sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
According to the Bible it isn't.
The Bible texts you mentioned can be interpreted by several ways and I can't use my reason to select the best interpretation. I don't need to accept things that are not clear in the Bible. These particular events were meaningful to the people directly involved (private revelation) but not necessarily meaningful to me.
I don't have a Sola Scriptura view about the Bible.
Actually I think Sola Scriptura is BS too.
the question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.
even informed christians who accept the reality of evolution feel a need to add an additional step where god imbued man with a conscience.. non-supernatural explanations of the origin of morality usually focus on simple examples of reciprocal altruism and the ability to empathise with fellow creatures.
secular moral systems most often rest on the single foundation of the effects actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures.
The question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.
I keep an open mind about this but I think evolution is unguided.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
No, I do understand the scientific method. The issue here seems to be that either we have different definitions of "physical," or you don't understand energy. I would define physical as anything which exists materially. Energy is immaterial, therefore not physical.
You have no idea what scientific method is. You can cry a river but energy is physical.
My God this is basic science...
I have enjoyed our debate, I believe that debate has value in its ability to make one think and refine their own ideas. I will do my best to examine your arguments, but as things stand now I still see no way for metaphysics or philosophy to prove the existence of a soul, creator, or life after death. I believe that philosophy and metaphysics are tools for introspection, therefore they will only tell you more about who you are as a person, not about the nature of the Universe.
I like your thinking. Just remember: philosophy is a universal tool but the scientific method is not.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Sorry deegee but for me there are just two options left: Catholicism or oblivion (nihilism and atheism).
Spiritism/Spiritualism is BS.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
It seems that this is our ultimate proof that the soul does not exist if no one has been able to contact the dead who are presumed to be still conscious.
I don't think this is a proof.
Pity we aren't able to contact the "conscious" dead to hear about what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God.
Actually there's such possibility. But it's a very rare event.
The most famous in recent times is the miracle of the sun in Fatima. Witnessed by thousands of people. Including some photos.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
It seems to me that you believe that life can only have meaning if you can "live on" after to death.
Sure.
It seems to me that you are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that you are no more at death.
But in my worldview there's something more dreadful than oblivion. It's called perdition.
So in a psychological level I think oblivion is literally infinitely better than perdition. So my view it's not a psychological defense against the possibility of oblivion.
But I admit if I'm wrong the only possibility left is oblivion. Ironically if I'm wrong I will never know.
P. S. Sorry but I really think Spiritism and/or Spiritualism are complete BS. I can't even bother to discuss things like that.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Well, I'm saying that science is the only way to get knowledge that is objective. (won't change depending on who seeks the knowledge)
What you mean by objective?
Thus making the scientific method, the only way, that I know of, for an individual to determine the accuracy of a claim.
A claim? Like any claim? Or just "objective" claims?
You clearly are confusing the restrict scientific method with general philosophy.
Philosophy is the only human activity that can verify any claim.
In fact the scientific method is philosophy applied to the physical world.
Additionally, I would argue your assertion that the scientific method can only be applied to the physical world is flawed.
So you don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method is only applicable to the physical world.
After all the scientific method is simply a question to which someone applies systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation and then formulates, tests, and modifies a hypothesis to that question.
Right.
In principle, the scientific method can be applied to study things that aren't directly perceivable, energy for example.
Energy is physical.
I will grant that the scientific method is better with some subjects than it is with other subjects, and there are some questions it can't answer,
There are subjects that the scientific method is not applicable at all.
but anything that has an impact on the physical world can be measured, and directly or indirectly observed.
This is positivism. How do you scientifically measure the potential of an idea before it's execution? Even dreams have an impact on the physical world.
The scientific method says nothing about it being a universal tool. Giving the universal application to it is a positivist idea (which is a metaphysical assertion BTW).
The scientific method only was possible inside the Abrahamic tradition (especially Christianity, thank you William of Ockham). Actually the scientific method was born entirely inside the Abrahamic tradition, you can't change this fact. Because it was the only system that didn't consider the physical world as equal to God (like Chaos in Greek mythology). Any other philosophical system considered the physical world being a god, or a limb of a god, etc. In this worldview you don't study the physical world but you worship it just like every pagan really did.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I have thunk....very deeply.....about these matters and what you say really comes over as bonkers.
OK.
So did you have found meaning in nihilism (oblivion)?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
As I have stated before, in invoking "spiritual" or "metaphysical", we know no more than when we started; we have not answered the question, merely moved it beyond the realm of the answerable. This only muddies the waters, adding additional levels of complexity and mystery without actually explaining anything.
In essence, these claims are a smokescreen to protect unsatisfactory assertions from further questioning.
The scientific method is based on metaphysical principles too. So what?
In fact you are just opposing my metaphysical assertions with another metaphysical assertions. Can you see that?
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
So when a spirit medium claims to have contacted the dead during a séance, whom/what has the medium contacted?
BS.
