RE: If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist
June 15, 2023 at 4:19 pm
(June 15, 2023 at 10:37 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: All you're saying is Jesus knows there's a hell in the religion he invented, like Rowling knows Hogwarts exists in the world she invented. I don't disagree.
You do understand that I'm not saying Hogwarts or hell is real just because the author of both frame out their respective realms right? I'm pointing out If anyone were to be an expert on Hogwarts or hell it would be the authors.
Now to determine whether or not either place exists is real means we have to approach them canonically. This means we must first see what the author claims about them. Do they even claim either place is real?
Hell yes, Hogwarts no.
So for Hell we must then look at what Jesus said about hell, and approach testing what he said in a way consistent with what He is describing. Otherwise it would be like trying to prove AI is self aware with a yard stick. In that the measure or tool you want to use has nothing to do with the subject being evaluated. As this just leads to a confirmation bias.
Quote:If you think that not taking a story that's thousands of years old at face value as true, you don't understand the concept of 'poisoning the well'. If you think that I'm arguing that the story that's thousands of years old isn't true because it's thousands of years old, you're misunderstanding me entirely.
What I'm saying is test the story with in the frame work of the story and make a conclusion from an honest effort. Otherwise you are simply setting parameters, the story was never met to meet.
(June 13, 2023 at 12:04 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: This is a perfect example of my above point. In that, what in Buddhist canon would lead you to believe that your thought/prayer experiment would work? is there any prescribed mechanism in buddhist cannon that would lend itself to support your earnest efforts? If not then why would you think this is a valid test? Which again is why I'm suggesting to approach a given religion canonically if you are going to seriously study it.
Quote:I didn't derive that from Buddhist canon, I derived it from human nature. We can believe anything if we try hard enough.
Which is my point.. Nothing in canon says your test, your way, will yield anything.
To be objective you must test with in the parameters given.
A different example is if I said I had a formula that turned lead into gold. And shared the formula with you, but you being a man of science says it is impossible to turn lead into gold and to prove it you take some off the shelf scientific theory that has been proven wrong 1000 times. Then claim based on your effort here turning lead into gold is impossible.
Never once having tested the formula I came up with.
You had a belief and only confirmed what you already believed.
Quote:I'm not dismissing their potential psychological value, but there's no convincing evidence that the visions originate from anywhere but inside our own brains.
If the purpose of a successful vision quest is to gain access to knowledge not previously known, then how can you claim the vision was a product of our own brains? How can a brain produce knowledge that it does not correctly possess?
Quote:Apparently you think history is not a science, and that case law does not rely on verifiable evidence; that's not very impressive. If your theology is not actually true (does not conform to reality as best as we can determine it), I'm not actually interested.
History is not a falsifiable science. History is largely based on eye witness testimony and period documentation. As there isn't an experiment we can do to independently verify whether or not Columbus sailed in 1492. The evidence we have comes from eye witnesses and period documentation. So unless you are saying falsifiable science is now accepting eyewitness testimony as scientific proof, then history and science are two different intellectual disciplines with two different rule sets. Just like theology is an independent discipline who like history does not need to obey the rules of 'science' to be vetted/verified.
Meaning to hold a theological subject to the 'rigors' of science is perpetuating a confirmation bias. That is the whole reason for Karl Poppers efforts in establishing falsifiability as THE hallmark to genuine scientific study. If a subject is a non falsifiable subject it is not one that can be scrutinized or studied by pure science.
Quote:That's interesting. I think I meet (online or in real life) more Christians who say they weren't raised Christian than atheists who do.
No reason to lie.
My mother was the only one who went to church regularly and she generally she took us, but we (being mixed race children who did not speak the language fluently) were not allowed inside for services or Sunday school. So unless you count the parking lot and the play ground outside the church 'growing up Christian' we didn't.
