Defending Belief in God

[nate895]

I wrote this paper for a philosophy course I just finished taking, and I figured it would be a good way to start some real discussion, so I adapted the parts that needed adapting, and decided to post it here. I would not necessarily defend everything I said on a regular basis, some of it was prompted by the questions I had to answer in order to receive a satisfactory grade (which for me, is nothing short of an "A"). One obvious example is a defense of the free will theodicy, which I do not hold to. While I believe that my refutation of the refutation is valid, I just don't hold to the soundness of the free will theodicy to begin with, so anything in that section should be treated as "for argument's sake" only. This is a long paper (wound up being 2,500 words, after cutting it down from 3,000 word, which was just too big for the assignment), so I will also post the paper itself in two different posts. Also, I had an extensive network of footnotes, but they don't seem to transfer over easily into RPF, so I will include my bibliography on a third post. In other words, don't worry, I wasn't committing plagiarism.

Defending Belief in God​

Atheism is a belief that has gained traction in recent years, and, as such, it is all the more important to reflect on the proofs for God’s existence, and to answer the arguments raised in their refutation by atheists. One example of an atheist attempting to refute the proofs for God’s existence is McCloskey in an article entitled “On Being an Atheist.” Here, McCloskey attempts to demonstrate that the cosmological and teleological arguments are invalid demonstrations of God’s attributes. The article also addresses the problem of evil, and presents it as an unresolvable problem for the theist. McCloskey falls short of adequately addressing the actual arguments he is attempting to refute by not adequately presenting the theistic side.

Before going into McCloskey’s specific refutations of theistic proofs, it bears pointing out that McCloskey often misrepresents the case that the theist is trying to make in the theistic proofs. In the case of both the teleological and cosmological arguments, the argument is presented as concluding with at least many of the aspects of the God theists believe, and then it is pointed out that it this makes the argument invalid. In the case of the cosmological argument, McCloskey says “The world we know does not reveal itself to us as the handiwork of an omnipotent, all-perfect being” . However, that was not the point of the cosmological argument, or the teleological argument was not to prove every aspect of God’s nature, but to prove aspects of it . They can be presented in a cumulative case method, or it can be explained as “faith seeking understanding.”

In one important Christian apologetic work of the Middle Ages, Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogium attempted to justify belief in God’s existence by appealing to the belief that God is perfect, presenting the ontological argument . In so doing, Anselm said that this was “faith seeking understanding,” not necessarily an attempt to convince the “fool,” as he puts it, that God exists . This can provide us with another model to understand the theistic proofs in context. They do not necessarily convince a non-believer God exists, but show those of us who believe in God that it is rational, and abandoning our belief comes with a steep price.

McCloskey spends time dealing with what he considers to be the main reasons for why most theists are theists, and he considers these to be the cosmological argument, the teleological arguments, and the argument from design. He starts by attempting to refute the cosmological argument, and his refutation comes short in the end. One of McCloskey’s objections to the cosmological argument is that it is not necessary for the universe to be caused because it exists . This seems to be the objection of the naturalist that contingent things can just be. The contingent facts of the universe, in this system, just are. In taking up this objection to the cosmological argument, McCloskey and other naturalists are denying the principle of sufficient reasoning, which can lead to unforeseen consequences. While in this view an explanation can be given appealing only to other finite beings, no final causes can be explained. This leaves us without an explanation for the universe at all .

Another way McCloskey tries to object to the cosmological is by saying that it does not prove an omnipotent, perfect God . The main problem with this point-of-view is that it does not acknowledge the fact that was not the point of the argument in the first place. The cosmological argument’s main point is not to prove the omnipotence of God, but is rather merely to show how there must be an efficient cause, given the principle of efficient cause. The theist would then say that the most reasonable efficient cause would be a personal God . Also, it should be pointed out that the cosmological argument can be used in a “faith seeking understanding” model. In this way, it can be demonstrated that everything besides God is wholly dependent on Him for their mere existence, and should, therefore, be thankful. This is the case even if you are simply the last in a long string of cause-and-effect going back to God; you still could not have been there without Him being the cause of it all.
...

 

[nate895]

Defending Belief in God pt. 2

McCloskey then seeks to refute the teleological argument, and treats the argument from design model in the same refutation. However, McCloskey starts this argument by offering an unreasonable standard for what would constitute evidence in the case of design. The standard of proof put forward is that the example of design must be “indisputable,” but this standard is lacking in that is simply asking for too much. While the theist might be able to offer innumerable examples of what would constitute design, such as the watch analogy from William Paley, it is always possible that this evident design could have sprouted from purely naturalistic causes. The watch could have simply been the result of the rare occurrence of all the proper ingredients winding up being placed right where they needed to be to make a watch. While this is always possible, what the theist is trying to say in the argument from design is that, while possible, such a scenario is so unlikely that the most reasonable explanation is that it was designed .

McCloskey also brings up evolution as a possible explanation for the origin of apparent design in the universe . Even given the premise that evolution is true, this still fails as an objection to the teleological argument. This is because even if evolution is true, it does not explain the purpose in it, or the operations of the natural laws that would go into the process of biological evolution. So, while something might have a mechanistic explanation without recourse to an intelligent designer, there still is not ultimately explanation of the mechanism itself. This is crucial to a greater understanding of the teleological argument as well. While individual appearances of design might be the result of natural processes, that still does not account for the purpose and design. It only accounts for how the specific instance came about . This can be seen in the “fine-tuning” design argument. This puts forward the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and that even if the laws of nature were slightly off what they are in our universe, life simply could not exist. So, even if there is a mechanistic explanation for why certain aspects of the universe exhibit design, that still does not resolve the need for an explanation of the mechanism itself.

A powerful objection McCloskey brings up to the teleological (as well as the cosmological) argument is that, even if true, these examples of design are imperfect, and, therefore, cannot have been made by a perfect God . This is resolvable for the theist that the point of the teleological argument is not necessarily to prove that God is perfect, but is rather to point out that design would indicate that there is an intelligent (and, therefore, personal) force in the universe. So, while not proving every aspect of God, it does prove to a degree that there is seemingly intelligence behind the universe . Another way to resolve this problem of evil within the teleological argument is also to adopt the “faith seeking understanding” model to defend these arguments. The best way to understand this argument is not as absolute proof of God’s existence, but rather as proof that God has a purpose. In this way, it can be demonstrated rationally to the questioner that our belief on God’s purposeful action is rational.

McCloskey also goes on in length on the problem of evil for the theist, explaining how it might be that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator could have created a world without evil, either moral or natural . The objections raised do have rational responses from the theist. The most powerful response raised by Evans is the “greater good” argument. This is the theodicy that demonstrates that morally good beings do not necessarily eliminate evil, but rather might allow evil that would allow for a greater good . While Evans presents an example including natural evil, I would like to justify this from a Christian perspective that would include the Doctrine of the Incarnation. While it might be possible to conceive of a world wherein Adam and Eve would have never sinned, and we could have all lived happily ever after in the Garden of Eden, in such a world how is it possible to conceive of an incarnation as the ultimate demonstration of God’s justice and mercy? In fact, it might even be said that God becoming man, and yet retaining his Godhood, and in so doing being the ultimate harbinger of his justice, mercy, and omnipotence might even be an infinite good. While what Adam might have experienced in the Garden might be free from evil, the goods might be said to have been merely quantifiable, while the good of salvation through the Incarnate Deity might, and a day of final justice might be said to be infinitely good, outweighing any possible evil that needed to be allowed in the meantime. So, this can justify even my Calvinistic belief that God not only passively allows evil by refusing to take action, but made his allowance of evil a part of his divine decree.

An objection to the “free will” theodicy is also raised by McCloskey, asking whether or not God could have biased man to choose the good. While the free will theodicy might lack in other respects, this is not an objection to the nature of the free will theodicy, particularly the ones that accept libertarian versions of free will. McCloskey’s definition of free will seems to be a compatibilist one. It seems that McCloskey thinks that is possible for God to both influence our decisions, even naturally bias us, and yet we still have our freedom . However, if one accepts the incompatibilist idea of libertarian freedom, then it is possible that there might be no world wherein totally free creatures would choose the good, so while it might be logically possible, it might be really impossible . So, McCloskey’s objection to a free will theodicy is one that would be sound against a compatibilist version of the free will theodicy (which a compatibilist is not likely to hold to in any event), but is not sound against a libertarian version of the free will theodicy. From there, of course, there is the free will vs. determinism vs. compatibilist debate.

The concluding remarks of McCloskey’s paper focus are that not only is atheism rational, but that it is a good thing too. The assertion is made that theism is inadequate to comfort the sufferings of people stricken by all manners of evil, and that atheism is can be the basis for rational action . Craig thoroughly discredits the idea that there can be any meaning without God by demonstrating that we are thoroughly without purpose apart from God. Craig says, drawing from Francis Schaeffer:

Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value and purpose.

Craig points out multiple examples of atheists trying to makes this leap without the necessary reasons. The philosopher Jean-Paule Sartes admitted that life was absurd, but chose to go on living as if it purpose and meaning. Bertrand Russell advocated for his own form of social justice, but admitted that he could not resolve the problems this put forth . In much the same vain, McCloskey chooses to believe in purpose and meaning without reason, choosing to believe that we, in fact, should alleviate human pain and suffering. However, he has no reason to do this, for he has no reason discern between right and wrong without purpose and meaning.

In the end, McCloskey’s arguments against theism fail for multiple reasons. For one, he does not adequately address the actual conclusions of the theistic proofs themselves by refuting only the claim that any particular one is absolute proof of all aspects of God. Then, in the presentation of the problem of evil, McCloskey does not adequately address defenses and theodicies offered by the theist. When McCloskey does address the free will theodicy, he does so in a way that does not refute the validity of the argument itself, but instead assumes a compatibilist approach. Finally, McCloskey then goes onto try to say that we atheism is, in fact, better to live with, when he does not have adequate reasoning for meaning, purpose, and moral values without God. So, McCloskey himself seems unwilling to accept the conclusion that God does not exist and all of its implications.

 

[nate895]

Bibliography

Anselm. Proslogium; Monologium: An Appendix In Behalf Of The Fool By Gaunilo; And Cur Deus Homo. Chicago: The Open Court, 1903. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html (accessed December 14, 2010).

Craig, William Lane. “The Absurdity of Life Without God.” In Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3 ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.

Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. 2 ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009.

Foreman, Mark. “Approaching the Issue of God’s Existence.” PointeCast presentation, Liberty University Online, Lynchburg, Virginia, Fall D term, 2010.

Frame, John. “Apologetic Method: Apostolic through Medieval- 02.” Mp3 Lecture, Reformed Theological Seminary, Virtual, October 11, 2007.

McCloskey, H.J. “On Being an Atheist.” Question 1 (February 1968): 62-69.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I thought the piece was well written and coherent. There were a few minor grammatical errors which gave me pause, but not too big a deal. I feel that the title of your paper is a bit misleading, though. You do a good job of dissecting and refuting points made by the atheists you cited, but you did not offer a lot of proofs to make your own case-that belief in God is rational and correct. Perhaps it will be more clear when you post a more complete version of the essay. Also, your opening struck me as weak. It "feels" like you skipped over your thesis statement and introduction and jumped right into the body of the piece.

As an aside, I think you would get a lot out of reading "The Kingdom Of God Is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy (in particular chapter IV, "Christianity Misunderstood By Men Of Science"). You can read it here-http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html

P.S. it may be possible to preserve your original formatting by creating a pdf of the original file and uploading it to a file sharing site.

 

[hazek]

nate895, you seem to be one of the more vocal religious members of this forum, so I was wondering if you watched all the clips I posted here and what you thought of them?

 

[reillym]

Every definition of god or god's doing is just an excuse for his non-existence.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Thoughts, Which You Already Know

I enjoyed your paper, Nate. I would like to add that even for anyone to argue against belief in God they must first define what they mean by "God." And usually when that happens, it becomes clearer that they are not arguing against God but against their own conception of God (which is idolatry).

That's not even to mention that those who argue against God's existence neither have any rational basis to do so (especially if it's indeed true that He doesn't exist, making arguments against nonexistent things silly), nor do they have a legitimate and ultimate standard by which they can judge any claim of God's existence as either good or evil.

Any person who argues against God's existence or belief in God must first affirm that God exists in order for their argument to be sound, for the premises of the argument ("God is X" or "A Y God allows Z") must themselves be true, at the outset. And if it is true that God exists, then arguing against Him is itself an act of futility.

 

[reillym]

I enjoyed your paper, Nate. I would like to add that even for anyone to argue against belief in God they must first define what they mean by "God." And usually when that happens, it becomes clearer that they are not arguing against God but against their own conception of God (which is idolatry).

That's not even to mention that those who argue against God's existence neither have any rational basis to do so (especially if it's indeed true that He doesn't exist, making arguments against nonexistent things silly), nor do they have a legitimate and ultimate standard by which they can judge any claim of God's existence as either good or evil.

Any person who argues against God's existence or belief in God must first affirm that God exists in order for their argument to be sound, for the premises of the argument ("God is X" or "A Y God allows Z") must themselves be true, at the outset. And if it is true that God exists, then arguing against Him is itself an act of futility.

You don't have to affirm the existence of anything in order to argue against it. That's like saying you can't argue that the earth isn't made of cheese unless you believe it's made of cheese. There is no evidence of god, therefore it is irrational to believe in it. There's nothing more than that. Using that statement doesn't require an affirmation that god exists. That's silly and childish, just like many of your other inane arguments.

 

[Theocrat]

Missing the Point

You don't have to affirm the existence of anything in order to argue against it. That's like saying you can't argue that the earth isn't made of cheese unless you believe it's made of cheese. There is no evidence of god, therefore it is irrational to believe in it. There's nothing more than that. Using that statement doesn't require an affirmation that god exists. That's silly and childish, just like many of your other inane arguments.

Arguing that the earth isn't made of cheese and arguing against God's existence are two different types of arguments, reillym. The former deals with the nature of composition, while the latter deals with the metaphysical nature of existence. So your comparison doesn't work.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that God exists, but evidences are always interpreted in terms of a person's worldview. If one has a worldview that denies the possibility that supernatural entities like God can exist, then it makes sense that the person will exclude any evidence presented which has supernatural content.

Like I've said before, a person who argues that God doesn't exist must first define/affirm what he means by "God." In addition, those nonbelievers who say they only believe things based on evidence must then account for the evidence which proves the nonexistence of God. Of course, such evidence is impossible, so it leaves the nonbeliever in the position of believing something without which he has no evidence to affirm it as true.

 

[HealthWyze]

This was a well-written paper that I enjoyed. Thank you, Nate. I read a piece a long time ago, called "Jesus according to sources outside of the Bible" which may interest you. After scrolling through my bookmarks for quite a while, here it is: http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm

 

[hazek]

They do not necessarily convince a non-believer God exists, but show those of us who believe in God that it is rational, and abandoning our belief comes with a steep price.

Can you please elaborate?

 

[nate895]

Arguing that the earth isn't made of cheese and arguing against God's existence are two different types of arguments, reillym. The former deals with the nature of composition, while the latter deals with the metaphysical nature of existence. So your comparison doesn't work.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that God exists, but evidences are always interpreted in terms of a person's worldview. If one has a worldview that denies the possibility that supernatural entities like God can exist, then it makes sense that the person will exclude any evidence presented which has supernatural content.

Like I've said before, a person who argues that God doesn't exist must first define/affirm what he means by "God." In addition, those nonbelievers who say they only believe things based on evidence must then account for the evidence which proves the nonexistence of God. Of course, such evidence is impossible, so it leaves the nonbeliever in the position of believing something without which he has no evidence to affirm it as true.

Yes. For example, it is not necessarily that all atheistic philosophers do not accept the validity of the cosmological argument, but all the cosmological argument proves is that there is a necessary being. That being could be matter itself, which is what the materialist atheist claims. However, from the theistic perspective that necessary being is God. Neither solution can be proved in terms of empirical data, which is what most atheists demand.

Like I tried to point out, the better use for these arguments from the theistic perspective than trying to prove God in some sort of independent way, but to demonstrate that having faith in God makes sense. While it requires faith, we can still appeal to the teleological argument to a believer (or other sincere questioner) who is questioning why they should believe that God has a purpose.

Can you please elaborate?

Well, I was trying to get in a presuppositional perspective into the paper, somehow. The way I figured to do it was to take these arguments I had to defend and say that while they do not prove God, for those of us who accept God axiomatically, they do demonstrate how God really is faithful and ought to be worshiped, if you assume the being they prove ultimately is God.

For example, as I pointed out to Theo, the cosmological argument only proves that there is a necessary being upon which everything else (contingent beings, such as ourselves) depends. Now, this does not prove God, even if accepted. However, if you already believe in God as a necessary being, it does prove that literally everything depends on Him.

I thought the piece was well written and coherent. There were a few minor grammatical errors which gave me pause, but not too big a deal. I feel that the title of your paper is a bit misleading, though. You do a good job of dissecting and refuting points made by the atheists you cited, but you did not offer a lot of proofs to make your own case-that belief in God is rational and correct. Perhaps it will be more clear when you post a more complete version of the essay. Also, your opening struck me as weak. It "feels" like you skipped over your thesis statement and introduction and jumped right into the body of the piece.

Thank you. The reason why some of it feels kind of weird, particularly the pretty poor introduction, is because I was attempting to weave together two theses. I spent a lot of time making sure my defense of the cosmological and teleological arguments was supplemented by moderate presuppositional perspective that would not contradict what I was saying in defense of the theistic proofs but would provide a slightly different take on their use. This is mainly due to the nature of the assignment. I was given about 10 prompts and the prompts basically meant I had to defend the cosmological and teleological arguments, and respond to some other elements of the McCloskey paper. So, I spent most of my time trying to figure out how to weave these two things together without conflict. I think I did that fairly well.

As an aside, I think you would get a lot out of reading "The Kingdom Of God Is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy (in particular chapter IV, "Christianity Misunderstood By Men Of Science"). You can read it here-http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html

P.S. it may be possible to preserve your original formatting by creating a pdf of the original file and uploading it to a file sharing site.

I'll consider doing that.

 

[Maximus]

I enjoyed your paper.

Personally I find the argument of causation to be my favorite argument for the existence of God.

I also really enjoy your overall point about life having purpose and meaning towards the end of the paper. I frequently come back to that point myself.

In regards to your points about the Garden of Eden, you might enjoy reading the Easter Exsultet, sung every year at the Easter Vigil. There is a line that says, "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet

 

[nate895]

nate895, you seem to be one of the more vocal religious members of this forum, so I was wondering if you watched all the clips I posted here and what you thought of them?

Having watched the first few minutes of each series you posted, I fail to see the relevance between what I posted and these videos.

BTW, in the beginning of the one series, "Instant Conversion," he says that he was a "happy, clappy Christian" until his twenties, but then he remarks at the beginning of the "Messiah" one that he never forgave anyone for anything in his life. Big, fat inconsistency there.

 

[hazek]

Really? Of all the things you could focus on you're going to focus on him saying he never forgave anyone for anything and just dismiss everything else?

I'll tell you what the relevance is. I wanted to show you how our mind works and how simple it is to us human beings to have very strong feelings in beliefs that were artificially manufactured in our minds.

Just remember this: You learned about god. He didn't reveal him self to you, you learned about him from a book, from other people and from the church. - Think about it for a second.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'll tell you what the relevance is. I wanted to show you how our mind works and how simple it is to us human beings to have very strong feelings in beliefs that were artificially manufactured in our minds.

You're right. The mind is so powerful. What is even more powerful than the mind is the effect sin has on your mind and reasoning right now. It is so simple for sin to work in your mind to cause you very strong beliefs in order to supress the plain truth of God like Paul says in Romans 1.

Just remember this: You learned about god. He didn't reveal him self to you, you learned about him from a book, from other people and from the church.

Just remember this: Your sin causes you to reject the clear knowledge of God. God has revealed Himself through the created order so that all men are without excuse. Sadly, the Lord has still not redeemed your sinful mind and heart. You learned to think irrationally and reject Him because you love darkness, Hazek.

 

[hazek]

O boy.

Let me show you how this mambo jumbo sounds to me:

You're right. The mind is so powerful. What is even more powerful than the mind is the effect a magic spell has on your mind and reasoning right now. It is so simple for a magic spell to work in your mind to cause you very strong beliefs in order to suppress the plain truth of Santa Claus like Paul says in Romans 1.


Just remember this: Your magic spell causes you to reject the clear knowledge of Santa Claus. Santa Claus has revealed Himself through the created order so that all men are without excuse. Sadly, the Santa has still not redeemed your enchanted mind and heart. You learned to think rationally and reject Him because you love reality, Hazek.

What you call sin I have no feelings or beliefs for. Sure, some actions that you call sins are crimes in my book which I know not to commit because they are either immoral and therefor wrong or are infringing on rights of other human beings and are therefor wrong but other sins like you implied that just thinking what I think might be, I think no one on the whole planet has a right to condemn nor punish.

As for my irrationality for not believing in a fairy tale, well, that just about proves my point



I don't mean to attack you as a person or your religion, but neither do I love darkness, I'm actually a pretty happy person. I just wanted to tell you my opinion of your opinion. Which is, that you can stick it where sun don't shine. And you can cry "sin!! sinner!! lover of darkness!!" all you want, it has not even a slightest effect on me. I couldn't care less because my mind is free and I think and do as I please as long as I'm within my rights and I unlike you I don't let others think for me. You should try it sometime, it does wonders to you

p.s.: I'm not getting into a debate I just wanted to reply to nate's silly post, that's all. So don't expect me to reply to any more of your mambo jumbo.

 

[nate895]

Really? Of all the things you could focus on you're going to focus on him saying he never forgave anyone for anything and just dismiss everything else?

I'll tell you what the relevance is. I wanted to show you how our mind works and how simple it is to us human beings to have very strong feelings in beliefs that were artificially manufactured in our minds.

Just remember this: You learned about god. He didn't reveal him self to you, you learned about him from a book, from other people and from the church. - Think about it for a second.

What I'm saying is, even if what he was saying was true and every believer came to belief because of some psychological weakness, it would still be irrelevant as to whether what they believe is true. That would be an example of the genetic fallacy, wherein you criticize a belief because of where it comes from, and not because of poor argumentation for it. The fact of God's existence and the truth of Christianity cannot be altered because some people (or even every person) obtain that belief through some kind of psychological trigger.

Also, I was saying that, as an aside, he was not an actual Christian that he claimed to have been if he never forgave anyone for anything.

 

[hazek]

The fact of God's existence and the truth of Christianity cannot be altered because some people (or even every person) obtain that belief through some kind of psychological trigger.

Here I can see how much you really understand NLP and the way our minds work. And it's the reason why I posted those videos in the first place. See you saw them and you thought the frame of those videos was a man who used to be a believer, now turned atheist because of his research into psychology.

What the frame really is: a man who through studies and practice of NLP(neuro-linguistic programing, you can google it for an explanation), was able to achieve a similar depth of belief in his tricks as he saw in people of faith, which lead him to question if the religious stories aren't also just that, stories and a trick for the mind, and then he indeed found similarities between the way he produces effects in people's mind and the way religion teaches it's believers.


Bottom line is this: our minds are very powerful, so powerful in fact, that they can make real for us something that isn't really real in the material sense

And you have to comprehend this one fact first if you ever want to even be able to learn the real truth. Like they say for banking: "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." and the same story applies to religion

p.s.: I can't even imagine how it must be for you to have someone like me question one of your core beliefs, how utterly stupid must my arguments sound to you and how frighting the thought of me maybe being right must be, so I wish you courage to at least question your belief and don't accept the notion of blind faith

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bottom line is this: our minds are very powerful, so powerful in fact, that they can make real for us something that isn't really real in the material sense.

THANK YOU!

You just undermined your entire empirical epistemology.



1. You cannot even prove what is material and what isn't. You can't say "matter is what I can sense" because you haven't sensed all things to know this. You haven't even "sensed" the CONCEPT that "matter is only what I can sense" LOLOLOL. If you can't sense concepts (because they are not material), how can they exist?



2. What is the PROOF that a sensation you have actually occured??? If the mind is so powerful to decieve us as you say, how can you rely on it for reliable sensation? I want the concrete proof of how a particular sensation you have actually happens. I promise you, it cannot be proven



3. Have you ever sensed a law of logic? What does it taste like? Does it smell good? If you haven't sensed it, how can it exist?