@ min 
2- God is not only immaterial, he's a personal God. I can list at least 30 prayers of mine that he's answered with more than a "no" or a "wait". Your scientific experimental qualifiers are trying to objectively prove something not only immaterial, but subjective. I guess that leaves us with differing perspectives and an agreement to disagree because you have lack of revelation subjectively. My experiences can't prove anything to anyone but me, but that doesn't mean that they're by default delusion, rationalizations or prove nothing. I guess you just have to take a look and see if you're really not offhandedly dismissing not only relevant but proper evidence based on the subject of proof.
Just because something is subjectively observable does not mean it is of the materialistic view of the world. I'm far too tired with the time change to give this a lot of effort at this time... tomorrow... night all
Quote:"the only difference will be in the data considered in the application of the method"1- So shouldn't you allow all data or at least all data relevant to the subject?
"An immaterial God that actually answered prayers would give us plenty of data to examine, which has been done, with no results of any significance."
2- God is not only immaterial, he's a personal God. I can list at least 30 prayers of mine that he's answered with more than a "no" or a "wait". Your scientific experimental qualifiers are trying to objectively prove something not only immaterial, but subjective. I guess that leaves us with differing perspectives and an agreement to disagree because you have lack of revelation subjectively. My experiences can't prove anything to anyone but me, but that doesn't mean that they're by default delusion, rationalizations or prove nothing. I guess you just have to take a look and see if you're really not offhandedly dismissing not only relevant but proper evidence based on the subject of proof.
Quote:"Yes it does fall apart I'm afraid. Science is indeed open to revisions of theories that explain facts better but only insofar as they are testable, falsifiable, repeatable and of the material world. By definition something immaterial cannot meet this criteria and thus is ruled out. If it met the criteria then it would be observable and therefore of the material world and cease to be immaterial. In the whole of human history no single event has ever been observed that is uniquely and undeniabley the result of immaterial caustaion, wheras there are billions upon billions of such events every 10 to the -43 seconds in the universe which could be observed that are unquestionabley of a materialistic origin. Just my opinion but your view is an appeal to magic. "
Just because something is subjectively observable does not mean it is of the materialistic view of the world. I'm far too tired with the time change to give this a lot of effort at this time... tomorrow... night all
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
