Actually, you said I'd call you a liar. You also said physical evidence, and what you've presented is not physical evidence.Like I said, you didn't believe me.
Upvote
0
Actually, you said I'd call you a liar. You also said physical evidence, and what you've presented is not physical evidence.Like I said, you didn't believe me.
Where'd that irony metre go? Oh dear, you broke it this time.Most people of all ages have plenty of evidence that spirits exist and so they believe in them. You are in no position to judge the rest of the world, or wave away the experiences of mankind. Nor are you in any position to say my experiences with the spiritual are not real.
Seriously? You want evidence that someone saw what they observed or you wave it away? If that is the case how would we know a scientist in a lab really saw what he observed?Actually, you said I'd call you a liar. You also said physical evidence, and what you've presented is not physical evidence.
Stop moving goalposts. If somebody says "physical evidence" I expect physical evidence, not a vision. If the old man had punched Strathos that would be different.Seriously? You want evidence that someone saw what they observed or you wave it away?
The idea with science is that you can repeat an experiment and see what the scientist saw for yourself. If you want to handwave away your own experience that's your choice, but you don't get to handwave away repeatable experiments.If that is the case how would we know a scientist in a lab really saw what he observed?
You want evidence that someone saw what they observed or you wave it away?
... in a controlled 'lab' environment also, what's more ..Bungle_Bear said:The idea with science is that you can repeat an experiment and see what the scientist saw for yourself. If you want to handwave away your own experience that's your choice, but you don't get to handwave away repeatable experiments.dad said:If that is the case how would we know a scientist in a lab really saw what he observed?
Well, an objective entity, that is ..Evidence that someone saw some thing isn't evidence that the thing they saw was an external entity.
Well, objectively real, that is ...pitabread said:Hallucinations are something that people can and do experience. I've seen more "ghosts" than I can count, but I know they are not real.
Agreed ..Something that is only subjectively real is commonly called a delusion.
OK. Never met anyone that saw visions before and did not know if they were real unless maybe it was some friend on drugs as a kid or something.Evidence that someone saw some thing isn't evidence that the thing they saw was an external entity.
Hallucinations are something that people can and do experience. I've seen more "ghosts" than I can count, but I know they are not real.
If Gabriel appeared to you for an hour-long chat and had tea at your place, what physical evidence would you offer the next year, that this had occurred? It seems foolish to me to even raise the possibility that such evidence should exist. The evidence would be that you saw and talked to him.Stop moving goalposts. If somebody says "physical evidence" I expect physical evidence, not a vision. If the old man had punched Strathos that would be different.
The idea with science is that you can repeat an experiment and see what the scientist saw for yourself.
Never said I wanted to. However, the lesson here is that the methods applied to physical science have nothing to do with evidence expected from spiritual experiences.If you want to handwave away your own experience that's your choice, but you don't get to handwave away repeatable experiments.
OK. Never met anyone that saw visions before and did not know if they were real unless maybe it was some friend on drugs as a kid or something.
Mary was not sleep deprived. Daniel either. Both chatted with Gabriel. In Daniels' case, he was told the EXACT year that Messiah would come! He was correct. That is evidence.I've had lots of discussions with people that have interpreted hallucinations as ghosts, demons, angels, etc.
Especially when it comes to those associated with sleep paralysis or other sleep related phenomenon. Such occurrences seem to be historically speaking the reason for a lot of belief in various phenomena like ghosts, demons, alien abduction, and other alleged paranormal activity.
Mary was not sleep deprived. Daniel either. Both chatted with Gabriel. In Daniels' case, he was told the EXACT year that Messiah would come! He was correct. That is evidence.
Anything you declare is a story is a fantasy. Got it. Oh, wait, they saw Jesus ascending back to Heaven, guess it was a mass hallucination? Maybe they were all just sleep-deprived? Maybe Jesus really did not come when He did, so we can dismiss Daniel also? Maybe there was no Paul? Peter? John? Napoleon?No, it's just a story.
Anything you declare is a story is a fantasy. Got it.
Oh, wait, they saw Jesus ascending back to Heaven, guess it was a mass hallucination? Maybe they were all just sleep-deprived? Maybe Jesus really did not come when He did, so we can dismiss Daniel also? Maybe there was no Paul? Peter? John? Napoleon?
I wouldn't say I had experienced physical evidence. Just leave the goalposts alone and deal with what has been said, not what you wish had been said.If Gabriel appeared to you for an hour-long chat and had tea at your place, what physical evidence would you offer the next year, that this had occurred? It seems foolish to me to even raise the possibility that such evidence should exist. The evidence would be that you saw and talked to him.
Nobody said it would. There you go again, moving goalposts. If you can't discuss the content of others' posts, just say nothing. Don't make up strawmen.So this would not apply to anything spiritual.
The lesson here is that you need to stop moving goalposts and stick to what has actually been said even when it means you have nothing to say in return.Never said I wanted to. However, the lesson here is that the methods applied to physical science have nothing to do with evidence expected from spiritual experiences.
Stories do not contain a link to God that changes lives. Stories are not recorded events sealed in the blood of people dying to declare it true. Stories do not contain things foretold with perfect accuracy centuries before they happened.I didn't say it was fantasy. I said it was just a story, in contrast to your claim that it is evidence.
And when Mary had the physical evidence God did as the angel said? Would you deny you had the evidence?I wouldn't say I had experienced physical evidence. Just leave the goalposts alone and deal with what has been said, not what you wish had been said
The OP is about how to prove God exists. That would not include physical tests or science. The fact that the spiritual is way beyond all reaches of science is the important component in the arguments here.Nobody said it would. There you go again, moving goalposts. If you can't discuss the content of others' posts, just say nothing. Don't make up strawmen.
A single 3rd hand report from a highly biased source should not be taken as true without some other form of corroboration. You don't have that, so I see no reason to take the claim at all seriously.And when Mary had the physical evidence God did as the angel said? Would you deny you had the evidence?
You were not responding to the OP.The OP is about how to prove God exists. That would not include physical tests or science. The fact that the spiritual is way beyond all reaches of science is the important component in the arguments here.