Do you believe in ghosts?
-
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.)