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.
All I know is that I haven't seen you give us any means of verifying any of these claims. Even if it isn't extensive, can you give us just one means of verifying a metaphysical claim through personal experience?All I'm saying is that a person can know that at least some of these claims are true because of personal experience.
All I know is that I haven't seen you give us any means of verifying any of these claims. Even if it isn't extensive, can you give us just one means of verifying a metaphysical claim through personal experience?
Answered prayer is one.
So if I pray to a deity and my prayer is unanswered does that show that that deity does not exist?
If not, how does praying to a deity and having that prayer answered show that that deity does exist?
Unanswered prayer doesn't show anything.
I don't know that it does, but an answered prayer would certainly be an event worthy of further investigation, wouldn't it?
Let's say I pray to be healed from cancer and my cancer goes into remission. Just what metaphysical claim have I verified?
In my example, are you saying that because I prayed to be healed of cancer and I was, then whatever notions I might have had in my head to motivate me to pray should then be considered true?When a person prays according to some claim, and that prayer is answered, the anwer would contribute to the verification of the truth of that claim.
Why can we conclude this?If a person likewise prays for a sign and that prayer is answered positively, he or she can also conclude that the story of Gideon may actually be true.
In my example, are you saying that because I prayed to be healed of cancer and I was, then whatever notions I might have had in my head to motivate me to pray should then be considered true?
If I had, for instance, prayed to Poseidon to get my ferry across the Georgia Straight to Vancouver Island safely and we arrived without damage, would that serve as a sign that Poseidon exists or are there some other elements that you would need to confirm?
What things constitute signs?
Are all prayers according to claims equivalent, or do some claims require bigger signs?
Why can we conclude this?
Why do you say "may actually be true"? Isn't the point of praying according to a claim and then observing the result evidence that it is true?
So how does my Poseidon example not satisfy?On the contrary, I'm speaking of a prayer made in accordance with some preexistent claim.
How improbable must the event be to support a given metaphysical claim? Can you give us an example of how you perform this calculation?A sign for the purpose of supporting a claim would have to be sufficiently unusual to rule out the probability of coincidence.
You keep hedging with "may have" or "her own understanding." Are you not saying that there is sufficient evidence? Aren't you saying that there is a rational basis for belief?Therefore, at this point, he or she may have sufficient evidence to support the claim in his or her own understanding.
So how does my Poseidon example not satisfy?
How improbable must the event be to support a given metaphysical claim? Can you give us an example of how you perform this calculation?
How do you deal with the confirmation bias, where we remember only hits and forget misses? How do you deal with the lack of specificity, where we pray for a sign but don't specify the sign so that the number of improbable events grows so large that it becomes almost certain that at least one of them will come to pass?
You keep hedging with "may have" or "her own understanding." Are you not saying that there is sufficient evidence? Aren't you saying that there is a rational basis for belief?
We know that people may have extremely low standards for evidence especially if it confirms something they wish to believe in. It looks like you're saying that it's just important to achieve belief, but not deal with the question of whether or not this belief is rational.
Why not? It seems to be the same. I pray to Poseidon, my prayer comes true, so therefore my claim (that Poseidon exists and controls ocean traffic) is true. Right?I don't know how your poseidon example relates to what I am saying.
So how improbable must a claim be?These events combined with the fact that Gideon prayed for these things to happen before hand are very unlikely to occur by chance. It's so obvious that a calculation isn't required.
It's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, then you could answer these questions directly instead of hedging and fobbing me off.All I am saying is that an answered prayer is one way we can know about the truth of a claim. It's really so obvious that even a child can understand this.
Why not? It seems to be the same. I pray to Poseidon, my prayer comes true, so therefore my claim (that Poseidon exists and controls ocean traffic) is true. Right?
So how improbable must a claim be?
Must it violate known physical laws as with the magical leaping dew example?
Why do you believe there is a causal connection between what happens in your mind with what happens in the world?
It's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, then you could answer these questions directly instead of hedging and fobbing me off.
Give us some practical examples. What metaphysical claims can be validated by being healed by cancer? You said that there was a method, but I have seen no method. I'm just asking questions to flesh this out.
You said it was obvious, but can't quantify.
You said that prayer confirms the claim, yet when given a claim you say it isn't applicable.
You've responded, for sure. But you haven't answered.
Gideon, always Gideon. I notice that you won't entertain the possibility that Poseidon was responsible.Well I suppose if Gideon happened to be a trained meteorologist, he may have been able to provide us with a probabilistic model from which the procedure could be duplicated.
No, it's to quantify how improbable it was that they were coincidence. After all, some percentage of people won't die from cancer. In a nation with so many Christians, no doubt 80% of them prayed that they would survive. Does this mean that their prayers were answered, or just that everyone that didn't get their wish, died?Come to think of it, isn't the purpose of quantifiability to ensure that experimentation can be repeated?
Gideon, always Gideon. I notice that you won't entertain the possibility that Poseidon was responsible.
It doesn't seem like these tests yield much useful information.
No, it's to quantify how improbable it was that they were coincidence. After all, some percentage of people won't die from cancer. In a nation with so many Christians, no doubt 80% of them prayed that they would survive. Does this mean that their prayers were answered, or just that everyone that didn't get their wish, died?
I don't see how any of this gets us closer to determining anything about metaphysical claims. Wasn't that what you were instructing us on?
The ancient Greeks were not the ancient geeks. They were rationalists to be sure, but they fully realized that not every question about our humanity would have a technical solution.Of course it's not a coincidence. It's not true at all. We owe modern science to the pagan greeks.
The ancient Greeks were not the ancient geeks. They were rationalists to be sure, but they fully realized that not every question about our humanity would have a technical solution.
The New Testament, starting from the Septuagint, is as much more a product of the mind of the ancient Greek as is modern science. But the critical thinking necessary to science and the willingness to put the wisdom of the ancients to the emprical test is very much a product of a Christianized European mindset that came much later than the ancient Greeks.
The empricism of modern science is based as much on the philosphies and methods of medieval and enlightenment thinkers more than it was upon the ancient Greeks.
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?