Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Extraneous]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Faith love and hope are detectable.

You can also have faith, love, and hope in things that don't exist.

Those things God gives to us through his spirit. If it were not so, i would have given up long ago.

That is a bare assertion.

 

[Extraneous]

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

 

[Loudmouth]

We see faces in the clouds everyday, and in other things. Thats nothing. We ourselves however are more than shadows and clouds

I asked for evidence, not more bare assertions.

 

[Chriliman]

What are the other ways? Just believing something is true, and hoping?

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.

Show me a better way that leads to verifiable answers.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

If you have a more reliable method, based on verifiable evidence, please share.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

 

[Chriliman]

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

And sorry, reciting the terms logic and reason a bunch of times, just wont cut it.

 

[Loudmouth]

One other way is being open to logical arguments that point to a specific truth. Namely, logical arguments for the existence of God.

So what are those logical arguments?

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.

Still waiting for a logical argument to be presented. Kind of hard to reject something that hasn't been offered.

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.

The arguments I have seen thus far are not logical.

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.

That's exactly what the scientific method is.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

...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.

I'm going to hazard a guess that no such methodology will be forthcoming. Christians on this forum have spent a whole lot of time crowing about how they have "other ways of knowing", but when offered the opportunity to explain these other ways of knowing, never provide anything coherent or reasonable. The best case scenario is simply the assertion of "I know it spiritually", which doesn't actually explain anything; more commonly, there's just awkward silence, or they just move on to the next assertion.

 

[Chriliman]

As has been mentioned, if you can demonstrate a more reliable method to verify the truth, let us know.

The method is simply thinking for yourself.

 

[Chriliman]

That's exactly what the scientific method is.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

The method is simply thinking for yourself.

Ok. Think up whatever you can and just like that, you have truth.

Sounds logical and reasonable.

 

[Chris B]

The flesh mentioned they may be life itself, not our body necessarily, and it may also refer to family instead.

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.

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.

"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.

 

[Loudmouth]

The method is simply thinking for yourself.

That is about the most illogical argument I have seen in a while.

 

[bhsmte]

That is about the most illogical argument I have seen in a while.

It does give one a lot of leeway though.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really?

Yep. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to put your ideas to the test.

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.

If you can't figure out how that definition leads to the truth about reality, then you appear to have an extremely closed mind.

 

[Extraneous]

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.

85% of the world has some kind of faith, half are Christians i believe. Must be something to it.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

God answers prayers before you offer them up. He is there at the beginning and the end and exists outside of time.
But you just made the point, that the cause exists outside of our reality, so says you and science.