What Jen means, is she has a hard time forming a mental model of non-material realities, like angels, infinity, heaven, eternity, God. I think this is entirely reasonable — But, that doesn't mean there are no mental models for explaining these things. They are just incomplete, and to some, difficult the way grasping calculus intuitively is difficult for some people even if they know the math by rote.

As for the rest… I think the whole "finding God in five steps" sort of thing is deceiving– maybe it is true for some people, but I don't think it is true, despite the many spiritual consolations I have received. God works at his own time, and there is no formula. There is no "trick" to making it work. A religious experience or consolation is not some "admittance ticket". If you want to follow God, you go do it, and expect nothing in return. That is not particularly comforting, sadly. Maybe it is my Carmelite streak in me.

There is no way, in science and religion that you can prove something 100%, even with evidence as long as the possibility exists that there could be evidence to the contrary.

And it might take imagination, in both religon and science, to get the ball rolling. A lot of ideas are born from just that. There's no logic in that I suppose, but there's no logic in a lot of things that happens in life. C'est la vie!

But here's a virtual beer tossed to you anyways because I enjoyed reading your comments!

Those who refuse to "imagine" the transcendent, the possibility of a reality that is beyond the physical universe, or even refuse to imagine the possibility of things beyond what is already known, are not in any sense of the word "scientific." They are being dogmatic and ideological — they do not see because they refuse to see because they refuse to even look.

What about those of us who have looked, who not only imagined the transcendent but actively searched for it, but in the end came up with no compelling evidence (not proof, mind you, but evidence, evidence so compelling that it couldn't be explained any other way)?

The point I was trying to make earlier is that just because you look for something, it doesn't necessarily mean you will find it, and just because you want (or can imagine) something to be true, doesn't mean it is.

Destry,

Thanks for your kind words. I truly hope you are able to find what you are searching for.

Dani,

And I can no more convince someone like Amy that God does exist based on things I could suggest constitute verifiable evidence then she could convince me that God doesn't exist.

That's absolutely true. A month or two ago I would have been envious of you for finding faith. Now I am happy for you, if it's something that brings you joy, but it simply isn't something I desire for myself any longer. And I'm happier.

Yes, they have been. But evidence was subsequently required before they were adopted. LOTS of evidence. Mind boggling amounts.

Today, there are a great many theories in this area that are not susceptible of much scientific proof, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.

If you are currently reading this on a computer that isn't assembled from vacuum tubes I'd re-think any claim that quantum mechanics is lacking in proof. For one thing, constructing functional integrated circuitry is effectively impossible without applying Quantum Mechanics. Any attempt to do so is doomed to falure, I guarantee you. (Also, QM predicts the value of the magnetic moment of the electron to like 11 decimal places of accuracy. You don't do that by random fluke.)

String theory is currently more of a hypothesis, but it has some compelling mathematical backing. If it manages to assemble a lot more evidence in it's favor then it'll undoubtedly be widely adopted as a fit model. If it doesn't, it won't. No person's ability to mentally visualize it's claims will play any role of any significance in whether this happens however.

To jump back and work through the rest from the beginning…

"What constitutes veifiable evidence?"

Well, to be evidence of something there needs to be a way to rationally deduce that the existence of whatever is being presented is indicative of whatever conclusion it is being used to support.

And to be verifiable whatever evidence you are presenting should be able to be… you know… verified.

"2) Should verifiable evidence be considered such if it is widely accepted or is it up to the individual to decide?"

Should wide acceptance of something determine if it's considered verifiable evidence? Well, no. Demonstration that it meets evidential criteria and can actually be verified should determine if it's verifiable evidence.

If "wide acceptance" was a criteria for determining if something qualified as verifiable evidence then we would have had verifiable evidence, at various points throughout human history, of the existence of Zeus, dragons, witches… and well, you name it.

As for the next part… I frankly could not even wrap my mind around the mindset required for someone to consider a dream to be either verifiable or evidence, let along both. And if something can't be proved or negated how would someone think it was verifiable?

"Let's say one day I told you that I saw a dog walking on two legs. You say to me, that is impossible, Dogs walk on 4 legs".

Let's say you need a way better example if you want to even hypothetically get me to say "impossible" about whatever you're talking about. I would never use the word impossible to describe such a mundane claim as a dog walking on two legs. There are no physical limitations that would in any way impair a dog from walking on two legs, there's no real reason to doubt it at all. That they simply don't tend to do so is very far removed from it being impossilbe. Also, I used to have a pet dog who did it all the time, mostly when we were holding something he wanted to chow down on… so this especially doesn't work for me.

However, if you pick an example that would get an impossible out of me (Let's say, "hey, yesterday I saw a dog running at mach 15 around the park") I think you'll find that it becomes easier to deal with the standards of evidence that would be involved and questions like "what if you just haven't found evidence of it yet" become largely irrelevent.

Today, there are a great many theories in this area that are not susceptible of much scientific proof, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.

Those who refuse to "imagine" the transcendent, the possibility of a reality that is beyond the physical universe, or even refuse to imagine the possibility of things beyond what is already known, are not in any sense of the word "scientific." They are being dogmatic and ideological — they do not see because they refuse to see because they refuse to even look.

Let's say one day I told you that I saw a dog walking on two legs. You say to me, that is impossible, Dogs walk on 4 legs. And you provide evidence that dogs do indeed walk on four legs. And there is no record of a dog ever having walked on two legs.

Time goes buy and I read in the news that a dog walks on two legs (which is true by the way..lol).

So does that mean your evidence is faulty or does that mean that nothing can be verified with 100% certainty? That because you haven't discovered verifiable evidence, therefore the evidence doesn't exist. Maybe it does exist but you can't possibly know that it does because of your limitations (geographical, financial etc).

1) What consititues verifiable evidence?

2) Should verifiable evidence be sonsidered such if it is widely accepted or is it up to the individual to decide?

For example, for you, proof might be having to actually see God. Or maybe your proof is you must find something archelogical that links an action to the Bible.

But verifiable evidence for someone else may merely be a dream they have, or a feeling they experience, or something that can't be proved or negated, or some miraculous action that can not be verified by science.

And then is it enough if I think whatever I think counts as verifiable evidence or should the majority of people consider it such to be such?

I fully recognize that this argument runs both ways. And I can no more convince someone like Amy that God does exist based on things I could suggest constitute verifiable evidence then she could convince me that God doesn't exist.

And I don't think that it should be about convincing the other side. It's really a "you do" or "you don't" issue. And I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

Maybe I'm one of the religious minority who can understand why someone wouldn't want to believe God exists because I was that person. And I can totally accept that because religion is mind boggling on a good day. But since neither side can be 100% sure and I am satisified with the conclusions I have come to, that's all that matters to me!

And even for Jen, it's her journey and if that's the conclusion she came to, does anyone need to prove her wrong?

And if all Flexo was doing was pointing out "hey, we imagined this other stuff existed and them it turned out it did!"… well, fine. But we didn't (and **shouldn't**) have believed it existed until after imagining it existed became accompanied by evidence it existed. I'm not knocking imagination, I love imagination, it's a really very useful thing. But you don't use it to do things like overcome doubts about whether something exists.

@Barbara C: The way you describe the manner in which you think that Jennifer and Flexo are using the term doesn't really alter my point. Let me use the examples already discussed to illustrate. Flexo was going on about people unable to imagine (visualize) things like the distance from here to the sun. Fine. But nobody doubts that distance exists whether they can visualize it or not, because it is not imagination's (visualization's)job to tell us if something exists. That is the role of evidence. And we have that where the distance between the earth and sun is concerned and everyone knows it. We have mountains of precise measurements and observations.

Same goes for a trillion dollars. And electricity. And atoms. And radio waves. And all those other "unseen things". None of these are analogous to a claimed supernatural entity which defies *any* form of objective or verifiable measurement or observation. They simply don't fall in the same category of claims.

(And since stumbling across this little piece of the interwebs I have been browsing some of the archives… I'll continue doing so.)

Hi Abbey,

I see what you are saying but I completely disagree. That statement implies that you have control over when, where, how you experience. But as I experienced, I didn't necessarily believe (I was more agnostic then atheist), I didn't have faith and I most certainly wasn't open to experiencing "it".

"IT" just happened. "IT" took me off guard. "IT" wasn't my choice to have or recieve. GOD is far more powerful than what I can possibly cope with or comprehend.

Anyways, my point is that you can have neither of those qualities and still have a Faith experience. Once you get it, then sure, those qualities fall into place.