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.
Care to provide a link that sums up his arguments? Would you be interested in participating in a thread specifically examining Strobel's position?Look into Lee Strobel,
He Was an investigative journalist in 1980 who was an avowed atheist,
Who Tried to Debunk the Resurrection of Christ,
pretty interesting.
If we extend this, then we could all be brains in a jar. I'm sure you don't want to take it that far. So the question is, where do we draw the line?
I didn't mention weight.Yes, because perhaps they failed to consider that Person B is heavier than Person A, and while Person A wasn't heavy enough to cause the chair to collapse, Person B was.
Do you do this every time you sit on a chair? That would get pretty tiresome.And, I must point out that if they had actually bothered to examine the chair to verify the chair's stability, they could have avoided the whole thing. See how relying on faith and faith alone can get you into trouble?
You guys keep saying this as though I had no right to respond on this thread. I do. So I did.They aren't relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God.
So you lack trust then?If we are given a good reason to believe in something, we'll believe it. But faith is not sufficient reason, since it doesn't produce reliable information about the world.
He is, and he does.If there really is a God that exists as an independent being, then such a God is more than personal. Such a God would exist in objective
My analogy was referring to a close family member or friend. And before you respond to that with something like: we can never really know them either", the issue is trust - we first must offer to a person based on who they appear to be. That's faith.Do you really think that people have never been wrong about another person? "I've lived next door to him all my life, there's no way he could be a murderer!"
The line is drawn with testing.exactly! Who says there is a line? The scientific community?
Then why did the chair collapse?I didn't mention weight.
Agreed.Do you do this every time you sit on a chair? That would get pretty tiresome.
No. Me pointing out that the message conveyed by a parable is not relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God is NOT me telling you that you have no right to post here.You guys keep saying this as though I had no right to respond on this thread. I do. So I did.
The only reason this discussion is still going is because you won't stop responding.
Interesting perspective. I think thou, how ever it's achieved, mind altering stimuli has been a part of the Human spiritual experience for a very long time.Many if not most relogious traditions
involve invoking said state of mind through
stress inducing activities such as fasting
chanting etc. As you are pointing out.
No doubt each, ignorant of the mechanism
and how common it is thru cultures,
thinks it is unique to them and theirs.
Perhaps we subconsciously sense our senses have been muzzled and we seek way to remove the scales from our senses.I think thou, how ever it's achieved, mind altering stimuli has been a part of the Human spiritual experience for a very long time.
Strobel is an amateur apologist. His work reflects that. Quite derivative in his arguments. Nothing that hasn't been torn down.Look into Lee Strobel,
He Was an investigative journalist in 1980 who was an avowed atheist,
Who Tried to Debunk the Resurrection of Christ,
pretty interesting.
Not all Scientific theory is based around the things we can see with our naked eyes.The line is drawn with testing.
That's what happens with believers. (And no, it's not group think).If different people do the testing and they all get the same result, then we can conclude that what they are testing exists independent of them.
Exactly my point about how we experience God.then why would we get the same result? We wouldn't. We'd get different results.
Exactly, and that "testing" can extend beyond the physical realm.But if we both test it and get the same results, we can be pretty sure that this means the tree actually exists outside our minds.
The analogy was about the level of trust in the chair. I thought that was obvious.Then why did the chair collapse?
You can do the same with God.That being said, I did once sit on a chair at school that was broken and it did collapse. If I had checked it, I would have saved myself the pain
I was pointing out how 3 of you responding to me so far have said the same thing - that God is irrelevant here. Considering the full context of the OP, that's not true.Me pointing out that the message conveyed by a parable is not relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God
Even the word "spiritual" is subjective. We all experience reality a little differently so there's no way to objectively determine the truth about spirituality. But I do think the closet in doing so is throu the avenue of Love. And even that will draw differences. But it does have observable results.Okay, and if you can tell me this process by which we can OBJECTIVELY determine the truth about spirituality?
Remember, if it's OBJECTIVE, it's the same for everyone.
Feeling it very strongly does not make it a fact. And if it can't be verified, you can't claim it as a fact.
Pretty well known for an 'amateur'.Strobel is an amateur apologist. His work reflects that. Quite derivative in his arguments. Nothing that hasn't been torn down.
But what the light meter is reading out is technical data, its not the experience of say the color red. Yet red is as real as any objective in the world. The ironic thing is even though color is not something that occupies space or has mass you support its objectivity by claiming that we can measure it objectively with a light meter even to calibrate the color on you monitor like its the basis for what color is or should be.But you can give a blind person an objective way to determine the colour of something. A small handheld thing which they can put against a surface, it shines a light and measures which wavelengths are reflected back, and then speaks what colour it is. I use similar technology every few months on my computer monitor to make sure it is properly calibrated. Such objective determination is impossible when it comes to determining if God is real or now. All you can do is go on feeling, and there is no way to verify those feelings.
Don't include me in said 3Not all Scientific theory is based around the things we can see with our naked eyes.
That's what happens with believers. (And no, it's not group think).
Exactly my point about how we experience God.
Exactly, and that "testing" can extend beyond the physical realm.
The analogy was about the level of trust in the chair. I thought that was obvious.
You can do the same with God.
I was pointing out how 3 of you responding to me so far have said the same thing - that God is irrelevant here. Considering the full context of the OP, that's not true.
Now try that with how we got our moon.If different people do the testing and they all get the same result, then we can conclude that what they are testing exists independent of them. I mean, let's say you and I were testing how high a particular tree is. If the tree does NOT exist independent of ourselves (if the tree I see exists only in my mind and the tree you see exists only in your mind) then why would we get the same result? We wouldn't. We'd get different results.
As long as it's love, and not infatuation.But I do think the closet in doing so is throu the avenue of Love. And even that will draw differences. But it does have observable results.
Of course creationist claims can be tested.Science works by using the idea of an objective universe to test ideas. You can't test a supernatural being in that same fashion, hence no scientific claims involving anything supernatural can have any meaning.
This is also why you see so many contradictory ideas in creationism; there is no way to test such ideas, thus no way to distinguish which ideas are correct.
[citation needed]
I think we can see spirituality at work in the world. People call it different things like meditation, transcendence, that sense of being part of something bigger and beyond. We see this expressed everyday in society in different forms.Even the word "spiritual" is subjective. We all experience reality a little differently so there's no way to objectively determine the truth about spirituality. But I do think the closet in doing so is throu the avenue of Love. And even that will draw differences. But it does have observable results.
YetDon't like it too much .. Unlike yourself, I don't make any desperate grabs for beliefs in things like consciousness existing independently from our own in the universe.
But who said its a desperate grab. It seems to me what you were saying and what the evidence seems to point to is consciousness and Mind being fundamental. As you said "'The thing itself' never gets tested in science. Science deals in models". Those models are of the Mind and the 'thing itself' like 'matter' can never be verified in itself as real because its a model about something outside our mind. This makes consciousness and Mind fundamental before all else.Don't like it too much .. Unlike yourself, I don't make any desperate grabs for beliefs in things like consciousness existing independently from our own in the universe.
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?