Replies

Thank you for your reply!

There's really no end to this if we don't draw a line at what's objectively verifiable.

There can be no end to this because one side (mine) says that nothing within space/time can be "objective" per se and on the other side, that that which is not "verifiable" is false per se. It is such an irreconcilable difference that there is no point in continuing this discussion beyond making the worldviews clear to the Lurkers who might interested in them.

But the only way to know what's out there is to scientifically observe it (or its unmistakable effects). All else is philosophy (nothing wrong with that).

This is a great example. In the above construct, to "know" is equal to "scientifically observe". That is one worldview, but it is not mine.

In my worldview, knowledge goes way beyond the ability of science to observe much less logic to verify.

All of the following are outside the reach of science and logic: forgotten pain of childbirth, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control and most especially, the indwelling Spirit Himself.

There can be no end to this because one side (mine) says that nothing within space/time can be "objective" per se and on the other side, that that which is not "verifiable" is false per se.

No, not "false per se." At least you're not getting that from me. I've always attempted to be very clear, when discussing "my side," to say that there may indeed be more than that which is objectively observable and verifiable, but that such would, of necessity, be outside of science. In my post 1000, for example, I used phrases like: "the crude limitations imposed by objective verifiability," and "the scientist's limited version of reality." I've never been able to successfully communicate about this. However, I think I'm clear at this point about "your side," and where the fundamental differences are that distinguish our views.

It is such an irreconcilable difference that there is no point in continuing this discussion beyond making the worldviews clear to the Lurkers who might interested in them.

Maybe so. But I'll miss the fun.

[But the only way to know what's out there is to scientifically observe it (or its unmistakable effects). All else is philosophy (nothing wrong with that). -- by PH] This is a great example. In the above construct, to "know" is equal to "scientifically observe". That is one worldview, but it is not mine. In my worldview, knowledge goes way beyond the ability of science to observe much less logic to verify.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying the situation.