Or, we should believe in things for which we can produce evidence.

Why your concept of God rather than another contrary conception?

But, please answer the other epistemological post first.

Do you mean science itself changes, or the conclusions it comes to change?

Science is just a technique to test theorems.

How do you produce evidence about the invisible?

I think you're looking for very tiny trace evidence at first.

Then God intervenes and he provides you with human testimony. People themselves testify to their experiences all the time. Of course, the testimony is jumbled. We're all in the middle of an unseen war.

I think both.

They keep coming up with new areas of specialization. Knowledge requires specialization...more and more specific branching out....

LOL....science sounds like the vine of the bible....

Time to take a break....I may get back to this thread later...

Science is just a technique to test theorems. It doesn't change. A hammer is still a hammer no matter what the design of the building is.

Well, yeah. John's Gospel chapter one, verse one.

Thanks for the Hegel link. It'll take me a while to absorb some of his ideas.

I looked up Hegel's bio to see if he was a religious man and here's a synopsis:
http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/hegel/religh.htm

And I think he makes a pardignmatic mistake in his thinking. He's a child of the Enlightenment and as such The Enlightenment culture and his profession shaped his worldview. He says "a reason derived knowledge of God is the highest problem of philosophy". But he overlooks that the highest problem throughout history is not a problem of philosophy but a problem of public safety which hinges on the morality of human actions and activity. God proactively takes care of many of those problems better than anyone by giving the moral law at Mt. Sinai.

Wow, I almost spit out my soda. Thanks for the laughs as usual.

That said, you're basically admitting that you're not here to discuss philosophy, but rather to discuss God. Time to go back home (RGT)?

I kind of meandered into an RGT topic that was related to another question I'm comparing in my mind.

I was enjoying the conversation sans sarcasm.

Which ones have you chosen to absorb?

I haven't decided. I have to look a couple of more times at the link you provided.

Do you think I shouldn't absorb him? Do you think studying philosophy can be subversive?

Seriously pls pls pls just go and apply to a university or even night classes in philosophy/social science. You constantly make mistakes in areas so basic that you would struggle to pass even the most simple tests in these subjects.

Couple this with the fact that you seem to strive to completely overhaul incredibly complex and deep areas within these subjects with a few mixed up ideas and your behavior and thinking is something akin to me turning up at the Hardon collider and with no grounding in physics telling them to get out of the way and let me run the project.

You have to learn to run before you can walk, and the internet is not the place to learn about this stuff from scratch - it will just confuse your thinking more than it already is.

No I don't. God gave me a brain and I've always been more perceptive about people than most.

Its quite obvious that public safety is the bigger issue. Hegel's problem is a philosopher's question. Not that it isn't hugely important it is but it seems Hegel elevated himself above God in the manner he asked and in the amount of importance he attachs to certain questions.

Public safety is not a philosophy question really at all. Its a question you mainly encounter in the law where its a very primary issue. Things like setting speed limits for cars, what level of alcohol your bloodstream has to be before you are legally drunk behind the wheel, etc. A million other questions like that the Congress and state governments over see on a regular basis when they pass legislation.

Hegel might have got to big for his britches. Lots of guys have trouble wearing their pants correctly. Why not Hegel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_safety

The great problem of human life: How fast is too fast?

I'm just saying that Hegel credits current philosophy questions with too much importance.

We reason to administer the Law and interpret and apply it. Most of the development of our laws today spin off of God's Ten Commandments. We even got the jury system from the Jews.

If you look at Judaism since the Fall of the Temple that's mainly what their rabbis do. They have no system of sacrifice any more so instead they have evolved this system of human reason to manage Jewish laws.

For instance if the Torah said to rest on Sunday and they interpret that as "stay at home on Sunday" if their wife goes into labor and has to go to the hospital on Sunday they have already reasoned why taking her to the hospital can be an exception.

So they have this huge method they have to follow.

Christians though we got lucky. God himself cut through the red tape. We got the Holy Spirit and only have to pursue the fruits of the Spirit. We don't have to consult every law on the book though the 10 Commandments are a good guideline.

You hijacked your own thread on philosophy to say that questions of philosophy aren't important (and that God better handles issues of public safety, lol).

Get thee back to RGT. In fact, I propose that you be banned from future OPs in this forum. You claim genuine interest in philosophical questions, but can't even make it through a small thread of your own making without exposing the lie behind this claim.

[ ] S
[ ] M
[ ] P
[x] Religious drivel

lol

I'm just an every day ordinary truth seeker. I follow wherever the questions lead. Usually they always circle back to Jesus though and the 2 biggest words in the English language and in the languages of the world which are "Follow Me."

The problem with philosophy is it oftentimes isn't pragmatic enough.

A lot of philosophers wander off into the big questions of life and never answer them and never get anything done.

But God he gets everything done.

If you went into a Phil 100 course and tried to write the paper that I'm sure you would (I have at least one of you in every intro class)...you'd easily fail it. You would be so off topic that it wouldn't count as satisfying the requirements of the assignment. You're not using logic at all...you keep committing really basic fallacies.

Some minds are unsafe at any speed.

I probably would.

But that's because God's wisdom is not the wisdom of the world.

As long as I pass the God's wisdom course I don't mind getting an "F" in philosophy.

God and his Son are both men of action. I know. I'm an ex-soldier and he walks into my bedroom every morning and says "Get up. We're going back down to that atheist hell hole again this morning and see if we can steal back a few of my children from the devil. He's so blinded them with philosophy they don't even know they are my children any more."

And that's figurative language...he doesn't literally walk in....he just lays it on my Spirit....

Good, now get off a PHILOSOPHY forum because you're getting an F- and show no inclination to improve.

Well I have a sneaking suspicion you're worthy of respect so I'm going to confide a secret to you that it took me 3 and a half years of concurrent bible study and atheist study to figure out.

When I first posted on 2+2 the thing that stumped me most was the spiritual blindness. So being so very perceptive about people I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what made an atheist tick and when I probed and made statements I pissed a lot of people off. I even tilted tame_deuces who is probably one of the most rational posters on here.

Maybe its all the Sun Tzu or maybe its the Macchiavelli or maybe its my INFJ streak or maybe its just that I'm a player and with these sort of people its all about studying your opponent to spot his weakness.

Well the weakness of the atheist is the degree of spiritual blindness. Everyone is spiritually blind. Even bible believing Christians and this blindness causes people to do unwise, insensitive and terrible things because they tend to over focus on their own reasoning instead of the word of God.

Anyways I finally figured out how the spiritual blindness occurs. It occurs both subjectively and objectively. The devil bombards and disrupts your weighing apparatus inside your head forcing you to assign illegal weights and measures to various categories. Then he subjectively undermines you through pride. The variations he can pull on an individual with just these two tools is endless.

The bible and symbolic imagery explains the devil's methods. The picture of the Lady Justice is always depicted holding a scale and in the OT God tells the Israelites never to use unjust scales and measures while contracting business. Well finally I understood. If the devil can keep your mental apparatus off balance then he can own you. Of course your own inner pride will guarantee your scales stay off balance.

I've reported several of these recent posts and hope moderator action follows soon. It is ridiculous to let Splendour treat SMP like her personal religious blog. She couldn't be more obvious in her inability (quite likely by choice) to separate philosophical discussion from religious rambling. It happens every time she starts a thread in this forum. I believe it is time for a moderator to politely ask her to refrain from posting in SMP (for a specified time or indefinitely), and if necessary, enforce this restraint through the banhammer if she does not comply.

Just a thought.