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.
Mary tested what the angel told her by looking to see if she got pregnant. If science was there checking her out, they would say it was not possible.
As an aside:And how is this event tested and confirmed to be an example of the supernatural?
You still haven't explained how supernatural events are tested. It's the how I'm interested in.
I'm not sure he explicitly rejects it but he seems to suggest that we can't know; you'd have to ask him.SelfSim appears to reject the necessity of an objective universe. I'm not quite sure how one reconciles the scientific method from that basis though.
If that is the case, then it would appear that there is no way to test them (a good test rules out or supports/doesn't rule out the phenomenon) - you have to take them on faith.Well, the majority of people of all ages ruled already. Why second guess them? You are in no position to rule anything spiritual out or in! You are only in a position to chose to believe or disbelieve.
Or she may have become pregnant the usual way...Not necessarily .. it may have been the first recorded case of human pathenogenesis .. which is, at least, on science's radar ..
If that is the case, then it would appear that there is no way to test them (a good test rules out or supports/doesn't rule out the phenomenon) - you have to take them on faith.
Its sufficient for science to approach the question skeptically .. (or agnostically).FrumiousBandersnatch said:I’m not sure he explicitly rejects it but he seems to suggest that we can't know; you'd have to ask him.
.. and the description, itself, is yet more evidence of how we go about giving ’pragmatic’ its meaning there, too.FrumiousBandersnatch said:This is where semantics and pragmatics come in, for me; regardless of what's out there, if anything, our measurements and observations have certain reliable consistencies which we pragmatically describe as indicators of something 'objectively real'
There may or may not be ‘a something’ we are modelling. Ie: both ‘maps’ and ‘the territory’ can be conceived (evidenced) as models - just of different types.FrumiousBandersnatch said:- and that's what we mean by the term, and we apply it to what our models based on those observations and measurements are modelling.
If you accept that we cannot know, shouldn't you be less assertive in your insistence that your view is the right one?Its sufficient for science to approach the question skeptically .. (or agnostically).
.. and the description, itself, is yet more evidence of how we go about giving ’pragmatic’ its meaning there, too.
There may or may not be ‘a something’ we are modelling. Ie: both ‘maps’ and ‘the territory’ can be conceived (evidenced) as models - just of different types.
I could believe you, or Jesus, all the prophets and apostles, etc. Many of them were there. You are speaking from ignorance.Not necessarily .. it may have been the first recorded case of human pathenogenesis .. which is, at least, on science's radar ..
It was prophesied. Women do not get pregnant with no men. That passes the test. How did you think science would test Gabriel speaking to her thousands of years ago exactly?And how is this event tested and confirmed to be an example of the supernatural?
Whatever way God sees that men need! Science can't be involved since it has limited itself to the physical.You still haven't explained how supernatural events are tested. It's the how I'm interested in.
We can test God. People do it all the time. He asks us too! People found that He works, and many hundreds of millions of people also found other spirits work also! (Christians would call those bad spirits). Mary found out that the angel that spoke to her was correct. She had physical evidence. Science would not have recognized the physical evidence. Why? Because science is selective. Nothing physical matters if it involved the spiritual, or was outside of a place modern science could test.If that is the case, then it would appear that there is no way to test them (a good test rules out or supports/doesn't rule out the phenomenon) - you have to take them on faith.
If you reject what we can know, claiming it cannot be known, should you not be ashamed?If you accept that we cannot know, shouldn't you be less assertive in your insistence that your view is the right one?
Isn't that your schtick? I certainly don't reject what we can know.If you reject what we can know,
If it cannot be known then the honest person says as much. And honesty is nothing to be ashamed of.claiming it cannot be known, should you not be ashamed?
Name one prophet or apostle who was there. Just one. That shouldn't be difficult if so many of them were there.I could believe you, or Jesus, all the prophets and apostles, etc. Many of them were there. You are speaking from ignorance.
It was prophesied. Women do not get pregnant with no men. That passes the test.
Whatever way God sees that men need! Science can't be involved since it has limited itself to the physical.
Did I say it was 'the right one'?If you accept that we cannot know, shouldn't you be less assertive in your insistence that your view is the right one?
Those specific words? No, you didn't. However, you have said things like "what I'm trying to say is" and been quite assertive in your language. The impression is certainly that you consider your position to be the right one.Did I say it was 'the right one'?
No problem, let's verify that. All men can know if Jesus is God and whether He will come into our lives if asked. So you can know.Isn't that your schtick? I certainly don't reject what we can know.
Jesus was honest and He said thisIf it cannot be known then the honest person says as much. And honesty is nothing to be ashamed of.
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?