Quote Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ View Post
I'm not sure if you are trying to confuse me or not, but this reply doesn't make any sense. Three out of the four "examples" you just gave aren't even material items. Love, thought and intuition? Even if that made sense, you'd then have to discredit your belief in God. I mean since religion is a faith-based idea and faith is an intangible object much like love, thought and intuition, and you say that the latter three might not exist because of lack of scientific evidence, then you should toss faith right out the window as well.
Actually that is my point. There are things out there that we would say exist that cannot be proven by a scientific method. If we can agree that these things exist, yet are not physical and cannot be manifested in a physical way, then we are one step closer to understanding that there are such thing as "immaterial" things that exist not necessarily in a physical scientifically testable realm.

And if we want to take the step towards understanding that the immaterial does exist, and that these immaterial things are not going to be Sci method type things then we also have to understand that when we question these things we have to remember that they will be understood as immaterial things. This will change our questions entirely.

So instead of : "Is God real, prove it?" you get "validate your belief in God"
instead of: "Scientifically prove your love for your family" its "How do you validate or how can you manifest love to your family?"

basically saying you would not use algebra to try to understand shakespeare. And you would not use Hamlet to solve calculus. These are two different types of understandings that require two different types of fact finding methods. I hope that is clearer...

In these threads we are always seeing people ask questions that are about taking one plane of understanding to "prove" the other, when "proof" is a loaded word, and one plane is metaphysical and cannot be tested by the physical methods of the other. This is a HUGE logical fallacy that plagues these types of discussions. Using apples to describe define bananas.