I keep coming back to wondering, is G!d real...or not? If G!d is real...as I believe...then there should be some *real* evidence. I think it is misleading at best to casually dismiss...as if on the one hand you insist G!d is real while at the same time saying "but don't bother to go looking!"To get back on topic ...
We need to get away from the idea of God as something that can be quantified and measured. When one thinks of God, what is there to measure?
There seems to be an assumption that God belongs to the same category of physical things?
This is not the God I'm talking about. Nor, indeed, is it the God of the great Traditions.
Perhaps, but two thousand years ago that doctor would have been state of the art, and the doctor 4K years later would have been an impossible fantasy. Seems to me a person is stuck with whatever passes for a healer wherever they happen to find themselves.If I were sick and had to choose a doctor from 2000 BCE versus 2000 AD I would go with the latter every time!
Back then they only knew what was. They had yet to be taught what could not be.The origins of most of the major Gods were during a time when civilizations were very primitive. Yet we seem to want to grant them some sort of grand wisdom that we apparently in modern times no longer have.
however, if G!d does indeed exist, then it is suitable to speculate that perhaps some fleeting glimpse can in fact be viewed.
why is it wrong to speculate that an energy being might somehow be evidenced in some manner?
Absolutely. Therein lies the trap that needs to be avoided...one must be able to see their desires and wants for what they are and set them aside, and begin at the beginning with a fresh slate and follow where the evidence leads. If there is no direct evidence, then circumstantial evidence might play some role in pointing in a general direction in soft sciences, but in hard sciences such as energy measurements circumstantial evidence would be "background noise" and "clutter." So yes, one cannot *pick and choose* evidence, but one must be careful as well with evidence. More importantly, when wielding Occam's Razor, is to not cut off the nose to spite the face. If the results of Occam's Razor do not cover *all* of the bases, then the Razor was not used correctly (or possibly the experiment was flawed at the beginning).I do not think it is wrong. What we have to be very careful of is on what, if anything, this speculation is based. Too many times I have been told by people of their speculation, which they find quite compelling, and which I find to be nothing more than a personal opinion based on something they want to believe.
That's a good point. Long ago, prior to someone teaching them otherwise, people accepted what was right in front of them. What they could see, hear and feel. Nowadays people have a tendency to ignore the obvious and demand proof of everything. Does knowing that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen make it any less wet?Back then they only knew what was. They had yet to be taught what could not be.
Nowadays people have a tendency to ignore the obvious and demand proof of everything. Does knowing that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen make it any less wet?
Well, yes...but isn't that true of most any strongly held belief? It seems to me that is what makes people cling desperately to what they believe even when they ultimately are faced with the challenges and contradictions that those beliefs invariably will produce.Agreed. Which roundabout gets us back to the original discussion about Bigfoot. It has been my experience that too many people who believe in Bigfoot desperately want to believe in Bigfoot. They accept as evidence stuff that I would term meager at best, useless at worst. The desire to believe overrides the objectivity to examine the evidence evenly. This is a huge problem within this community.