Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?What is "spiritual evidence"?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?What is "spiritual evidence"?
Mr_Spinkles said:What is "spiritual evidence"?
May I? Spiritual evidence is personal opinion in the guise of personal revelation. I guess that would count as evidence but I don't think it helps your argument, DocNetDoc said:NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?
If I had to guess, I would say that "spiritual evidence" is just another way of making the claim that our emotional response to something is indicative of how true it is. What is your definition?NetDoc said:NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?
The reason you are having "difficulty" quoting my strawman is because I did not use one. Now, for the third time, please quote the argument that I set up to be easily refuted, or if you cannot do so, withdraw your accusation.lilithu said:I've pointed out the flaw in your argument three times now, and you have ceased to argue that point, instead insisting that I quote the strawman which you know is difficult to do because of the way that you presented your argument.
No thanks. Please quote the strawman.lilithu said:Tell you what: I'll gladly withdraw the strawman comment if you will concede that the argument within your rhetorical question is flawed.
lilithu said:I wasn't refering to that part of the argument Spinks. I was refering to the logical flaw in your argument, which No*s pointed out and you finally conceded.[/QUOTE]
lilithu said:This one actually made me laugh out loud. I'm afraid your memory seems to be as defficient as your ability to quote strawman arguments. I never said that science could determine what is right and what is wrong. No*s explained that he did not think science could do so either, and I agreed with him.
It almost seems like you agree with what I'm saying here, lilithu, but you simply don't like the idea that you agree with what I'm saying. I mean, I'm basically hearing "Well, Mr_Spinkles, you're arguing that evidence is the only means we have of figuring out what's true, and that without evidence, we can't have confidence that something is true....but that argument isn't fair! It makes too much sense!" I think you agree with me, lilithu, and accusing me of using a strawman argument was an attempt to avoid this conclusion.
Please quote the strawman.
Count me in the 'ayes' there.NetDoc said:You guys are TOUGH!
You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet.
Again I'm guilty. Personal revelation and personal opinion strike me as synonymous.NetDoc said:It is personal revelation and you might mistake it for "opinion"
I don't mean to fight, but when you make comments like 'as plain as the nose on your face' I feel mocked myself. If it was so clear nobody would dispute.NetDoc said:But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.
Let's not rush to conclusions here, NetDoc. First, I need a definition for "spiritual evidence". Can you provide one?NetDoc said:You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet. Make that "possibly" a "probably".
Some of those who claim to "see it" see Brahman, who holds cows as sacred; others see YHWH, who created cows to serve humankind; some can clearly see many gods who have many different degrees of power--gods who have personalities and even human failings; others see an impersonal god who created the world and then allowed it to run its course; some see that offering a sacrifice to the god of fertility will help crops grow, and others see that doing so would invite the wrath of the one, single, jealous god; some see that Jesus was the Messiah and will return someday, while still others see that Jesus was a prophet, and will never return, and Mohommad was a greater prophet than Jesus. The one thing that all of these "seers" have in common--though what they see varies as widely as the human imagination will permit--is that they think their vision is crystal clear: what they "see" is obvious, it's right there in front of their faces, and anyone who doesn't see what they see is certainly blind or in denial. :149:NetDoc said:It is personal revelation and you might mistake it for "opinion", just as a blind man would mistake your telling him that a fruit is orange as "your opinion". To those of us who "see it" it's as plain as the nose on your face.
First, you suggest that spiritual evidence is hard for me to accept, which is flat out false: I haven't seen a definition for spiritual evidence yet, so I can't consider it, much less accept or reject it.NetDoc said:But it comes at a price. As Martha put it so well... you really have to seek it. Not just in name, but with your whole heart. Until you desire beyond all else to know whether God is true, you can never be sure.
But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.
Maybe as much as I once believed that there was no God.You forget, NetDoc, that many of us who now dismiss such things used to base our lives on them with fervor equal to your own.
I don't think that I possess words adequate enough.Can you provide one?
Yet the orange exists independent of his belief or lack thereof.the man who does not subscribe to any particular religion notes that the vision of those who claim to "see it" is blurry and unreliable at best.
If you had accepted it, you wouldn't have asked for a definition. A man who can see the orange may ask WHAT it is, the man who can not, demands evidence for it's existence.First, you suggest that spiritual evidence is hard for me to accept
Seeking the truth and seeking God are two different things. One may seek the truth with their whole might and still miss seeking God. While seeking God will always reveal the truth, merely seeking the truth won't always reveal God. I have no idea of the spiritual evidence given by those who claimed to be Christian at your school. However, if you didn't see any, it could mean that either it doesn't exist at all, or they simply lack it.you question whether or not I sincerely seek the truth with my whole heart.
You wish to frame me as narrow minded, and I must admit that in many ways I am. However, we were talking about spiritual evidence. Everyone and any religion that tries to get closer to God will exhibit some of these spiritual evidences. The closer they are to the true God, the stronger the evidence. If you can't see it, how can you claim to not be blind to it? That was your own admission and not my accusation.Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and in the divinity of Christ blind?
I've been sitting here for some time now, trying to respond to this without violating the forum rules. All I will say is that I find your remarks about "those who claimed to be Christian" at my former high school--whom you know nothing about--very unfortunate.NetDoc said:I have no idea of the spiritual evidence given by those who claimed to be Christian at your school. However, if you didn't see any, it could mean that either it doesn't exist at all, or they simply lack it.
Yes, you did. You just did not state it explicitly. Your strawman Spinks, is in your suggestion that religions claim truths that are verifiable. You made that suggestion by insisting that you wanted only to have faith in what is "true" and rhetorically asked how to go about choosing one. And you're implication that religions do not have truths that are objectively verifiable is you knocking down your own strawman. Yeah, yeah. I spelled it out instead of quoting it again. So what? It does not make it less the case. Demanding that I quote it is like demanding that one quote ironic humour. The quote itself, out of context, does not convey the meaning.Mr_Spinkles said:The reason you are having "difficulty" quoting my strawman is because I did not use one. Now, for the third time, please quote the argument that I set up to be easily refuted, or if you cannot do so, withdraw your accusation.
That's ok. I'll take your failure to address my argument as a concession.Mr_Spinkles said:No thanks. Please quote the strawman.
My, my. Aren't we getting obnoxious?Mr_Spinkles said:This one actually made me laugh out loud. I'm afraid your memory seems to be as defficient as your ability to quote strawman arguments.
Right, and that explains why you said to No*s, "I surrender!" It's your memory that needs refreshing. The point of contention was not whether science could determine what was right or wrong. *I* certainly never said that science could determine right from wrong, so for you to phrase the argument that way and then say that you didn't believe it was another, ahem, strawman. In fact, I even asked you at the time: 'if you never thought that science could determine right and wrong, then why did you title the thread "A Scientific View of Right and Wrong"?'Mr_Spinkles said:I never said that science could determine what is right and what is wrong. No*s explained that he did not think science could do so either, and I agreed with him.
Sorry, wrong. As I said, I understand what reason is Spinks, but you don't understand what faith is.Mr_Spinkles said:It almost seems like you agree with what I'm saying here, lilithu, but you simply don't like the idea that you agree with what I'm saying. I mean, I'm basically hearing "Well, Mr_Spinkles, you're arguing that evidence is the only means we have of figuring out what's true, and that without evidence, we can't have confidence that something is true....but that argument isn't fair! It makes too much sense!" I think you agree with me, lilithu, and accusing me of using a strawman argument was an attempt to avoid this conclusion.
But Doc, I did experience spiritual evidence. In fact it was The Holy Spirit itself. Through the gift of the Spirit, in my "born again days" I was praying in "tounges" - really!. I "pastored" and brought a young lady back to her church by pointing out the salvation of Christ through his sacrifice- very emotional that little bit. I'm still able to do that today and have a few "saves" to my credit.NetDoc said:You guys are TOUGH!
You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet. ...
But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.
But I don't disrespect anyone for having faith. People are what they are and they should protect what is the core of their being - believer and non-believer alike. I am still able to point out what I consider truth and hope that it helps that strengthening in some small way. I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don'tpah said:May I? Spiritual evidence is personal opinion in the guise of personal revelation. I guess that would count as evidence but I don't think it helps your argument, Doc
You were a preacher dude? Awesome! So pah, what do you now think that "The Holy Spirit itself" was? (I'm assuming that if you still believed that it was the Spirit moving thru you that you'd still be a theist of some kind.)pah said:But Doc, I did experience spiritual evidence. In fact it was The Holy Spirit itself. Through the gift of the Spirit, in my "born again days" I was praying in "tounges" - really!. I "pastored" and brought a young lady back to her church by pointing out the salvation of Christ through his sacrifice- very emotional that little bit. I'm still able to do that today and have a few "saves" to my credit.
I don't think that it's personal opinion, pah. I think that it's personal experience. Opinon is more cognitive - it's a decision, even if it isn't based on reason. My personal opinion that I like chocolate better than vanilla isn't the same as someone else's experience of accepting Jesus as their lord and savior. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to give "spiritual evidence" more "validity" by arguing that it's experience, not opinion. Experience can be just as subjective if not more so. Experience isn't only what we perceive thru our sense faculties; it's also highly filtered thru our expectations. Two people can experience the same external stimuli very differently. And then you add interpretation upon that experience and it gets even more different.pah said:Spiritual evidence is personal opinion in the guise of personal revelation. I guess that would count as evidence but I don't think it helps your argument, Doc
And that is why we love you pah! :jam:pah said:But I don't disrespect anyone for having faith. People are what they are and they should protect what is the core of their being - believer and non-believer alike. I am still able to point out what I consider truth and hope that it helps that strengthening in some small way. I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don't.
I did not presume to pass judgement on anyone. In fact I gave you two options: spiritual evidence does not exist (you are right), or they simply have none to show you. Of course, I missed a third equally as valid possibility; the evidence is there but you simply can not see it (per your admission). If there are other possibilities that I have missed, I would love to hear them. However, it appears that two out of three of these possibilities deeply offend you.me said:I have no idea
I am not sure of what to make of this statement. Either you don't know me, don't understand how I feel about President Bush or this has been said simply to offend me. I have already promised to another user to not discuss my feelings and opinions about President Bush (though I feel I have transgressed at times) and will continue to honor that promise. I am sure if you do a search, you will discover my true feelings about our current President, and realize that I have absolutely nothing in common with him.I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don't
Cool, neither do I.I have no problem changing personal opinion to personal experience.
I took it in the context of the sentence preceding it - respecting others by allowing them to be true to their core-beings. As strongly as pah personally feels against certain religious stances, he will respect that other people have those stances. As strongly has pah personally feels against certain political stances, he will respect that other people have those stances.painted wolf said:NetDoc- I think that was Pah's wit getting through, not an attack
I think it was ment to be an example of belief being personal, people pick religions like they pick politicians, whatever feels good.
Or I could be way off... but thats how it came accross to me.