Facilitated Communications

[_mfbukowski]

To say that the truth claims of a religion are completely outside the realm of scientific inquiry is to say that humans cannot experience them. A blessing unexperienced is the same as Carl Sagan's invisible dragon who breathes flames which cannot be felt or seen.

But that is where you go wrong. There are many experiences which one can have which cannot be verified objectively- and I submit to you that most of your experiences everyday cannot in fact be verified objectively.

If what you say is true, it would be impossible to lie. Every flicker of thought would be immediately apparent to everyone around you. Every dream you have- waking or sleeping- would not exist.

Thinking about how to answer this post would not exist and would not be an "experience".

"Picking the right word" for the right sentence to nail my silly beliefs would not exist.

In short, you could not think if you only restrict your definition of "experience" to what is scientifically verifiable.

The "fact" that you made a decision to take the laundry to the cleaners after work instead of before work would not exist. In fact, nearly all decisions would not exist.

The "fact" is that "subjective experiences" do in fact exist- and everything that is important to us happens as a part of "subjective experience"- all decisions- the first flicker of sexual attraction- all thought- all of these are subjective experiences which cannot be verified scientifically.

[_mfbukowski]

Mark, you strike me as an intellectual bully. Leave the philosophy, or your misuse of it in the chapel.

Back to what I was doing...

I am only a bully to those who cannot answer my arguments.
Sorry if you are in that category.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Mark, you strike me as an intellectual bully. Leave the philosophy, or your misuse of it in the chapel.

Back to what I was doing...

I am only a bully to those who cannot answer my arguments.
Sorry if you are in that category.

Nope, just a bully.

[_MCB]

the first flicker of sexual attraction- all thought- all of these are subjective experiences which cannot be verified scientifically.

Sexual arousal can be verified scientifically. Brain activity can be verified scientifically. All thought can therefore be verified scientifically.

MF? Where and when do you live?

[_mfbukowski]

You again are trying to limit how one defines the word truth to fit your own apologetic needs that the church clearly does not teach, so why not back it up.

Yes, I have a definite view of what constitutes "truth" and my view coheres with well-established philosophical views. I did not dream this stuff up myself.

No, the church is not in the business of teaching contemporary philosophy.

You still have failed to demonstrate a coherent theory of what "truth" is- I will even take one you pick at random out of wikipedia- just pick one!

My view can be called "Pragmatism". If you want to criticize my view- THAT is what to criticize! Look it up if you want- check out the counter arguments and when you are ready, let's talk.

[_harmony]

It's almost as if you don't understand the original point made in my original post, above.

The whole point is that lots and lots of people can believe something that is apparently wonderful, that makes them happy, and yet is still completely and utterly without merit and without validity.


So if 15 million people think it MAKES THEM HAPPY- who are you to argue with them?

No argument.

So if 15 million people think it BRINGS THEM CLOSER TO CHRIST- who are you to argue with them?

No argument.

So if 15 million people think it is 'true'- who are you to argue with them?

Big argument.

Because there is an objectiveness to truth. Again, please do not redefine 'truth' to mean 'makes me happy', or 'makes me a better person' or 'brings me closer to my God'.

You might have a point if this is what I was arguing.

That IS what you were arguing:

Some 15 million people have religious experiences which claim to have brought them peace, have brought them closer to Christ, and have changed their lives and those of their families for the better

You're the one who brought up 15 million, as if a number signifies "truth".

[_mfbukowski]

the first flicker of sexual attraction- all thought- all of these are subjective experiences which cannot be verified scientifically.

Sexual arousal can be verified scientifically. Brain activity can be verified scientifically. All thought can therefore be verified scientifically.

MF? Where and when do you live?

"Brain activity" is not the same as thinking about what to have for dinner and whether it should be a mashed potato or baked.

I will spare you the equivalent explanation of the other example.

Activity can be demonstrated. Experience cannot be.

You may be able to see "that" I am thinking but not "what" I am thinking.

I said it three different ways- hopefully one will get through.

[Guest]

You're the one who brought up 15 million, as if a number signifies "truth".

No, read the thread. Beefcalf brought it up in an earlier post. The OP actually!

[_harmony]

You're the one who brought up 15 million, as if a number signifies "truth".

No, read the thread. Beefcalf brought it up in an earlier post.

Ahhh... I think he was being sarcastic, don't you?

[_mfbukowski]

Ahhh... I think he was being sarcastic, don't you?

I don't really care.

The only thing I am interested in exploring here is in what sense a religious belief can be considered "false" since none can be proven scientifically "true" anyway.

You guys are in the paradoxical position of trying to prove to me that religion can be proven scientifically "true", which I find fascinating.

Pretty soon we will be talking about sending up rockets to take pictures of God.