|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Detecting God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
sac51495 writes:
Nonsense. The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm? You have ignored the spiritual realm, which is no more subjective, nor any less important, than the scientific method. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: Lack of being able to detect it, is not proof of it's non existence. Yes, I know. I agreed with you in that previous post. My point is that "lack of being able to detect it" also doesn't provide a rational or reasonable basis to think it actually exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"ringo" writes: That's all I asked you. Pretty sure I said that already earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"ringo writes: Nonsense. The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm? Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
That still puts it miles ahead of any investigation into the "spiritual realm", for which we have no toys at all and no objective knowledge. ringo writes:
Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge The scientific method deliberately weeds out subjectivity by way of repeatability and peer review. The "spiritual realm" is entirely subjective. Otherwise, why would there be so many mutually exclusive interpretations of the same spiritual realm? Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"Stile writes: Yes, I know. I agreed with you in that previous post. My point is that "lack of being able to detect it" also doesn't provide a rational or reasonable basis to think it actually exists. Now we are making a second circle. The basis to think it(God) exists is the bible, and all that was taught before it was even written. It's Jesus's words to us, that make you think, and get you started. It is Love. Almost everything in the bible is subjective, that is why faith is required. I believe there is only two places in the bible where God says how to test Him.One way is this: Malachi 3:10Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. The second is this:Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will ishis good, pleasing and perfect will. Gideon tested what he was hearing from God:Judges 6 36 Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said." 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dewa bowlful of water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew. But then there are several places in the bible that it tells us not to test God, but in these places it is part of a specific lesson, not a global statement. So the bible would appear to contradict itself, if you take things out of context. Gideons test was pretty objective, but not a double blind controlled experiment. The other tests, are subjective also. So no where in the bible are we told to objectively test God's existence. It is all subjective. We are to have faith. If God exists, and He is the creator of the universe we live in, I would think that He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him. So not being able to "objectively" find God, does not make me lose faith. Sometimes personal subjectivity is all you need. Personal subjectivity is the basis for many things in your life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: Gideons test was pretty objective, but not a double blind controlled experiment. Objective within the confines of the Bible... and the Bible is far from being objectively true. Therefore, Gideon's test does nothing to give us anything objective currently.
The other tests are subjective also. So no where in the bible are we told to objectively test God's existence. It is all subjective. We are to have faith. If God exists, and He is the creator of the universe we live in, I would think that He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him. So not being able to "objectively" find God, does not make me lose faith. Sometimes personal subjectivity is all you need. Personal subjectivity is the basis for many things in your life. I agree. All I'm saying is that all these subjective things (including the things based on personal subjectivity in my life) are irrational and unreasonable reasons to believe that something actually exists in reality. I agree that you "are to have faith". I'm just pointing out that such faith is irrational and unreasonable simply because "He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him". If we can't detect anything, then there's nothing to base any rational and reasonable judgements upon. Let me state it this way: It is irrational and unreasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because of the personally subjective feelings of love I get when I think of her.It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because: -she doesn't cheat on me -she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company -she says she loves me -she goes out of her way to help build our lives together However, NONE of these rational and reasonable reasons PROVE that my wife loves me (equivalent to the "science doesn't prove things" stuff you always hear about)They are only rational and reasonable reasons to build a theory that my wife loves me. This theory can (potentially) be falsified by many things: -my wife cheating on me -my wife saying she doesn't love me anymore and serving me with divorce papers -my wife sabotaging our lives and purposefully making things difficult for me And again with God: It is irrational and unreasonable for me to claim that God exists because of the personally subjective feelings I get when I think of Him.It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that God exists because: -??? -there are no points here because God is not detectable Because we don't have any rational and reasonable points to use, we cannot create a "God really does exist" theory. Without any of those points, any theory is unfalsifiable as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"Stile" writes: Objective within the confines of the Bible... and the Bible is far from being objectively true. Therefore, Gideon's test does nothing to give us anything objective currently. That's what you see when you look at that? What that story tells me is that we can ask God questions like that. I have had a few similar experiences similar to that story. So I don't have to believe the story itself, but take comfort in knowing that stories like that can still happen today.
If we can't detect anything, then there's nothing to base any rational and reasonable judgements upon. If we can't detect anything objectively is what you meant?You know, sometimes a thing can happen only once in your lifetime, and you know it happened, it cannot be objectively tested. Does that mean it didn't happen? It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because: -she doesn't cheat on me -she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company -she says she loves me -she goes out of her way to help build our lives together But that does not objectively prove that she really loves you.
This theory can (potentially) be falsified by many things: -my wife cheating on me -my wife saying she doesn't love me anymore and serving me with divorce papers -my wife sabotaging our lives and purposefully making things difficult for me This proves nothing either. She may actually still love you, just have problems.
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that God exists because: -??? -there are no points here because God is not detectable There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things. Don't make the mistake of thinking we have to "claim" God exists. We shouldn't do that imo. I have found the only way to show people that God exists, is to love them, the way He loves me. That is the only way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things. Please show some of these points. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: That's what you see when you look at that? No. We weren't talking about what I see when I look at that in the general sense. We were talking about how I see that applying to our topic. And yes, that's how I see it applying to our topic about detecting God.
If we can't detect anything objectively is what you meant? Yes, that's what this topic is about. Did you read the opening post? I'll quote it for you here:
killinghurts writes: By 'detect' I mean "to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of". Sounds pretty objective to me.
riVeRraT writes: But that does not objectively prove that she really loves you. I agree. That's why I said none of that proves she loves me.
This proves nothing either. She may actually still love you, just have problems. I think it's more likely that her concept of "love" isn't the same as my concept of "love"... in which case, as far as I'm concerned... she doesn't love me.
There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things. If you have any points on how to detect God, objectively (as this topic is about), please go ahead and let everyone know.
Don't make the mistake of thinking we have to "claim" God exists. We shouldn't do that imo. I have found the only way to show people that God exists, is to love them, the way He loves me. That is the only way. An excellent plan. Although that really wouldn't "show me" that God exists. It would just show me that you're a nice person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
bluescat48" writes: Please show some of these points. Well I expressed some of them in this thread, and throughout this forum. Not trying to be a wise guy, but you could read the bible, and not take it out of context by going to a reputable bible study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"Stile" writes: No. We weren't talking about what I see when I look at that in the general sense. We were talking about how I see that applying to our topic. And yes, that's how I see it applying to our topic about detecting God. Then you are just as guilty as a televangelist who takes things of the bible our of context, and use the words for whatever he wants.I showed you that because of all the subjective stuff in the bible, that was pretty objective. Yes, that's what this topic is about. Did you read the opening post? I'll quote it for you here: Don't get testy, I was just asking.
I think it's more likely that her concept of "love" isn't the same as my concept of "love"... in which case, as far as I'm concerned... she doesn't love me. Which proves one of my points. Love is subjective, but it exists. There is no fail safe "love detector".
If you have any points on how to detect God, objectively (as this topic is about), please go ahead and let everyone know. I've been trying to tell you for the last bunch of posts, that there is no objective test for God. That is not the point I am trying to make, so stop trying to refute it.
An excellent plan. Although that really wouldn't "show me" that God exists. It would just show me that you're a nice person. Yep, and God would do the rest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Well I expressed some of them in this thread, and throughout this forum. Not trying to be a wise guy, but you could read the bible, and not take it out of context by going to a reputable bible study. That is one of the problems. If one goes to a Bible study from church A and then to one from Church B, one gets to different interpretations of a Biblical story, totally subjective. Back when I was still theist, I had gone to six different Christian denomination churches and that was like going to six different universes. Edited by bluescat48, : clarity There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: Then you are just as guilty as a televangelist who takes things of the bible out of context, and uses the words for whatever he wants.I showed you that because of all the subjective stuff in the bible, that was pretty objective. ...but it's not objective at all. There's nothing about it that can be shown to be objectively true. It's just a unverified claim that is claimed to be shown in an objective way. That's not objective in the sense of being any help in detecting God, objective things can be verified.
Don't get testy, I was just asking. Don't get sensitive, I was just saying.
Which proves one of my points. Love is subjective, but it exists. There is no fail safe "love detector". But that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a fail-safe "love detector" for me to identify if my wife loves me. Based upon the rational and reasonable indications that my wife loves me. The additional point was that there is not any rational and reasonable indications that can be used to detect God.
I've been trying to tell you for the last bunch of posts, that there is no objective test for God. That is not the point I am trying to make, so stop trying to refute it. Then perhaps we agree and there is no futher point in discussion. It is currently irrational and unreasonable to assert that God can be detected... because He can't.
Yep, and God would do the rest. Or not. It's quite possible that the reason God cannot be detected is because God does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Ringo,
Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge That still puts it miles ahead of any investigation into the "spiritual realm", for which we have no toys at all and no objective knowledge. Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024