God

I'm not a theologian. But, the whole "what is a day to God" argument seems to be inferred by passages like Psalms 90:4. So, one has to be careful when doing any kind of dating ... scientific (be it carbon-14 isotopic or based on theology).

Again, to clarify, never did I mention the Bible. We are not even discussing religion. We are only talking about philosophy. The debate you are seeking is not with me.

I think my previous argument, and Baldjean's comment, point to the futility of a science versus religion debate. They can be, on the one hand, fully compatible, with the religion side being a matter of faith, and science not providing satisfactory or satisfying answers on many topics (for example, moral law).

BaldJean wrote: Jaketejas wrote: You are right. We probably shouldn't say words like must, but in logical reasoning it happens. My bad! The reason I say that if a creator God exists, should be outside the universe is because the assumption is that God created the universe and therefore, how could the creator God exist solely within the creation, especially at the point of creation? Yes, the creator God may be able to intersect the creation once it is created, but to create within the creation at the onset seems illogical. As a result, I find it an exercise in futility to try to detect God with scientific instruments. Perhaps you have another view? this mirrors some of my thoughts. scientists say that theological arguments should not be used in a scientific debate, and of course rightly so! what most of them however fail to realize is that the opposite of course also applies: scientific arguments should not be used in a theological debate. the whole issue of "science versus God" is erroneous in the first place for one does by no means exclude the other

Lewian wrote: Logan wrote: ...It would depend on the circumstances, but after seeing a vision of what appears to be God, and choosing between hypothesis 1: It really was a God, and hypothesis 2: It was a hallucination, I do think that number two would be more likely and require the least assumptions....  What about "it was what it was"? Your hypothesis 2 seems to invalidate your experience which as experience doesn't deserve to be invalidated (in my view). Hypothesis 1 is by far not the only option not to invalidate your experience. Your experience is one thing, getting at conclusions about "real existence of something/somebody" is quite another. (And by the way, the truth of hypothesis 1 is not only determined by some objective reality outside yourself, but also by your definition of "god".)

Sure, and it would depend on one's definition of God and what one means by a vision. Of course there are other hypotheses and those were just two examples. I'm fine with validating the experience.

Put it this way, if I saw, felt, and experienced what I thought seemed to be God -- let's say for argument-sake it's the same God that said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love... and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you." -- That would be a powerful experience, but would it be enough to convince me that it actually was God according to a particular conception of the Abrahamic God? Or that I should sacrifice my son if He told me to do so? If I were to choose between two competing hypotheses as to what seems more likely, it's a God or a hallucination, then my experiences, because as I said, I've had what I believe are hallucinations, would be more likely to lead me to accept the second hypothesis (that I've had hallucinations in the past, and this might well be another does not seem as fantastical as this is actually God). And actually, because of my psychology, and past issues, I would be more sceptical and circumspect that this is not a product of my distressed, wonky brain.

Edited by Logan - June 21 2019 at 10:19

Logan wrote: It would depend on the circumstances, but after seeing a vision of what appears to be God, and choosing between hypothesis 1: It really was a God, and hypothesis 2: It was a hallucination, I do think that number two would be more likely and require the least assumptions.

Tillerman88 wrote: LOL .... there are literally countless references to the bibliography on that subject, or else look them up in the web. Therefore, you'd better step further from the common sense of those dictionaries definitions to fully acknowledge the differences between common sense and good sense. Have a good night. And good fun!