Can you make a God claim?

[John V]

Yes, I'm saying that science is the only way to find actual truth about reality.

The claim that my wife loves me has never been scientifically tested. The claim that I love my wife has never been scientifically tested. Yet, those are true and are part of reality.

Some of you guys overstate the usefulness of science. It can be good at what it does, but what it does is limited.

[JonDarbyXIII]

God's not going to prove anything to you, it's the other way around, you have to prove something to him.

Then why all the muscle-flexing throughout the Bible?

[dyresand]

Yes, I'm saying that science is the only way to find actual truth about reality.

The claim that my wife loves me has never been scientifically tested. The claim that I love my wife has never been scientifically tested. Yet, those are true and are part of reality.

Some of you guys overstate the usefulness of science. It can be good at what it does, but what it does is limited.

Chemicals in the brain control emotions such as love. She loves you and there was testing on what emotions have the affect on the brain.. and yes love is one of the things that you need to live preferably i choose not to find love its just me i am perfectly happy. But science tells us actual truth as because emotions can be manipulated in various ways.

[John V]

How else do you determine whether something is true if it's unfalsifiable? What other methods are there, that amount to more than emotion or speculation?

What's wrong with emotion? We're emotional creatures you know.

More importantly, how can you convince someone else of these truths?

Why is that necessarily more important?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely see no other way. How can you differentiate between two unfalsifiable explanations competing for the same thing? If you have some way of finding which is true, then they are testable. So I'm interested what this testing entails.

Suppose I claim that my wife loves me, and you claim that she hates me.

I'll look at all the good things that she does for me and conclude that I'm right. I suppose you could call it the preponderance of available evidence.

However, you could say that she hates me, but is just putting on an act because she needs me for support.

I can't disprove your position. It's clearly unfalsifiable. But I still believe that my method is a reasonable basis for my position. There's no need for me to remain agnostic due to lack of falsifiability.

[JonDarbyXIII]

Reality? There are two realities. Natural, which we live in, and spiritual reality which is just as real and has the ability to overrule the natural.

Tying back in to the OP, can you give any coherent explanation of what 'spiritual' is? Otherwise, this term is really quite meaningless.

[robvalue]

If you defined love scientifically you could test it I think. Emotions can be linked to brain configurations.

You're right, I have understated my challenge. Any spiritual claims win too. Ghosts, sprirituality, chi, "energy", and so on, all bollocks in my opinion. So step up

---

It's important to convince others, because otherwise all you have are a bunch of people with unsupported opinions and no idea what is true or not. We work towards consensus to find out what is real.

---

I'm never trying to de convert anyone. Only to promote critical thinking.

[orangebox21]

Here's some people who's research and discovery may help you to answer your question.

You may not consider personal testimony evidence. If so, then I suggest that you look not to their personal testimony but into the research that these people have done and why it convinced them to make a God claim.

[FatAndFaithless]

Good lord OB, that source is worse than CARM or answersingenesis.

[John V]

If you defined love scientifically you could test it I think. Emotions can be linked to brain configurations.

Even if you could do that, is it unreasonable to believe that she loves me based on her behavior? Must I be agnostic about it unless I have a recent brain scan in hand?

You're right, I have understated my challenge. Any spiritual claims win too. Ghosts, sprirituality, chi, "energy", and so on, all bollocks in my opinion. So step up

I already gave one example with my father's passing. It doesn't bother me that it's not falsifiable, and it doesn't bother me that you reject it.

It's important to convince others, because otherwise all you have are a bunch of people with unsupported opinions and no idea what is true or not. We work towards consensus to find out what is real.

I think god or some spiritual force woke me up when my father died. Other people have similar accounts. I believe some of them and reject some of them. You presumably reject all of them. We have a bunch of people with unsupported opinions and no idea what is true or not. It's not a big deal.

I'm never trying to de convert anyone. Only to promote critical thinking.

Same here.

[JonDarbyXIII]

One night I woke up suddenly. I made it a point to never look at the clock when I awoke during the night. The clock was dark by default. Hitting a button lit it up for a few seconds. I've read that light can disturb your sleep, so I had the rule to never do it. But, this time I did, and I did begin to wake up. Ten minutes later the phone rang. It was my mother, calling to tell me that my father had just died.

Last night I woke up thinking about my daughter.... actually that's the end of the story.

We don't ever pay attention to all the times that nothing happens, so when there's the random coincidence why should we jump to the assumption that there's more to it than there is?