What would convince you?

[TheKeyAuthor]

1 Would he have to appear on Oprah or the like? Which means he has to be a celeb first. How would he become a celeb?
2 Would he have to do tricks like change water into wine? Which means the likes of David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy etc. are candidates?
3 Would you believe a "miracle" on TV anyway?
4 Are we too sceptical and information overloaded to believe anything any more?
5 Would anything possibly convince anyone in the 21st century anyhow?

HolofernesesHead - Philosophy is very clearly not a science and anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand what "science" is, notably its fundamental relationship with hypotheses and their testing through experiments.

"that's a very recent viewpoint (historically speaking) and that it is an opinion rather than self-evident fact, don't you?"

No and no.

nothing would convince me apart from logic.

For me to believe in an omnipotent God: someone I trust (e.g. my mum or dad) would have to come back from Heaven and tell me that it's all true. God & Heaven exist etc.

But that's not going to happen.

Isn't the whole point of faith that it is, by definition, blind? We choose whether to take that leap or not. I choose not to. I simply cannot do it.

Fascinating thread OP and all contributors, some of you have so much interesting knowledge to impart, thank you!

And the Houla massacre last week would not have happened. Nor would countless wars, famines, droughts, diseases, abuse, etc etc. What kind of "benevolent" God could allow such suffering?

Cote, well, errrm... Not much I can say to that really! One of the maddening features of these threads is that the 'science' camp in the 'science vs faith' dichotomy do work with a very specific definition of science, state that it is thus as fact and cannot be other, and that no other way of knowing counts. The door slams shut! Which makes the conversations very dull...oh well.....

Even more dull than discussions about semantics? Wow.

:)

You are saying it is only opinion that philosophy is not a science and I'm supposed to say that's fine? Because that is your... opinion?

It is no "specific definition of science" to say that science operates by formulating hypotheses and testing these hypotheses through experiments. Whatever your creative definition of science might be that it would include a subject that mainly deals with things not only impossible to test but even impossible to measure, the only definition I will consider is the real one.

If you find reality "dull", I'm not sure I can help you with that.

"The Bible has the story of Eve being deceived by the serpent into eating the forbidden fruit, followed by Adam eating it, and them both being cast out. How does that compare with Islam?"

Exactly the same story in Islam.

"Some believe the story is literal, and others believe it is figurative, but I think most believe a little of both. "

You can't be serious. You actually know real live people (adults) who believe there were only two humans who listened to a snake somewhere up in heaven and ate a fruit and for this they were sent down to earth

Okay Cote, so, you take a hypothesis and test it so as to arrive at the point if either affirming, falsifying or staying neutral on its claims. Take a statement like 'humanity is a social animal.' can that be scientifically testable, and therefore within the realm of science? If not, why not (IYHO)?

"you take a hypothesis and test it so as to arrive at the point if either affirming, falsifying or staying neutral on its claims."

I certainly hope that scientists don't "falsify" any of their claims (seriously)
and
Staying neutral is not an option. You will say your hypothesis was true, false, or possibly partially true.

"Take a statement like 'humanity is a social animal.'

You seem to think that "statement" makes sense.

Let's try again then....

Take the words 'humanity is a social animal.' Can these particular words, in this particular order, be construed as an hypothesis? (is that clear?)

Oh sorry, just read your bit about falsifying - sorry, that wasnt clear from me - I didn't mean falsification as in cooking the books, I meant it as in proving that the hypothesis is false.

" 'humanity is a social animal.' Can these particular words, in this particular order, be construed as an hypothesis? (is that clear?)"

No, They Can't. Because those words, in that particular older, can't even be construed as a meaningful sentence in English.

Humanity is not an animal, its sociability notwithstanding. It is a species.

(Is that clear?)

" I didn't mean falsification as in cooking the books, I meant it as in proving that the hypothesis is false."

How on earth can you say "falsify" and mean "proving that the hypothesis is false"?

Honestly, I don't think your English is good enough to debate what is science and what isn't. I'm happy to leave it here if you will let go of whatever it is you are trying to argue.

It's pretty much exactly the same. Christian mythology also identifies the snake as the devil, not just some snake in the garden.

They eat it, become aware of their nakedness, cover themselves with leaves. Then they are cast out of heaven. The same story.

Cote, any dictionary definition will tell you that 'falsify' has two distinct meanings (to declare / prove that something is false, and to sabotage results). This would be an interesting conversation to have, and something that I am getting more and more interested in, but if you're only interested in stating your own views, well, that's not really a conversation, is it?