Physicalism in Science (Updated)

3 Responses

  1. It seems like what you're saying is, and this is what I've been told by other Christians, that everything comes down to faith. At some point, you either believe it, or you don't.

    It's just incredibly convenient for God to be defined as something that cannot be detected, as you say. Then you can't prove it either way. You can't see him, he doesn't talk to you, he in no way confirms his existence, and we can't prove his existence, so, hey, just believe it.

  2. Elmo says:

    And it's true, you can't prove it either way. You can believe it or not, but don't pretend you have proof.

  3. Elmo says:

    Being glib about the spiritual nature of God doesn’t change it. The fact is, science can’t prove or disprove the existence of a spiritual realm/plane, because it’s not physical. You can choose to believe that the physical is all that exists or not. But that’s not something that science can answer.

    As for the rest, God may not have talked to you, and you may not believe that the Bible is confirmation of His existence. In fact, you seem to ignore any evidence that points to the existence of God. If someone says they’ve had an experience of God, you might call it a delusion, or hallucination, or psychosis. It’s just incredibly convenient for you to dismiss a person’s testimony of God.

    You can say that the evidence is no evidence at all, that the Biblical texts are meaningless, and that testimony of a personal revelation are unverifiable. But that would just be working the same method on the other side of the argument.

    Rather than ridiculing my position, make a case against it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *