Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 5:18 PM
339 online now:
granpa, halibut, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD (5 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,976 Year: 25,582/21,208 Month: 1,209/2,338 Week: 330/450 Day: 23/72 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6178
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 166 of 225 (77545)
01-10-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-04-2004 11:50 AM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
Stephen ben Yeshua responds to me:

quote:
I regard it as a straw man, since it comes from some reporter's discussion of the Codes, and was never reviewed by Witztum himself as an acceptable form of rebuttal.

Indeed. I wouldn't want Witztum to rebut it as he's the one with an axe to grind. Can you say "ad hoc reasoning"? Those who tout Bible Codes have already been found doing so.

quote:
Second, the "codes" in Moby Dick are not (very) implausible

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?

quote:
If you scramble the letters in Moby Dick, you still get "codes" largely as found in the original writing.

That's because it is a natural consequence of having a random string of letters.

quote:
If you scramble the letters in Genesis, the codes disappear.

Incorrect.

quote:
Of course, chance alone produces "codes."

That's the point. It's all chance. These "codes" from the Bible are nothing more than mathematical necessity. When you flip a coin, it has to land.

quote:
They found it very, very unlikely that the codes they found occured by chance.

And they're calculations were wrong.

quote:
Fourth, the way a scientist rejects an idea as implausible is he finds the idea unconfirmed.

Indeed. That's why "codes" in the Bible are rejected. They're a natural phenomena.

quote:
Fifth, the Moby Dick code critics are untrustworthy authorities

Logical error: Argumentum ad hominem. Just because you don't like the people who proved your pet theory wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.

quote:
This is called wishful thinking. Not generally recommended.

Indeed. One wonders why you cling to the Bible "codes" when it is so clearly wishful thinking.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-04-2004 11:50 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 2:05 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 225 (77710)
01-11-2004 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
12-26-2003 8:58 PM


quote:
1. The Bible which proves itself to be reliable via fulfilled history coupled with history, archeological discoveries, it's effect on peoples and nations, etc.

...and yet, when we ask you for the specifics, the nitty-gritty details of this so-called "evidence" you cannot deliver and must resort to simply denying any counterevidence we present or accusations of bias.

quote:
2. Testimony of ex-spiritualists, missionaries who've witnessed the evil supernatural of the jungles, and other such sources.

We also have very impassioned testimonies of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, who claim to have been reincarnated (past life regression), and who say that God told them to kill their wife and children.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias again, Buz:

http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

"Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs."

You see the testimonies which you agree with, yet you ignore all evidence and testimonies which contradict your preferred belief.

So, the result for you, Buz, is that you are not a seeker of truth, but a seeker of comfort.

quote:
3. The accuracy of Biblical description of the demonic, as well as all other satanic evil and it's effects on society. For example, the Bible claims false religious doctrines to be demonically inspired. Interestingly it is often the anti-Christian/Biblical religious doctrines tend to be the violent doctrines which teach violence to compel others to be adherants or which persecute passive Christian churches and organizations.

Of course, you engage in Confirmation bias again, because you ignore the centuries of endorsed violent treatment of non-Christians by Christians.

You also ignore the terribly violent Old Testament.

You ignore the fact that both Christianity and Islam have their roots in Judaism, which the Old Testament shows us was a very, very warlike, "kill-em-if-they-don't-believe" culture.

You also ignore other completely non-violent major world religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, both of which take their non-violent philosophy so far as to forbid the killing of animals for food.

quote:
4. Muhammed, Joseph Smith, the Buddah, Shakyamuni and others all had visions or alleged supernatural experiences which inspired them to originate their religions. Either their experiences were of Satan's kingdom or of God's kingdom. Since all these originated doctrines contrary to the Bible, as a Biblical Christian, my opinion is that they are of the kingdom of evil, even though there is some good in all these. As with examples in the Bible, the evil laces the false and the evil with enough good so as to attract adherants and deceive.

Yet more mere personal opinion from you, Buz, not evidence.

quote:
5. People know as "cutters" are a good example of Biblical demonism. I know of a person whose daughter has this need to cut herself. A number of cults and pagan religions do/did things to draw blood in their rituals as well as ofering human sacrifices.

"Cutters" are mentally-ill people, buz.

I cannot actually believe that in this day and age that someone would still believe in demonic posession, but I suppose fear and ignorance and superstition are persistent problems in any age.

Tell me, do you agree with the pastor and family who killed an autistic child while trying to rid him of a "demon"?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/autistic.boy.death/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2003 8:58 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2004 9:30 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 168 of 225 (77711)
01-11-2004 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Buzsaw
12-31-2003 8:29 PM


quote:
I like Fox because at least they're not afraid to report stuff the others censor out for ideological reasons. They are, to a point "fair and balanced."

No, they are not "fair nor balanced".

Remember what I told you about watching Fox News in the US military hotel when I was in Japan this summer, Buz?

Their tag line was "Part of the Team".

How "fair and balanced" can they be when they are "part of the (US military) team."?

You ignored me the first time I asked you to address this.

Please respnd, and explain how a supposed "fair and balanced" news organization can call itself a "part of the military team"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2003 8:29 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Phat, posted 01-11-2004 9:02 AM nator has responded
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2004 8:59 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9893
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 169 of 225 (77716)
01-11-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by nator
01-11-2004 8:29 AM


Reality: Is it absolute unprovable entities?
Ok...lemme let all ya'lls wisdom sink in....the "Moby Dick" analogy is being touted primarily to suggest that the Bible, rather than being an inerrent book, is just another storybook with some cool philosophy. At least for those of us who ascribe to human wisdom as the final judge of validity.(The relativist truth seekers) On the other hand, the Biblical inerrency believers would say that either the codes are a means for an omnipotant "commander in chief" to speak wisdom to His children who are caught up in a supernatural battle on earth, or proof of a deeper mystery within a deep book. Personally, I DO believe that there is a form of "spiritual warfare" on earth...that is, within the arena that we all live, breathe, and think in.
Rrhain, you talk about mathematical necessity. Do you theorize, then, that all prophecy is nothing more than a manifestation of mathematical chance? (sooner or later, someone will fullfill that specific combination of words and will attach a meaning to them) Rrhain..I will agree with your approach in a scientific way. Biblical inerrency and reality are very implausible. Demonic supernatural activity is implausible. It is unprovable to observers. Oftentimes, though, the easy explanations are the wrong ones. It was easy to think that the earth was flat. It was easy to imagine that the Sun rotated around the earth. My good friend Stuart, who works at Ball Aerospace, is comfortable thinking about Jesus as an alien, since to him this is more plausible than thinking of an Omnipotant Creator, a Virgin Birth, and a great war with supernatural entities. I, on the other hand, have a strong belief in God manifested through human flesh and experienced with the Holy Spirit because when I "got saved", I received that Holy Spirit. I cannot prove this fact to any observers, but while I am unafraid to question the validity of it, I am a believer. To a relativist, being a believer is a term subject to modification or revision. To an absolutist, however, being a believer is a done deal, unchangeable and unbending. A limitation to progressive thought, perhaps, but we may ask where the thought process is taking us. Truth is not "out there" for us. Truth is "in here." To a scientist, wisdom is "in here" rather than "up there"( with God). To an absolutist, wisdom is both "up there", "in here" and "out there". We think too little and stick to our Faith perhaps too much. You guys think too much, and are awaiting a "provable" measureable faith when, perhaps, you should take a leap into it.

[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-11-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 01-11-2004 8:29 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 01-12-2004 8:19 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 225 (77778)
01-11-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rrhain
01-10-2004 4:12 AM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
Rrhain,

Well, you've made some interesting epistemological choices, which you are free to do, as I am. Most of what you say is simply untrue, and cannot be confirmed with quotes or analysis or any facts from the rebuttals of the Code critics. It is standard practise in science publication, in my experience, to never publish a rebuttal of a refereed article, without allowing the rebutted authors to review (they are peers, after all, and no more likely to have an ax to grind than the critics.) And, normally, a answer to the critics is also considered playing by the rules.

And the codes are statistically improbable, unless Witztum and a dozen other statisticians/mathematicians are lying.

But, your choice precludes you from understanding all this. Perhaps other readers have made different choices, and will check out the material available.

Pity to see such energy wasted on unsupported assertions.

Stephen

Confucious say, "Ostrich with head in sand soon become pile of lion shit."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 01-10-2004 4:12 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by nator, posted 01-12-2004 8:49 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 171 of 225 (77941)
01-12-2004 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Phat
01-11-2004 9:02 AM


Re: Reality: Is it absolute unprovable entities?
quote:
Ok...lemme let all ya'lls wisdom sink in....the "Moby Dick" analogy is being touted primarily to suggest that the Bible, rather than being an inerrent book, is just another storybook with some cool philosophy.

Incorrect.

The fact that we find similar messages when we do the bible code thing to Moby Dick, War and Peace, etc. means that there is nothing special about the code found in the bible.

However, this is not evidence that the Bible is "just another story book" nor is it evidence that the bible isn't inerrant.

There's other positive evidence for that.

quote:
At least for those of us who ascribe to human wisdom as the final judge of validity.(The relativist truth seekers)

It all depends upon what you are judging the valitiy of.

quote:
We think too little and stick to our Faith perhaps too much. You guys think too much, and are awaiting a "provable" measureable faith when, perhaps, you should take a leap into it.

Please do not confuse methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Phat, posted 01-11-2004 9:02 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 172 of 225 (77951)
01-12-2004 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-11-2004 2:05 PM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
quote:
And the codes are statistically improbable, unless Witztum and a dozen other statisticians/mathematicians are lying.

They are probably not lying, just wrong.

Scientists are wrong all the time.

I mean, are any of the statisticians/mathematicians who think the bible Codes are real NOT religious?

I actually don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Tell me, what evidence would you accept which would cast the validity of the Bible code in doubt for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 2:05 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 1:49 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 225 (78030)
01-12-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by nator
01-12-2004 8:49 AM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
Schrafinator,

Not being a Code Researcher myself, I read critiques and rebuttals, efforts by honorable or acknowledged scholars and scientists, to replicate, debate, and judge the work. If a professional statistician or mathematician describes a work following the original protocol for statistical testing, to replicate or confirm the findings, and fails, then I would question the Codes. The existing critiques, according to the original authors, did not follow the original protocols, the materials and methods as published. They would have pointed out the differences to the critic in a peer review, but were not allowed such review. They would have published their rebuttal, but they were not allowed to do that either, because (according to documents they have in hand), the journal involved said that "there was insufficient interest for further discussion." Not, I noted, that there was insufficient evidence of a failure to follow protocols.

Now, at one point, having a doctorate in biomathematics, I bought a Code program and was going to start doing some testing of my own. And, if push comes to shove, that's what I will do. Meaning, if some confirm, but others do not, and the controversy becomes respectable, I might be able to make a contribution, or at least satisfy myself. But, as a forensic judge of debates, this is a no-brainer. The critics are cheating, and really, when called on it, have little or no evidence that the original authors are mistaken. (There is one website, replicating a study by Gans, that failed to replicate. Gans is slow but sure in responding. So, I'm waiting here.) But there are so many confirmable, respectable replications, and the research field is expanding so fast, that it has become a research programme in the Lakatosian sense. Which means that there almost certainly has to be something there, the only question might be, what is it? Failures to replicate in this case recommend ad hoc revision of the hypothesis, not the "utter nonsense" of the critics.

I am especially distressed by the weakness, and the religious bias, of the Moby Dick Codes refutes argument. In some religions at least, the postulated existence of Muses would lead us to expect codes in all sorts of art, where the Muse signed the art or literature, just as God is supposed to have "signed" the Bible. The existence of improbable codes anywhere would confirm these religious beliefs. Comparison of the sophistication of the Codes in different places would then allow us to compare the powers of the various gods, belief in which are the basis of these religions. Might be a useful contribution of science to the human inclination to be religious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by nator, posted 01-12-2004 8:49 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-12-2004 1:59 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 225 (78034)
01-12-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-12-2004 1:49 PM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
You might be interested to know that the once reputable BBC Science documentary series Horizon had a programme on Bible Codes where they ran their own statistical analysis which appeared to debunk the codes. It did however conclude with the usual wishy-washy ending ("the wrangling will go on...").

The official site has a full transcript of the show.

PE

[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 01-12-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 1:49 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 12:40 AM Primordial Egg has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3829
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 175 of 225 (78057)
01-12-2004 3:16 PM


Bible code topics are at "ELS Codes" and "Bible Codes Prove Evolution!!.

Note that the second one was started on 4/1.

Please take the Bible code stuff to one of the above cited, and then supply a link back to the Bible code stuff in this topic.

Now back to the demonic topic, already in progress.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Abshalom, posted 01-12-2004 7:21 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 225 (78085)
01-12-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Adminnemooseus
01-12-2004 3:16 PM


The Evil Power of Supernatural Inventions
The real evil inherent in the invention of non-existent supernatural demons and other entities on whom to blame one's follies (or sins if you wish) is that now one has an out via redemption (and don't get me started on the evils of redemption) for all the hurtfull transgressions inflicted upon one's neighbor and against nature. This false theology establishes a pattern of repeat violations of human and natural laws because all one has to do is blame a transgression on a "demon" and beseach "god" for forgiveness, over and over and over again, rather than altering one's behavior to avoid transgressions against one's neighbors and against nature in the first place.

See y'all in the confessional ... Peace.

http://worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/indexz26.shtml

[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-12-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-12-2004 3:16 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 12:56 AM Abshalom has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 177 of 225 (78095)
01-12-2004 8:02 PM


Im pretty edgy on these "Codes", they don't seem to be reliable and frankly, I think that they are very bad. Christains are drifting farther away from the Bible itself, and focusing on codes that are based on chance.


Revelation 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2004 8:07 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 178 of 225 (78096)
01-12-2004 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by joshua221
01-12-2004 8:02 PM


Very Wise
Im pretty edgy on these "Codes", they don't seem to be reliable and frankly, I think that they are very bad. Christains are drifting farther away from the Bible itself, and focusing on codes that are based on chance.

Very wise, IM. This sort of stuff runs the risk of making some individuals more skeptical of the Bible.

After all if they suggest that this stuff somehow 'proves' devine intervention then, at least a few, individuals will, if the codes are shown to be bogus, suggest that the disproof of the codes in some way disproves God. Proving the codes false doesn't do that, of course. But that is the impression that will be left in some minds.

Any ill founded attempt to make God a part of the natural world. To supply concrete proof runs this risk.


Common sense isn't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by joshua221, posted 01-12-2004 8:02 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 225 (78138)
01-13-2004 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Primordial Egg
01-12-2004 1:59 PM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
Primordial Egg,

To honor Moose's gentle guidance, I'll just thank you for the tip, which I found most useful, and comment on topic. To wit,

Let's suppose there are demons. If so, what evidence might manifest to confirm their presence? I suggest that the Codes study that Rips participated in ought to be redone, with and without prayer for deliverance from demonic influence. The suggestion (finding, given confirmation by one of the committee members) that experts made a lot of mistakes might be evidence that demons were messing with the study.

It seems reasonable, as well, that demons, if they exist, could and might put codes into works they inspire.

We would predict, then, that spiritual individuals praying against demons would have better success getting improbable codes from the Bible, and less success getting codes from misleading literature, compared to atheistic scientists.

Since demons are postulated by the Bible, this prediction is utterly scientific.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-12-2004 1:59 PM Primordial Egg has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 225 (78143)
01-13-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Abshalom
01-12-2004 7:21 PM


Re: The Evil Power of Supernatural Inventions
Abshalom,

The beauty of science is that supernatural inventions, or models, can be shown implausible through proper testing. Of course, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially this baby. Clearly, if there does exist ontologically a malign supernatural agent, they will be expected to work by generating distracting covers, false, "invented" versions of themselves. Inventions that only enhance their evil agenda.

But, if they are smarter than we are, and more powerful, we need a very protected laboratory to research them. This we must seek God to obtain. Epistemologically, we will never know any more about Satan than he wants us to know, unless there is a God more powerful than he is to help us. It's the only way we can win, so we have to play that way. And it works, or has for me. God does have Satan on a sort of leash, and does teach those who ask how to "wrestle with principalities and powers."

I appreciate the way you hate evil.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Abshalom, posted 01-12-2004 7:21 PM Abshalom has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by nator, posted 01-13-2004 10:08 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017