Okay.Ã‚Â What evidence do you have that Jehovah made the universe and not Brahma?
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to write this for the other Christians here so they recognize something even if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to let you in on why IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m after your philosophy.
First, I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seen anyone here say: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Oh, just ignore the evidence, trust in Jesus anyway.Ã¢â‚¬Â The way you are trying to outline your Brahma experiment. We anxiously want people to actually look at our philosophy, as well as the evidence.
If you had philosophical blinders on, would you want to know about it?
In some ways, when someone has a claim to meta-physical truth, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s similar (not the same, but similar) to when someone says they can demonstrate a discovery. The individuals who say they can demonstrate something, through the scientific method, should be able to repeat it over and over again (for instance; objects falling at the same rate in a vacuum) and disclose the assumptions
for what they essentially are.On a side note:
This is really human nature at its best; when someone sees a magic trick and asks; how did you do that? The person who simply says Ã¢â‚¬Å“that's impossibleÃ¢â‚¬Â is the intellectually lazy one. Does that sound familiar? It's kind of like; "I'll use evolution to explain everything because God is impossible." Don't get mad when we want to see your evolution magic trick whether we're scientists or not.
Now you want to say; "Wait a minute, wait a minute, God is the magic trick." ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s simply not true, tricks need deception and cover ups. God has disclosed Himself to us, primarily by His Word (this is Jesus, He is the Word made flesh), and also consistently by the natural world (Psalm 19:1, 50:6, 97:6). Also, those of us who believe have the essential personal relationship through the Holy Spirit of Truth
to testify to the truth of Jesus Christ.Back to the subject at hand:
If someone wants to talk about something as rational, hypothetical or otherwise, (like determining if Brahma or Jehovah is the right creator) they need a method. Now this is where the necessary gear shift must be recognized away from the scientific method. This isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t about the scientific method anymore, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about epistemology. I know at this point, you want to scream foul because how dare I think I can determine truth without the scientific method. Epistemological philosophy actually trumps
the scientific method because it is foundational to science not the other way around.
A lot of people avoid epistemology because it can be a deeper subject than the sciences with profound ramifications (like having to deal with pride, sin and deception). With that said, there isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a person on this earth that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a personal epistemology but they may wish to avoid discussing it because of the foolishness that may get revealed through inconsistencies and self-contradictions (to cover up pride
(IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll expound on this if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s needed. Could a couple of my fellow believers please tell me if the above statements are clear enough?)This next part is really important:
If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have an epistemology thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s coherent, how can you expect people to believe the results that you get from it? Post-modern relativism has the same destructive power on reason as superstition has a destructive power on the scientific method.
Jamesf, used this little illustration
as a caricature against Christians but it best applies to what we are talking about right now:
When someone claims to have scientifically proven something, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t simply believe them. I ask for their inferences and what methods they used and how does it stand against other commonly understood scientific principles? Nine times out of ten you can see coherence or holes in their claims without even having to see a physical demonstration. LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all face it; most of the things we talk about here arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t from personal scientific experiences but from some form of study and applying some form of logic.
Next, when someone claims to be rational, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t simply believe them either. I want to know their methods. If someone refuses to disclose their epistemological principles or if they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the request and don't care, I probably have an essentially unreasonable person on my hands, especially
if they arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t willing to discuss the issue when the request is made.
I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind discussing hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s with you, Shpongle. However, if our discussion doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have the end goal of determining truth but is framed to play relativistic mind games then you are just wasting all of our time.