Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 273 (75642)
12-29-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Andya Primanda
12-28-2003 10:11 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Sorry, administrators, but this was bait I could not resist.
Andya says, "I believe rhinos have more ecological impact than birds."
Abshalom says, "Andya, do you mean that all the rhinos in the world today have more ecological impact than all the birds in the world today?"
On a smaller scale, Andya, when is the last time you saw a rhino perched on the back of a bird dutifully picking the bird clean of ticks and other harmful parasites?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-28-2003 10:11 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-30-2003 2:23 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 273 (75677)
12-29-2003 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-29-2003 2:52 PM


You ignored the thrust of my argument.
In science you simply cannot set up any hypothesis and claim it is a good one.
It appears that your hypothesis is that if the Xian God is real, praying will result in benefits. Again, leaving behind the obvious admission humans actually created the results which you considered benefits, your hypothesis was not linked to any scientific standard of measuring results to support the hypothesis.
Just because there were benefits (and this alone is granting a bit to your "experiment") does not mean that you proved that it was because of a divine intervention, or more specifically a Xian divine intervention.
Running this experiment with you praying to other Gods, or others praying to other Gods will also not really change anything. I suppose it might make things a bit more suggestive, but the number of plausible explanations for why it might or might not have worked for other deities would remain high.
You need to give a much better explanation for the mechanism you are hypothesizing occurs and how you are testing it alone and not a myriad of other phenomenon.
quote:
Science proves nothing, only confirms predictions that makes ideas more plausible.
This is not how science works at all.
quote:
I sincerely hope that someone who prays out of another religious foundation will challenge me to a test of powers. We should have this data at hand. Do people get better faster when Hindus pray?
It's interesting that you should ask this. According to buz (in another thread) there is plenty of evidence that pagan gods have granted extremely long life to their adherents. Only buz thinks what really happened is that it was demons posing as gods and inhabiting these peoples bodies.
The latest example is a hindu fakir who appears to have gone 10 days without food or water and claims not to have eaten in 40 years.
In other, perhaps more scientific, experiments it was discovered that buddhists exhibit more happiness in life than individuals of other faiths. The regions of the brain which process pleasure and well being are much more active (or something like that).
Given the rather abundant number of prayers that go unanswered I would start wondering why your prayers for saving some specific species resulted in God's aid while others fail.
One particularly odious example might be 9-11. Osama and his cronies were praying for success on their horrific suicide attack. It is likely that many on the ground and on those planes prayed for their failure. According to your theory, Osama had god's favor?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 2:52 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-31-2003 2:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 273 (75756)
12-30-2003 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Abshalom
12-28-2003 11:43 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Abshalom,
I very much look forward to hearing your insights and questions, about the Kabbalistic Rabbi's and their musings. Bear in mind how, when I first learned of this stuff, I thought to integrate it into my thinking. What I wanted to know was, what have other people heard when they somehow, at some level, inquired of God what He did. What intriqued me was the delicate interplay between scripture and hearing: leaning too heavily one way or the other seemed to produce problems. But, fill me in on Ramban's problematic view of the universe. I'll be watching to see how he brought scripture into it.
Note, however, as a strict H-D scientist, I do get shaken up a lot. For example, the Michaelson-Morley experiment, in H-D terms, confirms the earth as the center of the universe hypothesis. Ether is out there, (and, in dark matter or vacuum energy, we are wondering again) but the earth is not moving. Everything else is. Incredible, but there it is.
Then there is the slowing of the speed of light stuff, which is controversial, but I do not believe, settled yet. It is possible that the curve which best fits the data is hyperbolic, with a y-axis asymptote at, ta-da, 4000 BC. That is, at 4000 BC, the speed of light was infinite. What that does to time, I don't know.
The point is, we have lots of wiggle-room in what we know about cosmology. I wouldn't dare argue that any of this stuff is true; only that it further encourages humility and openess, and a detailed study of applied epistemology.
But, spiritual hearing has to contend with the devil, who according to some trustworthy authorities, has, has to be fought with the life and blood of Yeshua. A Hebrew prophet in NT times, in this view, is going to bring a really mixed message. Yeshua's prophets may not be any better, actually, but at least they have a counsel to correct them. Remember, the devil talks too, and masquerades as an angel or messenger of God. I mean, to do this right, you have to have the mentality of a CIA agent, dealing with agents, doubles, drones, and whatever.
I'll tackle directly your other questions tomorrow, replying to the other post.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Abshalom, posted 12-28-2003 11:43 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 273 (75764)
12-30-2003 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-29-2003 3:05 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
I'm still skeptical.
By the way, I am not a Christian and I don't intend to be one. Does this prayer method effective across religious boundaries?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 3:05 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 10:36 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 20 of 273 (75765)
12-30-2003 2:20 AM


Hey better yet does this praying work even if you don't believe in it?

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 273 (75766)
12-30-2003 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Abshalom
12-29-2003 4:11 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Abshalom,
It's hard to measure the ecological importance of anything. Of course birds are important, but I am more inclined to point to the birds Stephen 'tried to save'.
And I don't know if the success of saving the condor lies more at the spiritual side than the scientific side. I'm just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Abshalom, posted 12-29-2003 4:11 PM Abshalom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 12-30-2003 8:09 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 273 (75791)
12-30-2003 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andya Primanda
12-30-2003 2:23 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Andya,
I don't think you're off base here. As you said, determining the ecological impact of a given species is very difficult. However, a trophic cascade leading to severe ecosystem disruption usually begins at either the bottom or the top of the energy web in a community. Birds normally don't fall into this category. Extinction of avian populations CAN have secondary effects (I'm thinking of the extinction of the lowland populations of Hawaiian honeycreepers via avian malaria leading to the extinction of five endemic species of Hibiscadelphus - in this case the plants and birds had a tight mutualistic relationship). In general, there are enough other members of the particular species' guilds to "pick up the slack" when one or another population disappears.
Birds are more often the secondary or tertiary victims of the elimination of one end or the other. One example is the extinction of numerous avian species populations on Barro Colorado Island (Lake Gatun, Panama) as a tertiary effect of the extinction of the local populations of Puma concolor and Panthera onca. The elimination of these top predators led to a population explosion in ground foraging "mid-level" mammals like the collared peccary (Tayassu tajaca) and coatimundis (Nasua narica). The explosion was devastating for ground nesting birds like the great currassow (Cax rubra), the marbled wood-quail (Odontophorus gujanensis), the rufous vented ground cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi), and the black faced antthrush (Formicarius analis), all of which are now extinct on the island.
IOW, you're right - the extinction of Indonesia's endemic rhinos will likely have a larger and more profound effect on the ecosystem than the elimination of a few bird species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-30-2003 2:23 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 9:52 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 273 (75798)
12-30-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Quetzal
12-30-2003 8:09 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Hey, Quetzal,
Here's an attaboy for a great post!
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 12-30-2003 8:09 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 273 (75803)
12-30-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Andya Primanda
12-30-2003 2:18 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Andya,
I had to stop being a Christian to learn to pray effectively. The theory of answered prayer is based on the idea that this Jehovah person has lots of power, that He will use in response to our requests, if we please Him, and keep His commandments. For example, He once sent a message, that the prayers of those who turn away from the hearing of His law are an abomination to Him. His number one law is don't be a hypocrite, and the best example of something that greatly aggravates Him is hypocrisy. But He dislikes foolishness in general, and all flight from humanity's distinctives (social behaviors, use of free will, thinking, and language being the main ones). Prayer, as I have learned to use it, is always a deal: Jehovah says, "Give Me what I want from you, and I'll give you what you want from Me."
I know of no religion that is not hypocritical, and when I ask Him, He says He hates them all, some more than others. He also hates schools and universities, which is why His deal with me for the Dickcissel required my leaving the hypocritical university. (I had had to leave the church much earlier, to get other prayers answered.)
He is into loving relationships mostly, doing justice to those we are supposed to be loving. And being smart. See the Bible as Christians (almost all hypocrites) present it to the world, and He's turned off. But, pick up that book as a document on its own merits, in an effort to do justice to the claim that it's in the world to guide us in dealing lovingly with Him, and He'll send His Spirit to make you understand what is written there. Some people, many people, actually, have without the Bible come to sense Jehovah's presence and involvement. When the Bible was presented to them, they knew at once how to use it effectively. It took years for the Christian missionaries to muddy those waters with their lies, hypocrisy, and distortions.
So, it's not about being Christian. It is about being just. The whole evolution/creation controversy is energized by the underlying fact, that if Jehovah created and sustains us and biologic diversity, we justly owe Him what He asks, for the life He is giving us.
So, if it's your way to make just deals, and keep your word in those deals, let's get started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-30-2003 2:18 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by edge, posted 12-30-2003 2:18 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 273 (75843)
12-30-2003 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 10:36 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
quote:
So, it's not about being Christian. It is about being just. The whole evolution/creation controversy is energized by the underlying fact, that if Jehovah created and sustains us and biologic diversity, we justly owe Him what He asks, for the life He is giving us.
And this means that evolution is bad science in what way? Are mainstream scientists unjust? I'm not sure where this thread is going.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 10:36 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 3:48 PM edge has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 273 (75850)
12-30-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by edge
12-30-2003 2:18 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Edge,
You ask,
And this means that evolution is bad science in what way? Are mainstream scientists unjust? I'm not sure where this thread is going.
I began by observing that good science follows some objective methodology, in order to correct for subjective bias. The more there is subjective bias, the more important it is to follow the methodology strictly. Evolution addresses the very meaning of human life, and is very likely to be biased. Not to mention haunted. So it ought to be using everything known to applied epistemology and the scientific method, to make its claims.
An evolutionist could very well dismiss the notion that he or she owes God a tithe of their income, for example. This tithe, it is claimed by the creationists' authority, the Bible, is our just payment to our creator and life support system maintainer and protector (from Satan, chaos, entropy, whatever). But, if evolution is exhaustively true, there is no injustice in not paying this tithe. We don't owe God anything.
Now, as long as evolutionists are ignorant of epistemological strategies such as trustworthy authorities, persuasive art, defensible science, historical precedent, or anything that would present not titheing as unjust, they cannot be judged as thieves. taking Gods help, but stealing His tithe. But then justice requires that they be epistemologically self-conscious and diligent to pursue the truth of God's righteous claim that we tithe.
It's unjust to fellow humans to believe that electric power comes into your house in the same way that the sun light comes in the morning, because there is a way to validate the power company's claim to existence and rights to payment. Evolutionists who ignore well established scientific methods, which validate God's claims commit this sort of injustice. Of course they wail that there is "no evidence" (like, right, they have examined all available evidence!). If they open their eyes to the evidence that is out there, they find a stack of bills to pay.
See now where I am headed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by edge, posted 12-30-2003 2:18 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sidelined, posted 12-30-2003 5:41 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 12-30-2003 5:52 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 01-05-2004 1:26 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 27 of 273 (75861)
12-30-2003 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 3:48 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Stephen
Evolutionists who ignore well established scientific methods, which validate God's claims commit this sort of injustice. Of course they wail that there is "no evidence" (like, right, they have examined all available evidence!).
The only one wailing around here is yourself because people do not take you at your word here without evidence.Are you ever going to present it or are you playing head games?
------------------
...people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself.
G. A. Wells, 1991

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 3:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 28 of 273 (75866)
12-30-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 3:48 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
An evolutionist could very well dismiss the notion that he or she owes God a tithe of their income, for example.
I'll do like the rabbi in the old joke - throw all my wages up toward the ceiling and say, "Ten percent? You piker! He can keep anything of mine that he wants!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 3:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-02-2004 1:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 273 (75889)
12-30-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Abshalom
12-29-2003 1:04 PM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Hey, Abshalom,
Here are some responses to the questions you posed in post 13.
1) Why if Nachmanides and other Kabbalists are able, with divinely provided mathmatic information, to calculate the age of the universe are they not able to provide an equally valid, non-Terracentric structure of the universe?
I've addressed this elsewhere, but the basic problem is that divinely provided stuff comes with a divine agenda. Knowledge in general, for humans, is a mixed bag on the divine agenda. As my mentor taught me, "be careful the devil does not keep you at what the Lord sets you to." Reading over Ramban's creation interpretation, I get the feeling that he got carried away. Personally, I've spent 30 years coping with the incredible demand for patience that comes with working with God, because He is so willing to take a really long time doing something. That fact came home loud and clear with the word that some 15 billion years have been spent putting this universe together. That He told Ramban one useful thing doesn't mean that He will keep on doing that, at least not until Ramban made full use of the first bit of knowledge.
2) Does the coincidental same or similar dating of the age of the universe by the 42-letter Name factor and by the speed of light calculations of modern cosmologists automatically validate the Genesis creation story? Does it validate some or all of the other literalist renditions of natural science? Is it more than a coincidence?
I personally like the way cosmologists do the search for truth, and got the message from this coincidence that God does too. Also, He is saying something to us today about how to get truth using the Bible, a confirmation of the scripture, "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter."
[qs] Yes. But remember Jeremiah's prophecy "If you separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as My mouth." Hear everything, hold on to what is good. I have found that God glorifies Himself, and shames the devil, by using everything out there, to some degree, to get His point across.
4) If a meditating supplicant of some other god were to hear a voice say, "Listen to the Clock of your Corporal Temple and count its measure ...an hour to a man is like 10,000 days to God," does that mean that 70 beats per minute times 60 minutes times 3,652,500 equals 15,340,500,000 validates another path?
Maybe. Normally, everything is validated by two or three confirming messages, according to Yeshua. But, if my God were other than Jehovah, by default, and I heard that, and felt the Holy Spirit confirm it, I'd probably bet a modest part of my life on it.
5) Does grace erase all error?
Grace, as purchased by Yeshua, is like an incredibly large inheritance, which has been placed in an account for you, to be used for paying any and all bills for fines and lawsuits. The checkbook is voice activated, with a perfect lie-detector built in, so that you cannot pay a bill you don't think you justly owe. So, when you sincerely wish you hadn't done something, and sincerely hope that you won't do it again, if you speak the correct words of grace, the bill is paid, your conscience becomes clear, bill-collectors go away. But, if you liked goofing off, and getting in trouble, and rather hope it happens again, you can get the bill for that paid first, and then all other bills get paid even if, when you speak your signature, you don't really mean to stop screwing up. And I do mean all, even the ones you haven't opened, or know you have. So, yes, grace covers everything, if handled wisely. Remarkably, many continue to commit and get fined for some offense, and get grace to pay the bill, simply by admitting that they are afflicted with a dysfunctional urge.
You cannot sign the check (by voice) however, without authorizing God to change you, so that you behave rightly. Normally, this means agreeing with the law, that it is good. Then, as Paul put it, "it is not I who sin, but sin (the devil) in me." The burden of our not behaving badly falls on our creator, who, as I have noted, sometimes takes the longest time to do things.
So, grace covers everything that has happened, and is happening, and will happen. But, it covers nothing until you speak checks to pay the fines into reality, and failures to love the truth, to be sincere, have to be paid for first. Checks for bad choices come next. But it is God, in the end, who makes us behave well, choose well, be sincere, as He pays off our lawsuits and fines.
At least, that's how the NT puts it. It has always worked for me, even when I had zero belief, and hoped it wasn't true. Just had to say the right words, and be honest about where I was. "I believe! I'm lying. Help my unbelief." (to myself, "Boy, will I be in trouble with my colleagues if He really is out there and gives me belief!") Which He did, anyway, eventually (many months). And I was in trouble, but by the time the belief came, I didn't mind so much. But all of this, for me was born out of my choice, to have integrity as a scientist, loving the truth, no matter where that took me. I wrote checks as an experiment, to see what would happen. Couldn't argue with what I experienced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Abshalom, posted 12-29-2003 1:04 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 273 (76029)
12-31-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
12-29-2003 6:40 PM


How science works
Holmes,
First, I need to clarify how I interpret a term you use, the Xian God.
The orthodox theological (OT) ontological model for the spiritual world includes many beings, the most eminent of which are a team of unified persons, Jehovah, His Son, Yeshua, and a mystery person called the Holy Spirit, and a rebellious angel called Satan. Other ontological models imagine other beings, with various names, but the Xian system generally operates within the OT models.
Now, Christianity normally refers to the Bible as a source of authority, but when one goes to this book for a description of the god of Christianity, one finds an ambiguity. The Bible itself says that it (not Christianity) is directly from the god, Jehovah. So, there is no ambiguity there. But, the Bible describes the works of the being (to us, a god) Satan, one of which is to create a religion called Christianity. So, Christianity holds up as an authority the Bible, which identifies as its god, the person Jehovah. But that same book identifies the religion, Christianity, as being the work of (having the god), Satan. So, which is the Xian god, Jehovah or Satan?
All my prayer experiments were done outside of Christianity, testing the integrity and validity of the Bible. I was unambiguously working on the truth behind the idea that the God Jehovah and His team are really out there.
Satan, as described in the Bible, is the father of all liars, and all his followers, including all Xians (according to the Bible), are liars. They say their god is Jehovah or "Jesus," meaning Yeshua or Iasous, and the Holy Spirit. But, as liars, we suspect that this is not true, nor are their actions consistent with having those three as their god. So, to get a consistent picture, we have to accept that the real Xian god is Satan, and that therefore the Xian claim to Jehovah/"Jesus"/Holy Spirit as their god is a lie. This makes the Bible, at least, a self-consistent system, the truth of which we can test.
Now, to your post:
You say:
In science you simply cannot set up any hypothesis and claim it is a good one.
Quite true. The claim to the goodness of any hypothesis is a claim that it has a fairly high plausibility. In a hypothesis that we "set up" (for testing, of course), we usually claim that it is good enough to deserve testing. But prior plausibilities are a bit tricky. The best bet is get a hypothesis from a trustworthy authority. When I trained MS and doctoral students, I made the MS students get their hypotheses from successful scientists or intellectuals. But, all the great advances is science come from hypotheses that most people regard as implausible. Thus, there's a lot to be said for setting up "bad" hypotheses.
does not mean that you proved that it was because of a divine intervention, or more specifically a Xian divine intervention.
H-D science nevers proves anything beyond that statement that a given idea has been proven plausible beyond reasonable doubt.
but the number of plausible explanations for why it might or might not have worked for other deities would remain high.
There are always an infinite set of explanations for any finite set of data points. Thus, ad hoc explanations are always less influential on an idea's plausibility than successfully confirmed predictions.
hypothesis was not linked to any scientific standard of measuring results to support the hypothesis.
We prayed for more Condors, and I prayed for more Dickcissels, and we got more, measured as scientifically as we know how. How did God do it? I asked, and with Condors, He said that He gagged Satan, who was causing those who were trying to save the species to fight with one another. Then He "inspired" those who wanted to save the species with wisdom, to know what would work. Basically told them what to do.
I'm still trying to learn what He did for the Dickcissel. But one thing was, he put a bee in the bonnet of Venezualan farmers to get busy killing the Dickcissels that were depredating their crops. I had already predicted that this was one way to save the species. When Dickcissels are killed by farmers on their wintering grounds, the killing affects males over females. When they die naturally, females die before males. It was the sex ratio imbalance favoring males that was driving the species to extinction. He also said that He genetically engineered a stronger expression of philopatry in females, through stronger expression of male-like genes, so that females returned more readily to regions of the country where there were fewer cowbirds, a factor responding to the sex ratio imbalance. He also moved (with wind) some birds that were genetically modified out of harm's way, as they migrated back and forth between the US and Venezuala.
This is not how science works at all.
In a judged debate, you would lose points for saying such a thing. I'm a scientist, recognized as a good one, highly successful. This is how I was taught real science worked, how I proceeded, how I succeeded. I'm sorry you fell for whatever you were mis-taught about science, but it's not too late to redeem yourself and change your mind when finally confronted with the real thing, as you are now.
In other, perhaps more scientific, experiments it was discovered that buddhists exhibit more happiness in life than individuals of other faiths. The regions of the brain which process pleasure and well being are much more active (or something like that).
I'd like to see that experiment. However, happiness is a lot more than pleasure and well-being, or neurological states. I hear, for example, that being high on heroin feels better than sex.
Remember the points of prayer experiments: Do we have any confirmation that spiritual beings are out there? and How do we interact with them to get the most out of life? I am glad that the existence of other gods is confirmed, and that the artists' stories of selling your soul to the devil for some power he has that you do not, where the devil more-or-less keeps his part of the deal, have some truth to them.
Given the rather abundant number of prayers that go unanswered I would start wondering why your prayers for saving some specific species resulted in God's aid while others fail.
Praying aright takes work and training, and selfishness gets in the way. I've spent 30 years working on this question. Time well spent, since if you know how to pray aright, you can do anything.
One particularly odious example might be 9-11. Osama and his cronies were praying for success on their horrific suicide attack. It is likely that many on the ground and on those planes prayed for their failure. According to your theory, Osama had god's favor?
Osama evidently had some god's favor. And they make many appeals to the god of the Bible, my God, based on their willingness to keep many of His laws that we turn away from. My God has said, and put in writing, that He hates the prayers of those who turn away from His laws. But that He hears the prayers of those that keep His commandments, and do the things that please Him. Killing lots of people, these days, probably doesn't please Him, since it ignores His gift of Yeshua which allows for problems with ugly people to be solved otherwise. But those guys honor laws of God that we ignore. I wonder how many pornography businesses were carried out from those towers. Also, He never has been all that crazy about any towers, especially very high towers dedicated to dollars or money, the love of which is the "root of all evil." And I heard rumors that some people who were praying that day, stayed home from the towers. Haven't been able to confirm that one way or the other, but from what I know about praying, it's mostly listening. I'd be surprized if someone who knew Yeshua's voice, asking at the beginning of day, if He had any directions, would have heard Him say, "Go on to work at the Towers." I personally never go anywhere He doesn't send me. Too dangerous out there.
People who pray aright, listening to His voice, making deals and keeping them, are rather scarce.
But, if we are ignoring Al Quaida's (sp?) prayer campaign against us, we're going to regret it.
Good questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2003 6:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2004 1:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024