Do you believe in ghosts?
-
Mark 16: 17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;" Acts 16:16-18 Paul casts out spirit of divination from slave girl: The girl met Paul’s team as they went to prayer. The spirit harassed Paul for days. Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” The spirit came out that hour. Acts 19: 13-16 Jewish exorcists attempt deliverance without faith in Jesus: These exorcists were likely spiritists/conjurers who used spells & oaths to bind spirits. They invoked Jesus' name without believing in Jesus nor having a relationship with him. The demons recognized the exorcist's lack of authority, jumped on them and beat them up! From Ephesians:
- 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power.
- 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.
- 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
- 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
- 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
- 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
- 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
- 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
- 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
As a Christian, how does verse 12 applies to you? Do you pray in the Spirit (verse 18)? If you are in true service of God, yes you will encounter them and will have to deal with them. It is just difficult to claim you are a true Christian but do not know spiritual warfare. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Mark 16: 17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;"
It goes on to say they will drink poison and pick up snakes. Do you feel you need to do these things, in order to be saved ? Do you go out of your way to do them ?
Paul Selormey wrote:
These exorcists were likely spiritists/conjurers who used spells & oaths to bind spirits
This is the bit where you are making things up. I don't believe in 'spells and oaths'. The Bible talks about witch-craft, but if you look at the root word, it's about taking drugs.
Paul Selormey wrote:
As a Christian, how does verse 12 applies to you?
It's simply saying that the systems of this world are at emnity with God. It doesn't mean there are spooks under my bed.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Do you pray in the Spirit (verse 18)?
Yes, of course. How do you define 'prayer in the Spirit' ? I presume you have this right, actually, based on other verses you've quoted, but many do not.
Paul Selormey wrote:
If you are in true service of God, yes you will encounter them and will have to deal with them.
OK, so again, I am, by definition, not serving God, on the basis that I've not been dealing with enough evil ?
Paul Selormey wrote:
It is just difficult to claim you are a true Christian but do not know spiritual warfare.
I'm familiar with the term, and with the sort of talk that goes with it. I went to a number of churches who talked more about demons than about Jesus, in my youth. I still didn't see any. The biggest lie in all of this, is the idea that people can be possessed by devils, which implies that to not be possessed by them, is to be free of evil. You don't need to have a devil inside, causing you to take fits and froth at the mouth, in order to not be saved. BTW, no-one else is reading this, and I don't get email notifications, so I'm checking up by hand. Could you reply to my gmail address pls ? ( it's my name with a dot in the middle, at you know where )
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to correspo
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
Mark 16: 17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;"
It goes on to say they will drink poison and pick up snakes. Do you feel you need to do these things, in order to be saved ? Do you go out of your way to do them ?
Paul Selormey wrote:
These exorcists were likely spiritists/conjurers who used spells & oaths to bind spirits
This is the bit where you are making things up. I don't believe in 'spells and oaths'. The Bible talks about witch-craft, but if you look at the root word, it's about taking drugs.
Paul Selormey wrote:
As a Christian, how does verse 12 applies to you?
It's simply saying that the systems of this world are at emnity with God. It doesn't mean there are spooks under my bed.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Do you pray in the Spirit (verse 18)?
Yes, of course. How do you define 'prayer in the Spirit' ? I presume you have this right, actually, based on other verses you've quoted, but many do not.
Paul Selormey wrote:
If you are in true service of God, yes you will encounter them and will have to deal with them.
OK, so again, I am, by definition, not serving God, on the basis that I've not been dealing with enough evil ?
Paul Selormey wrote:
It is just difficult to claim you are a true Christian but do not know spiritual warfare.
I'm familiar with the term, and with the sort of talk that goes with it. I went to a number of churches who talked more about demons than about Jesus, in my youth. I still didn't see any. The biggest lie in all of this, is the idea that people can be possessed by devils, which implies that to not be possessed by them, is to be free of evil. You don't need to have a devil inside, causing you to take fits and froth at the mouth, in order to not be saved. BTW, no-one else is reading this, and I don't get email notifications, so I'm checking up by hand. Could you reply to my gmail address pls ? ( it's my name with a dot in the middle, at you know where )
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to correspo
Christian Graus wrote:
BTW, no-one else is reading this, and I don't get email notifications, so I'm checking up by hand. Could you reply to my gmail address pls ?
I will find time after work to reply. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Balboos wrote:
Consider the following: placebo medications are typically 30% effective during drug trials - particularly those for medications that bring relief rather than cure. That is a amazingtestament to the mind's ability to create what it wishes to perceive. If someone wants to believe in ghosts and haunting, then they'll asign appropriate cause to observed (and unobserved) effects. Without fail, the mystical world relies upon anecdotal 'accounts', unwitnessed 'facts', and most importantly neglect of contradictory evidence. Apparently, in the world of mysticism, cherry picking data is always in season.
Sorry, but belief systems are belief systems. And science is a belief system. Asking for "data" is asking for proof in one belief system that another is valid. It is similar to requesting that someone substantiate Buddism using nothing but the Catholic faith. There is a significant difference, recognized in science and math for that matter, in proving that something does exist versus proving that it doesn't. Discounting that (by implying that mysticism does not exist) means that you are accepting a belief which is outside that of your "religion" (science.) Which is certainly human but is most definitely not scientific. Finally you might note that you are ascribing a scientific explanation to all such appearances with in fact any evidence or even an attempt to collect such evidence. Again that is how other belief systems work and it is not how the idealistic version of science is supposed to work. It is in fact nothing but a "belief".
jschell wrote:
It is similar to requesting that someone substantiate Buddism using nothing but the Catholic faith.
Here, I must disagree: Although the abstraction that even science can be called a belief system can be made if one's penstroke is broad enough, their is a substantial difference to it as to its workings. The difference is that science can (or at least is expected to be) testable and tested, and the possibility of disproving a 'belief' is open. Hence, since evolves toward being ever more correct (or consistant with the observable universe). A particular aspect of science is that it is subject to reproducability: if one does the same things, one expects the same results. Its the very essence is one of cause-and-effect. Religion, on the other hand, is taken on faith - and is not subject to testing. Evolving in any manner that contridicts earlier teachings are spurned as heresay - and with good reason. If one allowed errors to be admitted, then believers assume there are further errors: belief (and institutions) fail (or war breaks out: Shiia/sunni catholic/protestant). Furthermore, cause and effect are not an axiom in any predictable manner. (e.g.: Why do sinners seem to prosper?). To explain contridictions, new ideas are derivied (fantasies concocted?). Heaven vs Hell, for example - that those prospering from evil will be punished later whilst suffering saints get etenal reward - all in some afterlife that can not seen from "this side". And hence, the invention of ghosts, demons, spirits of all sorts, magic, and the rest of pseudoscience. Although it isn't scientific to make the following statment, one could certainly hypothesize that if the supernatural existed, it would have been proven by now, unambigiously. Religions can be used as measuring tools of other religion (despite your attempt at using it as a counter example); sciences with other sciences; but their these spaces are mutually orthogonal at their core.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
-
jschell wrote:
As in scientific evidence? There is certainly no preponderance of evidence that has stood up to the scientific process.
This goes back to my original post. Some really good evidence gets dismissed out of hand just because people are coming from the bias that it can't possibly be real, so it must be one of these other things. Case in point: Some unusual activity was happening at a construction site. People from the construction company set up a camera and video recorder to record overnight. The video showed a chair slide across a room entirely by itself, and it showed a large piece of drywall spontaneously break free from a wall and fly upward against gravity. Now it's easy to start saying, "Maybe this....or Maybe that..." but all of that speculation is not scientific either. Yes, it is hard to prove paranormal activity scientifically, but on the other hand, the excuses that people make to explain paranormal activity are often just as unsubstantiated as the activity itself.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
This goes back to my original post. Some really good evidence gets dismissed out of hand just because people are coming from the bias that it can't possibly be real, so it must be one of these other things.
There is a difference between stories and the scientific process. One can (and there have been done) study the differences between stories but there is no basis in science to accept that as proof. There have been hundreds if not thousands of mysticism claims in the past century and none of them have withstood the actual scientific process. That doesn't of course mean that they don't exist. But it doesn't mean that they do either.
Richie308 wrote:
Yes, it is hard to prove paranormal activity scientifically, but on the other hand, the excuses that people make to explain paranormal activity are often just as unsubstantiated as the activity itself.
There is a substantial difference between not being able to explain something and explaining it by attributing it to any sort of mysticism. The fact is in the specific case that you mentioned (chair sliding) even in mysticism there are probably hundreds of possible explanations and none of those are substantiated either. And without proof a statement of "it was faked" is just as valid (representing as much factual value) as a statement of "a ghost did it".
-
Richie308 wrote:
This goes back to my original post. Some really good evidence gets dismissed out of hand just because people are coming from the bias that it can't possibly be real, so it must be one of these other things.
There is a difference between stories and the scientific process. One can (and there have been done) study the differences between stories but there is no basis in science to accept that as proof. There have been hundreds if not thousands of mysticism claims in the past century and none of them have withstood the actual scientific process. That doesn't of course mean that they don't exist. But it doesn't mean that they do either.
Richie308 wrote:
Yes, it is hard to prove paranormal activity scientifically, but on the other hand, the excuses that people make to explain paranormal activity are often just as unsubstantiated as the activity itself.
There is a substantial difference between not being able to explain something and explaining it by attributing it to any sort of mysticism. The fact is in the specific case that you mentioned (chair sliding) even in mysticism there are probably hundreds of possible explanations and none of those are substantiated either. And without proof a statement of "it was faked" is just as valid (representing as much factual value) as a statement of "a ghost did it".
Thank you for all your thoughtful replies. I think I was not being clear enough. I totally agree that the available evidence doesn't meet the scientific standard. I agree that ghosts haven't been, and may never be scientifically proven. I understand the scientific process, and I respect it. My only point is that I personally choose to believe in them, even though you can't invite a ghost into the laboratory to participate in a scientific study.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
Thank you for all your thoughtful replies. I think I was not being clear enough. I totally agree that the available evidence doesn't meet the scientific standard. I agree that ghosts haven't been, and may never be scientifically proven. I understand the scientific process, and I respect it. My only point is that I personally choose to believe in them, even though you can't invite a ghost into the laboratory to participate in a scientific study.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
I totally agree that the available evidence doesn't meet the scientific standard. I agree that ghosts haven't been, and may never be scientifically proven.
Ok.
Richie308 wrote:
My only point is that I personally choose to believe in them, even though you can't invite a ghost into the laboratory to participate in a scientific study.
Which is completely reasonable. And it fits even into a scientific mindset as long as one understands it is just a belief.. Unfortunately "prepoderance of evidence" is used extensively in Evolutionary Theory and as such in this sort of discussion it can have a implied meaning that is not intended.
-
jschell wrote:
It is similar to requesting that someone substantiate Buddism using nothing but the Catholic faith.
Here, I must disagree: Although the abstraction that even science can be called a belief system can be made if one's penstroke is broad enough, their is a substantial difference to it as to its workings. The difference is that science can (or at least is expected to be) testable and tested, and the possibility of disproving a 'belief' is open. Hence, since evolves toward being ever more correct (or consistant with the observable universe). A particular aspect of science is that it is subject to reproducability: if one does the same things, one expects the same results. Its the very essence is one of cause-and-effect. Religion, on the other hand, is taken on faith - and is not subject to testing. Evolving in any manner that contridicts earlier teachings are spurned as heresay - and with good reason. If one allowed errors to be admitted, then believers assume there are further errors: belief (and institutions) fail (or war breaks out: Shiia/sunni catholic/protestant). Furthermore, cause and effect are not an axiom in any predictable manner. (e.g.: Why do sinners seem to prosper?). To explain contridictions, new ideas are derivied (fantasies concocted?). Heaven vs Hell, for example - that those prospering from evil will be punished later whilst suffering saints get etenal reward - all in some afterlife that can not seen from "this side". And hence, the invention of ghosts, demons, spirits of all sorts, magic, and the rest of pseudoscience. Although it isn't scientific to make the following statment, one could certainly hypothesize that if the supernatural existed, it would have been proven by now, unambigiously. Religions can be used as measuring tools of other religion (despite your attempt at using it as a counter example); sciences with other sciences; but their these spaces are mutually orthogonal at their core.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Balboos wrote:
Here, I must disagree: Although the abstraction that even science can be called a belief system can be made if one's penstroke is broad enough, their is a substantial difference to it as to its workings.
Which is exactly what every belief system claims. Science, all of it, in every aspect, is based on assumptions. Assumptions are beliefs. Science, by definition, recognizes those assumptions and, again by definition, does not make assertions about what may be outside of those assumptions. Many religions do not recognize assumptions (although that varies by time and person.) But that doesn't detrack from the system since that is in fact part of the belief system itself.
Balboos wrote:
The difference is that science can (or at least is expected to be) testable and tested, and the possibility of disproving a 'belief' is open. Hence, since evolves toward being ever more correct (or consistant with the observable universe). A particular aspect of science is that it is subject to reproducability: if one does the same things, one expects the same results. Its the very essence is one of cause-and-effect.
Thank you for undertaking to explain a tenet of that particular belief system to me. The rational behind confessing one's sins in Catholicism is well documented as well. In neither case does it discount the fact that that confession and testability are in fact part of the belief system. If you feel assumptions are not involved then please provide a proof that demonstrates that all aspects of everything known and knowable can be reproduced.
Balboos wrote:
Religion, on the other hand, is taken on faith - and is not subject to testing
And it is an assumption that everything is reproducible and testable. Which is a belief. Perhaps you would explain how science tests the theory of star formation? How is is reproduced? Myself I believe the world is round. The fact that science allows methodoligies that allow one to test that does alter my fundamental belief that it is in fact round. The fact that some religions allow for methodologies that allow one to prove that one is possessed by a demon isn't likely to alter my belief that it is really unlikely that anyone is ever possessed by a demon. But I still recognize that those are beliefs. They are not Truths (explicitly with a capital 'T'). <
-
Balboos wrote:
Here, I must disagree: Although the abstraction that even science can be called a belief system can be made if one's penstroke is broad enough, their is a substantial difference to it as to its workings.
Which is exactly what every belief system claims. Science, all of it, in every aspect, is based on assumptions. Assumptions are beliefs. Science, by definition, recognizes those assumptions and, again by definition, does not make assertions about what may be outside of those assumptions. Many religions do not recognize assumptions (although that varies by time and person.) But that doesn't detrack from the system since that is in fact part of the belief system itself.
Balboos wrote:
The difference is that science can (or at least is expected to be) testable and tested, and the possibility of disproving a 'belief' is open. Hence, since evolves toward being ever more correct (or consistant with the observable universe). A particular aspect of science is that it is subject to reproducability: if one does the same things, one expects the same results. Its the very essence is one of cause-and-effect.
Thank you for undertaking to explain a tenet of that particular belief system to me. The rational behind confessing one's sins in Catholicism is well documented as well. In neither case does it discount the fact that that confession and testability are in fact part of the belief system. If you feel assumptions are not involved then please provide a proof that demonstrates that all aspects of everything known and knowable can be reproduced.
Balboos wrote:
Religion, on the other hand, is taken on faith - and is not subject to testing
And it is an assumption that everything is reproducible and testable. Which is a belief. Perhaps you would explain how science tests the theory of star formation? How is is reproduced? Myself I believe the world is round. The fact that science allows methodoligies that allow one to test that does alter my fundamental belief that it is in fact round. The fact that some religions allow for methodologies that allow one to prove that one is possessed by a demon isn't likely to alter my belief that it is really unlikely that anyone is ever possessed by a demon. But I still recognize that those are beliefs. They are not Truths (explicitly with a capital 'T'). <
jschell wrote:
If you feel assumptions are not involved then please provide a proof that demonstrates that all aspects of everything known and knowable can be reproduced.
AND
jschell wrote:
erhaps you would explain how science tests the theory of star formation? How is is reproduced?
AND OTHERS Your reply contains typical red-herrings not unlike those used by proposers and adherents of the oxymoron of "creation science". The whole point, as was detailed in my post, is that science continiously tests its assertions. If and when found in error, they are corrected or disguarded. Not so with religion - as you very well know. Similarly, when something is described as a theory, it is not taken to be true - just a concept to be considered: again, unlike the religious equivalents - which eventually evolved to dogma. Demanding proof of a theory is typical of bible-thumpers trying to win an argument with the unwary. If it has proof, it would not be called a theory.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that at least some Catholics would disagree quite a bit with your assertion that Scientology or Buddism can exist at all within their religion.
Another misrepresentation of my implication - which is correctly interpreted as religious belief systems are capable of being describe in terms of one another - unquestioned beliefs are the basis set of all religions, albeit different ones.
jschell wrote:
And despite your assertion categorizing physics and chemistry as comparable to catholicism and naturalism it is certainly outside the bounds of what the fundamentals of science versus the fundamentals of religions are.
Again, perversion of my insinuation: I specifcally claimed the opposite, preferring to compare apples with apples, oranges with oranges, &etc. Perhaps the term orthogonal threw you? It implies (remember geometry?) that two lines meet at only one point - which is vanishingly small. In non-geometrical context, it means one cannot be used to describe the other, for their commonality is insignificant Even in a best-case scenario, the Jewish tradition of interpretation of the bible according to a rather laudable set of logical rules is still using a faith-based data-set (the Bible). Though following a remarkably scientific met
-
jschell wrote:
If you feel assumptions are not involved then please provide a proof that demonstrates that all aspects of everything known and knowable can be reproduced.
AND
jschell wrote:
erhaps you would explain how science tests the theory of star formation? How is is reproduced?
AND OTHERS Your reply contains typical red-herrings not unlike those used by proposers and adherents of the oxymoron of "creation science". The whole point, as was detailed in my post, is that science continiously tests its assertions. If and when found in error, they are corrected or disguarded. Not so with religion - as you very well know. Similarly, when something is described as a theory, it is not taken to be true - just a concept to be considered: again, unlike the religious equivalents - which eventually evolved to dogma. Demanding proof of a theory is typical of bible-thumpers trying to win an argument with the unwary. If it has proof, it would not be called a theory.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that at least some Catholics would disagree quite a bit with your assertion that Scientology or Buddism can exist at all within their religion.
Another misrepresentation of my implication - which is correctly interpreted as religious belief systems are capable of being describe in terms of one another - unquestioned beliefs are the basis set of all religions, albeit different ones.
jschell wrote:
And despite your assertion categorizing physics and chemistry as comparable to catholicism and naturalism it is certainly outside the bounds of what the fundamentals of science versus the fundamentals of religions are.
Again, perversion of my insinuation: I specifcally claimed the opposite, preferring to compare apples with apples, oranges with oranges, &etc. Perhaps the term orthogonal threw you? It implies (remember geometry?) that two lines meet at only one point - which is vanishingly small. In non-geometrical context, it means one cannot be used to describe the other, for their commonality is insignificant Even in a best-case scenario, the Jewish tradition of interpretation of the bible according to a rather laudable set of logical rules is still using a faith-based data-set (the Bible). Though following a remarkably scientific met
Balboos wrote:
Your reply contains typical red-herrings not unlike those used by proposers and adherents of the oxymoron of "creation science".
Myself I would have catagorized it as a deep understanding of philosophy, classical logic and the origins of science.
Balboos wrote:
The whole point, as was detailed in my post, is that science continiously tests its assertions. If and when found in error, they are corrected or disguarded. Not so with religion - as you very well know. Similarly, when something is described as a theory, it is not taken to be true
Which has nothing to do with my point. I am not discussing the methodology of science but rather pointing out that those methodologies are based on assumptions which are beliefs.
Balboos wrote:
Demanding proof of a theory is typical of bible-thumpers trying to win an argument with the unwary. If it has proof, it would not be called a theory.
You are claiming that science typically addresses reproducibility as a theory only and that there are ongoing investigations to test that theory?
Balboos wrote:
Another misrepresentation of my implication - which is correctly interpreted as religious belief systems are capable of being describe in terms of one another - unquestioned beliefs are the basis set of all religions, albeit different ones.
You said "Religions can be used as measuring tools of other religion (despite your attempt at using it as a counter example); sciences with other sciences;" My interpretation of that statement. - Religion (say Catholicism) is measured via another religion (say Naturalism) - Science is measure via what? Now either you are claiming that physics (a branch of science) is measured via chemistry (another branch) or you are claiming that there is some competing type of thing which encapsulates those branches and that there is another thing that encapsulates something else. And both of those are considered "science". So if the second could you please provide names for them. Perhaps you meant something else by that statement. If so then please re-phrase it.
Balboos wrote:
What I find unremarkable in your response, as a whole, is that it is primarily grappling with a frutiless (ney - doomed!) attempt at bringing the scientific
-
Balboos wrote:
Your reply contains typical red-herrings not unlike those used by proposers and adherents of the oxymoron of "creation science".
Myself I would have catagorized it as a deep understanding of philosophy, classical logic and the origins of science.
Balboos wrote:
The whole point, as was detailed in my post, is that science continiously tests its assertions. If and when found in error, they are corrected or disguarded. Not so with religion - as you very well know. Similarly, when something is described as a theory, it is not taken to be true
Which has nothing to do with my point. I am not discussing the methodology of science but rather pointing out that those methodologies are based on assumptions which are beliefs.
Balboos wrote:
Demanding proof of a theory is typical of bible-thumpers trying to win an argument with the unwary. If it has proof, it would not be called a theory.
You are claiming that science typically addresses reproducibility as a theory only and that there are ongoing investigations to test that theory?
Balboos wrote:
Another misrepresentation of my implication - which is correctly interpreted as religious belief systems are capable of being describe in terms of one another - unquestioned beliefs are the basis set of all religions, albeit different ones.
You said "Religions can be used as measuring tools of other religion (despite your attempt at using it as a counter example); sciences with other sciences;" My interpretation of that statement. - Religion (say Catholicism) is measured via another religion (say Naturalism) - Science is measure via what? Now either you are claiming that physics (a branch of science) is measured via chemistry (another branch) or you are claiming that there is some competing type of thing which encapsulates those branches and that there is another thing that encapsulates something else. And both of those are considered "science". So if the second could you please provide names for them. Perhaps you meant something else by that statement. If so then please re-phrase it.
Balboos wrote:
What I find unremarkable in your response, as a whole, is that it is primarily grappling with a frutiless (ney - doomed!) attempt at bringing the scientific
jschell wrote:
Conversely a Truth is one which allows for no opposite view and often leads directly to feelings of outrage that a suggestion is even made that it is yet another choice by a human. Challenging can often lead to anger and even violence. There is seldom any possibility that any discussion that will allow the individual to realize that the idea is just a choice by that individual.
Apparently our views as to the meaning of 'TRUTH" are quite dissimilar. Truth describes wht IS. You mix it a little too freely with the concept of belief. Truth doesn't depend upon belief. That is the key. That is what science (should) seek. Whether it be chemisty, physics, or others, they all fall under the domain of trying to determine that which is from all that might be. At present, reporducability of results, and if at all feasible, correct extrapolation of untested outcomes. Unreproducable 'data' is worthless: if one cannont reproduce the same result from the same initial conditions, one has nothing. Forget about philosophical meanderings: were it not for its ability to predict, and thereby verify, its current best estimates of truth (which is better phrased as understanding), you assertion of the science and religion being the same would hold merit. But, at present, no religious assertions and descriptions have any predictive capability - at least not valid ones. Unless, of course, one is willing to wait until the end-of-days for tje proof.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
-
Christian Graus wrote:
BTW, no-one else is reading this, and I don't get email notifications, so I'm checking up by hand. Could you reply to my gmail address pls ?
I will find time after work to reply. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
It looks like you are discussion for nothing, because you two thrust the same (important) thing that is Christ, the Son of God. What seems to happen here is that you two live in greatly different enviroments. Here in Brazil, where we have see many African-derived cults, I hear many stories about supernatural things brought by evil spirits. This country is greatly dominated by people who adore the devil, but I'm happy because I hear more and more about Christians who fight them. In the Bible we can see that THE NAME OF JESUS give us this power to expel demons and the Bible also says we should have COURAGE in life. So, don't fear to face a "ghost", just call for Jesus. The devil operates in many ways. The Bible shows that they have (some) power and certainly some inteligence to use it. Chris, you don't see because you live in a much more peaceful place, where God has probably cleansed from devil's cults that invoke evil spirits. Praise the Lord for the place you live in. And remember in your prays for places where this is not the case yet (like here in Brazil). God Bless You PS: Sorry for taking part in a discussion I was not called to. Pablo Sampaio Recife, Brazil
-
It looks like you are discussion for nothing, because you two thrust the same (important) thing that is Christ, the Son of God. What seems to happen here is that you two live in greatly different enviroments. Here in Brazil, where we have see many African-derived cults, I hear many stories about supernatural things brought by evil spirits. This country is greatly dominated by people who adore the devil, but I'm happy because I hear more and more about Christians who fight them. In the Bible we can see that THE NAME OF JESUS give us this power to expel demons and the Bible also says we should have COURAGE in life. So, don't fear to face a "ghost", just call for Jesus. The devil operates in many ways. The Bible shows that they have (some) power and certainly some inteligence to use it. Chris, you don't see because you live in a much more peaceful place, where God has probably cleansed from devil's cults that invoke evil spirits. Praise the Lord for the place you live in. And remember in your prays for places where this is not the case yet (like here in Brazil). God Bless You PS: Sorry for taking part in a discussion I was not called to. Pablo Sampaio Recife, Brazil
Pablo Sampaio wrote:
PS: Sorry for taking part in a discussion I was not called to.
Thanks for your contribution. This is an open forum and you do not need permission to contribute. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
jschell wrote:
Conversely a Truth is one which allows for no opposite view and often leads directly to feelings of outrage that a suggestion is even made that it is yet another choice by a human. Challenging can often lead to anger and even violence. There is seldom any possibility that any discussion that will allow the individual to realize that the idea is just a choice by that individual.
Apparently our views as to the meaning of 'TRUTH" are quite dissimilar. Truth describes wht IS. You mix it a little too freely with the concept of belief. Truth doesn't depend upon belief. That is the key. That is what science (should) seek. Whether it be chemisty, physics, or others, they all fall under the domain of trying to determine that which is from all that might be. At present, reporducability of results, and if at all feasible, correct extrapolation of untested outcomes. Unreproducable 'data' is worthless: if one cannont reproduce the same result from the same initial conditions, one has nothing. Forget about philosophical meanderings: were it not for its ability to predict, and thereby verify, its current best estimates of truth (which is better phrased as understanding), you assertion of the science and religion being the same would hold merit. But, at present, no religious assertions and descriptions have any predictive capability - at least not valid ones. Unless, of course, one is willing to wait until the end-of-days for tje proof.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Balboos wrote:
Apparently our views as to the meaning of 'TRUTH" are quite dissimilar. Truth describes wht IS. You mix it a little too freely with the concept of belief.
Obviously. I can only suggest that you should attempt to formulate a proof which can prove that what you see with your eyes exists apart from you. I suspect that you will find it rather difficult.
Balboos wrote:
Truth doesn't depend upon belief. That is the key.
The key is in understanding the basis of science. You are attempting to use the framework of science to argue that the framework itself is valid (and thus provable.) And that in fact is something that science in general distains and I believe that mathematics actually has a proof demonstrating that it impossible.
Balboos wrote:
Whether it be chemisty, physics, or others, they all fall under the domain of trying to determine that which is from all that might be. At present, reporducability of results, and if at all feasible, correct extrapolation of untested outcomes.
Which is how the framework works. It does not in of itself prove that the framework is valid.
Balboos wrote:
Forget about philosophical meanderings: were it not for its ability to predict, and thereby verify, its current best estimates of truth (which is better phrased as understanding), you assertion of the science and religion being the same would hold merit.
I believe you are seriously confused as to what I am discussing. You continue to both to try to explain to me how science works. I am not however discussing that. You also fail to address in any way what I am discussing. I am not discussing at all how science works internally. I am discussing the basis of how science exists and the very elements from which it is constructed. Given that you continue to ignore what I am actually asserting it seems rather obvious that either you do not want to address it or do not in fact understand what I am talking about. And again I can only note that you still have not produce a proof of reproducability (which I asked for sometime ago) nor have you even try to defend your previous assertion that reproducability is a theory. Please note that I am not asking for such because I am challenging that assumption but rather I am attempting to demostrate to you (and mak
-
Balboos wrote:
Apparently our views as to the meaning of 'TRUTH" are quite dissimilar. Truth describes wht IS. You mix it a little too freely with the concept of belief.
Obviously. I can only suggest that you should attempt to formulate a proof which can prove that what you see with your eyes exists apart from you. I suspect that you will find it rather difficult.
Balboos wrote:
Truth doesn't depend upon belief. That is the key.
The key is in understanding the basis of science. You are attempting to use the framework of science to argue that the framework itself is valid (and thus provable.) And that in fact is something that science in general distains and I believe that mathematics actually has a proof demonstrating that it impossible.
Balboos wrote:
Whether it be chemisty, physics, or others, they all fall under the domain of trying to determine that which is from all that might be. At present, reporducability of results, and if at all feasible, correct extrapolation of untested outcomes.
Which is how the framework works. It does not in of itself prove that the framework is valid.
Balboos wrote:
Forget about philosophical meanderings: were it not for its ability to predict, and thereby verify, its current best estimates of truth (which is better phrased as understanding), you assertion of the science and religion being the same would hold merit.
I believe you are seriously confused as to what I am discussing. You continue to both to try to explain to me how science works. I am not however discussing that. You also fail to address in any way what I am discussing. I am not discussing at all how science works internally. I am discussing the basis of how science exists and the very elements from which it is constructed. Given that you continue to ignore what I am actually asserting it seems rather obvious that either you do not want to address it or do not in fact understand what I am talking about. And again I can only note that you still have not produce a proof of reproducability (which I asked for sometime ago) nor have you even try to defend your previous assertion that reproducability is a theory. Please note that I am not asking for such because I am challenging that assumption but rather I am attempting to demostrate to you (and mak
jschell wrote:
You are attempting to use the framework of science to argue that the framework itself is valid
Been there. Done that. I've no proof that there is anything in existence other than me. That is a pointless distraction from the concepts. If you begin with the forgoing, you can never prove anything - what a pointless exercise, indeed!
jschell wrote:
Obviously. I can only suggest that you should attempt to formulate a proof which can prove that what you see with your eyes exists apart from you. I suspect that you will find it rather difficult.
Not relevant for the following reasons. The framework need only consist of a self-consistant basis set of concepts. The basis set is exercised (tested), and to be certain there is no error in the testing (not infallable, as would be, say religious beliefs), when retries the test to observe in the same results are obtained. If always A THEN B, then we have something that equates to truth. If not always A THEN B, there is a problem in the assumptions, the tests, and/or the conclusions. They are disguarded (again differing from the domatic beliefs of religion), or refined. If one can show the framwork to be inconsistant, than it must either be corrected (e.g., fine tune physics with special relativity) or disguarded (e.g., geocentric view of the universe). But, belief in ghosts notwithstanding, dragging this discussion into the realm of a philosophy 101 discussion is non-productive. None the less, couching all in your framework syntax, we have the sciences, where the basis set of which the framework is constructed must be self-consistant at all times and defining all of its space, and religion, where the basis set need be neither consistant nor all-encompassing, with large areas of its knowledge space inaccesable by design. To judge either of these two immensely different systems by one another's rules is futility. Now, of course you may make this thread recursive, yet again, claiming that I am using the scientific framework to define the design the frameworks. And so, round and round we'd go, again. I simply removed that particular burden from my life by dichotomy: I live in a scientificly described world, applying its prinicpals to all interactions except for spiritual matters. Ethics, interestingly, can straddle the two universes, for one should do good for its own sake (religious), yet, it is
-
jschell wrote:
You are attempting to use the framework of science to argue that the framework itself is valid
Been there. Done that. I've no proof that there is anything in existence other than me. That is a pointless distraction from the concepts. If you begin with the forgoing, you can never prove anything - what a pointless exercise, indeed!
jschell wrote:
Obviously. I can only suggest that you should attempt to formulate a proof which can prove that what you see with your eyes exists apart from you. I suspect that you will find it rather difficult.
Not relevant for the following reasons. The framework need only consist of a self-consistant basis set of concepts. The basis set is exercised (tested), and to be certain there is no error in the testing (not infallable, as would be, say religious beliefs), when retries the test to observe in the same results are obtained. If always A THEN B, then we have something that equates to truth. If not always A THEN B, there is a problem in the assumptions, the tests, and/or the conclusions. They are disguarded (again differing from the domatic beliefs of religion), or refined. If one can show the framwork to be inconsistant, than it must either be corrected (e.g., fine tune physics with special relativity) or disguarded (e.g., geocentric view of the universe). But, belief in ghosts notwithstanding, dragging this discussion into the realm of a philosophy 101 discussion is non-productive. None the less, couching all in your framework syntax, we have the sciences, where the basis set of which the framework is constructed must be self-consistant at all times and defining all of its space, and religion, where the basis set need be neither consistant nor all-encompassing, with large areas of its knowledge space inaccesable by design. To judge either of these two immensely different systems by one another's rules is futility. Now, of course you may make this thread recursive, yet again, claiming that I am using the scientific framework to define the design the frameworks. And so, round and round we'd go, again. I simply removed that particular burden from my life by dichotomy: I live in a scientificly described world, applying its prinicpals to all interactions except for spiritual matters. Ethics, interestingly, can straddle the two universes, for one should do good for its own sake (religious), yet, it is
Balboos wrote:
Been there. Done that. I've no proof that there is anything in existence other than me. That is a pointless distraction from the concepts. If you begin with the forgoing, you can never prove anything - what a pointless exercise, indeed!
And yet still you seem to insist that science is not based on belief (assumptions.)
Balboos wrote:
Not relevant for the following reasons. The framework need only consist of a self-consistant basis set of concepts. The basis set is exercised (tested), and to be certain there is no error in the testing (not infallable, as would be, say religious beliefs), when retries the test to observe in the same results are obtained. If always A THEN B, then we have something that equates to truth. If not always A THEN B, there is a problem in the assumptions, the tests, and/or the conclusions. They are disguarded (again differing from the domatic beliefs of religion), or refined. If one can show the framwork to be inconsistant, than it must either be corrected (e.g., fine tune physics with special relativity) or disguarded (e.g., geocentric view of the universe).
Very relevant given that I am discussing beliefs. Your first paragraph is, again, merely rephrasing the tenets of the framework of science. Your second is nothing more than an assertion of a belief.
Balboos wrote:
But, belief in ghosts notwithstanding, dragging this discussion into the realm of a philosophy 101 discussion is non-productive.
Given that my statements have always been directed at the origins which are beliefs it is relevant it terms of the assertion that one is better than the other.
Balboos wrote:
None the less, couching all in your framework syntax, we have the sciences, where the basis set of which the framework is constructed must be self-consistant at all times and defining all of its space, and religion, where the basis set need be neither consistant nor all-encompassing, with large areas of its knowledge space inaccesable by design. To judge either of these two immensely different systems by one another's rules is futility.
Which I already said. Thus to state that ghosts are nothing more than a demented dream of some religion and yet admitting (presumably) that science does not state that ghosts do not exist but merely that there is no evide
-
Balboos wrote:
Been there. Done that. I've no proof that there is anything in existence other than me. That is a pointless distraction from the concepts. If you begin with the forgoing, you can never prove anything - what a pointless exercise, indeed!
And yet still you seem to insist that science is not based on belief (assumptions.)
Balboos wrote:
Not relevant for the following reasons. The framework need only consist of a self-consistant basis set of concepts. The basis set is exercised (tested), and to be certain there is no error in the testing (not infallable, as would be, say religious beliefs), when retries the test to observe in the same results are obtained. If always A THEN B, then we have something that equates to truth. If not always A THEN B, there is a problem in the assumptions, the tests, and/or the conclusions. They are disguarded (again differing from the domatic beliefs of religion), or refined. If one can show the framwork to be inconsistant, than it must either be corrected (e.g., fine tune physics with special relativity) or disguarded (e.g., geocentric view of the universe).
Very relevant given that I am discussing beliefs. Your first paragraph is, again, merely rephrasing the tenets of the framework of science. Your second is nothing more than an assertion of a belief.
Balboos wrote:
But, belief in ghosts notwithstanding, dragging this discussion into the realm of a philosophy 101 discussion is non-productive.
Given that my statements have always been directed at the origins which are beliefs it is relevant it terms of the assertion that one is better than the other.
Balboos wrote:
None the less, couching all in your framework syntax, we have the sciences, where the basis set of which the framework is constructed must be self-consistant at all times and defining all of its space, and religion, where the basis set need be neither consistant nor all-encompassing, with large areas of its knowledge space inaccesable by design. To judge either of these two immensely different systems by one another's rules is futility.
Which I already said. Thus to state that ghosts are nothing more than a demented dream of some religion and yet admitting (presumably) that science does not state that ghosts do not exist but merely that there is no evide
At this point, we're in a recursive loop without an exit strategy . . .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
-
At this point, we're in a recursive loop without an exit strategy . . .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Myself I always try to remain hopeful that those who claim they understand science either understand the defined limitations of it or at least can learn. I continue to be surprised. I don't expect as much from religious zeolots if for no other reason than because their systems do not in fact generally allow for that. (Although to be fair my experience only extends to the standard judeo-christian with some forays into the very exotic types of those.)
