1) The 'spiritual' part is never tested in science.dad said:
2) Science doesn't 'know' things .. humans do that.
Upvote
0
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.
1) The 'spiritual' part is never tested in science.dad said:Spiritual evidence is invisible and is not something we send in the post or 'present' on a table in a lab. Millions know all about it. Science knows nothing about it.
Observations of deep space phenomena form the basis of our models of physical constants and physical laws. If they didn't, the laws would be updated to recognise the different contexts (eg: Newtonian vs Einstein physics).
Thanks for admitting that!1) The 'spiritual' part is never tested in science.
2) Science doesn't 'know' things .. humans do that.
False. Prophecies that are fulfilled are direct evidence as is the resurrection, miracles, spirits that were seen and felt and heard, God working in people and etc. The good that people do as a result is an influence on the world.If spiritual evidence is as you describe, i.e. inaccessible to science, then it has no direct objective influence on the world
Got a meter to measure greater love? Got a ghost detector? Got a time machine to travel to each miracle and check it out? No. Scientific inquiry is less effective in these matters than conversing with swine or cattle.- if it did, that influence would be detectable and so, amenable to scientific inquiry.
False. To the majority of all people of all ages that believe in the spiritual, they have evidence, or many of them do.So, it would seem that the spiritual has no objective physical reality, but is a subjective experience, which can only influence the world indirectly, through the individuals who have such experiences.
It has a physical reality. Mary was pregnant for example. The temple was physically destroyed as Jesus said. Etc. Science cannot tell us anything by the physical! All it does is sit around philosophizing about how it all happened without anything BUT the physical! Insane reasoning.In that case, the subjective experience of the spiritual is as open to scientific study as any other experience, but having no physical reality itself, the spiritual is not; it is an abstract, a concept, an idea, a belief.
Agreed. I have a problem with those that do that --both believers and non-believers.
Now, then, supposing something real happens to someone, that is not accessible to current scientific methods, yet experiential to that someone nonetheless. Would you say that because they are unable to even describe it well, nevermind to prove it, that it is therefore made up, imagination or delusion, or perhaps actual --real? No, I am not suggesting that such a thing should be pursued by science, but to say that such a thing is not rational seems to me a bit much. Most people I know who claim God is real to them are as rational as anyone else. They may not be entirely logical or debate ready, but rational, yes.
This has digressed into you stating opinions on sacred things. Great, we get it.
Things are perfectly explained by a flat earth for some also, so what? The trick is having more than beliefs to base a scientific claim upon. Work on that.
You were told bible prophesies are 100% accurate. Is that it? You thought you could just tell us stuff? Maybe I should include a prayer for your husband as well as you! Ha.
Agreed (I am more than familiar with my ability to fool myself), but on the other hand, unless you have some evidence to support the idea that they are irrational, how can you say they are irrational?I would say that we have no way of determining that what happened is what they claim, or that they merely interpreted it as such.
I mean, someone may think they've been touched by God, but how do we tell the difference between someone who really was touched by God and someone who wasn't touched by God, but experienced something they believed was being touched by God?
And if something has no evidence and can't be tested in any way, how do you claim it is rational?
Yes, I do. In fact, I have my own reasons to distrust the whole mindset that credits evolution, but that is for another day.OK. I hope you are saying God created all things in six days.
Of course they are not able to prove it, particularly to good science --I thought at some point I had said as much.If the description they give is not able to be articulated in a way which science can objectively test, then it is (at best) a belief.
(A belief is that which is held to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic).
Where any set of statements believed in as being true, leads to contradictions, there is no requirement to drop those beliefs .. but it is reasonable to accept that those beliefs are not a means of proving things.
Beliefs can be rationalised .. I'm not sure 'delusions' can be though ..
Beliefs also form a particular kind of reality (faith based), but science's process of objective testability produces objective reality.
Agreed (I am more than familiar with my ability to fool myself), but on the other hand, unless you have some evidence to support the idea that they are irrational, how can you say they are irrational?
If otherwise, they appear to have their wits intact, and to exhibit sound judgement etc etc, why say they are irrational?
Yes, I do. In fact, I have my own reasons to distrust the whole mindset that credits evolution, but that is for another day.
Meanwhile, God can do anything he wants to do, or he is not God.
If the person is privy to unverifiable (scientifically) evidence, the truth remains true. If they are wrong, mistaken, they are wrong. If it is true, they are not wrong. If the plumber is right about your appendix, he is right. I'm not saying you should believe anything the plumber says. I'm only saying he could be right, and might even have some valid reason to believe he is right.I'd say that if someone believes something when there is no verifiable evidence for that thing, and when there is evidence against that thing, then it is indeed irrational, since it requires a dismissal of reality.
Of course, it all depends how you define "irrational." How would you define irrationality?
Also, you are asking me to justify my claim that such a belief is irrational, which is fine. But I would say also that if you are claiming that such belief is rational, you are also obliged to show that it is rational.
I think that's dangerous. I mean, I can say that a plumber is well trained and very experienced, so when he tells me my tummy pain is probably appendicitis, I should believe him. Just because a person has their wits about them and can exhibit sound judgement, doesn't mean they are always going to be right.
I don't know if he does or not (unless you want to get particular about what it means for God to "want"-- he is not like us). If he does, i.e. if he plans for you to believe in him, you will believe in him, sooner or later.I'm curious in knowing why you discredit evolution. If you'd like to discuss it, send me a private message, as it would be a bit off topic here.
Does God want me to be a believer in him?
Our minds tell us that. You just used your own mind to deny it .. (but that's expected).dad said:Nothing in deep space tells us what time is like there in any way.SelfSim said:Observations of deep space phenomena form the basis of our models of physical constants and physical laws. If they didn't, the laws would be updated to recognise the different contexts (eg: Newtonian vs Einstein physics).
Oh yeah? .. What was it that did the 'knowing' and what is it that does the 'looking' then?dad said:Laws in the fishbowl do not matter. We know what those are in this present time! We do not know what they were in the distant past here. Looking into deep space is NOT looking into deep time.
Please don't tell me how you think I think.dad said:That was just a fantasy you believed because you assumed time was homogeneous.
I have no idea of what you mean by 'God of the Gaps Theory' here ..... Beliefs, however, while perhaps not logically provable, can be entirely rational, such as the God of the Gaps Theory --it works, it fits, much as how most science is conducted.
Believe what you like.YOU believe them sacred. I am under no obligation to do the same. I am perfectly entitled to claim there is no evidence and thus should not be believed as fact.
That's nice.For some? How does that work? Reality is the same for everyone. People who think that a flat earth can explain everything perfectly lack understanding of what is really going on.
In any case, I have more than just beliefs. I have testable and repeatable evidence.
Prophesies are 100% accurate. Your understanding is limited.I've been told many things. But that doesn't make them true. I've explained to you how prophecies can be inaccurate. If you choose to ignore that, then it's on you, not me.
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?