Kevin's Watch

How about soul rebirth and "karma" ?

And they don't claim these are objective, measurable things......

rusmeister wrote:AFAIK, only Ali out of Watchers has actually read it, and she has a strong incentive to discount it - because she believes in the very thing that Chesterton's thesis most powerfully disputes.

Seven Words wrote:Rus---

Saul's experience was SUBJECTIVE, not objective.

As far as the accumulation of little things..such an accumulation led me to stop being an atheist....but none of the little things were "flavored", for want of a better term, Christian. While they were subjective, they were enough to convince me that there IS something MORE. But while Christianity could explain them, equally so could they support many other faiths. And, touching back to atheism, they COULD equally have been many unlikely random occurrences, but I don't think so.

And getting back to the TOPIC....religion is faith....belief without empirical proof, which you said yourself there isn't, Rus. Science is only concerned with empirically provable facts. If it cannot be measured, tested, questioned...it's nothing science is concerned with. The only conflict comes when religion makes definitive statements concerning things which ARE empirically testable...such as the age of the Earth.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.
I would hope that it is amply clear that apologetics does not set out to "prove" faith scientifically; only to demonstrate that it can be a rational thing; ie, completely compatible with the rational mind.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:AFAIK, only Ali out of Watchers has actually read it, and she has a strong incentive to discount it - because she believes in the very thing that Chesterton's thesis most powerfully disputes.

That's OK, Ali! You still got points in my book just for reading it!

Some thoughts, originally belonging to another poster on the CS Lewis forum, especially for 7W:

:The death of a worthy God would occasion profound grief, not celebration. My flirtations with atheism have been dark, angry and grievous. The evangelizing atheism I increasingly see is deeply incoherent unless it is one that rejects an unworthy God. Only the death of an unworthy God would be good news.

:The challenge now for the atheist is to discover that which is worthy of worship, or to cease being fully human. The impulse to worship is part of our humanity and won't go away. Many turn their gaze to the wonders of Nature, but neither the material world nor anything in it is worthy of worship. Nature isn't utterly lovely. Rather, she is in turn glorious, terrifying, pitiless and transient. It is hard to hug your mother's month-old corpse, or to love the screw-worm maggots that devour your child's eyes.

:It is no surprise that science, being by definition the study of the material world, cannot perceive the spiritual.

:It has been proved that there exists an infinite number of truths that cannot be proved or deduced, only discovered.

:No evidence can support the claim that "All truth must be supported by evidence." The scientific idea that evidence must be presented in order to establish truth is itself held by faith alone. A delicious irony.

:Reason cannot be justified without first assuming the validity of reason. We accept reason, not by reason but by faith alone. (The utilitarian reply that reason is justified because "it works" assumes again that we can reasonably assess the evidence.)

:The scientific study of what "is" cannot inform the spiritual perception of what "ought to be".

:Twice two is four, whether the material universe exists or not. Truth is immaterial and eternal.

:The worst thing imaginable would be the loss of the best thing imaginable. Therefore, earnestly seek the best thing imaginable, whether you are certain it exists or not.

Seven Words wrote:And getting back to the TOPIC....religion is faith....belief without empirical proof, which you said yourself there isn't, Rus. Science is only concerned with empirically provable facts. If it cannot be measured, tested, questioned...it's nothing science is concerned with. The only conflict comes when religion makes definitive statements concerning things which ARE empirically testable...such as the age of the Earth.

rus wrote:

:No evidence can support the claim that "All truth must be supported by evidence." The scientific idea that evidence must be presented in order to establish truth is itself held by faith alone. A delicious irony.

:Reason cannot be justified without first assuming the validity of reason. We accept reason, not by reason but by faith alone. (The utilitarian reply that reason is justified because "it works" assumes again that we can reasonably assess the evidence.)

Just wanted to highlight those ideas.

rusmeister wrote:Fist, I don't pretend to know how you'd react in the face of personal revelation. Honestly, I had Scrooge in mind (the mustard blob).

Yes, but that's silly. I did see a spider the size of an adult male hand crawl across my father, coming toward me, when I had a very high fever when I was six or seven. But delirium brought on by a high fever and seeing a dead person because of an undigested bit of beef are not remotely the same thing. I have never had any experience of the sort we're discussing that I "explained away." You do assume I would do so if I had any sort of experience on par with being visited by a dead person. I didn't bring this idea up. You did, when wondering what could "possibly actually" bring me to believe.

rusmeister wrote:We seem to have reached the crux - which is also the Cross (and this is not a coincidence ); that of faith as a choice to accept revelation. As such, it cannot be proved, and one does not have a special advantage over others except in terms of such reason and experience as we have. So far I agree with 7W. But there are no "logic gaps"; certainly, none have been shown. If reasoning has gone as far as it can, to where it can go no farther - what we can't know, what lies outside of the universe that we can perceive, for example, then there is an admitted gap of empirical knowledge, but if you make the choice to accept revelation, you need admit no gap of logic.

You need not admit a gap of logic, but it is most certainly there. It is conceivable that something lies outside of the universe that we can perceive, but there's not the slightest hint of evidence. To assume something does is illogical.

But you don't stop there! You think everyone should go so much further than that. We should decide, "There must be this 'God' that rus and the Orthodox Church talk about, and Jesus..." and all that goes with your belief system. No, not for any particular reason. Various people believe it, and that should be sufficient motivation for me to choose to believe it. We couldn't find our way back to logic in this scenario with a map and compass.

rusmeister wrote:There is a point where even logic ends, and you must make a choice. That choice may be influenced by your environment, like Fist suggests, or it may be in spite of it. FTR, Fist, I spent twenty years in complete rejection, and one of the factors was a major weakness in Baptist theology - it was quite definite, and so it was not really a matter of my doubting and trying to free myself of it all the while. I rejected, and then mostly didn't think about it for two decades. I didn't 'keep going back to priests'. there was one point, at the ten-year mark, where I talked briefly with a priest - Fr Andrew Tregubov, in NH (at my first son's baptism that his mother insisted upon), and I was struck by the fact that his thoughts were much deeper than my own - the most that did, though, was plant a seed, also forgotten in the general hecticness of life, until the events unfolded at the 20-yr mark that brought down my house of cards and left me 'naked' before those thoughts. So I do see my faith as a free choice and I was not forced to believe by my environment or circumstances, although I was forced to confront the question.

I'm not suggesting environment. I'm suggesting a feeling within a person that insists there is something "out there." I can't imagine what his thoughts were, but a feeling inside of you resonated with them. If not, they wouldn't have planted a seed in you. Nor can I imagine what events brought your house of cards down. But, unless they were supernatural, they would not likely have pointed me to anything religious, because there doesn't seem to be any part of me that feels that stuff.

rusmeister wrote:

Seven Words wrote:7W, if you have set such a bar for yourself - you must have objective experience like Saul or empirical proof - you are unlikely to ever convert. These things just don't happen, except as miracles. But that's not how it generally works. It's usually an accumulation of experiences, usually little ones - a good friend, a good book, an incredible sunset, or whatever, that also chip away at an iron-clad faith in reason alone - those little things become proofs - not the grandiose scientific ones that we imagined, but things that can gradually convince in the absence of that proof.

As far as the accumulation of little things..such an accumulation led me to stop being an atheist....but none of the little things were "flavored", for want of a better term, Christian. While they were subjective, they were enough to convince me that there IS something MORE. But while Christianity could explain them, equally so could they support many other faiths. And, touching back to atheism, they COULD equally have been many unlikely random occurrences, but I don't think so.

You're both insane. I've known it about rus for a while now, but 7?!?

rusmeister wrote:Like I said, I think the best outlay of what we DO know as an argument for faith that I have seen is "The Everlasting Man" - if seen, not as "proof", but as an explanation that really does make sense out of the Christian worldview and demonstrate its plausibility, then it can be very convincing to people who are genuinely seeking to understand how that can be.

Yes, that's a perfectly good use for TEM. Same with Conversations With God. A beautiful, internally consistent explanation/description of the author's belief system.

rusmeister wrote:On Satan and his angels, yes, they know for a fact that God exists. Therefore they believe (James 2:19). (Or you could say that they don't believe, because they know, but that's just semantics) But they do not have faith. It wasn't a question of Lucifer needing faith or losing it - it was a question of pride - of being the greatest of created things, and wanting to be more - wanting to be God (and this is something that, as a result of the Fall, is also something that humans struggle with.

That's what I'm saying. They had absolute knowledge of God, but they did not have faith in God. They thought another path might be better. I would like the same starting point. I don't see why there's a need for me to, for no reason at all, believe not only that there is a creator, but that this creator is the God you believe exists. Show me my choices, then let me choose.

rusmeister wrote:I've already mentioned what I call 'the Godzilla problem' - that of not being able to withstand that actual proof, and of perceiving no choice at all in believing or following if that awesome presence did appear before us. For me it makes perfect sense why he doesn't just 'appear in front of us'. I won't say that it is 'more meaningful' without proof - I'll say rather that it does enable us to make a free choice without pressure - a choice that really is free and not forced.

I assume I responded with something along the lines of God being able to convince without the Godzilla approach. There's no reason a being like the God you believe in couldn't simply make us all know - from birth, without needing any reason, without ever having even the slightest doubt - that he exists. That still doesn't mean I would have to have faith in his ways and plans. As I was saying with cybr, having the power to create doesn't mean one is morally superior. God could be the authority in the way the legal system is the authority. He could have the power to reward or punish specific behaviors. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with what God, or the legal system, considers to be appropriate behavior.

rusmeister wrote:Well, now three are up and I have to get involved in children moderation...

Yup, I know the drill. Nice quiet mornings never last.

:The death of a worthy God would occasion profound grief, not celebration. My flirtations with atheism have been dark, angry and grievous. The evangelizing atheism I increasingly see is deeply incoherent unless it is one that rejects an unworthy God. Only the death of an unworthy God would be good news.

My flirtations with atheism are simply not seeing any evidence of anything supernatural.

:The challenge now for the atheist is to discover that which is worthy of worship, or to cease being fully human. The impulse to worship is part of our humanity and won't go away. Many turn their gaze to the wonders of Nature, but neither the material world nor anything in it is worthy of worship. Nature isn't utterly lovely. Rather, she is in turn glorious, terrifying, pitiless and transient. It is hard to hug your mother's month-old corpse, or to love the screw-worm maggots that devour your child's eyes.

I do not have any impulse to worship. Nor do I see why anyone or anything would want to be worshiped. (Mind you, if a definition of "worship" is supplied, I suppose it's possible that my response would change.

:It is no surprise that science, being by definition the study of the material world, cannot perceive the spiritual.

It is no surprise that, there being no spiritual world, it cannot be perceived. Hehe.

:It has been proved that there exists an infinite number of truths that cannot be proved or deduced, only discovered.

What kind of truths does this refer to? Surely that an infinite number of paths can lead to equally good/valid salvations?

:No evidence can support the claim that "All truth must be supported by evidence." The scientific idea that evidence must be presented in order to establish truth is itself held by faith alone. A delicious irony.

Not sure what the definitions are here. The way I use the terms, science looks for facts, not truths; and religion looks for truths, not facts. Science can't tell us the meaning of our lives, and religion can't tell us where the moon and earth will be relative to each other, and relative to the sun, on February 23rd, 4056.

:Reason cannot be justified without first assuming the validity of reason. We accept reason, not by reason but by faith alone. (The utilitarian reply that reason is justified because "it works" assumes again that we can reasonably assess the evidence.)

Of course we can reasonably assess the evidence. We know reason is valid because we, as individuals and as a species, are still alive. Our reason allows us to understand the facts of the universe. When we fell and got bruised/cut/hurt, we reasoned that a fall from a much greater height would cause more, possibly fatal, damage. So we go down stairs and elevators instead of jumping out of buildings. That's a very simple bit of clear reasoning, and we can earily think of dozens more like it. But it gets more complex. We're communicating via the internet, aren't we? Did Hiroshima get hit by an atomic bomb? Have plants been genetically engineered to produce more food? All of these things have come about because it was reasoned that "If X, then Y." When Y was, indeed, the case, we have the internet. When Y turns out not to be the case, then "If X, then Y" is discarded, or modified. (Eventually. Xar gave good examples of why the If-Then is sometimes held onto far longer than it should be. But, eventually, it was accepted that the earth is not flat.) Reason "works", and the evidence is our lives and our successes in so many things.

:The scientific study of what "is" cannot inform the spiritual perception of what "ought to be".

Hey! I agree with this one!

:Twice two is four, whether the material universe exists or not. Truth is immaterial and eternal.

OK, if this is a "truth," then I'm on board. All we have to do is demonstrate that twice two is four, and we're good.

:The worst thing imaginable would be the loss of the best thing imaginable. Therefore, earnestly seek the best thing imaginable, whether you are certain it exists or not.

No, the worst thing imaginable is the loss of the best thing that is. But I don't necessarily disagree with the second sentence. Striving is our nature. Michelle Kwan strove for Olympic gold. Was her life a waste because she didn't get it? Not in my opinion. Nor is it a waste to strive to be as much like (most people's image of) Jesus as possible. How can a life of loving and helping others be a wasted life?

I don't know, Fist. I think you already HAVE made a choice - and the choice is to not have faith. To believe only what you can see and can be proven, which I still understand to be the narrow and empirical way most people envision proof - is pretty narrowing. (I'll stress that that is my perception of your position.)

I'd bet that Tracie showed you the heart of faith (as much as can be). I'm doing the best I can to show you that faith has a head, too (maybe because I think I'm better at that than the heart part). I could respond to your responses, but I really feel we have reached a mobius loop, because you have made the choice to reject faith. So everything that I could say showing that it can be rational to have faith is not going to reach you, because you have already decided not to.

I grant that that choice could change - if the chance is given you - but it's not something that any words of mine will do. AFAIC, it's up to God to find you. The hole that I see you to have painted yourself into makes it unlikely that you will find Him. One thing I will say - it is generally less costly to learn from other people's experience than from your own. But that requires having faith in what they have to say - having faith in them, and they can't always offer evidence for it.

But, hoping that all manner of things will be well...

Merry (Eastern - old calendar) Christmas!

Rus wrote:I would hope that it is amply clear that apologetics does not set out to "prove" faith scientifically; only to demonstrate that it can be a rational thing; ie, completely compatible with the rational mind.

Some apologeticists do. Inteligent design supporters to mention an example.

About rationality, you'd probably have to define that objectively, in order to claim that religion is a rational thing.

You are using a word "rational" that we all ascribe some value to. Some value that is not objective.

I don't know, rus. You put an interesting spin on things. I have not chosen to believe in something that, as far as I can tell, does not exist. I don't know how you can call that "narrow." I can't imagine how many things you don't believe in for the same reason. But I'm sure you don't consider it narrow when it's about you. I'm sure you think it's kinda silly of the Muslims to expect you to simply take their word for it. At the same time, it's kinda silly of me to not simply take your word for it.

rusmeister wrote:Some thoughts, originally belonging to another poster on the CS Lewis forum, especially for 7W:

:The death of a worthy God would occasion profound grief, not celebration. My flirtations with atheism have been dark, angry and grievous. The evangelizing atheism I increasingly see is deeply incoherent unless it is one that rejects an unworthy God. Only the death of an unworthy God would be good news.

:The challenge now for the atheist is to discover that which is worthy of worship, or to cease being fully human. The impulse to worship is part of our humanity and won't go away. Many turn their gaze to the wonders of Nature, but neither the material world nor anything in it is worthy of worship. Nature isn't utterly lovely. Rather, she is in turn glorious, terrifying, pitiless and transient. It is hard to hug your mother's month-old corpse, or to love the screw-worm maggots that devour your child's eyes.

:It is no surprise that science, being by definition the study of the material world, cannot perceive the spiritual.

:It has been proved that there exists an infinite number of truths that cannot be proved or deduced, only discovered.

:No evidence can support the claim that "All truth must be supported by evidence." The scientific idea that evidence must be presented in order to establish truth is itself held by faith alone. A delicious irony.

:Reason cannot be justified without first assuming the validity of reason. We accept reason, not by reason but by faith alone. (The utilitarian reply that reason is justified because "it works" assumes again that we can reasonably assess the evidence.)

:The scientific study of what "is" cannot inform the spiritual perception of what "ought to be".

:Twice two is four, whether the material universe exists or not. Truth is immaterial and eternal.

:The worst thing imaginable would be the loss of the best thing imaginable. Therefore, earnestly seek the best thing imaginable, whether you are certain it exists or not.

1st quote....define "worthy" and "unworthy"...Many atheists see any kind of God which would purport to love all mankind yet allow so many of the atroctities which occur daily as fundamentally self-contradictory. I find many teachings in the Bible morally repugnant. Yes, I said morally. Morals are subjective.

2nd quote....a whole lot of subjective opinions passed off as fact. The impulse to worship is part of our humanity? That's kind of high-handed and self-righteous. It's also hard to love a God (operating on assumption God exists) that causes you to suffer 7 miscarriages in 4 years.

3rd quote..I agree completely

4th quote....depends on how one defines a truth. Again, subjective presented as objective.

5th....lack of understandng of science...the basic principle which refutes it is usually abbreviated QED. What is demonstrated, is.

6th...see 5th

7th..maybe..depends on what one believes "ought to be" spiritually.

8th.....again, depends on how one defines truth. twice two will always be four. Truth demonstrable like that (not necessarily that simple, but ones not dependent on any non-objective measures) are what I call truth.

9th...I agree completely...but remember, not everyone will define "best" and "worst" as you will...again, obfuscation of what's subjective/what's objective.

Prebe wrote:Some apologeticists do. Inteligent design supporters to mention an example.

Huh? ID is not Christian apologetics. And some ID people are not even Christian. It seems your hatred of Christianity colors some of your thinking. Now, if you said Creationists, you'd be closer, but still not quite. They set out to prove Creation by God scientifically, but certainly not faith itself. Actually, I would change that to say Creationists (specifically AIG) don't try to prove God created scientifically. They start w/that premise, and see how evidence fits w/that premise. Like evolutionists or Big Bang people start w/that premise and see how evidence fits.

Prebe wrote:About rationality, you'd probably have to define that objectively, in order to claim that religion is a rational thing.

You are using a word "rational" that we all ascribe some value to. Some value that is not objective.

I agree. I think rus' itch is that its quite common to hear that Christianity, or religion, is 'irrational'. Which really doesn't mean anything b/c rationality is subjective.

I don't agree with your interpretation of ID supporters as NOT being christian apologetics. See the wedge strategy and discovery institute.

Weez wrote:They set out to prove Creation by God scientifically, but certainly not faith itself.

Sorry, but if you want to prove SCIENTIFICALLY that God created earth (or anything really), you'd have to get into the nature of God.

And I don't specifically hate christianity. And I certainly don't hate christians. I speak out against what I percieve as detrimental forces in any religion.

It seems your hatred of Christianity colors some of your thinking.

just because someone is not a christian or disagrees with christian perspective does not make them a "hater" weez.

you're ascribing opinions to prebe that he's never stated, far as i know.
he's always been fairly respectful of everyone's beliefs and opinions when he posts.

Nnnnnnnnggggggggg... Tough to call this one.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't know, rus. You put an interesting spin on things. I have not chosen to believe in something that, as far as I can tell, does not exist. I don't know how you can call that "narrow." I can't imagine how many things you don't believe in for the same reason. But I'm sure you don't consider it narrow when it's about you. I'm sure you think it's kinda silly of the Muslims to expect you to simply take their word for it. At the same time, it's kinda silly of me to not simply take your word for it.

I think I can appreciate what you are saying. To clarify what I meant by "narrow", I was applying it to the general attitude that one must have evidence of the scientifically-verifiable kind in order to "believe something" , although there are many things that they do believe in the lack of such evidence - the argument is generally used specifically regarding religion - a complete worldview.

Since I now believe all argument with you to be futile, I can only speak of belief - in what is actually true, in what IS. In your case, my other words in general express, directly or indirectly, my belief that for you to come to God, he will have to come to you, and you really won't like it when He does.

C.S. Lewis wrote: God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

That's only explanation - it's not argument.

Don't know if you are familiar with the dwarves in Lewis's "The Last Battle", ch 13 (Narnia) and their ultimate fate. I think it's a good lesson to consider the possibility of arriving at that state.

lucimay wrote:

It seems your hatred of Christianity colors some of your thinking.

just because someone is not a christian or disagrees with christian perspective does not make them a "hater" weez.

you're ascribing opinions to prebe that he's never stated, far as i know.
he's always been fairly respectful of everyone's beliefs and opinions when he posts.

I would agree that "hate" is a strong word that would take some effort to prove. But a solid case can be made for hostility, and I think Prebe will agree that at the very least, that is how a lot of his posting can be taken by Christians.

Speaking in general, if one is aware of one's emotional reaction to something (metacognition) then they stand less chance of taking a purely irrational stance. But it is always a struggle when your convictions are so strong that you are unwilling to tolerate what you perceive to be definitely false.
(Edited due to stupid error)

Prebe wrote:I don't agree with your interpretation of ID supporters as NOT being christian apologetics. See the wedge strategy and discovery institute.

Weez wrote:They set out to prove Creation by God scientifically, but certainly not faith itself.

Sorry, but if you want to prove SCIENTIFICALLY that God created earth (or anything really), you'd have to get into the nature of God.

And I don't specifically hate christianity. And I certainly don't hate christians. I speak out against what I percieve as detrimental forces in any religion.

A trouble with generalizations, Prebe, is when the people being generalized are not really a cohesive unit. Thus, anyone could claim that their version is the true version, that what they are propounding is apologetics (or science) - but the real question is, is it? By any objective standard. You can generalize about a stand taken by the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church....uh, wait, never mind on that last one... etc. But you can only generalize on things really held in common. You can generalize on protestants when you speak of doctrines that they reject, but if you try to generalize on what they do believe, you will find relatively little that you can fairly generalize about, because they really are not a cohesive unit.

The problem with faith is that it is faith and so, can never be completely objective - and being human beings, we can never hope to be completely objective - and wouldn't want to, for to do so would be to become an object, rather than a subject. But I think we can apply an objective standard with apologetics, and it seems clear to me that claims that scientific inquiry is "apologetics" represents a lack of knowledge on the part of the speaker of what apologetics is. IOW, they don't know what they are talking about regarding apologetics, even if they do regarding science, precisely because apologetics is ultimately connected to faith. All apologetics can do is show one how one can be both intelligent and a believer - but it cannot "prove" faith. Scientific knowledge can be used in apologetics but is not itself apologetics.

Seven Words wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Some thoughts, originally belonging to another poster on the CS Lewis forum, especially for 7W:

:The death of a worthy God would occasion profound grief, not celebration. My flirtations with atheism have been dark, angry and grievous. The evangelizing atheism I increasingly see is deeply incoherent unless it is one that rejects an unworthy God. Only the death of an unworthy God would be good news.

:The challenge now for the atheist is to discover that which is worthy of worship, or to cease being fully human. The impulse to worship is part of our humanity and won't go away. Many turn their gaze to the wonders of Nature, but neither the material world nor anything in it is worthy of worship. Nature isn't utterly lovely. Rather, she is in turn glorious, terrifying, pitiless and transient. It is hard to hug your mother's month-old corpse, or to love the screw-worm maggots that devour your child's eyes.

:It is no surprise that science, being by definition the study of the material world, cannot perceive the spiritual.

:It has been proved that there exists an infinite number of truths that cannot be proved or deduced, only discovered.

:No evidence can support the claim that "All truth must be supported by evidence." The scientific idea that evidence must be presented in order to establish truth is itself held by faith alone. A delicious irony.

:Reason cannot be justified without first assuming the validity of reason. We accept reason, not by reason but by faith alone. (The utilitarian reply that reason is justified because "it works" assumes again that we can reasonably assess the evidence.)

:The scientific study of what "is" cannot inform the spiritual perception of what "ought to be".

:Twice two is four, whether the material universe exists or not. Truth is immaterial and eternal.

:The worst thing imaginable would be the loss of the best thing imaginable. Therefore, earnestly seek the best thing imaginable, whether you are certain it exists or not.

1st quote....define "worthy" and "unworthy"...Many atheists see any kind of God which would purport to love all mankind yet allow so many of the atroctities which occur daily as fundamentally self-contradictory. I find many teachings in the Bible morally repugnant. Yes, I said morally. Morals are subjective.

2nd quote....a whole lot of subjective opinions passed off as fact. The impulse to worship is part of our humanity? That's kind of high-handed and self-righteous. It's also hard to love a God (operating on assumption God exists) that causes you to suffer 7 miscarriages in 4 years.

3rd quote..I agree completely

4th quote....depends on how one defines a truth. Again, subjective presented as objective.

5th....lack of understandng of science...the basic principle which refutes it is usually abbreviated QED. What is demonstrated, is.

6th...see 5th

7th..maybe..depends on what one believes "ought to be" spiritually.

8th.....again, depends on how one defines truth. twice two will always be four. Truth demonstrable like that (not necessarily that simple, but ones not dependent on any non-objective measures) are what I call truth.

9th...I agree completely...but remember, not everyone will define "best" and "worst" as you will...again, obfuscation of what's subjective/what's objective.

"Worthy" can be defined here as you yourself would define it. If you found that God to be worthy, you would agree with the thought. You seem to have been thinking of the Christian God as he exists in your current understanding. (I'll stress "seem")

You can, of course, deny any impulse to worship in yourself. But you are then in a tiny minority of humanity ( I think, even then, you might be surprised someday). The fact is, for the overwhelming majority of humanity, the statement is absolutely true and not difficult to demonstrate.
Your statement about a God that "causes miscarriages" is rather odd to the believer. As a general rule - to which He makes relatively few exceptions, we see God as granting us free will - the will to work evil, as well as good, and to abide the consequences. Sometimes these consequences are visited on our children as well. To say that "God causes these misfortunes" seems to be adopting the rhetoric of some irrational fundamentalist groups, rather than the serious and considered responses of intelligent believers or representatives of genuinely traditional Christianity. It seems to me that you actually agree with the thought about it being hard to love nature when it is not beautiful.

I agree with you on quote #4 - I would not say "proved" or "infinite". I would say "obvious" and "a great many".

On #5, if you take into account truths that cannot be scientifically proved, then it becomes obvious that the scientific method does not have application outside of its field, and that those who do so do so on faith.

On #6, you have provided no answer at all. There must be a first principle, itself not amenable to reason, before one can even begin to use reason. Science starts with the assumption that reason is valid. QED means nothing if reason is not valid - indeed, nothing that you demonstrate would mean anything.

I agree on number 9 - except, perhaps, for what exactly "subjective" is. If the phenomenon or perception is universal, with only a few exceptions, then it can be established that it is objective, and that the exceptions are ill or disabled in some way; ie, that there is something wrong with them.

A lot of this goes back to the opening theses of "Orthodoxy" and "What's Wrong With the World", the former dealing with thought and reason, and the latter being especially effective at expounding the social problem of the failure to identify the ideal (what is "good", "better" and "best").