What is the language in heaven?
-
Peace Stop S,
Your use of the circular argument is impressive I must say, but circular nonetheless.
You ask "What is the language in heaven"? Answer Heaven is allegorical
You defy the answer answer not acceptable
You want allegorical changed to concrete.Nobody, not you or me or anyone, can have the KNOWLEDGE of the possible existence of a god.
Disagree
knowledge is the opposite of ignorance, therefore if one can be ignorant of God, then one can also have knowledge of God.
Erm, I don't want any answer changed into anything. All I asked was if heaven and hell are allegorical, why should the test result of heaven and hell be real?
If you can prove the existence of a god you can have knowledge of the existence of a god, yes, absolutely.
This forum is not about me. I come here to understand what Muslims believe and why they believe what they believe. So my question is are you a Muslim?
If yes, then what do YOU think is the language spoken in heaven and what do people do?Yep I submit to the lord of the universes.
To me personnally it does not matter because whatever the language I'll be glad to be there.
Thank you for your opinion.
They are not really useful as I have shown above that there are several sentences which describe heaven and its equipment in great detail.
The ayats are useful, even the ayats that give great detail are there to describe the blissfulness of paradise.
Thank you, that was my point. But I was referring to the previous sentences.
And just think about the following if heaven and hell are allegorical, is the threat real of punishing non-believers or humans who sin? What stops me from ignoring the threats made in the Koran if they are merely allegorical?
Now you turn to comedy, I do not recommend ignoring threats from God, bad idea.
I have a good feeling about you.
Peace O0
Thank you for your kind words. No, not comical at all. But I like your wording how you come up with "bad idea". I am asking how the threat of failing the test can be real if hell is allegorical. Or how the reward for passing the test is real when heaven is allegorical.
-
If you're still doubting that the Quran is from God, look into the Mathematical Miracle/composition of the Quran, based on the number 19
http//www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/index.html
Oh dear, how should I put this? My opinion is that it is not mathematical and not a miracle. Just like all other number based or numerological claims it is sheer coincidence, bending words and wishful thinking.
-
Salam StopS,
interesting questions I think. I would like to share my understanding about heaven and earth, and I hope it will answer your questions.
Let me see if I get this right. You maintain from what you read in the Koran that there was an initial creation. Of Earth and everything with it.
What will happen is that there will be an end, where everything will be destroyed.
Then a second creation, corresponding to the first, will happen and something like Earth will be created and all humans who passed the test will live there. Forever. No more will be created an none will die.Is this correct?
And if yes, then, because we will have a planet only consisting of people who passed the test, they will continue "living" no, rather existing in a similar environment as they were before judgment day and will speak the same language as before they died.
Just people will not be able to actually communicate, as all languages have changed drastically over the years.
So with my English or German or French or Dutch I could not communicate with anyone who died only 500 years ago as our languages would be vastly different. Let alone a human who died 50,000 years ago.
But an interesting concept and idea.
-
The title of this thread appears to be a little wrong"What is the language of heaven". It should habe probably been named "What is it like in Heaven". But saying that, What is the language of Heaven !!!! which nobody seems to answer ??. Well if one goes by Islamic accounts then the language of Heaven is obviously Arabic since there is supposed to be an exact replica of the Koran in Heaven as there is here on Earth ( Classical Arabic of course)!!, and there are a few people on here that who swear that Arabic is the original language of Adam and thus of mankind (utter nonsense in "my view".
But keeping in line with other posters, the Koranic Heaven of wild orgies and non stop sex and exotic fruit of every kind served by young kids isn't allegorial at all and is just that as explained in Islamic text. I mean forget anybody else i.e, women and children etc etc where Heaven isn't a pretty place for them, unless your a hot blooded male of course. If I was a pagan living in Mohamad's time and living in a harsh environment, and male of course, I would be jumping at the chance to get a piece of that action!!!
Sadly for me (as an adult male) I don't beleive it is like that at all. But probably would have sucked me in to join the cause as a 7th century desert dweller in Arabia.
P.S...An old saying...If it's sounds to good to be true...It probably is. !!!!
No spiritual imagination for you
-
Peace Stop S,
Your quote
Thank you for your kind words. No, not comical at all. But I like your wording how you come up with "bad idea". I am asking how the threat of failing the test can be real if hell is allegorical. Or how the reward for passing the test is real when heaven is allegorical.
Heaven and hell are real, the description of which it is not stated in a literal sense for reasons that would
be problematic because of the voluminous details needed to describe every possible personal satisfaction
of heaven and horror of hell. A literal explanation is not necessary for believers because "we get the picture."Peace O0
-
Let me see if I get this right. You maintain from what you read in the Koran that there was an initial creation. Of Earth and everything with it.
What will happen is that there will be an end, where everything will be destroyed.
Then a second creation, corresponding to the first, will happen and something like Earth will be created and all humans who passed the test will live there. Forever. No more will be created an none will die.Is this correct?
Some of them, yes. But actually, not just humans who passed the test will live in the new earth. All humans will. But the people who passed the test, will live in Jannah (garden), and who doesn't, will be burn in fire. All of them will happened in the new earth.
And if yes, then, because we will have a planet only consisting of people who passed the test, they will continue "living" no, rather existing in a similar environment as they were before judgment day and will speak the same language as before they died.
Just people will not be able to actually communicate, as all languages have changed drastically over the years.
So with my English or German or French or Dutch I could not communicate with anyone who died only 500 years ago as our languages would be vastly different. Let alone a human who died 50,000 years ago.
Don't bother with the language you have in the first creation. The language in the second creation will be formed naturally. Just like what we have today. Don't bother with the time frame. Maybe you would like to learn the language of the people who born 500 years before you (if it has changed) in the second creation, as you would like to learn the language of the people in the different location. It doesn't make any difference.
-
But keeping in line with other posters, the Koranic Heaven of wild orgies and non stop sex and exotic fruit of every kind served by young kids isn't allegorial at all and is just that as explained in Islamic text. I mean forget anybody else i.e, women and children etc etc where Heaven isn't a pretty place for them, unless your a hot blooded male of course. If I was a pagan living in Mohamad's time and living in a harsh environment, and male of course, I would be jumping at the chance to get a piece of that action!!!
This is a misunderstanding of Quranic text. But it's not your fault. Some Quran translator put that the 'reward' for the people who passed the test is virgin lady rotfl
But if you want to do a little research, you will find that the word used in the verse has nothing to do with that.Here is the example
3748 waindahum qirtu l-arfi nun
Common Translation
3748 And with them are those with a modest gaze, with lovely eyes.My Translation
3748 And with them are adjacent house/palace with spring of water.Qasiratul = Qaf-Sad-Ra
become short, have little or no power, become niggardly, fall short, i.e. not to reach something, left/relinquish/abstain/desist/cease, took from its length, clip/shove, restricted/confined/limited, kept within certain bounds or limits, restrain/withheld, hinder/prevent, contract or draw oneself together, obedient, last part of day. qasr (pl. qusur) - ample and spacious house, castle, palace.tarfi = = Tay-Ra-Fa
attack the extremity of the enemy's lines, chose a thing, extremity, edge, lateral/adjacent/outward part, side, border, end, newly acquired, proximity, fringes.
leaders/thinkers/scholars, best of the fruits.
Look from outer angle of eye, twinkle in eye, putting eyelids in motion, looking, glance, blinking, raise/open eyes, hurt the eye and make it water.
descend from an ancient family, noble man in respect of ancestry.inun = Ayn-Ya-Nun
to hurt in the eye, smite anyone with the evil eye, flow tears, become a spy. Aayan - to view, face. 'Ainun - eye, look, hole, but of a tree, spy, middle letter of a trilateral word, spring of water, chief, personage of a place. A'yan lovely, wide-eyed, lovely black eyed. water, spring.As you can see, none of the Qaf-Sad-Ra literal translation means virgin ladies or something like that. I don't know how's the translator come into that conclusion.
But as I mention in the previous reply, that the second creation is repetition of the first creation. It including the men and women creation.
Here is the verse talk about humans creation
41 O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one person and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and many women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is Watcher over you.
So there is no new creature called angels or virgins to accompany the man who passed the test..
"The virgin ladies" is no other than the woman who passed the test during the first creation. So basically, we are all in the same level.
Peace
-
All of the languages present here and now will also be present in paradise. However we will probably see telepathy quickly taking precedence.
In fact I have good reason to believe that the entire history of the universe itself will be accessible as this data is needed for everybody's judgement & consequently their biographic records. In a few verses we are told that God will reveal the truth of all we did. And also, that no hidden thought will remain hidden, no secret act will remain secret. So prepare yourself for this fact.
So essentially, all of what is present herein and more then a bit more on top. Heaven is this life but taken to its fullest potential, that is all.
As for allegories, I believe people are misreading the verses. They state that "an allegory of heaven is like so and so e.g. rivers flowing boundlessly" but they DO NOT ever say "heaven is an allegory" to my knowledge. Heaven and hell are physical places which we will inhabit in these very same physical bodies. God did not spend all these billions of years creating our physical forms just for a joke.
peace
-
I do not think physical is another thing, I think it is a matter of perception. There is no discontinuum between physical and non physical. Our perception is limited to three dimensions, actually dimensions are infinite, I guess, so in fact it is not a matter that matter will continue to exist, but more a matter that we will be beyond the three dimensions and therefore perceive without those limits. We will be lost to start with, completely lost.
Salaam
-
I like to imagine that communication will be beyond mere human language. Probably more like telepathy. Of course, all we can do is speculate.
-
This is explained in epistemology, where the difference between belief and knowledge is explained. If Mr. Smith had an experience, would there be a difference between knowledge and belief? No. Would anyone else be able to share that experience? No. Why should I believe the extraordinary experience Mr. Smith claims to have had? So that is the difference. It is not knowledge.
Greetings StopS,
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the experience gave Mr. S knowledge, while others can only have faith in that same experience, since they didn't experience it themselves. If this is what you are saying, then I agree fully. Faith, in this sense, is not the same as knowledge. And religion is almost only based on faith (with only few exceptions (that can not be proven anyway)).
Example I believe my car is in the garage. Is this also knowledge? No, because even though I left it there, maybe it was stolen or my wife took it to go shopping. Belief, not knowledge.
Yes, this could be likened with faith. And as long as you are seeing the car in the garage, it is knowledge.
So, you actually nailed it with your question. God can't be proven to exist. There is no physical, appreciable means of verifying any manifestation of the super-natural. It is faith. Without proof or evidence. And what is claimed with evidence can be rejected without evidence.
Well yeah, God cannot be proven to exist in the sense that we have an isolated proof that can be picked up by anyone who wish to be convinced. It is only possible to prove God to ourselves, if at all. Everyone has to obtain proof for themselves, nothing else is possible. This is why I find it stupid (but understandable) to see people inherit a creed from their parents or society, yet they still act as if they have chosen it and that it is very deliberate. People belong to a religion simply because they were born in a certain geographical place, context and environment. I have problems with this sort of non-thinking behavior, but I guess it can be explained by natural instincts to belong to and be accepted/protected by a group. Religious affiliation is many times not even about faith, but rather about psychology, sociology and politics.
I'd like to expand a bit further if you don't mind.
Why are we talking about physical proof? Why does a proof have to be physical? How could it be, when we are talking about something that is not physical? This is exactly why God cannot be proven. They are looking in the wrong "place" with the wrong "glasses".And I'm not sure what super-natural means here. But I guess it means non-physical, as in "not measurable and detectable by physical tools". I think it is limiting, but understandable, that 'non-physical' has become 'non-natural' or 'super-natural', just because physical reality is the only accepted reality. And it is accepted only due to the nature of the tools and the method of detection. The nature and capacity of the tools determine what is considered real (not just proven, but also real). So in a sense it is correct. There is indeed no physical God, but again, the God we are talking about is not physical, so we are actually talking about different things, and people want the lack of a physical God to translate to the lack of a non-physical God. This logic is not valid. All the blind scientists of a world of blind people will not prevent the rainbow from existing just because they cannot see and measure it. The rainbow is just not part of the world they can sense/detect. Even if they erect ladders all over the sky, they won't find it. They're are using the wrong tools and the wrong senses.
Why should tools of the five senses determine the reality of things beyond their scope and reach, beyond the five senses? We humans can experience something, without using the five senses, why should they then reject that same experience just because it wasn't experienced by the five senses? Ok, I can understand that for someone who has had no experience of anything beyond the five senses, then it sounds incredible at best, and probably just ridiculous. But one would be able to stretch further using logic and possibilities. A proof only proves that which is proved. A proof doesn't say anything about that which it doesn't relate to.
I think that the debate about whether God exists or not is crippled by silly images of God. If we think of God as something of the created world/universe/physical reality.... we'll never ever find it, except it people's faiths. A proof for a physical (although perhaps not material) God, will never be found, because such a God is just a fantasy, made up by those who haven't ever experienced anything beyond the physical world and the five senses. The debate is about the physical realm, and will go on and on. Many times, the images of God that the religions put out, are not very sensible. They are often very human-like, like Zeus and Thor, and even images of God in the big monotheistic world religions are very human-like in character... and why would anyone start believing in that?
Anyhow, I'll cut it here. I find it hard to convey my thinking.
Cheers and Peace! -
According to this Islam Ulema/Cleric.. they will flock to the malls... and hangout with blond girls...
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=so344eQFVtcWow! That is freaky. I wonder who the waiters are. Also Muslims?
And what would a woman, who died 120,000 years ago, do in a mall with shops, coffee and a cup?
What a primitive mind. -
Heaven and hell are real, the description of which it is not stated in a literal sense for reasons that would be problematic because of the voluminous details needed to describe every possible personal satisfaction of heaven and horror of hell. A literal explanation is not necessary for believers because "we get the picture."
Peace O0
Ok, so if heaven and hell are real, who tells us that the descriptions are correct? Who describes hell? Satan, the devil? Or is it straight from god? If yes, did he go to hell and check?
Or did he create hell himself to torture the humans he created himself also?
How do you get the picture? -
Some of them, yes. But actually, not just humans who passed the test will live in the new earth. All humans will. But the people who passed the test, will live in Jannah (garden), and who doesn't, will be burn in fire. All of them will happened in the new earth.
Ooops, I thought I understood. Let me try again both, heaven and hell, will be on this new Earth? Where?
Don't bother with the language you have in the first creation. The language in the second creation will be formed naturally. Just like what we have today. Don't bother with the time frame. Maybe you would like to learn the language of the people who born 500 years before you (if it has changed) in the second creation, as you would like to learn the language of the people in the different location. It doesn't make any difference.
How will a single language form naturally, if everyone speaks a different language? You need to remember that someone who died 200,000 years ago in Africa will be attempting to communicate with someone who died yesterday in Iceland.
It seems the confusion we have in 144 regarding who spoke what language to whom is now even more puzzling when we die.
-
Greetings StopS,
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the experience gave Mr. S knowledge, while others can only have faith in that same experience, since they didn't experience it themselves. If this is what you are saying, then I agree fully. Faith, in this sense, is not the same as knowledge. And religion is almost only based on faith (with only few exceptions (that can not be proven anyway)).
Yes, this could be likened with faith. And as long as you are seeing the car in the garage, it is knowledge.Almost. Mr. S (haha, I like that!), through his personal experience, has gained belief, not knowledge. Knowledge is based on verifiable facts.
Well yeah, God cannot be proven to exist in the sense that we have an isolated proof that can be picked up by anyone who wish to be convinced. It is only possible to prove God to ourselves, if at all. Everyone has to obtain proof for themselves, nothing else is possible. This is why I find it stupid (but understandable) to see people inherit a creed from their parents or society, yet they still act as if they have chosen it and that it is very deliberate. People belong to a religion simply because they were born in a certain geographical place, context and environment. I have problems with this sort of non-thinking behavior, but I guess it can be explained by natural instincts to belong to and be accepted/protected by a group. Religious affiliation is many times not even about faith, but rather about psychology, sociology and politics.
Wow! Excellent explanation and well formulated, at least in my eyes.
I'd like to expand a bit further if you don't mind.
Why are we talking about physical proof? Why does a proof have to be physical? How could it be, when we are talking about something that is not physical? This is exactly why God cannot be proven. They are looking in the wrong "place" with the wrong "glasses".You are now exactly where I am. How do you define what would constitute proof? Or evidence at least.
And I'm not sure what super-natural means here. But I guess it means non-physical, as in "not measurable and detectable by physical tools". I think it is limiting, but understandable, that 'non-physical' has become 'non-natural' or 'super-natural', just because physical reality is the only accepted reality. And it is accepted only due to the nature of the tools and the method of detection. The nature and capacity of the tools determine what is considered real (not just proven, but also real). So in a sense it is correct. There is indeed no physical God, but again, the God we are talking about is not physical, so we are actually talking about different things, and people want the lack of a physical God to translate to the lack of a non-physical God. This logic is not valid. All the blind scientists of a world of blind people will not prevent the rainbow from existing just because they cannot see and measure it. The rainbow is just not part of the world they can sense/detect. Even if they erect ladders all over the sky, they won't find it. They're are using the wrong tools and the wrong senses.
Now you are killing yourself because now you have the additional problem of showing how a super-natural and non physical entity is able to manipulate physical matter.
Also, you are underestimating science. A rainbow detector can work with tones or in Braille. It is a physical phenomenon, detectable, measurable and reproducible.
Why should tools of the five senses determine the reality of things beyond their scope and reach, beyond the five senses? We humans can experience something, without using the five senses, why should they then reject that same experience just because it wasn't experienced by the five senses? Ok, I can understand that for someone who has had no experience of anything beyond the five senses, then it sounds incredible at best, and probably just ridiculous. But one would be able to stretch further using logic and possibilities. A proof only proves that which is proved. A proof doesn't say anything about that which it doesn't relate to.
What 5 senses? What about temperature, balance, etc etc
Humans can't sense electricity, x-rays or magnetism and have developed external sensors for that. Humans have logics and rational as well as reasonable thinking. Very powerful to examine our surroundings.I think that the debate about whether God exists or not is crippled by silly images of God. If we think of God as something of the created world/universe/physical reality.... we'll never ever find it, except it people's faiths. A proof for a physical (although perhaps not material) God, will never be found, because such a God is just a fantasy, made up by those who haven't ever experienced anything beyond the physical world and the five senses. The debate is about the physical realm, and will go on and on. Many times, the images of God that the religions put out, are not very sensible. They are often very human-like, like Zeus and Thor, and even images of God in the big monotheistic world religions are very human-like in character... and why would anyone start believing in that?
Anyhow, I'll cut it here. I find it hard to convey my thinking.
Cheers and Peace!Well put. Which is why I look for traces of the consequences of this faith here.
-
Wow! That is freaky. I wonder who the waiters are. Also Muslims?
The christians will be the waiters, and the jews will be the cashier...
And the chinese/taoist/hindus/buddhist, as usual, will do the dishwashing and laundry..
Except for the convenience store, it will be maintained by strictly Pakistanis...And what would a woman, who died 120,000 years ago, do in a mall with shops, coffee and a cup? What a primitive mind.
They become chef in the cafes and restaurants...
-
Almost. Mr. S (haha, I like that!), through his personal experience, has gained belief, not knowledge. Knowledge is based on verifiable facts.
How can it be faith when S had a direct experience?? Wasn't it knowledge if you see the car in the garage? To S it is knowledge, but to his audience it is faith. Just because tools of physical science cannot observe what S observed, we cannot downgrade it to faith. Yes, knowledge is based on verifiable facts. If the experience of S is indeed repeatable and consistent to him, then it is knowledge. But then again, we have to define knowledge. I think you define it as something like "facts verifiable by tools of physical science". But this then would not include all knowledge, but only a sub-set of knowledge. So it's about definitions, like everything else. The world and reality extends beyond what tools and methods of physical science can observe and detect. Some human beings can see things that no tools have ever been able to record, and they see it consistently. It is another issue that other people cannot see it, and hence dismiss it as bullshit. It seems this focus and dependency on physical science is at the core of our discussion. Another dimension of this is to whom something is a fact or proved. In my case of S witnessing something by himself due to his own sensitivity to it, it will naturally not be accepted as a fact or knowledge by the virtue of external proof. Not even those who can witness similar or same things can know what S witnessed. They can only know about their own experiences. This means we talk about different types of facts. These things that can only be witnessed by one person (no tools or aids) should not be discussed in terms of proof or evidence, and it doesn't matter. People are not supposed to be convinced about these things... coz that would be faith (which is useless, except at perhaps an psychological/emotional level). We can accept the possibility of such experiences, but that's all. The rest is up to each person. Some will sense them, some will not. It's a personal thing. It is useless to try to determine if they are real knowledge or not. It is of course knowledge to a person, like S, who has witnessed it, but to someone else it could be faith, or it could be a possibility. We may also have faith that something doesn't exist, since there haven't been proof presented for its non-existence, so this is also faith (if opposite of knowledge is faith when we believe a certain thing, that it exists or doesn't exist.)
Wow! Excellent explanation and well formulated, at least in my eyes.
Thanks. Religious people however are usually not very fond of this idea when I present it, even though I personally find it pretty obvious.
You are now exactly where I am. How do you define what would constitute proof? Or evidence at least.
Whatever you find when looking it up in a dictionary, basically.
As you have understood by now, I mean that i)the world is not limited to what tools of physical science can observe, and ii) that knowledge can be obtained by anyone through witnessing (not faith nor conclusions nor wishful thinking), and it is not dependent on that others can also witness it through that persons "eyes". A fact is a fact no matter how many or how few people can witness it. The reality isn't a function of the size of it's audience or the method of it's observation.Now you are killing yourself because now you have the additional problem of showing how a super-natural and non physical entity is able to manipulate physical matter.
Na, I don't think so. Why would I need to show that? Why would we need to know the mechanics of it?
Also, you are underestimating science. A rainbow detector can work with tones or in Braille. It is a physical phenomenon, detectable, measurable and reproducible.
Tones or Braille would be the mode of feedback from the tool, but it would never give the colors (since the scientists are blind). And how would they find out that there is something like a rainbow in the first place? My point was that they would not be able to approach something when the witnessing of it is dependent on a sense that they don't have (they're blind). I was talking about the colorful rainbow on the sky, as seen by seeing people.
What 5 senses? What about temperature, balance, etc etc
Humans can't sense electricity, x-rays or magnetism and have developed external sensors for that. Humans have logics and rational as well as reasonable thinking. Very powerful to examine our surroundings.True. I guess I was a bit inexact when I said '5 senses'. I was referring to all things that can be detected by our tools, which would go for all things of the physical world, like gravity, particles, energy waves that we normally cannot detect such as UV-light and gamma rays... etc etc. The five senses would include anything that the body can detect, i.e. balance, temp, oxygen level, gravity. I think we can sense electricity, in the same way tools can but we cannot quantify it. We feel it when we get a jolt. A tool feels it too, but gives a number or other type of feedback instead of a scream and jump. )
Let me summarize
- You can get knowledge about something through experience/witnessing/sensing regardless of whether other people, or scientific tools, can witness it or not.
- The capacity of scientific tools do not determine the extent of reality or if what people can witness is to be deemed knowledge or not.
Best regards
-
How can it be faith when S had a direct experience?? Wasn't it knowledge if you see the car in the garage? To S it is knowledge, but to his audience it is faith. Just because tools of physical science cannot observe what S observed, we cannot downgrade it to faith. Yes, knowledge is based on verifiable facts. If the experience of S is indeed repeatable and consistent to him, then it is knowledge. But then again, we have to define knowledge. I think you define it as something like "facts verifiable by tools of physical science". But this then would not include all knowledge, but only a sub-set of knowledge. So it's about definitions, like everything else. The world and reality extends beyond what tools and methods of physical science can observe and detect. Some human beings can see things that no tools have ever been able to record, and they see it consistently. It is another issue that other people cannot see it, and hence dismiss it as bullshit. It seems this focus and dependency on physical science is at the core of our discussion. Another dimension of this is to whom something is a fact or proved. In my case of S witnessing something by himself due to his own sensitivity to it, it will naturally not be accepted as a fact or knowledge by the virtue of external proof. Not even those who can witness similar or same things can know what S witnessed. They can only know about their own experiences. This means we talk about different types of facts. These things that can only be witnessed by one person (no tools or aids) should not be discussed in terms of proof or evidence, and it doesn't matter. People are not supposed to be convinced about these things... coz that would be faith (which is useless, except at perhaps an psychological/emotional level). We can accept the possibility of such experiences, but that's all. The rest is up to each person. Some will sense them, some will not. It's a personal thing. It is useless to try to determine if they are real knowledge or not. It is of course knowledge to a person, like S, who has witnessed it, but to someone else it could be faith, or it could be a possibility. We may also have faith that something doesn't exist, since there haven't been proof presented for its non-existence, so this is also faith (if opposite of knowledge is faith when we believe a certain thing, that it exists or doesn't exist.)
You need to either agree that there are common definitions or play nihilist. A personal experience is defined as faith. If I tell you my car is in the garage it remains faith until I can convincingly share my experience of verification and provide reliable evidence. This not my definition, but the generally accepted one.
You are actually playing word games with the term "physical science". What is "physical science"? Is there something like "non-physical science"?
Knowledge is what refers to a fact.
There are 1000s who swear they were abducted by aliens every year. Are all of them right?Thanks. Religious people however are usually not very fond of this idea when I present it, even though I personally find it pretty obvious.
Whatever you find when looking it up in a dictionary, basically.
As you have understood by now, I mean that i)the world is not limited to what tools of physical science can observe, and ii) that knowledge can be obtained by anyone through witnessing (not faith nor conclusions nor wishful thinking), and it is not dependent on that others can also witness it through that persons "eyes". A fact is a fact no matter how many or how few people can witness it. The reality isn't a function of the size of it's audience or the method of it's observation.Here I disagree. You use this funny "physical science" again. Science objectively measures, observes, describes, explains and verifies the natural world we live in and uses sensors way beyond the limited capabilities of a human. No, a fact is what is verified and considered truth and reproducible for anyone.
Na, I don't think so. Why would I need to show that? Why would we need to know the mechanics of it?
Easy what is the difference between making stuff up and claiming it happened through some super-natural, unproven entity?
Tones or Braille would be the mode of feedback from the tool, but it would never give the colors (since the scientists are blind). And how would they find out that there is something like a rainbow in the first place? My point was that they would not be able to approach something when the witnessing of it is dependent on a sense that they don't have (they're blind). I was talking about the colorful rainbow on the sky, as seen by seeing people.
Ah, you are not a scientist. There are different ways of expressing and describing the attributes of light, once you understand the properties. So, yes, you can explain a rainbow to a blind scientist.
- You can get knowledge about something through experience/witnessing/sensing regardless of whether other people, or scientific tools, can witness it or not.
Unfortunately, no, you can't. It is not knowledge, but belief by definition.
- The capacity of scientific tools do not determine the extent of reality or if what people can witness is to be deemed knowledge or not.
As long as we don't have anything else, this is the only way to determine truth and knowledge.
Intuition or a personal belief does not constitute knowledge. If It could I would be convinced I could fly and everybody would have to believe it. Can I fly? Is the belief I can fly now common knowledge? No, hardly. Is it the truth? Will anyone believe me without any attempt by me to prove it?