Regarding the Gift

Zealot · Post by **Zealot** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:45 pm

Stigmatas, cooled embers, grace- such gifts are given to those who prove themselves pure of heart, soul and spirit. The saints are recipients of these and other gifts, but those in league with the Devil also receive gifts- although in their case the gifts are a reward for corruption and not from God. With regard to the saint, divinity touches man and brings him closer to perfection. Meanwhile, he who breathes like the Devil approaches the end of his road to ruin- beyond which there is only misery.

Skyler · Post by **Skyler** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:39 pm

Zealot,

Did you have a topic in mind that you wanted to discuss? If not, this would probably belong more to the Random Ramblings forum.

Skyler

msmcneal · Post by **msmcneal** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:30 am

This begs the question; how can you know what supernatural abilities are from God, and which are from the devil? Since they are supernatural occurences, then they cannot be objectively verified, this is a futile argument.

Skyler · Post by **Skyler** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:47 am

Msmcneal,

What do you mean by "objectively verified"?

Skyler

msmcneal · Post by **msmcneal** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:39 pm

Skyler wrote:What do you mean by "objectively verified"?

Scientifically verifiable that a true supernatural occurence happened and is the result of a higher power. I've heard many stories of people having, say, cancer, and it spontaneously went into regression, without any apparent medical reason. However, due to the nature of science, some things we might not understand, but they still ARE nonetheless. But only supposed miraculous healings take place. No walking on water, no five loaves of bread feeding 5000 people, no resurrections, nothing of that sort.

Skyler · Post by **Skyler** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:44 pm

How about the scientific method itself? Is that scientifically verifiable?

If not, maybe you should consider adjusting your criterion, as I'm sure you wouldn't reject the scientific method.

msmcneal · Post by **msmcneal** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:25 pm

Skyler wrote:How about the scientific method itself? Is that scientifically verifiable?

If not, maybe you should consider adjusting your criterion, as I'm sure you wouldn't reject the scientific method

It's internally consistent and based on observable reality. It's also based on older philosophical (re: scientific) methods of explaination and observation.

Skyler · Post by **Skyler** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:33 pm

msmcneal wrote:
Skyler wrote:How about the scientific method itself? Is that scientifically verifiable?
It's internally consistent and based on observable reality. It's also based on older philosophical (re: scientific) methods of explaination and observation.

I'm sorry, I mis-phrased my question. What I should have asked was, is there any way to objectively verify the scientific method other than by using the scientific method?

It would of course be fallacious to prove the scientific method using the scientific method. This would be akin to proving the laws of logic using the laws of logic, or proving the Bible using the Bible.

So there must be some other basis for verifying the scientific method. What is it?

Skyler

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:41 pm

Skyler wrote:
msmcneal wrote:
Skyler wrote:How about the scientific method itself? Is that scientifically verifiable?
It's internally consistent and based on observable reality. It's also based on older philosophical (re: scientific) methods of explaination and observation.
I'm sorry, I mis-phrased my question. What I should have asked was, is there any way to objectively verify the scientific method other than by using the scientific method?

It would of course be fallacious to prove the scientific method using the scientific method. This would be akin to proving the laws of logic using the laws of logic, or proving the Bible using the Bible.

So there must be some other basis for verifying the scientific method. What is it?

Skyler

The scientific method can be verified by the fact it works, and provides results. From a practical matter, having the scientific method provide results is surely the best way for it to be verified.

Skyler · Post by **Skyler** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:07 am

goat wrote:
Skyler wrote:
msmcneal wrote:
Skyler wrote:How about the scientific method itself? Is that scientifically verifiable?
It's internally consistent and based on observable reality. It's also based on older philosophical (re: scientific) methods of explaination and observation.
I'm sorry, I mis-phrased my question. What I should have asked was, is there any way to objectively verify the scientific method other than by using the scientific method?

It would of course be fallacious to prove the scientific method using the scientific method. This would be akin to proving the laws of logic using the laws of logic, or proving the Bible using the Bible.

So there must be some other basis for verifying the scientific method. What is it?

Skyler
The scientific method can be verified by the fact it works, and provides results. From a practical matter, having the scientific method provide results is surely the best way for it to be verified.

Anything can provide results. *I* can provide results. Does that mean I'm verified? I don't think so.

One could, hypothetically, use the scientific method repeatedly, to make sure that it consistently gave the correct answer... but without applying the scientific method to those results, all you'd have is a bunch of "correct" results. Big deal.

If one applies the scientific method, he/she could conclude that because it usually arrives at the correct answer, it can be trusted to do so in the future. But this uses the scientific method to prove itself--and if we can do that, why not use the Bible to prove the Bible?

Skyler