(November 13, 2016 at 8:29 am)robvalue Wrote: Okay... where did you get that from? [1] The problem facing plums like me is that you'll say one thing about "god's will", another religious person will say something totally different, and none of it is testable. [2] It's the same with every aspect. People are free to just say whatever they want, as long as they make sure it can't be falsified. [3]
1) The acceptance of a sort of realism that includes participated being. If you are what-you-are because God wills that you be just-that-thing and not some other thing, then what-you-are tells you about what God wills for your life. It's a philosophical conclusion.
2) Well, you may not be able to test it in a lab (maybe someone smarter than me could figure a way to do so?), but you can put it to the test in your own human experience. I've tried other ways of understanding God's will, and while containing some truth, they were inadequate in explaining a lot of my experiences of life. What I hold now has been the best way of accounting for most of my experiences. It isn't perfect, but I haven't found a more adequate account yet.
3) I dunno, maybe its more about adequacy of explanation versus falsifiable hypotheses. Until we are able to quantify or identify measures of moral experience, we may just have to make due with adequacy.
