Do you agree with this statement?

[Wildswanderer]

That's why evidence needs to be tested. If some piece of evidence is to be taken as valid evidence, then it needs to be independently testable. So you can test it and I can test it, and we should both get the same result.

Why would we? In the case of belief it would depend whether it was sincere belief. You can't test it for real unless you actually believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why would we? In the case of belief it would depend whether it was sincere belief. You can't test it for real unless you actually believe.

Facts don't care what your beliefs are.

 

[osgart]

I'm quite sure most of existence lies beyond things that are evident or will be evident in the future.

Every worldview seems to be looking for definitive answers to questions they consider answerable. In the end every worldview so far ends up doing philosophy based on intuitions, assumptions, and inferences they make from evidence. So with evidence people become very certain about things they can't really know for sure.

Evidence can only reveal physical phenomenon and how those things behave. Everything else is philosophy.

It's a myth that evidence can tell ultimate truths about existence. There's no such thing as iron clad explanations of ultimate reality. It's all philosophy. Some philosophies are better than others.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Facts don't care what your beliefs are.

You can't test belief with science. Science is woefully inadequate to understand spiritual realities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm quite sure most of existence lies beyond things that are evident or will be evident in the future.

Every worldview seems to be looking for definitive answers to questions they consider answerable. In the end every worldview so far ends up doing philosophy based on intuitions, assumptions, and inferences they make from evidence. So with evidence people become very certain about things they can't really know for sure.

Evidence can only reveal physical phenomenon and how those things behave. Everything else is philosophy.

It's a myth that evidence can tell ultimate truths about existence. There's no such thing as iron clad explanations of ultimate reality. It's all philosophy. Some philosophies are better than others.

Sure, but even if most things are beyond human knowledge, we can still raise an eyebrow when we hear someone claim knowledge of things that are beyond human knowledge.

 

[Tiberius]

Why would we? In the case of belief it would depend whether it was sincere belief. You can't test it for real unless you actually believe.

That is simply not true.

You can believe that New York and San Francisco are both on the west coast of the USA as strongly as you want, but all the testing you do is going to show that they are on opposite coasts. When it comes to a valid test of reality, belief plays no part, no matter how strongly or sincerely it is held. I've read of flat earthers who sincerely believed that the earth was flat, but when they put it to an actual test, their results indicated a spheroid earth. If what you say is true, then they should have got results that matched their preconceived ideas.

So your claim is demonstrably false.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is simply not true.

You can believe that New York and San Francisco are both on the west coast of the USA as strongly as you want, but all the testing you do is going to show that they are on opposite coasts. When it comes to a valid test of reality, belief plays no part, no matter how strongly or sincerely it is held. I've read of flat earthers who sincerely believed that the earth was flat, but when they put it to an actual test, their results indicated a spheroid earth. If what you say is true, then they should have got results that matched their preconceived ideas.

So your claim is demonstrably false.

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
You can't pretend to believe in God and expect him to answer your prayers.
I'm talking about the spiritual reality, not cities you can see.
You simply can't trust the spiritual dimension. You can only experience it, and that only happens with sincere belief.

 

[Tiberius]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
You can't pretend to believe in God and expect him to answer your prayers.
I'm talking about the spiritual reality, not cities you can see.
You simply can't trust the spiritual dimension. You can only experience it, and that only happens with sincere belief.

The problem with that is that I have to start with the assumption that there is spiritual stuff in the first place, and then try to interpret my subjective experiences through something I can only assume is true. In short, you decide that it is real and then interpret everything that happens in a way that supports that spiritual belief. That's a terrible way to find out what is real. No wonder people have so many different and contradicting ideas about what this spiritual reality is - because they've just made it up and convinced themselves that it is real!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
You can't pretend to believe in God and expect him to answer your prayers.
I'm talking about the spiritual reality, not cities you can see.
You simply can't trust the spiritual dimension. You can only experience it, and that only happens with sincere belief.

In any other context, if someone told you that you couldn't "experience" something without already sincerely believing in it, would you think that they were describing something real?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can't test belief with science.

You can definitely test certain beliefs with science. Like your beliefs about COVID, for example.

Science is woefully inadequate to understand spiritual realities.

Is it? How do we even know there are "spiritual realities" at all? When and how did you demonstrate that? If they're detectable or observable in some way (how else would you know they are there?) then they are testable. Which is all science really is - a tool. And it's the best tool we've got given that it's provided all information we currently know about the world we live in.
If you have a better tool, then let's hear it.

Facts don't care what your beliefs are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
You can't pretend to believe in God and expect him to answer your prayers.
I'm talking about the spiritual reality, not cities you can see.
You simply can't trust the spiritual dimension. You can only experience it, and that only happens with sincere belief.

I have an invisible purple unicorn in my garage. But you can only experience it's existence if you sincerely believe it's there first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can't test belief with science. Science is woefully inadequate to understand spiritual realities.

This seems a good time to bring oyt the Steven Novella quote again:

What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

When we're talking about claims about objective to reality, arguing that science can't address them amounts to admitting that the claims don't stand up to rigorous investigation.

... since that's all science is: investigation done in a rigorous way.

 

[Tiberius]

I have an invisible purple unicorn in my garage. But you can only experience it's existence if you sincerely believe it's there first.

It's true! I've seen it myself!

 

[Wildswanderer]

This seems a good time to bring oyt the Steven Novella quote again:

What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

When we're talking about claims about objective to reality, arguing that science can't address them amounts to admitting that the claims don't stand up to rigorous investigation.

... since that's all science is: investigation done in a rigorous way.

Thanks for making my point for me.
Yes science tests nature, not the spiritual realm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for making my point for me.
Yes science tests nature, not the spiritual realm.

"Nature" is defined in terms of what is testable.

Objective claims about what isn't testable are made-up nonsense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you have a better tool, then let's hear it.

I do. It's communication with the maker of reality. You can't get there by testing the physical world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

"Nature" is defined in terms of what is testable.

Objective claims about what isn't testable are made-up nonsense.

Right, nature can be tested, although there is still much about it we don't understand. .. science can't test faith.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In any other context, if someone told you that you couldn't "experience" something without already sincerely believing in it, would you think that they were describing something real?

Of course. I can't even do math without the belief that it will work. I would not even try if I didn't believe it would yield results.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course. I can't even do math without the belief that it will work. I would not even try if I didn't believe it would yield results.

You missed the point. That's okay.

 

[Heyo]

I do. It's communication with the maker of reality. You can't get there by testing the physical world.

Now, that's a statement. I suggest the highest authorities of all the different religions have a zoom meeting with each other and "the maker of reality". When they are done, they should be able to proclaim a consensus about the spiritual world and there will be only one religion ever after.