SHEEPEOPLE

Status
Not open for further replies.

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
On many debates here the scientific community demands that scientific evidence be given that would prove the existence of God.

I have tried to reason and suggest that internal evidence could not possibly prove external matters. I mean, doesn't that make perfect sense? Still, the demand is the same.

There have been two analogies that have come out of recent discussions that I think are worth offering as reason, if not evidence:
  1. The New World: History shows that the naysayers of the time stood on the shores of discovery and poo pooed the ideas of western exploration. There were those who looked at things positively, and those who looked at things negatively. History often proves the skeptic wrong. So, the whole historic lesson makes a good example in completely, natural and internal terms. The only thing that would have been required to consider whether the prospects were believable or not, would be a little bit of history, science, and a spirit of adventure...and maybe faith, but not even. But now that we are on the shores of an even bigger step of possibilities, once again there are the naysayers poo pooing. To me, that says, that personality type simply has not learned from history, and given a more complex equation, hasn't changed a thing.
  2. Sheep's Tail: A bit of a self-pun on Christians, this analogy asserts that the external realm of God is like unto a sheep, and the internal realm of space, time, and matter, is like unto a tail. The tail was created as a point where God would PM evil all over his tail...and then...cut it off. The unseen spiritual sheep is God, the visible tail is made up of the universe and all the little sheep are his flock made in his image. Among the sheep then came the Lamb of God, who, after taking on the evil (sins) of the world, was cut off.
...Both, are analogies made within the realm of scientific capabilities and understanding. One is from recorded history, while the other is simply a synopsis of the biblical story. That may be the best we can do. :) And realistically, who within the scientific community could go outside the realm of space, time and matter, to view an overview of the proof...anyway?
 
Last edited:

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem exists in the notion of what "science" is and what it is not. What we have is an epistemological problem.
Right. Science simply doesn't deal in matters outside the universe of space, time, and matter. What is troublesome, is they insist on reaching into their space, time, matter toolbox for answers, refusing to think outside the box.
 
Upvote 0

OliviaMay

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2015
530
110
49
✟1,258.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right. Science simply doesn't deal in matters outside the universe of space, time, and matter. What is troublesome, is they insist on reaching into their space, time, matter toolbox for answers, refusing to think outside the box.

You confuse science and philosophy. That is your problem right there. Don't got to a science class looking for a debate on metaphysics.
 
Upvote 0

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You confuse science and philosophy. That is your problem right there. Don't got to a science class looking for a debate on metaphysics.
I am not actually looking for a debate myself, although I would go for a reasonable discussion. I guess, it's just because they seem to flock here looking to debate, and do so by demanding physical evidence for spiritual (not actually metaphysics) truth.
 
Upvote 0

OliviaMay

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2015
530
110
49
✟1,258.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not actually looking for a debate myself, although I would go for a reasonable discussion. I guess, it's just because they seem to flock here looking to debate, and do so by demanding physical evidence for spiritual (not actually metaphysics) truth.

Who come here looking for evidence? Scientists? I doubt that.

What you describe is common. People challenge claims. They want evidence for said claim. That isn't science either that is a function of logic and debate.

If you have a logical argument that you feel they dismiss out of hand I would love to discuss it with you.
 
Upvote 0

RC1970

post tenebras lux
Jul 7, 2015
1,903
1,558
✟80,684.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Right. Science simply doesn't deal in matters outside the universe of space, time, and matter. What is troublesome, is they insist on reaching into their space, time, matter toolbox for answers, refusing to think outside the box.

The other problem is that the modern thinker (and I use the term 'thinker' loosely) does not generally consider philosophy to be knowledge. They prefer to bow down at the feet of Immanuel Kant and only consider that which is empirical without realizing that the foundation of knowledge is “a priori”.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
On many debates here the scientific community demands that scientific evidence be given that would prove the existence of God.

I think you're first going to have to distinguish between "scientific evidence" vs. 'empirical evidence' because most atheists apply the latter standard toward the topic of God, whereas "scientific evidence" isn't as rigorous of a standard. That's my two cents from years of online debates.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The other problem is that the modern thinker (and I use the term 'thinker' loosely) does not generally consider philosophy to be knowledge. They prefer to bow down at the feet of Immanuel Kant and only consider that which is empirical without realizing that the foundation of knowledge is “a priori”.
Thanks. My position, however, is definitely NOT philosophy. I am a firsthand witness, and there are enough of us that are, to say that "belief" is actually incorrect. We know.
 
Upvote 0

RC1970

post tenebras lux
Jul 7, 2015
1,903
1,558
✟80,684.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Thanks. My position, however, is definitely NOT philosophy. I am a firsthand witness, and there are enough of us that are, to say that "belief" is actually incorrect. We know.

I understand. However, "believing" is a form of knowledge and it is the first step in knowing. Only you can know the inward call as it applies to yourself, and no one can believe anything that their mind rejects. So, we are left with philosophical arguments until the Spirit of "Truth" blows where it wills.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
On many debates here the scientific community demands that scientific evidence be given that would prove the existence of God.

I have tried to reason and suggest that internal evidence could not possibly prove external matters. I mean, doesn't that make perfect sense? Still, the demand is the same.

There have been two analogies that have come out of recent discussions that I think are worth offering as reason, if not evidence:
  1. The New World: History shows that the naysayers of the time stood on the shores of discovery and poo pooed the ideas of western exploration. There were those who looked at things positively, and those who looked at things negatively. History often proves the skeptic wrong. So, the whole historic lesson makes a good example in completely, natural and internal terms. The only thing that would have been required to consider whether the prospects were believable or not, would be a little bit of history, science, and a spirit of adventure...and maybe faith, but not even. But now that we are on the shores of an even bigger step of possibilities, once again there are the naysayers poo pooing. To me, that says, that personality type simply has not learned from history, and given a more complex equation, hasn't changed a thing.
  2. Sheep's Tail: A bit of a self-pun on Christians, this analogy asserts that the external realm of God is like unto a sheep, and the internal realm of space, time, and matter, is like unto a tail. The tail was created as a point where God would PM evil all over his tail...and then...cut it off. The unseen spiritual sheep is God, the visible tail is made up of the universe and all the little sheep are his flock made in his image. Among the sheep then came the Lamb of God, who, after taking on the evil (sins) of the world, was cut off.
...Both, are analogies made within the realm of scientific capabilities and understanding. One is from recorded history, while the other is simply a synopsis of the biblical story. That may be the best we can do. :) And realistically, who within the scientific community could go outside the realm of space, time and matter, to view an overview of the proof...anyway?

I must respectfully disagree.

It is exactly through the study of the Works - where one becomes able to discern Him.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So I guess to understand God, you would first need to understand what everything was made from, wouldn't you?

So what does science tell you everything is made of - all matter?

So then ask yourself what image man was made in?

"has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

So what makes you, well you? Your mind, your knowledge? Which is energy? Of which everything is made from - and is also "in" everything? Neither a beginning or an end?

Beginning to sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think you're first going to have to distinguish between "scientific evidence" vs. 'empirical evidence' because most atheists apply the latter standard toward the topic of God, whereas "scientific evidence" isn't as rigorous of a standard. That's my two cents from years of online debates.
Yeah, regardless though, demanding that evidence by observation and experimentation, coming from people who will not go outside their field to do so...leaves them at a loss, and the shame of it, is it's self-imposed. :(
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Right. Science simply doesn't deal in matters outside the universe of space, time, and matter. What is troublesome, is they insist on reaching into their space, time, matter toolbox for answers, refusing to think outside the box.


Science deals exactly with religion, they just no longer allow themselves to be confronted with the truth, but prefer to bury it in 95% Fairie Dust.

Shall we start with the Big Bang theory initiated by a devout priest? His attempt to describe that beginning when God created the heavens and the earth? Granted, they have warped it way beyond it's initial intentions, even requiring their followers to accept 95% of cosmology "by faith", so that they are not forced to see, and thereby "have faith."

The problem is that space, time and matter was created by God from God and God is still in all of it.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sheepeople.7898632/#post-68339307

I'm just not sure they are willing to accept another consciousness (mind) besides their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA
Upvote 0

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Could you explain?
I understand. However, "believing" is a form of knowledge and it is the first step in knowing. Only you can know the inward call as it applies to yourself, and no one can believe anything that their mind rejects. So, we are left with philosophical arguments until the Spirit of "Truth" blows where it wills.

Let me see if I can address these two together:

I would have to say that personally, I came to "know" God without ever "believing"...and then, in time, came to believe. I have seen...blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. :)

I am not sure my whole testimony was what you were asking me to explain, but briefly: I had, over many years, spiraled down through being a victim of crime, going through bankruptcy, loosing my marriage and peaceful contact with my children, etc., etc., to a point of realizing that I was in the very place where people commit suicide. The last straw came and one night while lying in bed, I started talking to a god I had no knowledge of, merely tidbits and rumors. I told him if he wanted my life he could have it, but he would have to take it, otherwise I needed some answers. I needed to know what life was about and what my part in it was...or, it would be the only thing that had not failed me, I would go live in the woods. That's what I said. And he answered.

I was immediately taken up into the atmosphere directly above the place in the woods I had threatened to go...where he showed me my place in the world, my purpose for living. In an instant I was back in my body, and I shot straight up and didn't stop until I was seated at the foot of my bed. I broke out in a cold sweat and sat there in bewilderment, yet "knowing" better than to question what had just happened...I "knew."

Within a week my life completely changed. I was changed. My job changed, my relationship broke off, and I moved. I landed at my brothers house where I found a bible in the spare room where he put me up. I read it from cover to cover, from one point of confirmation of my experience and answer, to the next. The one thing that was unavoidable and undeniable, was...the Author of the bible, and of my experience, was without question, the same. I "know."
 
Upvote 0

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I must respectfully disagree.

It is exactly through the study of the Works - where one becomes able to discern Him.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So I guess to understand God, you would first need to understand what everything was made from, wouldn't you?

So what does science tell you everything is made of - all matter?

So then ask yourself what image man was made in?

"has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

So what makes you, well you? Your mind, your knowledge? Which is energy? Of which everything is made from - and is also "in" everything? Neither a beginning or an end?

Beginning to sound familiar?
We disagree very little, actually. The point I was addressing, is that in their terms (without considering God), it is not reasonable to examine that limited part of the evidence, and determine ANYTHING. It's just not reasonable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Right. Science simply doesn't deal in matters outside the universe of space, time, and matter. What is troublesome, is they insist on reaching into their space, time, matter toolbox for answers, refusing to think outside the box.

How would you propose reaching and investigating whatever is "outside of space, time and matter". We can't even determine anything outside of space, time and matter exists.

It's not a matter of refusing to think outside the box. It's a matter of having no reason to believe there is a box, and even if there was, we have no way to investigate outside of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.