Does it exist before science....

[Polymath257]

In discussion with a spiritual teach who walked the path before, who has pondered about the same questions.
And by use of the scriptures to guide the person through the challenges one facing in daily life.

One build faith within ones own being when study and practicing the teaching, and when gaining understanding from the practice.

A spiritual lifestyle is a personal path trough life so the "evidence" are personal and may not be easy for others to understand.
To verify for ones own being if the current belief is incorrect/less right, its again during the study where a deeper understanding of the scriptures will arise when faith get stronger and one become more wise.

To me, if it varies from person to person, it is an opinion, and not a fact or knowledge (well, maybe knowledge of what you like, personally).

Now, I do see it as a good thing to explore personal likes and dislikes, tastes, and values.

I just don't see them as knowledge.

 

[Spirit of Light]

OK, so? That doesn't answer the question.

How does one go about finding and opening a spiritual heart?

How does one interpret the sensations from a spiritual heart?

Is it possible two different people will have spiritual hearts that disagree? In that case, are both right? if not, how do we determine at least who is wrong?

I frankly have no idea what you even mean by the term 'spiritual heart'. Is it possible I don't have one? if I do and am unaware of it, how can I detect it?

The spiritual heart opens to us when we study and practicing the teaching (the cultivation part of the path)
Different people will be on Different levels through the teaching so yes our understanding.

Wrong is not the correct way to describe it, lesser understanding or not as wise is better to use about those who just entered the path.

Spiritual heart is the awakening of the "true being" we are (not the physical body)

Of course this is just my understanding and I do not hold all the answers needed to give a deeper answer.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well, then please enlighten science and describe how to detect such. Since you seem to be so convinced spiritual realms exist, you must have some way of detecting such. Let us know so we can test your ideas and see which ones are more than simple opinions.

That I can not do, I speak out of belief, not physical evidence

 

[Spirit of Light]

To me, if it varies from person to person, it is an opinion, and not a fact or knowledge (well, maybe knowledge of what you like, personally).

Now, I do see it as a good thing to explore personal likes and dislikes, tastes, and values.

I just don't see them as knowledge.

You have just a different way you seek answers

 

[nPeace]

There is nothing that prevents attempts to find God using the scientific method: make hypothesis that can be tested (there is a way to tell if the hypothesis is false by observation) and actually do the observation. Then, if necessary, change your hypothesis to agree with the observation and make a different prediction based on the new hypothesis.

Repeat.

Nothing in this requires methodological naturalism. it just requires observation and a willingness to change ideas based on the results of observation.

There were previous attempts to find God? By whom, and by what means?
Can you provide the data where everyone can read about this?

I find it interesting that you consider *any* of those to be evidence. Instead, to me, they look like propaganda.

What exactly did I say was evidence?

Evidence is the result of controlled observation, not the result of hopes or desires. The verses you gave are evidence, at most, of the beliefs people had that wrote those texts. Nothing more.

Please describe what you mean by controlled observation, and use that to explain the evidence of an artisan at work here and here.

Also, how in the world do the last two verses say anything factual? Again, at most, they give some propaganda for the beliefs of whoever wrote the texts.

You haven't even begun to do any of the three things I mentioned.
The first thing you did here is be critical, without considering the evidence - body of facts.

Let's take these one by one:

Okay.

Religious Forums "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: "

What actual evidence is given here? Which 'invisible things' are 'clearly seen'?

The evidence is in the things seen. The invisible things refer to the things the visible evidence points to.
For example, a force is unseen. Its quality is unseen, However, the visible evidence - its effect upon objects, provides evidence of 1) its presence, or existence, and 2) the power of this force.

The verse does not mention the evidence in detail, but it tells us that the creation around us, provides evidence of a creator, possessing tremendous power, wisdom, love... and justice can be discerned, as well.

Are you willing to examine, and investigate that evidence?

This is rather vague claims without any supporting evidence and claims that nobody has an excuse if they don't see. That is simply called intimidation, not evidence.

Did you ask for the evidence, or just express your skepticism?

Religious Forums "Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. "

Again, a claim that these things are produced by some deity, but no actual proof is given.

Evidence is given. Proof is not something you can provide either.
You know this. So why do you ask for proof when you can't give any for your beliefs?

Religious Forums "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. "

Again, long on claims and short on actual evidence. What, precisely links the heavens to the glory of God and how, precisely, does the 'firmament' show his handiwork?

Thanks for finally asking.
I can provide that evidence for you in another thread, if you permit me to quote you here, in that thread.

For that matter, what, precisely, is the firmament? Wasn't it supposed to be what separates the waters above and the waters below in Genesis? Funny, there doesn't appear to be anything like that anywhere we have seen.

The Hebrew word some translate Firmament means expanse.
As a scientist, you understand what an expanse is. You also understand to some extent the "laws of physics".
So this should not be hard.

...with the “expanse” produced on the second creative “day,” no solid substance is described as being beaten out but, rather, the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor. This also accords with scientific reasoning on the early stages of the planet’s formation and the view that at one time all of earth’s water existed in the form of atmospheric vapor because of the extreme heat of the earth’s surface at that point.​

Source - Expanse

Religious Forums " The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. "

This looks to me to simply be more intimidation. Declaring everyone who disagrees to be wicked or prideful seems like rather dishonest tactics, don't you think?

Do you think stating a fact, because it is a fact, is being dishonest, and done to intimidate?
I don't think so. If Elon Musk says the Tesla is the best of its kind, I would not feel intimidated, or upset with him, just because my model falls way behind.
Saying that it is criminal to steal bread because one is hungry is a fact.
If one disagrees, why would they think the person said it to intimidate hungry people that steal bread?
How does that make them dishonest?
They seem honest to me. Actually, from the evidence we see, they usually are honest.

For example, they are precise in giving exact details of names, events, locations, etc., in history, and these details are confirmed.
Only recently, I was reading about Solomon's activities in building the temple, and the details are all there - verified historically.
They even include transporting wood as rafts.

HISTORIC MARKER - TIMBER RAFTING
Transporting lumber by tying timbers together into a raft is a method of ancient origins

Timber rafting
Timber rafting is a method of transporting felled tree trunks by tying them together to make rafts, which are then drifted or pulled downriver, or across a lake or other body of water. It is arguably, after log driving, the second cheapest means of transporting felled timber. Both methods may be referred to as timber floating.

Was it a coincidence that Solomon used copper in building... including the bath?
I don't know, but quite a lot in the Bible, does give evidence that's quite compelling.
Does copper kill germs?

Religious Forums "And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever. "

Once again, no actual evidence or even anything of value in searching. it is an admonition to Solomon to follow what the priests say. Intimidation, yet again.

Criticism and skepticism is all I see here. No interest in actually evidence.

Religious Forums "And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. "

Again, rather vague claims with no actual evidence. Something for everyone to read into it what they want, but so vague as to really be meaningless.

Again, criticism and skepticism is all I see here. No interest in actually evidence, on whether what is said, can be verified.

Religious Forums "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. "

Yet more propaganda with no actual evidence.

Yet more criticism and skepticism, with zero interest in actually evidence, on whether what is said, can be verified.

So, exactly what in these do you see as being *evidence* and what do you see as being *factual* in a way that an objective observer who is skeptical but open minded would find convincing?

Permission to quote you in another thread, if you are actually serious about the answer.

Oh. Wait! I must have been in a twilight zone while writing this.
Remember how our conversations on this usually go? I haven't forgotten, and surely you haven't either.
We both agree, it's not worth our time right? Are we expecting something different?
I know... it's me. I'm the problem.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, I am choosing to do something and or something else as both possible, only one of them will exist dereddening on what I choose.
You confuse objective and subjective.

Well you can't use objective examples to prove completely subjective 'what if' scenarios that have no objective basis upon which to build upon first.

That ole orbiting teapot thingy. .......

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I would call those things 'opinions'.

I reliably do not like the taste of tomatoes. Other people reliably like the same taste. The subjectivity means that we are talking about opinions and not knowledge.

Well, your subjective opinion of knowledge. I have another subjective opinion of knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

There were previous attempts to find God? By whom, and by what means?
Can you provide the data where everyone can read about this?


What exactly did I say was evidence?

You gave the verses quoted as evidence.

Please describe what you mean by controlled observation, and use that to explain the evidence of an artisan at work here and here.

Sure. We have observed a variety of natural phenomena with rocks and have found that the usually do not form regular, balancing structures (although they can in some circumstances). The pictures are of regular structures both larger and more elaborate than ones formed spontaneously,and that are often made by humans. So we conclude that humans probably made them (although allowing for some other sort of animal in the case of the balancing rocks).

You haven't even begun to do any of the three things I mentioned.
The first thing you did here is be critical, without considering the evidence - body of facts.

What evidence or facts were given? You had said that the verses were themselves evidence and facts.

Okay.


The evidence is in the things seen. The invisible things refer to the things the visible evidence points to.
For example, a force is unseen. Its quality is unseen, However, the visible evidence - its effect upon objects, provides evidence of 1) its presence, or existence, and 2) the power of this force.

The verse does not mention the evidence in detail, but it tells us that the creation around us, provides evidence of a creator, possessing tremendous power, wisdom, love... and justice can be discerned, as well.

And how does it justify the claim that the things we see around us are evidence of a creator? How does it change any probabilities in the existence or non-existence of a conscious being making them?

Are you willing to examine, and investigate that evidence?

yes, of course. But I thought you claimed those verses *were* the evidence.

Did you ask for the evidence, or just express your skepticism?

Both. A skeptical stance is a good thing when looking at evidence, especially for the first time.

Evidence is given. Proof is not something you can provide either.
You know this. So why do you ask for proof when you can't give any for your beliefs?

What evidence was given? It seems very much less than, for example, the evidence that species change over time.

Thanks for finally asking.
I can provide that evidence for you in another thread, if you permit me to quote you here, in that thread.

Go for it.

The Hebrew word some translate Firmament means expanse.
As a scientist, you understand what an expanse is. You also understand to some extent the "laws of physics".
So this should not be hard.

...with the “expanse” produced on the second creative “day,” no solid substance is described as being beaten out but, rather, the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor. This also accords with scientific reasoning on the early stages of the planet’s formation and the view that at one time all of earth’s water existed in the form of atmospheric vapor because of the extreme heat of the earth’s surface at that point.​

Source - Expanse

That sounds like a rather creative re-working of the actual texts.

Do you think stating a fact, because it is a fact, is being dishonest, and done to intimidate?
I don't think so. If Elon Musk says the Tesla is the best of its kind, I would not feel intimidated, or upset with him, just because my model falls way behind.
Saying that it is criminal to steal bread because one is hungry is a fact.
If one disagrees, why would they think the person said it to intimidate hungry people that steal bread?
How does that make them dishonest?
They seem honest to me. Actually, from the evidence we see, they usually are honest.

It does mean they are intimidating the hungry. Not exactly a good moral position.

For example, they are precise in giving exact details of names, events, locations, etc., in history, and these details are confirmed.
Only recently, I was reading about Solomon's activities in building the temple, and the details are all there - verified historically.
They even include transporting wood as rafts.

HISTORIC MARKER - TIMBER RAFTING
Transporting lumber by tying timbers together into a raft is a method of ancient origins

Timber rafting
Timber rafting is a method of transporting felled tree trunks by tying them together to make rafts, which are then drifted or pulled downriver, or across a lake or other body of water. It is arguably, after log driving, the second cheapest means of transporting felled timber. Both methods may be referred to as timber floating.

Was it a coincidence that Solomon used copper in building... including the bath?
I don't know, but quite a lot in the Bible, does give evidence that's quite compelling.
Does copper kill germs?

Why do you find that compelling? A bronze/copper age society will make things out of copper or bronze. That doens't seem too far fetched to me.

Criticism and skepticism is all I see here. No interest in actually evidence.

Skepticism and criticism is the best way of dealing with evidence to see how good it is.

Again, criticism and skepticism is all I see here. No interest in actually evidence, on whether what is said, can be verified.

No evidence was actually given. If you have some, I will be happy to evaluate it.

Yet more criticism and skepticism, with zero interest in actually evidence, on whether what is said, can be verified.

Yes, it is a good thing to be skeptical of evidence and to criticize it to see how good it is.

Permission to quote you in another thread, if you are actually serious about the answer.

Go for it.

Oh. Wait! I must have been in a twilight zone while writing this.
Remember how our conversations on this usually go? I haven't forgotten, and surely you haven't either.
We both agree, it's not worth our time right? Are we expecting something different?
I know... it's me. I'm the problem.

When you can present evidence that convinces a skeptic and withstands simple criticism, then we can start getting somewhere.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well you can't use objective examples to prove completely subjective 'what if' scenarios that have no objective basis upon which to build upon first.

That ole orbiting teapot thingy. .......

Well, I am going to test if I can do some subjective. Wait, no! I thinking that I can't do something subjective and you can't know that I did so. So subjectively I am going to think that I can't do something subjective and you don't in fact know that I am playing with you, because I am not doing something subjective, right?!
As for what objective reality really is that is unknown as per this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

In short, you don't seen to understand that just as you can't point to God, you can't point to evidence. Both are subjective ideas in the subjective mind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, I am going to test if I can do some subjective. Wait, no! I thinking that I can't do something subjective and you can't know that I did so. So subjectively I am going to think that I can't do something subjective and you don't in fact know that I am playing with you, because I am not doing something subjective, right?!
As for what objective reality really is that is unknown as per this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

In short, you don't seen to understand that just as you can't point to God, you can't point to evidence. Both are subjective ideas in the subjective mind.

The difference is in using objectivity and plausibility to 'prove' something that is entirely and completely subjective. It just dosent work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The difference is in using objectivity and plausibility to 'prove' something that is entirely and completely subjective.

Correct, but that is not limited to religion.

 

[nPeace]

You gave the verses quoted as evidence.

No, I did not.

Sure. We have observed a variety of natural phenomena with rocks and have found that the usually do not form regular, balancing structures (although they can in some circumstances). The pictures are of regular structures both larger and more elaborate than ones formed spontaneously,and that are often made by humans. So we conclude that humans probably made them (although allowing for some other sort of animal in the case of the balancing rocks).

You haven't explained controlled observation... Or are you saying that controlled observation is, just observing things, and going by what we think... and hoping we are right?
Perhaps you can answer a question I have.

What evidence or facts were given? You had said that the verses were themselves evidence and facts.

No, I have not. Where did I say that.
Seems we are rerunning a tape we played before.

And how does it justify the claim that the things we see around us are evidence of a creator? How does it change any probabilities in the existence or non-existence of a conscious being making them?

How does what justify the claim?
I don't understand your questions.

yes, of course. But I thought you claimed those verses *were* the evidence.

Oh. You thought.
So I didn't, but you thought so, and then claimed I did. Then state it dogmatically.
Yup. That's the Polymath257 I know.

Both. A skeptical stance is a good thing when looking at evidence, especially for the first time.

This is not the first time. This is a regular... infact, common feature... like a trained muscle.

What evidence was given? It seems very much less than, for example, the evidence that species change over time.

To you. I'm sure. To most people. Not so... and that includes scientists.

Go for it.

Sorry, but it's already looking like a rerun.

That sounds like a rather creative re-working of the actual texts.

It does? Not sure how you figure that.

It does mean they are intimidating the hungry. Not exactly a good moral position.

I guess different people have different opinions.

Why do you find that compelling? A bronze/copper age society will make things out of copper or bronze. That doens't seem too far fetched to me.

You took one seperate statement, and applied it to one seperated sentence.
Why, that's typical of you.

Skepticism and criticism is the best way of dealing with evidence to see how good it is.

If that works for you...
It's not the way everyone thinks, and it certainly isn't proven to be 'the best way'.

No evidence was actually given.

No. Evidence was given. You just don't accept it.

If you have some, I will be happy to evaluate it.

Evaluate? I'm not sure about that. No. Criticize? I think so. Yes.

When you can present evidence that convinces a skeptic and withstands simple criticism, then we can start getting somewhere.

Lol. Thanks for that laugh. Funny.
What evidence would convince a skeptic?
One of the most skeptical persons was convince, and yearly, more skeptical persons are being convinced by the evidence presented to them.

This is just a small list. There is more, so please do not try to blow it away with your fantastical expert view.

So, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, other than, 'when you can move Mount Everest, we can talk'. Lol.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

...

So there is evidence, that there is a God, no God but something else and that it is unknown. Is that your point?

And in fact beliefs are the same as evidence. I believe that you are evil, therefore I have evidence that you are evil. Is that it, beliefs are the same as evidence. Well, then you are evil. Well, no, you are not. So evidence is not the same as beliefs.

Would you like to try again?

 

[nPeace]

So there is evidence, that there is a God, no God but something else and that it is unknown. Is that your point?

And in fact beliefs are the same as evidence. I believe that you are evil, therefore I have evidence that you are evil. Is that it, beliefs are the same as evidence. Well, then you are evil. Well, no, you are not. So evidence is not the same as beliefs.

Would you like to try again?

You lost me, sorry. Would you like to try again?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You lost me, sorry. Would you like to try again?

Is a belief in God the same as evidence for God?

 

[nPeace]

Is a belief in God the same as evidence for God?

No. Did you read that somewhere on this thread? Where please.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Did you read that somewhere on this thread? Where please.

Then here it is: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence in regards to God, but that doesn't mean that there is no God.

 

[nPeace]

Then here it is: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence in regards to God, but that doesn't mean that there is no God.

There is evidence of God, but that doesn't mean everyone believing or accepting it, will make it evidence.
In other words. Somthing is not evidence, based on who believes it, or how many believe it.

 

[nPeace]

@mikkel_the_dane
There was evidence of the Hittites, but people did not believe that evidence. They only believed when they got more evidence.
Do you need the list of things people refused to accept, although the evidence was presented, until they got more evidence?

Some people only believe things when they cannot deny it, because it cannot be denied.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@mikkel_the_dane
There was evidence of the Hittites, but people did not believe that evidence. They only believed when they got more evidence.
Do you need the list of things people refused to accept, although the evidence was presented, until they got more evidence?

Some people only believe things when they cannot deny it, because it cannot be denied.

Can you explain what evidence is to you in general terms? Not a specific example, but so I can apply to in general to the everyday world?