Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Well what if an alien ship abducted a pottery shop in China and while on their way out of the solar system their cargo leaked all over the place between Mars and Earth?
Er, and what sort of evidence would being a priest allow you access to?Warpus, I know. If I became a scientist these subatomic particles would be much less abstract to me than they are right now. So would the Holy Trinity if I became a priest. And we're back to square one.
Warpus, I know. If I became a scientist these subatomic particles would be much less abstract to me than they are right now. So would the Holy Trinity if I became a priest. And we're back to square one.
It has value to those who accept science and its precepts. Most people today fall into that category. 500 years ago most people felt that way about religion. Back then the mechanism for revealing truth was religion, today its science. Why do people have such difficulty with this? Is it because theres an implication that ultimately, science isnt The Truth, and thats considered heretical?
Science is a process for uncovering empirical facts. It cannot be defined as 'true' or 'false'. Religion is a set a statements presented as 'truth'. Spot the difference?
So are you just a complete relativist? No knowledge claim is any stronger than any other one?"Empiricism is paramount, because science tells us so" is no different than Christian saying that the bible must be true, because the Bible says its the truth.
Yet as I believe you would agree, not all evidence is materialistic. thus the teapot agrument is lame. (I also do not believe in a materialist god)brennan, evidence, as you think of it, is about as relevant to a religious person in a church as faith is to a scientist in a laboratory.
Yet as I believe you would agree, not all evidence is materialistic. thus the teapot agrument is lame. (I also do not believe in a materialist god)
But teapots, flowers and Flying Spaghetti Monster is by definition materialistic. If not then exactly what are we talking about?Then assume that the teapot isn't materialistic in nature and repeat the thought experiment.
But teapots, flowers and Flying Spaghetti Monster is by definition materialistic. If not then exactly what are we talking about?
It like telling my wife "I flower you"
I think that at any one time, he's only agnostic in terms of either their position or momentum.
A priest would probably say that he experiences his faith much more intensely first hand than a scientist ever does a neutrino.Not really.
Ask a scientist why he thinks subatomic particles exist, and he can show you. "Here, right here. Look!". You can experience these particles first-hand.
Ask a priest why he thinks God exists and he can do no such thing.
If a spiritual person could take you inside of them, they could show you God. (Gee that sounds kind of weird doesnt it)So if I said "My house exists" and you said "How do you know?" and I brought you to my house and we stood right in front of it and I said: "Here it is"
and then you said "God exists" and I said "How do you know?" and you looked at me and said "Just because"
that's the same thing to you?
Not a complete relativist, no. I believe that theres a great objective truth out there, but not when it comes to the human level of experience.So are you just a complete relativist? No knowledge claim is any stronger than any other one?
Yes, I agree with that.Yet as I believe you would agree, not all evidence is materialistic.