Why do some people

[Audie]

What if the. " someone" is a scientologist, or ,
as is generally the caee in N Korea, the belief is that your leader was born on a mountaintop under a double rainbow, and controls the weather?
And invented the hamburger.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What if the. " someone" is a scientologist, or ,
as is generally the caee in N Korea, the belief is that your leader was born on a mountaintop under a double rainbow, and controls the weather?

Human variation.

 

[Lain]

You can't know the unseen either.

By definition, anything you see is not "the unseen."

Why do you think what is unseen is unknowable? Unseen and unknowable are two different things to me at least.

 

[Fool]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

science; which simply means knowledge isn't necessarily explained by absolute hard facts, or mathematics.

there are no absolutes in science.

case in point: the law of entropy, or second law of thermodynamics ihas been shown to have a loophole with the discovery of time crystals at the quantum level.

Physicists Confirm The Existence of Time Crystals in Epic Quantum Computer Simulation


there is only one absolute and that is there are no absolutes.

 

[Audie]

Why do you think what is unseen is unknowable? Unseen and unknowable are two different things to me at least.

Try translating it as " undetectable".

We cant see wind or electricity.

Easy to detect, no faith needed.

Faith in the undetectable is a whole different thing.

 

[Lain]

Try translating it as " undetectable".

We cant see wind or electricity.

Easy to detect, no faith needed.

Faith in the undetectable is a whole different thing.

But it isn't undetectable, I said unseen. Unseen and undetectable are two different things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try translating it as " undetectable".

We cant see wind or electricity.

Easy to detect, no faith needed.

Faith in the undetectable is a whole different thing.

Yes, and therefore... That is the problem:

P1: Faith in the undetectable is a whole different thing.
C: Therefore ???

Now if you want to claim any variant of wrong, we end here: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
So it is a fact, that some people have faith in the undetectable. Now what? Remember only evidence as per science.

 

[Audie]

But it isn't undetectable, I said unseen. Unseen and undetectable are two different things.

Come on. I know that.

The bible speaks of faith in things unseen.
You dont think that means faith is needed to believe in heat or wind.

It means undetectable.
The fractional bird knows that wind and electricity are highly knowable.

Do you see what i mean?

 

[Fool]

Try translating it as " undetectable".

We cant see wind or electricity.

Easy to detect, no faith needed.

Faith in the undetectable is a whole different thing.

theory in the currently undetectable is only an issue of technology. as technology advances and thought grows; so does realization. being skeptical isn't just an athiest behavior. its found very significantly between different denominations and religions. consciousness is found everywhere and involved in all kinds of subjects

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Come on. I know that.

The bible speaks of faith in things unseen.
You dont think that means faith is needed to believe in heat or wind.

It means undetectable.

Do you see what i mean?

I can't see what you mean. I can understand it as we are playing in the end philosophy for what objective reality is in itself. But if you can show as a fact what the world is in metaphysical/ontological terms and avoid methodological naturalism, then state your case. Or avoid the normative, prescriptive or a first personal qualitative evaluation, then state your case.

 

[Lain]

Come on. I know that.

The bible speaks of faith in things unseen.
You dont think that means faith is needed to believe in heat or wind.

It means undetectable.
The fractional bird knows that wind and electricity are highly knowable.

Do you see what i mean?

I was responding to the post of an atheist who was in return responding to a Muslim Sufi, nowhere did the Bible come up until now.

And even in bringing the Bible up, you seem to reference a verse of St. Paul's. He does not mean undetectable there, so I have no idea why even in this Biblical context "undetectable" would be the meaning.

 

[Nakosis]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

Some folks believe in a God that ought to be supported by science. I suppose they are just waiting for science to get around to verifying the God they believe in.

The other option is belief without any verification besides their feelings. Some people just aren't comfortable with that position

If you are happy with believing whatever feels right I guess it all works for you.

I myself have found many pitfalls in relying on my feelings about what is true. So I'm skeptical of my own feelings as well as everyone else's.

 

[Audie]

I was responding to the post of an atheist who was in return responding to a Muslim Sufi, nowhere did the Bible come up until now.

And even in bringing the Bible up, you seem to reference a verse of St. Paul's. He does not mean undetectable there, so I have no idea why even in this Biblical context "undetectable" would be the meaning.

Never - mind

 

[Nakosis]

Why do you think what is unseen is unknowable? Unseen and unknowable are two different things to me at least.

What is knowable with regard to God?

 

[Audie]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

A lot of " teachings" directly contradict things that can be seen.

If you find someone, somewhere, so dimwitted that the think " science" is applicable to the
unseen (undetectable) then Id suggest you
ignore them. As you would someone babbling
about astrology or Atlantis rising.

 

[Lain]

What is knowable with regard to God?

Who He is, what He does, what He is, how He is. The whole shebang in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

Science offers greater clarity & objectivity than any other method.
Although this is the best non-science work about religion that I've
ever seen....

 

[Nakosis]

Who He is, what He does, what He is. The whole shebang in my opinion.

What you know or what you feel is true?

 

[Audie]

What you know or what you feel is true?

We'd suppose people would hope the judge and jury had better
standards of evidence, should they be on trial.

 

[Revoltingest]

We'd suppose people would hope the judge and jury had better
standards of evidence, should they be on trial.

Hope for qualified jurors,
but don't expect it.

Once upon a time, 2 women on a jury wanted to convict
the accused because he was "scary looking" (black guy
with a prison haircut). There was no real case against him.
One juror was quite strident in steering them towards "not
guilty". That groundskeeper shall remain nameless.