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.
Among the evidences I would present are: the anatomy of a human, the anatomy of DNA, the anatomy of an atom, the relative strengths of the 4 fundamental forces, the dark matter and dark energy ratios, the distribution of poly-galactic structure, the intra-relationships of music, and the standard model of particle physics.
Where would you like to start?
variant
Inconclusive, and indistinguishable from "made up" are different ideas.
In other words "we have no idea but I can only assume it fits in with my previous assumptions".
Complete agreement, there is nothing that could disprove such a nebulous idea.
Which means nothing.
Falcificationism is the standard today.
I find that you think your 'coherent epistemology' is on better ground than the positivists to be funny though.
That's not what I've read. Falsification has already been been shown to have structural weaknesses philosophically. Maybe....read some Philosophy of Science, or at least some more if you've already done so.
Well, let me get out my clown make up, and I'll put on a show.
Start with your best. I haven't partaken in a good argument for design in a while.
As long as the op doesn't mind us having it here....and to do this properly we should start before the beginning and go in correct order of arising. Or else we'll be jumping between horizontal scalar branches of info with nothing to connect them. They all are supported by a vertical trans-scalar trunk which starts under the surface of things.
Or I can start a new thread...whichever is preferred.
I would rather you limit your discussion to one, I don't feel like arguing across that many disciplines.
The trunk I intend to describe is more important than the details of the branches. I'll limit my references to where each branch (scales of scientific exploration) starts and it's basic shape. All of it starts with a seed planted in the darkness, we'll have to start there. Before the beginning of the tree/universe.
Funnily enough, we will start with exactly "ONE" =)
I suppose I will start a new thread, here in the philo forum. I intend it like a debate/discussion. I am not trying to "prove my point over yours" but just sharing the current way I can make the most sense of things. I welcome you to challenge any part or the entire thing. I'm just not interest in composing/navigating a wall of paragraphs. More of a back and forth on specific points in order. I intend on learning as much as I can from you in the process.
Is this acceptable?
Make a new thread tomorrow and PM me, I'm a bit tired for now.
No, it would make things fair religious wise.Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?
Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?
Assume:
1) The evidence is understandable by everyone and conclusive.
2) #1 implies evidence about the nature of God sufficient to determine the "correct" faith.
Will do! Looking forwards to it and rest well.
IRL what time is it there? It's 2pm here...
What is your window of time tomorrow?
It was 7:41pm when you made this post (usually that would be fine but I haven't been feeling well), I'm on eastern standard.
Honestly, I don't believe a demonstrably proven god would change a whole lot, apart from the skeptical community largely accepting a God claim.
The current major religions will still write the conclusive proof off as a "satanic deception" and implore their followers to continue to have faith in the "one true religion". After all that's what they do with every other discovery that contradicts their doctrine.
Sounds like coming out with The Truth would be a dangerous venture...
Honestly, I don't believe a demonstrably proven god would change a whole lot, apart from the skeptical community largely accepting a God claim.
The current major religions will still write the conclusive proof off as a "satanic deception" and implore their followers to continue to have faith in the "one true religion". After all that's what they do with every other discovery that contradicts their doctrine.
so basically it would possibly create another faith, sect, or denomination that would believe (rightfully in this hypothetical) that they have the truth. In the grand scheme of things this wouldn't be much different than today.
Interesting
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?