I fully agree. All we can ever claim to have is imperfect models that approximate reality. How imperfect the models are is where most of the debate occurs.
Once again, I heartily agree. The best we can ever do is intersubjective, which we often call objective in the name of pragmatism. We could spend centuries arguing about the sky being blue, or we could get past the epistemological hurdles and figure out why the sky is blue. As the old saying goes, “Perfect is the enemy of good”. If we throw out good models because they aren’t perfect then we get nowhere.
What kind of evidence would you consider acceptable to demonstrate the existence of the immaterial? (Note: God doesn’t typically bow to human demands.)
Jesus replaced Peter’s severed ear in the New Testament.
We could also look at other miracles in the rest of the Bible. If people were being led through the desert by a pillar of flame or smoke I would be really impressed. If people blew on some horns and a massive wall collapsed I would again be really impressed. Walking on water would be impressive. You asked for the type of evidence I would consider, and I am taking it right out of the Bible.
I’m not demanding it, either. I am simply listing the type of things that would be compelling to me.
I would also be curious to hear what prayer is all about. People pray for miraculous healing all of the time, so what is up with that? You seem to be claiming a miracle as well, so what is that about?
You are still specifying conditions that would hypothetically meet your approval. That is in effect a demand, to my way of thinking. ‘Do this or that and I will find that compelling.’
The faith healing point here @Dale, is that many different things have been claimed to have been healed, but it is always only those things which cannot be seen, such as a supposedly hidden cancerous tumour that goes into remission or disappears entirely, or are visual but not substantial and easily faked such as a limp disappearing and so forth. These are all things that can be faked. But faking a limb growing back in front of everyone would stop the world in its tracks and could not be faked.
Those that would attack Christianity argue that you are trying to explain away this obvious con game, by using a rather flimsy and somewhat perverse argument that God does not wish to be tested or have demands placed on Him. Personally, looking at it from their side, I see their point.
Lastly, to further side with T on this one - sorry Dale - I don’t see his point as making a Demand of God, but rather a demand of your beliefs in God. He is putting a test to you or your powers of credulity and reason and of your recourse to scripture rather than a more charitable treatment of his point by at least acknowledging how this looks from his side, and taking it from there.
Yes, we mostly act on our beliefs about the world and demand little in the way of empirical evidence for the vast array of mundane events and tasks. But as the consequences of our actions become more severe or important, one might hope that so does our rigour. Yet, for many people, clinging on to an emotional commitment or deeply held belief provides no end of excuse for not thinking sufficiently before acting or speaking.
All those forms of knowledge are potentially better described as ideas that may carry varying degrees of confidence and have within them the means by which they can be verified. This means that some of them could be shown to be right, some wrong and some undesidable. The ones that are shown to be right ( beyond reasonable doubt are provisionally called ‘right’ and can be afforded the title of knowledge.
