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.
How would you know it though, if it was true?
Especially since you misinterpreted what it said beyond understanding what really happened.
That may work in the empirical world to a point, but eventually you'll make a mistake.Well, if it contradicts something I see in reality, then I conclude that whatever the text says is wrong.
Absolutely.Kylie said:Do you think this is a good idea, AV?
That may work in the empirical world to a point, but eventually you'll make a mistake.
Absolutely.
If something happens that wouldn't have happened normally, chances are that something that happened happened because it was a miracle.So you think the "If something contradicts reality, then the thing must be wrong" idea is a GOOD idea?
If something happens that wouldn't have happened normally, chances are that something that happened happened because it was a miracle.
Such as when Laban's flock was miraculously increased by an act of God.
Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.And how do you know that happened?
It was good enough for you to bring up in Post 2553.How do you know that is an accurate account of events?
It was good enough for you to bring up in Post 2553.
If you can bring it up and interpret it; can't I bring it up and interpret it also?
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with xI'm not asking for your interpretation, I'm asking how you know the event described actually happened.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
Put another way:
The Bible says it, that settles it.
Faith.I want to know what your justification for the belief "The Bible is always right" is.
That is about semantics and semantics are not objective as there is more than one meaning to the word real. Rather its about epistemology, how we should go about gaining knowledge about reality. As there is more than one way to know about reality it is also a subjective determination.Simple .. its not circular.
The mind assigns meaning to the word 'real' .. that's how. This is objectively demonstrable from an abundance of objective test results. It is not some kind of logical imperative (as you're thinking).
Methodological naturalism is based on the assumption that reality is naturalistic and therefore closed to the physical world thus disregarding other possibilities. To justify epistemic beliefs science uses evidence and that evidence only allows physical causes.'Matter' can be assigned an operational definition, too: 'matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume'. Therefore, anything registering/measuring as having mass, and registering/measuring as occupying volume, adds the term of 'matter' as a property of objective reality on the basis of those repeatedly, independently measured quantitites.
This is not circular reasoning because there are no going-in assumptions made at the commencement of this process, about what reality is going to be. We don't know 'what's real' until after those measurements return those values.
Saying Mind can change physical outcomes doesn't mean that our physical abilities are negated. It means it can transcend the physical.If your mind can alter physical outcomes, prove it by using your mind to produce the physical outcome of you having wings.
lol. Who's zooming who.Since you want to play this silly game...
OK I have this on file but I think his paper is further down. But this article is an interview with the author Bernardo Kastrup so you will get the idea straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Bernardo Kastrup is fairly well known for his idea about reality being fundamentally Mental.This is hidden behind a paywall.
Yes a tribute to one of the great minds in physics. He is well known for his theories about quantum physics and the observer effect and having worked with Heisenberg one of the pioneers of QM.This is a tribute to a person, not a scientific study. The studies referenced are not available to me, since there are no links in this.
Yes and the opinion is from Philip Goff the author of the papers below. The article states the same thing as the papers but in a easy to understand way. As I said its best to understand the idea first rather than go into technical papers.This is an opinion piece, and has no links to scientific papers that support your position.
Like I said these articles reflect what the papers say in easier to understand terms. OK this article has a link to the paper. The original one I linked had the same link but you had to go to the above article first. The point is if you read these articles there should be a link.This has no links to scientific papers.
the link was there about 1/2 way down here it isThe only paper that is linked here is a review of "orch or" theory and does not actually have any research to support said theory.
I linked the article to help you understand some of these ideas before going into technical papers. If you don't even understand the basic idea how will papers help.There are no links to scientific papers in this article.
The article is the scientific research. Its a Royal Society peer reviewed journalThis article just links to a whole bunch of other articles. No actual scientific research.
Actually its academic paper by Bernardo Kastrup. If you read the bottom of the page you will see the reference to the paper IEThis is an opinion piece which presents an idea as a possible explanation for various phenomena. It doesn't contain any scientific studies designed to show that this idea is any more valid than other ideas to explain the same phenomena.
If you look in the top left you will see the scientific journal for the article IEThis has no actual scientific studies done and again is just an attempt to present an idea to explain various phenomena. There is nothing to show that it is any more valid than any of the other proposed explanations.
I thought I already did. Anyway hopefully you will have better luck this time.Now, stop playing your silly games and present the actual scientific papers that indicate that matter is created by consciousness. If you can't do that, then don't waste my time. I've been more than patient with you.
If, by definition, there can be no evidence of non-physical causes and any influence on the physical world is evidence, then one has to wonder what they are causing...To justify epistemic beliefs science uses evidence and that evidence only allows physical causes.
He eliminates other explanations by refusing to consider that there are alternate answers or interpretations of the Bible. To him the Bible is a history book and a book of morality with no deeper meanings. He refuses to see below the surface. It’s black and white. Either you accept the literal interpretation of it or you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. Any other possibility is beyond his ken.And what verification process does that involve? How do you eliminate other explanations?
Aren't you glad we don't take everything allegorically?He eliminates other explanations by refusing to consider that there are alternate answers or interpretations of the Bible. To him the Bible is a history book and a book of morality with no deeper meanings. He refuses to see below the surface. It’s black and white. Either you accept the literal interpretation of it or you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. Any other possibility is beyond his ken.
It doesn't transcend the physical. The neurological evidence tells us that (simplifying somewhat):Saying Mind can change physical outcomes doesn't mean that our physical abilities are negated. It means it can transcend the physical.
A simple question shows how our mind can alter physical outcomes.
Do you believe in the power of positive thinking. Like if you think positively about a problem you can advert stress and physical problems resulting from stress.
Methodological naturalism is based on the assumption that reality is naturalistic and therefore closed to the physical world thus disregarding other possibilities. To justify epistemic beliefs science uses evidence and that evidence only allows physical causes.
Therefore methodological naturalism is making an ontological claim about reality which falls under metaphysics rather than a scientific one. Its claiming there is only one reality which is a material naturalistic one.
Methodological naturalism is a social mental construct and cannot be a scientific fact. What your forgetting is the prior assumption before any measure is done that the science method should be how we know reality. That is beyond science and more about metaphysics.
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?