🇳🇱
@Karthikdeva Well to be fair there is something between science and faith. If you have a personal expiernce providing you with personal evidence you cnt reproduce for others publicly then that would be evidence based but neither science nor faith.
For example if an angek manifested before your eyes and said hello, that person would not be using faith or science in their belief that the angel exists.
@freemo So everytime when an angel like scenario happens its exclusive for 'a' person? So he cannot prove its credibility? (I 100% agree that he feels & believes that he saw an angel, but how can I agree that it was indeed an angel who paid a visit and not something else?, how can i trust his account?)
These personal experiences with personal evidences cannot be reproduced because we don't understand it completely, do you agree?
Now, since we don't understand why we feel-what we feel, we can't decipher them in terms of rational discourse.
In simpler terms, angel manifestation scenarios are hard for our primitive brain to comprehend. Hence we recourse to religion that claims to explain them?
@Karthikdeva Presuming there is a god, and he, and by extension the angels are all power and presuming that the god's intention is that his existance not be objectively verified en masse, then it would be trivial for such a being to ensure that every visitation by an angel would leave no evidence.
I do not agree that it is a lack of understanding, per se. It may be a lack of ability. If the world is just a thought or a whim to a god then he may just make his objective verifiability a fundamental law. As such no amount of understanding would change the fact that we cant "prove" him objectively yet still call on evidence to determine he exists to ourselves.
