Kenny wrote:Mallz wrote:Kenny wrote:But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?
I like this question, it gets at what faith is. Yes, it would be faith after having empirical evidence. Faith, at least defined by the bible, is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Evidence of things NOT seen. If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical? Empirical is that which has been repeatedly tested and verified. Evidence of things not seen sounds like something that lacks physical verification aka blind faith. Do you agree?
Mallz wrote: Hey, Kenny. Sorry for being in and out (you already know my presence here is spotty, aye?).
Hey no problem my friend; I’ve been on travels for the past week and haven't had access to the internet, thus have not been able to reply to anything during that time, so I think my presence been a bit spotty as well.
Mallz wrote: Evidence of things NOT seen, I gave examples such as: gravity or wisdom or love. It IS empirical.
I don’t consider gravity, wisdom, or love to be unseen. Gravity can be scientifically measured, and analyzed, and though love and wisdom are subjective labels people attach to behaviors, (what I call wise, you may call common sense, or what I call love, you may call it something else; and visa versa) the people using the labels will consider the actions empirical. You see I don’t consider “unseen” as having anything to do with vision; it has to do with what can be detected. IOW, gravity, love, and wisdom can be empirically detected.
Mallz wrote: I know God is real through empirical evidence. And you won't get that empirical evidence until you approach Him and test Him on His terms (unless you're very lucky/unlucky), which would give an acknowledgment to Him and is the beginning of humility.
So empirical evidence is only given after you believe? Isn’t that backwards? What good is empirical evidence to someone who already believes? (back in my theistic days, they used to call that preachin’ to the choir) seems to me the evidence should be reserved to the skeptic who reserves belief.
Mallz wrote: Only humility (from our end) leads to knowledge, wisdom and truth. I think you're limiting what is empirical to something that is not scientific.
You got that backwards, more like I’m limiting empirical to that which can be scientifically verified.
Mallz wrote: I can verify His existence and my relationship with Him from observation and experience. If you look back over the years, you will see I have always made this claim (which leads me to conclusions such as: all babies love Jesus).
True. Unfortunately when people of all the other religions make this claim, the credibility of your claim gets muddied up along with theirs.
Mallz wrote: One of the biggest differences between God and 'that chair' is God is a person and demands to be respected in the very basic level (like you and I would),
Also the existence of the chair can be scientifically verified.
Mallz wrote: and that is to be acknowledged and believed in (how you and I acknowledge and believe in each other). And btw, metaphysics has empirical areas of study, and much of it does not. Where something can be engaged with on an empirical level, I agree it should be.
I’ve always understood metaphysics as being the opposite of empirical. Can you give an example of a metaphysical claim that can be empirically verified?
Mallz wrote: And example of an interdisciplinary study that brought forth results with God (not of God, btw) would be theology, philosophy, metaphysics, physics, quantum physics, pneumatology, and microbiology. Or, simply, praying and watching Him work. And it's repeatable and with its results.
Are you suggesting prayer has consistent results? Can you site a scientific study that verifies this?
Mallz wrote: The reason why you can't get here, though, is because you're engaging in a discipline yet denying the discipline is true and should be followed to be educated in it.
You are losing me on this one; which discipline am I engaging in that I also deny? Are you suggesting I engage in theism as a discipline?
Mallz wrote:How can you do math if you refuse to learn and engage in algorithms and instead color animals instead of using numbers and learning mathematical formulas? That's the biggest mistake I see most people make and one you are also making.
If I am unable to understand math, would it make sense to attempt to communicate with me using math? Wouldn't it make more sense to communicate to me in a language I understand?