Extraneous
Well-Known Member
Faith love and hope are detectable. Those things God gives to us through his spirit. If it were not so, i would have given up long ago.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I said that I was in a relationship with a woman, but no one could see her, talk to her, hear her, or detect her existence in any manner, wouldn't you think I was a bit nuts?
Faith love and hope are detectable.
Those things God gives to us through his spirit. If it were not so, i would have given up long ago.
In what way is it supported? The burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim.
What evidence demonstrates that the universe was created for human beings as opposed to rock features on Mars, or giant black holes? It would appear to me that the universe is as finely tuned for a geologic feature on Mars that looks like a face as it is for humans. All of the supposedly fine tuned characteristics of our universe that give rise to life are also required to create the Face on Mars:
We see faces in the clouds everyday, and in other things. Thats nothing. We ourselves however are more than shadows and clouds
What are the other ways? Just believing something is true, and hoping?
Show me a better way that leads to verifiable answers.
The fact that the scientific method is not the only way to discover what is true about reality should inform you that you should not solely rely on the scientific method in order to discover what is true about reality.
Unless of course you believe the scientific method is the best and only way to discover what is true about reality, which I would argue is a very close minded view.
One other way is being open to logical arguments that point to a specific truth. Namely, logical arguments for the existence of God.
If you just don't want to believe in God regardless of how logical the arguments are then that's a separate personal issue that requires a separate personal answer.
If you deny that there are any logical arguments for the existence of God, then I'm at a loss because many do seem very logical to me, but maybe I'm the illogical one and this is a question that I often ask myself. Is my understanding inline with the reality that I perceive around me? I think we should all honestly ask ourselves this question from time to time.
Being open to all possibilities and facing the fear of the personal implications of the possibilities i.e. the implications of being wrong. Everybody fears being wrong about their deeply held beliefs and this is why it's very healthy to ask honest questions when our comfortable perception of reality is being shaken.
And of all those possibilities, what is your testable method to determine which one is likely correct?
This is my point, if you're solely relying on the scientific method in order to discover what's true about reality, then you are severely limiting your capabilities to actually determine what is true.
Humanity has developed this scientific method and are now trying to shoe horn it onto all human minds and somehow this is suppose to be a good thing. Somehow it's a good thing to put limitation on how humans can think about reality. I simply disagree and think it's wrong to put limitations on how humans can think about reality.
One other way is being open to logical arguments that point to a specific truth. Namely, logical arguments for the existence of God.
If you just don't want to believe in God regardless of how logical the arguments are then that's a separate personal issue that requires a separate personal answer.
If you deny that there are any logical arguments for the existence of God, then I'm at a loss because many do seem very logical to me, but maybe I'm the illogical one and this is a question that I often ask myself. Is my understanding inline with the reality that I perceive around me? I think we should all honestly ask ourselves this question from time to time.
Being open to all possibilities and facing the fear of the personal implications of the possibilities i.e. the implications of being wrong. Everybody fears being wrong about their deeply held beliefs and this is why it's very healthy to ask honest questions when our comfortable perception of reality is being shaken.
...You didn't answer the question. @bhsmte didn't ask you "what's wrong with using science", he asked "how do you determine which possibilities are accurate". I mean, if you prefer to use some other ideology to investigate the world, then by all means, feel free to share that methodology with us. Tell us how you reached your conclusions. Explain to us why you think your methodology has merit, and show us how to apply it.This is my point, if you're solely relying on the scientific method in order to discover what's true about reality, then you are severely limiting your capabilities to actually determine what is true.
Humanity has developed this scientific method and are now trying to shoe horn it onto all human minds and somehow this is suppose to be a good thing. Somehow it's a good thing to put limitation on how humans can think about reality. I simply disagree and think it's wrong to put limitations on how humans can think about reality.
As has been mentioned, if you can demonstrate a more reliable method to verify the truth, let us know.
That's exactly what the scientific method is.
That's ducking the face value meaning, and you know it.The flesh mentioned they may be life itself, not our body necessarily, and it may also refer to family instead.
It doesn't matter to me though, because i know whats in my heart and how it has helped me. You will be in for a surprise one day friend. Im convinced of that. If not in this life, then afterward.
The method is simply thinking for yourself.
Really?
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
If the goal of the scientific method is to figure out the truth about reality, then I'm all for it! Unfortunately, the definition above says nothing about figuring out the truth about reality.
That's ducking the face value meaning, and you know it.
The only grounds for not taking that understanding is that it would be awkward.
"i know whats in my heart "
Possibly you do. But then so many are so confident about so many different things.
They can't all be right. Which rather undermines the case for confidence as a ground in itself.
"It doesn't matter... " Yes, bend or ignore data to fit the paradigm in place. That's also a popular methodology.
I'd had surprises, big enough to force revolutions in my world-view. disturbing, but at least I know I'm capable of it, should need arise, and aware that due to the intrinsic limitations of human nature the need might just possibly arise, however unlikely that may seem at at any given time.
It's those who are utterly sure with no doubt that I worry about.
I am very nearly certain that their certainty is not, even if only by a little bit, as certain as they think it is.
It's also quite established causes preceed effects. As in, they happen before the effects happen. Tell me, how do you have anything happening before T = 0?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?