(January 10, 2015 at 3:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 12:44 pm)IATIA Wrote: And there may be no matter to test.

"Matter" is something we have experience with, observations of. Those observations may be "just" signals in the brain, and those signals may be in error...but since empiricism explicitly refers to observation, and not the accuracy of any particular observation.....pointing out the nature of those observations or the limitations thereof is hardly a refutation of the empiricists position.

Even if it were "just" brain waves...we'd still be testing something, and "just" brain waves does not equal "not real". If we're wrong about the details of something...that doesn't mean that whatever we were observing or experiencing has simply poofed out of existence.

And my qualification was "The test results would not be any more real or unreal than anything else.".

(January 10, 2015 at 9:59 am)robvalue Wrote: OK, but why would you even think such a thing exists if you know there is no evidence? Just because it can be conceived or may be possible, doesn't mean it "is".

Thanks for your reply anyway. Would you like to define "God"? Preferably in positive rather than negative terms. And why you have reason to believe what you describe exists outside of your imagination; then in what way it does exist. What does this existence mean.

---

I like the really tough questions. If this was a quiz, you'd get a truck load of points for these ones.

I don't think it exists, I believe that it exists.

We cannot know one way or another. By its nature it has to be unknowable. Because we can concieve that it's true means that we cannot rule it out.

There are a limited amount of "God is" statements in the bible. 5 to be exact.

God is one. (Deut. 6:4, Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20, James 2:19)
God is holy. (Psalm 99:9)
God is spirit. (John 4:24)
God is light. (1 John 1:5)
God is love. (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16)

Only the last 3 are true equivalences. The first is an adjective and the second refers to a quality.

Spirit: God is invisible yet sensual. We can't see him but we can experience his effect.

Light: God is pure light that cannot help dispel darkness.

Love: working on darkness God is a force of love.

I find the logic of these observations irrefutable. They withstand scrutiny. On the strength of that understanding Christians enter into an active relationship with God. For me this means I have a perfect basis to live a happy and fulfilled life.

OK well, I can't argue with your belief in those things, thanks for answering my questions Are you putting that forwards as a claim that could be tested? Or just saying it's what you believe? I can't see any possible way to test what you have said.

Those are attributes that I would claim are consistent and try constantly to question. Take any understanding of God and see if it is consistent with them. If it isn't something is wrong.

OK well that's cool. Consistent isn't the same as testable, but I think any god claim is going to be untestable. I can't see a way round it.

(January 10, 2015 at 12:52 am)robvalue Wrote: What does spiritual mean, and how can I test it to see that it is real, or a real quality?

---

I can't believe in someting if I dont even know what it is.

---

Just like God, people tell me what spirituality is not, but not what it is, in any meaningful terms.

I've heard it's "the non physical side". That makes the unfounded assumption that there is in fact anything other than the physical.

I'm not claiming that there isn't more than the physical, just that, like God, there's no good reason to think that there is.

You yourself are an instance of something non-physical. From an Atheist perspective, the brain creates this non-physical experience you yourself refer to yourself. But the theists sees the perpetual identity and the self as a soul, with a reality aside from the experience. The reality of the self being something beyond just an experience generated by the brain arguably is a manifest thing anyone can witness just by observing themselves. We are something, not just an experience/program generated by the brain.

Can you think of a way to test for this soul, to provide evidence it is really there?

(January 10, 2015 at 3:55 pm)robvalue Wrote: Can you think of a way to test for this soul, to provide evidence it is really there?

Well I think to think we are just a program/experience with no substance is illogical. We can witness we have existence aside from experience, that we are a reality. To be a perpetual identity, you have to have something there. Not just an experience, or there would be no continuous self. We would not be the same being as we were children or a year ago, or even a minute ago, because we would just be an experience. But we know we aren't just an experience, but we have a perpetual identity, a substance to who we are from when we were kids to now. This is only possible by the existence of a soul.

(January 10, 2015 at 3:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because we can concieve that it's true means that we cannot rule it out.

I can conceive of a flying pink unicorn. I can conceive that we are nothing but emoticons on someone's smart phone. I can conceive that we did not exist until two minutes ago and all our memories are preprogrammed templates. I can conceive that time travel exists and we are nothing but shadows of the past.

(January 10, 2015 at 4:08 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 3:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because we can concieve that it's true means that we cannot rule it out.

I can conceive of a flying pink unicorn. I can conceive that we are nothing but emoticons on someone's smart phone. I can conceive that we did not exist until two minutes ago and all our memories are preprogrammed templates. I can conceive that time travel exists and we are nothing but shadows of the past.

You can't reasonably conceive that those are true. The difference.