Unfortunately they don't meet the criteria outlined. The are often very vague or the result of being self fulfilling and among a shotgun tactic of hit or miss predicting.
I would share your sentiment but my knowledge of the details of each case is rudimentary, or even less, so would be loath to offer a generalised judgement.
Okay. I don't really see why it should be treated as a special case.
I didn't think you would, given your stance up to now. "Special case" is not the clearest way to put it (merely a wave of my hand as I can't afford to spend time typing on the phone while working), so I'll expand on what I mean now (that my shift has just finished, that is).
As far as I understand, a traditional theological interpretation of God would go something like "you do not apprehend God's whole form at any one time, but everything you observe is of God." It just never seemed to me to be a notion that one could dissect, consider piecemeal, nor anything that was cited as possible proof of the existence of God itself (including '
rophecies' and 'miracles'
ever anything more than historical verification. Independent of all that, God was still the notion that either you accept, or you don't. Anything can be 'explained away' if a person is willing enough to do so, hence my earlier comment that decisions regarding the 'assessment of phenomena that may be relevant to God existing' is up to that person alone.
I'm a pragmatist. In brief, between being
right and being
fair, I would rather believe I was being fair than right, particularly because being skeptical of everything, being
right is a nebulous concept to me... and certainly not the way that a person who preferred to be
right would view it, as I'm sure you appreciate. Also in brief, being a pragmatist means that I seek to maximise utility out of my conceptual framework, and at least for me that means acknowledging limitations of whatever models I adopt, which means not being overly dogmatic.
I am always mindful that science, rationality etc. may appear to be prevalent but that we are not inherently rational beings, more like we merely wish to appear that way as we increasingly select for that factor. Thus I would consider asserting that just as a belief in God must be inherently irrational, I would also assert the belief that reason has supplanted notions of God etc. to be inevitably stemmed from irrational motives. And that's why I take such a dim view at the liberal bandying about of the term "objective" here, because all it really indicates to me is a lack of self-recognition.
Science, on the other hand, has a specific scope, used to ask specific questions that it determines it is able to answer. Perhaps this is merely the result of my professional background, but I consider it a farce and an affront to the tenets of science to attempt to apply them in a manner where
all that is ostensibly at stake is one's feelings.
When it comes to verifying the claim is true then god does not transcend this, as much as some may want it to in order to side step such requirements.
Since the disagreement here consists of the involved parties refusing to accept each others' premises, therein lies the impasse. Thus my criticisms from earlier are directed at both parties.
