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.
OK, provide objective, empirical evidence for this "kernel" of truth.Because that is a radical kernel built into every living thing.
Great. They can call it whatever they want. Doesn't make true or objective.Some people call it a fingerprint of Creation (philosophy).
Yes. That's a very good way to know if something is objectively true or not.I suspect you may mean how do I, intellectually and logically, know the Word of (the Most High) God is the truth?
That's the problem. You're both likely to give the same response because of your shared belief. I would most likely give the same response as well. But that makes it a subjective situation, not an objective one. For it to be an objective experience someone who does not share our beliefs (say a Hindu) would have to get the same responses.If any others get the same response or hear it simultaneously to me, then it is not just the feelings of one person - it is something a group of people are aware of. I absolutely expect that I can ask a fellow believe to check on spiritual things with and for me, that is exactly what the cited text tells us to do.
And yet people still believe in false prophets despite having the Bible as a guide. Jewish people don't believe Christ was the Messiah and they wrote the Old Testament.There are ways to check for false prophets that do not depend on personal feelings - many listed in the Bible. People cannot be expected to control what others do with their free will, it is not necessarily subjectivity that leads to being mislead by false prophets - a lack of knowledge or experience can lead to someone doing that, that is ignorance not subjectivity.
For it to be an objective experience someone who does not share our beliefs (say a Hindu) would have to get the same responses.
And from where did those principles regarding the Holy Spirit that you have made a conscious and rational commitment to arise? From reading the Bhagavad Gita? No, they came from your subjective interpretation and understanding of the Bible. And please don't tell me there is an objectivity to understanding the Bible. If that were true, there would not be some 20,000+ denominations of Christianity,No, it is not, it is based on applying the principles to which I have made a conscious and rational commitment - it is not based only or even predominantly on how I feel and as an individual.
Not in the slightest. When scientists dispute an issue, they are disputing the interpretation of the results of testing. Take Lenski's experiment. No scientist that I'm aware of denies the fact the Lenski's e. coli bacteria developed an ability to metabolize citrate as food source that they didn't have before. They did and that's objective. The only debate I have seen is whether that constitutes a new species. That is subjective and it's subjective mainly because the definition of a "species" is still not firmly established.Please explain how this principle applies to science - when people dispute the scientific consensus on an issue are they proving that the science is not objective?
And yet people still believe in false prophets despite having the Bible as a guide.
OK, provide objective, empirical evidence for this "kernel" of truth.
Great. They can call it whatever they want. Doesn't make true or objective.
BTW, please understand I'm not saying you're wrong about it. I'm saying it isn't objective.
Yes. That's a very good way to know if something is objectively true or not.
Not in the slightest. When scientists dispute an issue, they are disputing the interpretation of the results of testing.
since love is illogical.
Granted, I cannot prove this with scientific method or anything but I believe love is the most logical thing in the universe - God is love.
Just my humble opinion.
Your implication that they are not (and I would tend to agree) is based on your subjective understanding of the Holy Spirit.
And from where did those principles regarding the Holy Spirit that you have made a conscious and rational commitment to arise?
Please explain how this principle applies to science - when people dispute the scientific consensus on an issue are they proving that the science is not objective?
I am not asking about scientists disputing things among themselves - I am talking about people disputing the scientific consensus.
If the beliefs of a person who is not in touch with the Holy Ghost prove that knowledge from the Holy Ghost is subjective, then surely the non-acceptance of scientific knowledge by Young Earth Creationists is proof that the science is not objective?
If a religious group must be subjective because they do not have everyone convinced, then surely science is also subjective - unless the science has everyone convinced?
A consensus doesn't make something objectively demonstrable. Although there being a consensus could indicate the presence of something objectively demonstrable.
What makes results of science objectively true, are it's methods.
Which is not something that a Hindu can do in a church. He can't whip out a measuring tape to check how far the walls of the Red Sea are spread apart.
The church would have to be in the Red Sea to do that wouldn't it?
As you know, science is built fundamentals of objective reality.
We just had this discussion.
As you know, the church is the people, it's not a building. The Hindu has legs and can walk to the red Sea.
Established religions do possess consensus. They cannot use scientific method because they are not a study of the physical realm. It is not logical to use the method of one subject on another subject, which seeks to explore a different aspect of reality.
What makes science not objective is the fact that it can only explore one aspect of reality, and it cannot do that without the physically non-existent aspect that is the human minds that conduct it.
It does contain some objectivity. As I said in the OP - my position is that both science and religion contain subjective and objective aspects.
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?