. The "subjective or unreal" portions about the so-called "objective reality" is the five senses, yet you rely on the senses to even detect what you casually refer to as "objective reality". Without that "subjective or unreal" mind there could be no observations conducted by humans or by machines, because the human mind would still be required to observe the machines in order for the human mind to say that something was observed.

 

As I said.. where did the information come from? What process is involved in making a determination that (as an example) "this is good information" or "this is bad information" or "this is unacceptable information"? What process is involved in even determining that something is "information"?

 

Something is observed, a hypothesis is made based on the likely reason that thing occurs as it does. An experiment is designed to attempt to prove that this thing in fact occurs for the reason hypothesized. If the experiment gives a positive result, over and over again, this hypothesis becomes a theory and a safe bet as to why this thing occurs.

 

The mass of a stationary electron is 5.486×10−4 atomic mass units. The electron relative atomic mass can be measured directly in a Penning trap.

This is regarded as a fundamental constant of physics. It is a physical constant that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time.

One of the most brilliant human beings to ever exist was a devout believer in God.
Sir Isaac Newton

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”

Einstein himself, credited Newton, as the father of physics and arguably the founder of scientific certainty, with and I quote “the greatest advance in thought that a single individual was ever privileged to make."

This is Albert Einstein acknowledging the genius of Newton...even Neil deGrasse Tyson regards Newton as one of the greatest minds in human history...and Tyson is perhaps an agnostic.

So hey, if you believe in God and are accused of being less intelligent or downright ignorant because of it...think of Sir Isaac Newton; arguably among the greatest minds to have existed on this planet. Newton was a devout believer in God.

 

Where did that likeliness come from? Where did the 'reason' come from? All of your points are interesting, as they open the door for that infinite regression that I spoke of earlier. So, in effect all you are doing is talking in circles around rationalizing what you are avoiding. What you are avoiding is the answer to the question "where did the information come from"?

 

Like I said, objective reality surrounds the space outside your skull.
Interpretation of that reality by the input of human senses and intellect does not change the nature of that objective reality, only an individuals perception of it.

I agree that perception can be wholly subjective, as you so ably demonstrate.

 

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."---Geo. Bernard Shaw

- - - Updated - - -

Jonsa....Incorporeal doesn't believe in objective reality. He's a solipsist.

(Notice if he responds to this...he won't exactly deny it.)

 

It is of no use to anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Just scared shtless kids.

 

And your proof of claim is where?

And the perception of each person is subjective, therefore all that is known about the alleged 'objective reality' is a subjective rendering and nothing is known about that 'objective reality' in and of itself. Just subjective renderings.

Not only is it demonstrated by me, but by you and everyone else who speaks about that illusive 'objective reality', because all they (everyone) has is subjective renderings.

 

Originally Posted by Jonsa --"Like I said, objective reality surrounds the space outside your skull."

See?