Yes. You can't prove what consciousness is but you can experience that it exists. Materialistic science declares it to be material, with no proof except their assumption of materialism.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is provability required for belief?
- Thread starter tayla
- Start date
Yes. What you refer to as Intuition, I refer to as philosophy. Even science is based on knowledge from philosophy since the scientific method is philosophical in nature. An science requires a scientist; a knower who can know.
Knowledge requires philosophical reflection, and the results of this are worthy of belief. Science is merely this: using philosophy to derive the scientific method which generates truth and knowledge.
That it can only be known by a certain means makes it relative to that means.
Do you have an example of something that should be believed but having no proof?
Yes, that's my point exactly. You can't prove anything regarding the spiritual realm; you can only provide evidence via philosophical analysis. The results of this are worthy of belief, even though they are not proven via science.
Notice with the dictionary definition for the word "belief", to have confidence of something implies you have given it consideration and have good reasons for believing it. This is the purpose of philosophical reflection. But only things in the domain of science can be proven.
I beg to differ. I think what you are describing is religious faith. Belief is justified if based on sound philosophical reflection.
Yes. But consider that the laws of physics are expressed via mathematics, and that the analysis and interpretation of the results of experiments and data uses logic.
Also, philosophical epistemology includes argumentation, which uses logic. But even if an argument can't be proven via science (for example, considerations of the nature of consciousness) they are worthy of belief if the arguments are good.
Yes. But analysis of the nature of the subjective experience is of a different kind than trying to predict future events based on the present situation.
There is strong empirical evidence that money has actual value. When I give some to someone, they let me take stuff home. If this stopped being true, I would stop believing in the the truth that money has value.
Certainly their scientific investigations were not advanced such as our modern science is. But they learned to use fire, and make tools, and kill and eat large animals, and collect berries and roots, and domesticate dogs. Sure, they also invented gods and buried stuff along with their dead.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Skwim
Veteran Member
Yes. I have in mind for the word "proof" the kind of high likelihood of evidence such as that of accepted theories and laws of science. Proofs exist in philosophy, but science uses epistemological arguments in coming to conclusions.
And you can certainly disprove a scientific hypothesis, so it seems proof and disproof are relevant considerations.
It seems to me it's reasonable to say that it's proven that E = MC^2 or F = MA within the proper domain. New discoveries that disprove these will be outside that domain. Thus, F = MA is still true in the classical domain.
Partial definition of "proof" via Merriam Webster online dictionary:
1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
1 b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
1 b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
Seems my use of the word "proof" matches with the dictionary just fine.
Yes, this is the power of the scientific method and why its conclusions are trustworthy (and worthy of belief).
Yes. I agree with this all.
In my view, that the subjective experience of conscious is not material/physical is obvious -- even science can't explain it to be this. Rather, they merely give it labels having no substance (illusion, emergent property, process of neural network of the brain, etc). There is no proof that the subjective experience of consciousness is any of these, but the assumption of materialism/physicalism requires consciousness to be material.
Yes. These speculations of scientists are philosophical, not scientific. Only when sufficient evidence is provided can they become truly scientific. The scientific method itself is a philosophical endeavor, concerning how to "prove" theories using experiments and etc.
This is a fair assessment. In my view, aesthetical perceptions reside in the spiritual realm along with mind, consciousness and its contents, ideas, thoughts, love, beauty, and etc.
In my view, I assume scientific truth is correct. Only because I observe things outside the domain of science do I postulate a spiritual realm containing these things.
In my view, the soul resides in the spiritual realm, and the spiritual realm is separate from the physical realm. Energy resides within the physical realm, not the spiritual realm. The soul lives forever because it resides in the spiritual realm, not because of the conservation of energy.