Oh no, this has become a false dichotomy since philosophy has become separated from truth. I suppose all immaterial information isn’t real, does that mean you don’t believe in mathematics or any form of logic? I suppose that I should use the word reason instead. Truth is found through reason. Both philosophy and empiricism involve reason!
I’m just wary of arriving at huge truths about the universe without examining the evidence.
"AirLiner:
There is evidence everywhere for the existence of God, the universe itself is great evidence for the existence of God.
How is the universe evidence of a deity?
AirLiner:
Of course I’m sure that they would like something a bit more obvious. This is why my favorite argument for the existence of God is the argument from consciousness. Now if you ask an atheist whether a few atoms can produce consciousness, they often answer no, They’ll even answer that a lot of organized atoms don’t produce consciousness which is why the scientific consensus now is that PC’s aren’t self aware (The quest for A.I. continues). Instead they usually say something like the fact that consciousness will occur when neuron populations cross a certain threshold, defined both by number and complex organization. Basically what happens here is that atheists say that a few atoms won’t create consciousness, but a bunch of them will.
This is absurd. Because regardless of the amount or organization, you still only have atoms in motion.
You might be interested to look into some of the work being done with distributed processing systems. Simple agents are given an ability to communicate, some basic rules, and a limited memory, and out of nowhere, they develop the ability to “hunt”, coordinate “attacks” on “prey”, and so on.
In any case, you’re using the argument from ignorance.
AirLiner:
After all, thinking that matter produces consciousness is like thinking that matter produces free will. However I know from personal experience that many atheists do believe in free will. This shows how incompetent some atheists can be at reasoning. However unlike consciusness, free will isn’t obvious enough to be accepted by by mainstream science. The good news is that atheists are willing to delude themselves enough to preserve our legal system.
Free will is just a question of context. From the point of view of an outsider, all of the matter in our bodies acts causally and free will doesn’t exist. From the point of view of humans, we think and feel that we have free will, and act as such.
Why would the testimony of those who have witnessed the risen Christ be dismissed, while the interpretation of what scientists have observed and identified by the term neutron be immediatly accepted, if not for one’s faith in science and one’s lack of faith in christianity? Also, the claim of empirical evidence for the neutrons as existing, depends on ones definition of existance as such. To claim that atoms are made of electrons circling around a proton-neutron nucleus is used just as a type of analogy and nothing more.
There are huge differences, HUGE differences between the millions of scientists who have discovered an empirical fact (and published their research results for anybody to peruse), and a handful of people 2,000 years ago who wrote a few books about a man rising from the dead (30-odd years after it happened).
History also requires a good degree of faith. How do you know thet Darwin siked on the HMS Beagle? Did you witness this? Of course you could counter that he wrote of his exploits. It was written down. Does this mean that Gulliver also went to Liliput? In fact there are more contemporary writings about Christ, if you include noncanonical writings, than about Julius Ceasar! Yet you have no boubts about him. Curious, isn’t it.
Oh, I do have doubts about certain ordinary historical events, but I tend not to, on the whole. Why? Specifically, because they’re ordinary. If a historian 1,000 years ago tells me that the Emperor of China rose just before dawn, that would not be a difficult thing to accept. If, however, that same historian told me that the Emperor went for a ride on dragons before attending to state affairs, I’d forgivably be skeptical.
Let’s take a quick look. Clearly, a well-known intellectual would normally have some reason for abandoning atheism and embracing Christianity, right?
The Easter story points to the spiritual nature of humanity, just as beauty, music, love and bereavement do the same.
More evidence refuting atheism. The Easter story is supported by multiple, corroborating, eyewitness testimonies. That is the kind of evidence that is used in a court of law.
Belief in God is supported by many intelligent and holy persons through the ages.
For every one atheistic materialist, there are hundreds of saints who proclaim the existence of God (some also with eyewitness testimony to divine action - testimony supported under oath and in the face of threats of death).
Atheism is irrational. It has no answer to the question of human love, heroism, poetry or the struggle for fulfillment and purpose. For atheism, we are accidental products of nature and this contradicts human history and even atheists’ own value systems.
The Ressurection provides an answer where atheism provides none.
Belief in God transforms lives. This can be seen especially among those who are addicted to immoral behavior or who are hospitalized in sickness or who have been imprisoned. Belief in God provides hope and lasting purpose for people, where atheism provides despair of an ultimate purpose and predicts certain and absolute failure (death) for every human being.
To live in accord with atheist philosophy is to embrace death (nothingness) as the final goal and purpose of life. Atheism is refuted simply because the embrace of nothingness and death is anti-human and anti-life and even atheists cannot bring themselves to accept the consequences of their own philosophy.
Let’s not turn this into a “my side has more smart people than your side” argument.
Unified testimony is usually accepted with regard to uncontroversial matters (the defendant had eggs that morning?). It’s usually not accepted when they claim that they saw something supernatural. Also: We only know about some of these witnesses through their writings, which were written some 30 years after Jesus died.
“X is not comforting” does not imply “X is false”.
Yes, and the placebo effect has healed very sick people.
Also: An ideology or hypothesis is not refuted because of hypocrisy.
The New Testament is not a work of Catholic theology. It is the revealed source, given to the Catholic Church. Theology is the explanation of the revealed source. So, knowing zero about Catholic theology, you claim that “theology make stories up about gods. It is creative fiction. No-one objects to creative fiction, but when theology starts to make truth claims then don’t be surprised if they are not believed …”