On 18 Dec 2003 08:32:23 -0800, keith wrote:
>You say we can't prove an event was supernaturally
>caused, which requires a clarification of what it means to *prove* a
>claim.
The OP was using claims about natural entities (brains) and their behaviour
(consciousness) to prove that the supernatural (god) couldn't exist. That's
an invalid argument or proof, because claims about the supernatural cannot be
based on knowledge (=experience) of the natural - logically, it's a category
error.
Since we are natural creatures, we can experience the supernatural only if it
intersects the natural - and that intersection will be natural. This claim
implies that the supernatural contains the natural, which IIRC was one of
Augustine's points -- it is after all an implication of the Christian claim
that Jesus is/was God incarnate, ie, the intersection of the supernatural and
the natural. BTW, the arguments about the "true nature" of Jesus are really
arguments about the whether or not the natural and the supernatural can have
any real (= knowable by a natural creature) relationship.
The rest of your post about proof is an exposition of radical skepticism,
which I reject, since it's self-contradictory (Socrates' point IIRC - and
since you are a Christian, you may have encountered the proof in C S Lewis,
too.)
My position on the existence of god is that "God exists" and "God does exist"
are axioms.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)