How is God an explanation for anything? That is, how does “God did it” actually explain anything. I’m having a bit of trouble here. So let’s say that you believe that God explains the origin of the universe. What exactly do you mean by this? God caused the universe to be?
If so, that’s not really an explanation - it’s an assertion about the cause of something. There is no elucidation on how God created the universe on any basic level.
Did God take two scoops of nothing, utter some words, and ‘poof’ a universe sprouted?
I speak in jest, but at leastthis is a start I suppose. As, it posits an entity within time and space that has some sort of materiality (is that a word?) to it.
The problem - and this refers back to your earlier question about faith - is that taking the existence of god on faith does not promote the kind of curiosity and methodology that is compatible with advancing knowledge. There was a time it did, since many early scientists worked under church auspices and felt they were glorifying god by learning more about god’s creation. They don’t have to be adversarial, however, because religious people can still do what I just desribed. But at the moment that’s not where most of the discourse is.
From the story we’ve been told, I don’t think the evidence supports the idea of a set up. There are two reasons: one, there’s an alternative explanation that still fits what we know and is simpler. It doesn’t require the brother to conspire with someone else to pull a prank for no particular reason. And two, if it was a prank and someone told the brother where the dog was, why did the psychic tell them to look in the wrong place? If they had not decided, unbidden, to look on a second road, they would have returned home empty-handed. Or else the brother would have had to direct them to the rock-not-dirt road.
Well, since that is just one spiritual experience in a long list of experiences I have had, and still have in my life. My experience trumps your attempt to make-up some story and believe it fits the occasion. What I told you have no more meaning to you than what you told me. The difference is I experienced it, and you only imagined yours. As I said before it’s a no-brainer.
I didn’t make anything up. I took the descriptions you provided. All I did was point out that they’re easily explainable without any kind of communication after death. Because just like some other experiences you’ve claimed were supernatural, it makes more sense that you were dreaming. And that’s true no matter how vehemently you deny it. You heard a voice while you were sleeping = you were dreaming.
Marley, I tend to agree with you on this because my brother COULD of been pulling my chain when he admitted to pulling the stunt on the phone today. Come to think of it he could be pranking me on the original prank that never happened. He is one sick bastard.
Science begins with limitations that are not provable or testable. The limitation that everything must fit into a materialistic dimension. How does science know that only a materialistic dimension exists unless science knows everything. So if science doesn’t know everything, and still posits a material answer to every question than science is faulted by its very nature.
I have studied a lot of Quantum mechanics and it does lead to the belief in an intelligent greater than ours.
Scientific processes assume the world is understandable. Most of us don’t see that as a problem with science, but you do. Which says more about your lack of knowledge about science than it says about science.
This is a limitation, in a manner of speaking, yes. Of course, until something that does not fit into the materialistic dimension is conclusively demonstrated to exist, it’s not a very big one.
Science doesn’t ‘know’ anything. It’s a process, a method. Stop anthropomorphizing it, by doing so you’re the one at fault here.
Ironically, this statement lets everyone who reads it know that you have indeed not studied quantum mechanics.
