IS THERE A TRUE CHURCH IN THE WORLD TODAY?

I imagine your wife prays a lot.

M. I claimed that prayer studies exist that obtained statistically significant results, and were done rigorously enough to be publishd in a refereed journal. This claim was supported. I have claimed that the Scriptures describe the true church as not having a name or building, and cited the verses that say so, supporting my claim. I claim that there exists a scientific method, rather widely accepted (many web-sites) that protects humans from the dogmatically opinionated, all-or-nothing view of data or evidence, but allows, through bayesian calculations, the incorporation of "weak" or messy data into the process of improving the plausibility of various subjectively confused ideas, such as demons. The support for both these claims has been vigorously discussed. It has not been accepted as support only by those who cannot give up the idea that "proving" something is the only way evidence can be used.The perserverance of Hinduism does reflect, in my appraisal of plausibility, the existence of some immortal spiritual beings or being, who cause people to believe that religion. True, in that sense. But, the hypothesis that this being is not the "one true God" remains to be tested further. It is my understanding that when persons coming on the scene with orthodox theology, their prayers drive out of the minds of Hindus the idea that this religion is the most useful. I've heard anecdotes to that effect, anyway. In fact, the "happiest" state in all of India, I understand, is 100% followers of Yeshua.But let the tests go on! H-D science will bring us to the truth!Stephen

quote:

---

I claimed that prayer studies exist that obtained statistically significant results, and were done rigorously enough to be publishd in a refereed journal. This claim was supported.

---

You have chosen to ignore the prayer studies that drew no conclusions because the data was not statistically significant or in some cases showed detrimental effects of prayer i.e. higher frequency of re-admission to the hospital. Or a comprehensive review of the data showing no significant effect.You have only supported that you like to cherry pick evidence which in science is called fraud.

quote:

---

I have claimed that the Scriptures describe the true church as not having a name or building, and cited the verses that say so, supporting my claim.

---

The bible says that the bible says..blah blah blah. The Vedas say you are wrong thus your claim is not supported..see it is easy when your standard of evidence is based on opinion

quote:

---

. I claim that there exists a scientific method, rather widely accepted (many web-sites) that protects humans from the dogmatically opinionated, all-or-nothing view of data or evidence, but allows, through bayesian calculations, the incorporation of "weak" or messy data into the process of improving the plausibility of various subjectively confused ideas, such as demons. The support for both these claims has been vigorously discussed. It has not been accepted as support only by those who cannot give up the idea that "proving" something is the only way evidence can be used.

---

First, it is telling that you must seek your definition of science from web sites. It is also telling that the method you describe in no way matches the method described by Popper or on the top hits for H-D even with an online search. So either you do not understand the content of the sites or you are distorting the definition to fit your religious agenda. The two are not mutually exclusive.You are also a hypocrite for claiming that any of the science oriented people on this site demand you "prove" your hypotheses. It seems your only way to make a point is to lie about what Percy, holmes, Mr. Hambre, and myself have been arguing with you about in many other threads. Again, you only support the weakness of your position.

quote:

---

The perserverance of Hinduism does reflect, in my appraisal of plausibility, the existence of some immortal spiritual beings or being, who cause people to believe that religion.

---

It also supports the plausibility of non-existence of some immortal spiritual being. It also supports the plausibility that the breast of Janet Jackson that we did not see is actually god.

quote:

---

the hypothesis that this being is not the "one true God" remains to be tested further.

---

tested further? It is untestable to begin with much less worthy of further testing.

quote:

---

It is my understanding that when persons coming on the scene with orthodox theology, their prayers drive out of the minds of Hindus the idea that this religion is the most useful. I've heard anecdotes to that effect, anyway.

---

I have heard anecdotes as well. I have heard that those who travel to India dump christianity like a hot potato and take up Buddhism. I have also heard that anecdotes that Kid Rock can sing (though I am skeptical since the reports came from Mr. Hambre ). Anecdotes get you nowhere.

quote:

---

In fact, the "happiest" state in all of India, I understand, is 100% followers of Yeshua.

---

With such a level of "understanding" I am surprised you are able to remember how to log onto this site every day.

quote:

---

But let the tests go on! H-D science will bring us to the truth!

---

Great, when will you start practicing H-D?

M.This exchange with Mike, No, Mike's claim is exactly what I have been saying. He, Jehovah, confirmed the biblical claim that we can "prove" Him because, if we do certain things (tithe, prayer studies, simple praying for ourselves, seeking Him with all our might, etc.) He proves Himself to us, (opens the windows to heaven and drives away the devourer, answers miraculously our prayers, either for an experiment, or personally, revealing Himself to us, etc.) I agree with Mike. You're just not getting this point, at least not as well as you seem to be understanding how H-D science works. Probably because you have a demon in your brain. But, you can test that hypothesis with a simple experiment, a H-D experiment. If it is true, and you pray an agnostic prayer to Jehovah, in the name and by the blood of Yeshua, (in the case that they are all real), you will understand what we are trying to say. So, if you are a real scientist, do it. Not me! I choose Jehovah's version of reality over mine. And, I choose to become a love-slave to Yeshua, taking charge of my own life only in those areas that He assigns to me. I wanted to be free, you see, and He has promised to set me free in all the ways I can manage. While before, trying to be my own boss, the devil kept taking me captive with an long list of have tos, and got tos, compulsions, addictions, and other forms of bond slavery.Hope this makes it even easier for you to understand us.Stephen

M.You report, Now that you are a scientist, why not repeat the experiment scientifically? To see if wishing and praying have the same chance of success?Stephen

quote:

---

No, Mike's claim is exactly what I have been saying. He, Jehovah, confirmed the biblical claim that we can "prove" Him because, if we do certain things (tithe, prayer studies, simple praying for ourselves, seeking Him with all our might, etc.) He proves Himself to us, (opens the windows to heaven and drives away the devourer, answers miraculously our prayers, either for an experiment, or personally, revealing Himself to us, etc.) I agree with Mike. You're just not getting this point, at least not as well as you seem to be understanding how H-D science works. Probably because you have a demon in your brain. But, you can test that hypothesis with a simple experiment, a H-D experiment. If it is true, and you pray an agnostic prayer to Jehovah, in the name and by the blood of Yeshua, (in the case that they are all real), you will understand what we are trying to say. So, if you are a real scientist, do it.

---

You start with the circular arguement that if you believe in god, god is therefore proven..bzzzt..non science, not a logical conclusion. You then go on to say that if I disagree with this conclusion I must have a demon in my brain or some other malady..bzzt, non science, not a logical conclusion. You then make yet again the claim that what you claim is real science...circular arguments, personal belief, and claims that everyone who disagrees is possessed by a demon strongly suggests that your concept of science would be more fitting for the plot of the next Godzilla movie.

quote:

---

And, I choose to become a love-slave to Yeshua, taking charge of my own life only in those areas that He assigns to me.

---

I chose to be nobody's slave...especially mythological dieties...ok, maybe I would be willing to be the love slave of of Heidi Klum but that is beside the point

quote:

---

While before, trying to be my own boss, the devil kept taking me captive with an long list of have tos, and got tos, compulsions, addictions, and other forms of bond slavery.

---

Your personal faults are hardly positive evidence for your current position.

quote:

---

Hope this makes it even easier for you to understand us.

---

I understand Mike just fine...you on the other hand are completely inconsistent and incoherent.

As a non-believer praying is the same as wishing...and since prayer studies have shown either no effect or even detrimental effects (I assume you read the references I posted?) it is a waste of time. In any case, even if prayer had an effect on a desired outcome..it is still not evidence for demons or a higher being...someday maybe you will learn to connect the hypothesis being tested with the data being collected..until then, fart away

Mammuthus,I'm pretty sure there is a way to test the differential effectiveness of wishing-vs.-praying, using the Bayesian logic, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, as well as methodological naturalism whatever that is. I'm sure that, given my limited scientific exposure (I've only ever been in 'control groups'), I'll get some of the details wrong but you could give me pointers on making it a more reasonable attempt to raise the plausibility of the proposal.Let's say in the first part of the experiment I wish in one hand and shit in the other. Depending on which hand fills up first, the result would demonstrate the quantitative relationship between the two methods. Then I could pray in one hand and shit in the other, to measure the correlation between those two. By assuming that shitting is the constant, we may be able to determine accurate coefficients that apply in the instance of either praying or wishing.I thought I remembered reading a recent article in Nature that dealt with this very topic, entitled "A Load of Shit," but it turn out that was the title of their review of the new Kid Rock album. My back issues are all in the attic and it's real cold up there.regards,
Esteban "Love Slave" Hambre

quote:

---

Let's say in the first part of the experiment I wish in one hand and shit in the other. Depending on which hand fills up first, the result would demonstrate the quantitative relationship between the two methods. Then I could pray in one hand and shit in the other, to measure the correlation between those two. By assuming that shitting is the constant, we may be able to determine accurate coefficients that apply in the instance of either praying or wishing.

---

I think this is an inaccurate description of the paper that was actually in Science titled "Looks like shit, smells like shit, is shit" by Costas Fecalis and Jonas Horsehockey. What they did was a priori assume that praying makes you shit. Costas held out his hand and prayed and Jonas shit in it thus raising the plausibility of their hypothesis from 0.6 to 0.61. The study came to a horrific end when Jonas ate an expired can of Beefaroni and tried to reproduce the results.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-12-2004]

M.You argue, This isn't true, but even it were, it is irrelevant to the point, that I have found and presented evidence to support my claim. But, I've made several comments here about what to expect, or not to expect, given the hypothesis that I am discussing, that Jehovah is a real entity in our ecosystem, that He answers prayers properly prayed, that the rules for proper praying are in the bible. Actually, as I have reviewed the "successful" and "unsuccessful" prayer studies, I have found the patterns consistent with the Biblical guidelines for praying. For example, often when Yeshua prayed for someone to be healed, when the illness had a demonic component to it, the one prayed for got worse, even critical, before they got better. This is a proverb, in fact, in Charismatic church circles. "I prayed and it got worse!" Keep praying is the proper response, based on Yeshua's parable about the widow and the unjust judge, and the fellow asking for bread in the middle of the night. What is easy? Throwing out irrelevant distractions to hide the fact that you said something that is obviously not true? To claim something is written in Scripture, and to show in support of that claim where exactly it is written, proves that when I say something, I give support for it. Which you claimed was never true.By the way, the bible that I read never talks to me, never says anything. You believe in talking books? My baby daughters had one....But, of course, you are arguing with ghosts of creationists, who defend their positions on non-biblical matters by quoting scriptures. We agree that this in non-sense. What is written in the scriptures is evidence only of the points that Jehovah seems to be making, that He confirms in scripture. These can be a starting point to a scientific investigation, as in prayer, for example, in designing studies to test spiritual hypotheses. But, of course, are not evidence, or data that support or refute any given non-biblical hypothesis. What is telling is your grasping at straws, like even considering for a minute that my citing of number of websites as evidence of wide-spread interes in a subject, is the basis for my "definition of science." Especially when I have given several times in other threads the story of how I was trained, by H.L.Lucas and R. van der Vaart, in scientific philosophy, read widely in the subject, practised what I was taught, and generated very successful scientific discoveries, proving that a. I understood what my teacher and the philosophers were saying, and b. that what they were saying was correct. I know that you hope that's not true, and that the provincial view you have of science is all there is. But, hoping won't make it so, and pretending we're talking about something else won't make it go away.I have noticed, by the way, that we are off thread in this discussion. Which is, "What is the true church of Yeshua, and does it matter to the evolution/creation discussion?" My point is that there is a true church, it is defined by certain rules in scripture, and it exists so that individuals can have heart-to-heart conversations with the Creator. A sincere effort to get to the truth of the matter can therefore be made, by finding such a church, joining, and then getting an interview with Jehovah, to ask Him whether or not He created using evolution, evolition, miracles, or something different. But, it is written in Scripture that anyone who does not receive the love of the truth, is given a spirit of delusion by God, so that they believe some lie ("My religion is the true one." "Biologic diversity came about without God's creative design, but by chance and natural selection.") So, before you would be allowed to find the church, to get an interview with God, you would have to demonstrate that you really do want the truth, not just to be right. Funny, I read those sites, delighted to find my every statement confirmed. [qs]It also supports the plausibility of non-existence of some immortal spiritual being. It also supports the plausibility that the breast of Janet Jackson that we did not see is actually god.0/qsThis statement supports the idea that there is a true church in the world, and that only in that church can someone find protection from bizarre mental functioning that your comment displays. There's help out there if you want it. Been practising it. But, one would have to know what it is to know about that.Stephen

quote:

---

This isn't true, but even it were, it is irrelevant to the point, that I have found and presented evidence to support my claim.

---

It is not irrelevant Stephen. One research group presented "evidence" that cold fusion works. The studies could not be confirmed by anyone else. Cold fusion is therefore not reproducible science and the evidence is currently against it working. Merely putting out non-reproducible "evidence" and claiming this is sufficient confirmation is not acceptable scientific rigor in case you did not know.

quote:

---

But, of course, you are arguing with ghosts of creationists, who defend their positions on non-biblical matters by quoting scriptures.

---

However, you are guilty of the same mistake. You are arguing the validity of biblical matters by claiming the bible says so. There is no difference ultimately..only the subject the bible supposedly "supports" is different.

quote:

---

What is telling is your grasping at straws, like even considering for a minute that my citing of number of websites as evidence of wide-spread interes in a subject, is the basis for my "definition of science."

---

You brought it up so live with it.

quote:

---

I have noticed, by the way, that we are off thread in this discussion. Which is, "What is the true church of Yeshua, and does it matter to the evolution/creation discussion?"

---

I agree with you here and I hope that it has not chased off mike the wiz from his participation. May I suggest, as Percy wishes, that we confine our discussion of H-D etc to "The best scientific method" thread in the "Is it Science" forum?

quote:

---

Funny, I read those sites, delighted to find my every statement confirmed.

​

This statement supports the idea that there is a true church in the world, and that only in that church can someone find protection from bizarre mental functioning that your comment displays. There's help out there if you want it.

---

That you find the sites confirm what you are saying suggests you are having reading comprehension problems. And what mental functioning problems? I have just as much evidence that Janet Jackson's unseen boob is god as you do for demons or Jehovah...you are just not praying right

quote:

---

But, one would have to know what it is to know about that.

---

This circular reasoning is actually true...now please go out and "know" about it rather than making it up as you go along...see you in the "Is it Science" forum.

M.You say, Are you accusing the cold fusion scientists of making statements without support, or of making some experimental mistake that led to irreproducible evidence for cold fusion? I have never done that here, nor for about 30 years. The validity of biblical matters is supported by experimental evidence in the world of data, testing biblical claims. Or not. It turns out that some claims have evidence to support them, others don't. A closer examination of the bible shows that this is part of what it says will be true, and it gives directions for how it is to be interpreted, so that one knows which claims to expect to be validated. Thus, so far as I am familiar with the relevant data, the book is consistently validated. Claims where it is "speaking in parables" are not literally validated. Claims of a more foundational nature are validated. Tithers prosper and prayers prayed aright are answered. Those who seek god with all their might find him. And bad people, when they have a temporary out-of-body experience, go to Hell, temporarily. Several have claimed that what they say H-D science is is different from what I describe, but the only specific example comes from a clear case of projection, leading to misunderstanding. I was accused of doing what the accuser, but not me, was doing: being subjective in the intrepretation of data. The accuser was responding to some clear, published, even peer reviewed data, explaining it away under clear subjective influence, while accusing me of justifying such irresponsible behavior, while I was objecting strenuously to this practise! According to Yeshua, this is exactly the behavior expected from minds not protected by membership in the "true" church. ("Why do you complain about the speck in another's eye, when you have a log in your own?" You probably do. Seeing boobs has always been a form of idolatry, worshipping lesser gods. Look as Asgara's avatar. A form of idolatry that blinds one to understanding the search for truth, including H-D methodology. Pray for deliverance, and to find someone to teach you philosophy of science. Worked wonders for me.Stephen

quote:

---

Are you accusing the cold fusion scientists of making statements without support, or of making some experimental mistake that led to irreproducible evidence for cold fusion?

---

Yes, nobody else can achieve the results they did under the identical experimental conditions they used...hence it is a non-reproducible result, artifact, not caused by what they claim, anecdote. A more recent example of such an outcome uncovered a major fraud in the physical sciences committed by Hendrik Schoen.

quote:

---

It turns out that some claims have evidence to support them, others don't. A closer examination of the bible shows that this is part of what it says will be true, and it gives directions for how it is to be interpreted, so that one knows which claims to expect to be validated.

---

Bwahaaahaaahaaa...."A closer examination of the bible shows that this is part of what it says will be true..." Oh no, you don't use the bible to claim the bible is true...my mistake

quote:

---

Several have claimed that what they say H-D science is is different from what I describe, but the only specific example comes from a clear case of projection, leading to misunderstanding.

---

So stop projecting already.

quote:

---

According to Yeshua, this is exactly the behavior expected from minds not protected by membership in the "true" church.

---

According to Janet Jackson's "true" divine breast you are wrong and your mind is not protected by the bra of celestial reason...you should be ashamed

quote:

---

You probably do. Seeing boobs has always been a form of idolatry, worshipping lesser gods. Look as Asgara's avatar. A form of idolatry that blinds one to understanding the search for truth, including H-D methodology.

---

How do you know..the boob of Asgara's avatar could also be the one true god and is testing your loyalty. There is just as much compelling reason to believe that as anything you have said thus far.

quote:

---

Pray for deliverance, and to find someone to teach you philosophy of science. Worked wonders for me.

---

Oh yes, I am so envious of you..to be a career-less demented old man wishing for greatness and overvaluing my influence and genius...sounds about as wonder-ful as shaving my bellybutton with a chain saw.

Yes. A Christian is not a Christian by way of education. A Christian is not a Christian by way of birth. A Christian is not a Christian by way of membership in a church. A Christian is a Christian by impartation of the Holy Spirit and adoption by God into a mystical body known as the Bride.

M.You note, facetiously Not authoritatively. But, if Jehovah in the Bible lays out an experiment that can be done to "prove" or "test" Him and His Scriptures, then doing that experiment validates the claim that the Bible is true. How do you know whether a cookbook is a "good" cookbook? You prepare a sampling of the recipes. If they taste good, the cookbook is good. If not, it is a fraud. The way to test the idea that the cookbook is good is to try the recipes. You have to use the cookbook to prove that it is good. So, you have to use the recipes in the Bible to prove that it is good. I don't believe in compelling reasons, and even if I thought there were any, would not use them. God gave us free will, and left things so that it matters. Rationalization is "compelling reason." It's evil, takes away people's freedom. That's about it. But, it's better than you make it sound. I'd rather think that I am right than be president. Clearly, one of us is deluded. If it is me, I'm having a wonderful time, and it costs me nothing since when I die, it is simply all over. I'll never know that I was wrong. If it is you, you don't sound like you're having any more fun than I am. Careers, for example, are mostly tedious work, or were when I had one. And, when you die, if you're wrong, oh my, what a comedown that will be.Meanwhile, the fact that I am having a wonderful time rather balances the opinions you and some others have expressed. Those saying that I am deluded present no evidence to me of being trustworthy authorities, that I should trust. But thanks for caring.Stephen