Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

I'd personally be content with your satisfaction. If your burden for empirical evidence is as high as it is for burden of proof you need for God, it's probably higher than most of ours.

Unless Byblos says otherwise, go with yours. I'm definitely interested.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

I'd personally be content with your satisfaction. If your burden for empirical evidence is as high as it is for burden of proof you need for God, it's probably higher than most of ours.

Unless Byblos says otherwise, go with yours. I'm definitely interested.

Okay; so you would like me to prove empirically to my satisfaction, that I just had a thought?
Empirical means to learn from observation and experimentation; so I don’t think my thoughts are something that can be proven empirically, but because I know what is going on in my head, I know my thoughts are my own.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote: In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

I'd personally be content with your satisfaction. If your burden for empirical evidence is as high as it is for burden of proof you need for God, it's probably higher than most of ours.

Unless Byblos says otherwise, go with yours. I'm definitely interested.

Okay; so you would like me to prove empirically to my satisfaction, that I just had a thought?
Empirical means to learn from observation and experimentation; so I don’t think my thoughts are something that can be proven empirically, but because I know what is going on in my head, I know my thoughts are my own.

Ken

If your thoughts can't be proven empirically, going from what you said here, how can you have any faith in your own thoughts? Taking your logic to its conclusion, your thoughts are meaningless, correct?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

I'd personally be content with your satisfaction. If your burden for empirical evidence is as high as it is for burden of proof you need for God, it's probably higher than most of ours.

Unless Byblos says otherwise, go with yours. I'm definitely interested.

Okay; so you would like me to prove empirically to my satisfaction, that I just had a thought?
Empirical means to learn from observation and experimentation; so I don’t think my thoughts are something that can be proven empirically, but because I know what is going on in my head, I know my thoughts are my own.

Ken

RickD wrote: If your thoughts can't be proven empirically, going from what you said here,

What I was talking about then, was things with an actual existence. Thoughts are imaginary; they only exist in your head; they don't have an actual existence, thus they can't be proven empirically.

RickD wrote: how can you have any faith in your own thoughts?

Because I cannot think of any reason not to.

RickD wrote: Taking your logic to its conclusion, your thoughts are meaningless, correct?

No.

Ken

kenny wrote:
What I was talking about then, was things with an actual existence. Thoughts are imaginary; they only exist in your head; they don't have an actual existence, thus they can't be proven empirically.

Kenny,

I really wish you would think about what you're saying here. Think of the implications. Think where this kind of logic leads.

You said earlier that you can only trust what you can test empirically. You need to understand what you're saying. Really understand it.

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
What I was talking about then, was things with an actual existence. Thoughts are imaginary; they only exist in your head; they don't have an actual existence, thus they can't be proven empirically.

Kenny,

I really wish you would think about what you're saying here. Think of the implications. Think where this kind of logic leads.

You said earlier that you can only trust what you can test empirically. You need to understand what you're saying. Really understand it.

Fair enough. Someone made the point that God wants us to believe in him via faith; not empirical means, and I replied faith doesn’t work for me (or the guy in the video) we require empirical means. Now at this point I was not claiming I only believe in that which can be tested empirically, there is lots of stuff that can’t be tested empirically; thoughts, emotions, ideas etc. stuff that exist in our heads; I was only referring to what is said about God.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

Huh? And here I thought empirical was objective. But then again, look who I'm talking to.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
What I was talking about then, was things with an actual existence. Thoughts are imaginary; they only exist in your head; they don't have an actual existence, thus they can't be proven empirically.

Kenny,

I really wish you would think about what you're saying here. Think of the implications. Think where this kind of logic leads.

You said earlier that you can only trust what you can test empirically. You need to understand what you're saying. Really understand it.

Fair enough. Someone made the point that God wants us to believe in him via faith; not empirical means, and I replied faith doesn’t work for me (or the guy in the video) we require empirical means. Now at this point I was not claiming I only believe in that which can be tested empirically, there is lots of stuff that can’t be tested empirically; thoughts, emotions, ideas etc. stuff that exist in our heads; I was only referring to what is said about God.

Amazing how you pick and choose where your yardstick applies and where it doesn't. It's .... almost .... like.....completely........................arbitrary.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically.

Good. Now please empirically prove that you just had that thought.

To your satisfaction? Or mine.

Ken

Huh? And here I thought empirical was objective. But then again, look who I'm talking to.

Yes empirical is objective. The reason it sounds kind of silly is because the question that was asked of me was rather silly. I was asked to prove empirically that I have thoughts. Obviously thoughts aren’t empirical so in my response I sorta dismissed the empirical part of the question when I responded. Perhaps I should have dismissed the question the way you guys do when someone asks if God could create a rock too big for him to lift

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
What I was talking about then, was things with an actual existence. Thoughts are imaginary; they only exist in your head; they don't have an actual existence, thus they can't be proven empirically.

Kenny,

I really wish you would think about what you're saying here. Think of the implications. Think where this kind of logic leads.

You said earlier that you can only trust what you can test empirically. You need to understand what you're saying. Really understand it.

Fair enough. Someone made the point that God wants us to believe in him via faith; not empirical means, and I replied faith doesn’t work for me (or the guy in the video) we require empirical means. Now at this point I was not claiming I only believe in that which can be tested empirically, there is lots of stuff that can’t be tested empirically; thoughts, emotions, ideas etc. stuff that exist in our heads; I was only referring to what is said about God.

Amazing how you pick and choose where your yardstick applies and where it doesn't. It's .... almost .... like.....completely........................arbitrary.

So you see me as being inconsistent because I acknowledge the existence of thoughts and other things that exist in our heads which is non material, but I don’t acknowledge the existence of God and spirits which is also non material. Is this correct?

Ken

Kenny wrote:So you see me as being inconsistent because I acknowledge the existence of thoughts and other things that exist in our heads which is non material, but I don’t acknowledge the existence of God and spirits which is also non material. Is this correct?

It may lead to that but it's much more basic than that. It is that you acknowledge the existence of the immaterial without even giving a single thought to its implications.

If you're really interested in having a discussion on the topic of immateriality I would suggest that you read the below link first then come back with questions/rebuttals. And if not, I really have neither the time nor the inclination to have yet another fruitless discussion with you.

The mind-body problem.

Kenny wrote:So you see me as being inconsistent because I acknowledge the existence of thoughts and other things that exist in our heads which is non material, but I don’t acknowledge the existence of God and spirits which is also non material. Is this correct?

Byblos wrote: It may lead to that but it's much more basic than that. It is that you acknowledge the existence of the immaterial without even giving a single thought to its implications.

What are these implications? I’m not being facetious, others have asked me to consider the implications when I’ve expressed how I perceive things, but they don't seem do a good job of expressing what these implications are! So by all means, what are these implications that you speak of?

Byblos wrote: If you're really interested in having a discussion on the topic of immateriality I would suggest that you read the below link first then come back with questions/rebuttals. And if not, I really have neither the time nor the inclination to have yet another fruitless discussion with you.

The mind-body problem.

Fruitless discussions? Wow! Well its not like I just came up and began imposing my unsolicited ideas and perspectives upon you, If I recall correctly, I was having a conversation with someone else when you began offering your perspective. I was pretty much just replying to the questions you asked me. If you see our conversations as fruitless, perhaps this is something you should keep in mind next time you are tempted to ask me questions.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:So you see me as being inconsistent because I acknowledge the existence of thoughts and other things that exist in our heads which is non material, but I don’t acknowledge the existence of God and spirits which is also non material. Is this correct?

Byblos wrote: It may lead to that but it's much more basic than that. It is that you acknowledge the existence of the immaterial without even giving a single thought to its implications.

What are these implications? I’m not being facetious, others have asked me to consider the implications when I’ve expressed how I perceive things, but they don't seem do a good job of expressing what these implications are! So by all means, what are these implications that you speak of?

One step at a time.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: If you're really interested in having a discussion on the topic of immateriality I would suggest that you read the below link first then come back with questions/rebuttals. And if not, I really have neither the time nor the inclination to have yet another fruitless discussion with you.

The mind-body problem.

Fruitless discussions? Wow! Well its not like I just came up and began imposing my unsolicited ideas and perspectives upon you, If I recall correctly, I was having a conversation with someone else when you began offering your perspective. I was pretty much just replying to the questions you asked me. If you see our conversations as fruitless, perhaps this is something you should keep in mind next time you are tempted to ask me questions.

Ken

You know very well I am referring to the countless discussions we've had over the years. I'm just not very hopeful this one will lead anywhere either and that's certainly not because we've somehow reached a stalemate.

And you didn't answer my question. Are you really interested in having a fruitful discussion about immateriality? If yes, start with the link and come back to me. If not, please go ahead and carry on with your diversions, err discussions with others.