Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 273 (76134)
01-01-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-31-2003 2:22 PM


quote:
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.
But you are missing an important middle component... prayer. You have included nothing to suggest that you excluded the possibility that while prayer caused something to happen, it had nothing to do with divine intervention (or specific divine intervention).
A person from a very rustic third world country could find a flashlight left behind by explorers. After an amount of nervous prayer he tries the switch and a light comes on. He comes to believe that the switch sends a message to his God of fire who starts a magic fire within this stick that contains light but no real heat (or one he is protected from).
This is in fact the theory that he come to and imparts to his tribal members. He has an observation, and a prediction. And yet we can see quite clearly that accurate prediction does not a good theory make.
Science is not the process of making up hypothetical situations based on taking any preconcieved notion as true, and if a prediction comes true that theory is thought to be true.
This seems to be how you are mishandling the scientific process and your statement...
quote:
Science proves nothing, only confirms predictions that makes ideas more plausible.
...supports such an idea. This is why I criticized the statement above.
Science is based in methodological naturalism which limits theoretical entities that can be applied for explanation, and for very good reason. In addition, occam's razor makes large jumps in hypotheses, like the one you just did, invalid to science.
You cannot jump to the largest hypothesis (answered prayers proves God is correct) and say you have found anything.
quote:
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.
You missed several other scenarios, not the least of which is that there is neither satan nor God. Prayers may still get answered without divine intervention.
Your experiment is too crude to remove other plausible explanations. You are handing us a flashlight and saying you have produced light, so your God of fire must be real.
quote:
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.
??? I am a bit troubled by this. Trustworthy authority means nothing, unless you have shown that their methodology is worthy to be trusted. It is their critical thinking, followed by supportive evidence, which determines authority... which in essence boils down to trustworthy experiment, no matter the author.
quote:
H-D science nevers proves anything beyond that statement that a given idea has been proven plausible beyond reasonable doubt.
But that includes the EXCLUSION of other possible factors which could be controlling factors in your experiment. All I have heard you define is prayer, and result. The mechanism has not been tested, and only asserted.
Witness...
quote:
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?
If we accept the notion that it was not circumstance, which you have not actually removed from possibility, your question cannot be "how did God do it?", your question must be "how did prayer do it?"
Eventually you can build up to evidence that prayer involves and actual link to a divine entity of sorts, but your experiment hardly did that.
Again, we are flipping a switch on a stick, is the light that comes on from the God of fire?
quote:
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.
Ironically, this would also lose points in a debate. While I will not make any grandiose claims about my scientific career I guess I will mention that I never got anything less than an A in any of my science classes, including physical and organic chem, including at the grad level. This tends to suggest I was getting something out of my courses.
Now that the pissing contest is over, let's focus on the detail. All I was complaining about is that in science successful prediction alone does not lend support to any theory under the sun. There are limits. And it is those limits, more than the success of prediction, that make them scientific.
Thankfully it is also those limits which make scientific theories longer lasting predictors, but that does not mean prediction lends scientific credibility to a theory.
quote:
I'd like to see that experiment. However, happiness is a lot more than pleasure and well-being, or neurological states.
Not sure if I agree with that assessment. If not a neurological state, especially regarding well being, I am unsure what else happiness could be. You are correct that it can be artificially produced, and those chemicals have lasting ill effects, but that does not remove the fact that at the moment people are happy... and if that feeling comes from natural sources then it is a real happiness.
In the experiment, brain activity is watched as subjects think of various events (good, bad,neutral). Those who meditate, show much more activity in the positive emotion centers of their brain, even when recalling bad events. Apparently, Buddhists show this even more than other people who meditate (praying to God for example).
quote:
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?
Neither of these have been made plausible as explanations, by the nature of your experiment. At best you have that humans entering certain states, might have caused physical results without direct physical intervention.
quote:
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."
What if I told you that there were absolutely no porn businesses detroyed during 9-11 (maps of the area are available by the way)? In addition courts of justice were destroyed, as well as records meaning many criminals may end up going unpunished, and the victims receiving no retribution. There were also some areas that could be construed as having religious significance?
Doesn't that change just about everything you are saying?
In addition there were absolutely no porn businesses in the pentagon, or in a field in PA. However there were many truly faithful individuals, unless we are to take the idea that all that died must have been guilty.
You said at the outset that there is God or there is Satan. If Xians really believe their God is capable of aiding a madman's prayers to kill 1000's of innocent people, or perhaps condemns those who died as unworthy... most of them servicemen such as police and firemen trying to rescue others... and more interestingly the iconic Xian priest Father Judge who delivers last rights to fallen firemen, while trying to do his sacred duty... then I say data is sufficiently racking up on the Satan side of the equation.
I really meant the Osama issue to be a reductio, and had no idea you'd accept your God capable of supporting such atrocity. If you accept that, then is your explanation of the failed prayers of faithful Jews during the Holocaust and Soviet purges, due to their not accepting Christ as their savior?
Well actually that would make no sense as Stalin and Hitler sure never kept any commandments, and Osama doesn't think Christ is really the son of God.
Yeah... Satan looks like a good bet.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-31-2003 2:22 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-02-2004 1:38 PM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 273 (76239)
01-02-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Silent H
01-01-2004 1:25 PM


plausibility, prediction, confirmation
Holmes,
But you are missing an important middle component... prayer. You have included nothing to suggest that you excluded the possibility that while prayer caused something to happen, it had nothing to do with divine intervention (or specific divine intervention).
May we back up a bit here, to put the prayer research in it's proper context, as conducted by those doing it?
First, there has existed for a long time what we scientists would call the orthodox theology hypothesis, which many intelligent persons find a priori plausible. They derive this prior plausibility in part from what they view as trustworthy authorities, persons whose lives and manners suggest that they know something worth believing, and that their beliefs are generally producing wise decisions. As a scientist, a naturalist who attends to natural models for human biology, I tend to affirm this moderately high prior plausibility. I see earthworms in my garden, dealing with robins and myself, two entities that have more senses, and more intelligence than the worms have themselves. Moreover, one of the beings, me, is "higher" than the other, the robins. More senses, if we include our amplified radios, TVs, etc, and definately higher IQ. The highest being (me) is symbiotic to the worms, the next higher (robin) is predatory.
This natural model catches the main points of the orthodox theology hypothesis, demonstrating in a way that I can see that these points are evidently true somewhere in the universe. Thus, it is plausible that they might exist elsewhere.
Now, this can only make sense to you if you are not a dogmatist. Dogmatists believe, in the sense of directing all action on the premise, that all ideas are either true or not. They only allow ideas in their minds with plausibility one or zero. HD scientists like myself "believe" (in the sense stated above) that all ideas might be true, with plausibilities ranging from zero to one, but not including those values. Clearly, the human/robin/earthworm system does not prove (plausibility = one) the existence of a God/Satan/humans system, anymore than studies on white rats, cancer, and an anti-cancer drug proves that the same drug will have the same effect on humans cancer. It just makes the idea more plausible. To the HD scientist. Dogmatists just keep dismissing everything that does not move the plausibility of an idea from zero to one, in one demonstration.
Anyway, the Jehovah/Satan/mankind system has a moderately high plausibility to begin with. Then, various studies are done using HD methodology, to confirm experimentally that hypothesis. When it is confirmed, the plausibility is regarded as higher. The process also reassures the experimenter that they are not fooling themselves, are not being subjectively self-deceived, and it also increases their understanding of the OT (orthodox theology) hypothesis and its application through prayer.
Now, those who have decided for whatever reason that OT is implausible a priori, will have to fit the prayer results into their model of the universe. Perhaps they will suppose that human consciousness has some sort of power (see the PEAR Laboratories studies along these lines). This is where, as I think you mean to imply, strong inference comes in. That is, what we should do now, to do the best science, is to ask the PEAR people, for example, for a set of predictions from their hypothesis, while we make similar predictions from the OT hypothesis. Then we look for contradictions. For example, from OT, we predict that prayers that incorporate repentance from selfishness will be more powerful than positive mental imaging, whereas PEAR researchers might predict the opposite.
I haven't done this in publishable forms, but my personal experiments contrasted various ways influencing the outside world through forcing my mind into various thought patterns. I found that I got the most powerful results out of imagined conversations with spiritual beings, compared to the sorts of things PEAR does. I think that PEAR is studying a part of reality--humans are spiritual enough to do God-like things. But much weaker, which allows us to do stronger experiments that confirm that we are not alone.
So, I will concede your point as to prayer studies alone, and the history of science up to now. The PEAR results are not as powerful as the prayer studies (the experiment of US praying for a Korean fertility clinic's patients got a 50% increase in fertility!), but they definately confirm the idea that humans have within themselves the powers displayed in prayer.
But they are only one part of the research program. The natural model, the various bible validation studies, out-of-body reports, the discoveries of vacuum energy, dark energy, dark matter--all of these add to the plausibility that we are not alone. Witztum's Bible Code studies actually "prove" it, in the sense of putting it beyond reasonable doubt.
And, the OT hypothesis actually largely agrees with the oft-stated notion that "science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God." That is, the OT hypothesis predicts that anyone doing personal scientific studies will have more success that any public scientific effort, because the hypothesis asserts that the symbiotic beings being studied are intimate lovers, while the parasitic beings being studied are dis-information experts. Thus, if OT is true, studying it in public science can only take you as far as the symbiotic beings are willing to go, publically. When I came to understand this part of the hypothesis, I sought the appropriate social controls (personal counselors, instead of "peer review") and carried on. OT asserts that anyone who is a scientist before they are a lover, is totally subject to the disinformation campaign of the predatory spiritual beings. They are subject to the "evil genius" handicap in philosophy.
So, only a HD scientist can discover the truth of this matter, if it is true. Dogmatists are doomed.
Your experiment is too crude to remove other plausible explanations. You are handing us a flashlight and saying you have produced light, so your God of fire must be real.
No, not "must be real." "Is more likely to be real than we thought previously. So, let's do some other studies."
And, of course, the first part of your quote is invariably true. We expect science to keep moving on. HD scientists expect whatever they think to be evenually shown wrong, sort of. Newton's theories will be replaced by Einstein's, and Einstein's by someone elses. So it goes. This is even more true with Jehovah. Whatever we think He is like, it changes, forever, as we get closer and closer to Him. Our earlier views retain a certain usefulness, as Newton's models even in the face of Einstein's corrections. But, change, change, change your mind. That's life. That's real science.
Trustworthy authority means nothing, unless you have shown that their methodology is worthy to be trusted. It is their critical thinking, followed by supportive evidence, which determines authority... which in essence boils down to trustworthy experiment, no matter the author.
Authority, to be trustworthy, does imply good fruit, good methodology. And, at its best, it only tells you what to look for, what ideas to invest in. Authority (human authority, that is) is helpful in assessing prior plausibilities. Of course, when you start hearing God Himself speak, "faith comes." But, "faith without works is dead." So, Jehovah Himself submits to your principle. Even if you hear Him say something, and get faith for it, until that faith and what He said is confirmed, you haven't any life at all.
your question must be "how did prayer do it?"
Both questions are useful. The OT answer is, "Prayer got Jehovah to do certain things." The PEAR answer is, "You imagined certain things happening, and those mental images forced those things to happen." Both are probably true, in my opinion.
Ironically, this would also lose points in a debate. While I will not make any grandiose claims about my scientific career I guess I will mention that I never got anything less than an A in any of my science classes, including physical and organic chem, including at the grad level. This tends to suggest I was getting something out of my courses.
Scientific studies correlating grades with measures of "success" defined as greater income, prestige, self-reported happiness, success in family life, and health, show a generally zero correlation, with a trend towards a curvilinear effect, higher values at the B+ level, and higher values with the variance in transcript grades. These studies were done back in the sixties, and a meta-analysis was done on them by, I think, a faculty member at K-State where I was working. a fellow named Donald something or other. I can still see the green-bound 8x12 booklet with all the studies. I made a big stink about this at the time, to get grades dropped from University life. This had been done successfully at some Med-Schools. They gave me tenure anyway, but clung to the grades. Cowards and hypocrites!
That having been said, an A in Physical Chemistry impresses me a lot. Good for you. I did the "ideal free distribution" work after getting my gentleman's C in P-chem. All I could understand was the derivation of the ideal gas law. I figured if that kind of thinking was good there, it might work explaining territorial pressure, population densities, and habitat movements and selection in birds. Which it did.
We need to say these things, by the way, to affirm that we have something worth listening to. There's a lot of voices out there. Cannot argue with all of them.
Not sure if I agree with that assessment. If not a neurological state, especially regarding well being, I am unsure what else happiness could be. You are correct that it can be artificially produced, and those chemicals have lasting ill effects, but that does not remove the fact that at the moment people are happy... and if that feeling comes from natural sources then it is a real happiness.
I was thinking of :ae:'s discussion on souls on another thread, describing the mind-life of persons who were brain-dead in hypothermic operations. Also, there's a long-term element to happiness, some integral over the long haul. I'm actually not as momentarily thrilled these days as I have been in the past, say when I was hot on the trail of the Dickcissels, or was rocking my daughters to sleep, or was with one of the women I have loved. But I sense being happier, anyway. I wouldn't go back to "the good old days" even if I could. Somehow, being more aware of and sensitive to the horror of the times, and doing more about it, makes me happier, than when I was exclusively, if joyfully, off on a toot of sorts.
Yeah... Satan looks like a good bet.
Not to me, despite all you said about the possible severity of Jehovah. I'm not about to judge Jehovah for how he thinks, or for who He allows to be killed in the line of duty. I do ask about these things, and get satisfying answers. You seem to have missed the point I made about Him hating all religions, for example. Also, Satan lives in this world too, and has the freedom to do bad things (and be punished for it), just as you have the freedom to drive your car head on into some oncoming traffic, and suffer the consequences. But I have the freedom to walk humbly with my God, and the right to avoid your self and other destructive behavior. But, I might wisely choose a chance to lay my life down for my neighbor, and die with assurance of heaven, and substantial treasure there.
Unless Lean Uris ("Exodus") misrepresented the situation in Germany in the 30's, every Jew in the country was repeatedly warned to leave, and given resources to do so. They were all free to avoid what Hitler and the Germans were free to do. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, actually named the gas he was going to use to exterminate any Jew who chose to stay. All parties involved made their choices, and got the consequences for that choice. And Jehovah, though broken hearted and disgusted by what was happening, stood by His promise not to take back the freedom He gave us all.
So, if you want to spend eternity with Satan, that's what free will is all about. Hell is horrible, but not having the freedom to choose heaven or hell is worse.
I still estimate, on a meta-analysis of all the various studies, that it is plausible beyond reasonable doubt, in HD science, that OT is "true."
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2004 1:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 01-02-2004 4:59 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 273 (76242)
01-02-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coragyps
12-30-2003 5:52 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Coragyps,
You say,
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!"
Jehovah will let you get away with that longer than your power company. But the lights will dim enough, so that if you decide to do the experiment He has set up for you to test Him, (Malachi, 3:10) you'll get impressive results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 12-30-2003 5:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 273 (76291)
01-02-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-02-2004 1:38 PM


quote:
First, there has existed for a long time what we scientists would call the orthodox theology hypothesis, which many intelligent persons find a priori plausible. They derive this prior plausibility in part from what they view as trustworthy authorities, persons whose lives and manners suggest that they know something worth believing, and that their beliefs are generally producing wise decisions.
I'm not about to debate intelligence. One of the most intelligent people I ever knew got suckered into ID Theory, and has since lost all reason when it comes to that topic.
So the issue I am going to address, especially with this OT hypothesis, is gullibility.
I should probably state at the outset that I am not one of these dogmatists you are describing. While I tend to think there is one absolute reality, I realize I could be wrong, or that the real universe might have changing laws. Who knows?
However, we are beings stuck in certain perspective niches... that is we have a limited access to the world around us, and cannot immediately sense, or know everything.
Thus our best bet is to develop strategies to weed out methodologies which are prone to error. Trusting in Authority is a pretty big error. While one might tend to listen to their words first, because of a habit of being right, everything they say must come under the same scrutiny as the raving looney.
And then careful analysis of those words must follow some strict methodologies.
I do not remove out of turn, the possibility that there may be forces currently beyond our perceptive capabilities. There may even be intelligent forces we call deities.
But any theory which involves this type of thing has to be approached with exacting measures, or one is prone to being duped.
Many people feel quite satisfied with the results of Tarot Card readers, and some with the likes of John Edwards (who talks to the dead). How am I to tell the good from the bad, other than to forget any claims to Authority they might have and make sure something else is not going on.
I guess I should add an unofficial experiment that I conducted as an undergrad. I bought a tarot deck from a company claiming it had a special kind of deck, which was prayed over (or something like that). I learned tarot and began doing readings. In fact, I taught others what I learned and let them do their own readings.
The readings... 100% of the time... came out accurate. It was extremely eerie. It was so fascinating to some that they began trying a Ouija board, though that had no effect. Others were so mortified (it was a Xian affiliated college) that they refused to speak about it ever again. Eventually someone took my cards permanently.
Now the deck was given to me from Authorities in that field. And tarot has been around for ages, perhaps older than Xianity in some forms. And the cards worked. Or at least they gave 100% predictions, including readings on past, present, and future events.
People like Buz are likely to attribute this to demons. But why am I to believe this over the idea that some beneficial force is helping me. Why should I condemn the cards and the practice as many of my Xian schoolmates protested?
Now you say you conducted a prayer experiment. You even tested several ways of praying. But if someone claims you are actually invoking a demon, or using mental energy (as these PEAR people seem to be claiming) how am I to know the difference?
Given that human activity actually solved the problem you were praying for, how can I not believe those that suggest it was all coincidence?
This is why a tight methodology for examining the mechanism involved, and eliminating other potential mechanisms, is so important.
Even if I accept the possibility that there is a God, and that he might answer prayers, I do not find sufficient evidence from your experiment to consider that possibility more plausible than random chance.
This could really be tightened up. Why not pray for something which is isolated from other human actions and thoughts? Thus the results would at least be limited to your prayers as a causative factor.
You might also use various brain, chemical, and electromagnetic monitoring equipment to see if there are measurable changes to your brain or the environment as prayer is engage in. You could then bring in others to try and find similar connections between act (prayer) and result.
quote:
Not to me, despite all you said about the possible severity of Jehovah. I'm not about to judge Jehovah for how he thinks, or for who He allows to be killed in the line of duty.
But then how are we to judge any actions as right or wrong? Or divine entities who grant us power Good or Evil?
This sets us up for massive exploitation at the hands of a malign power (if higher powers are real), or malign human "authorities" (if they are real or not).
If deception is the tool of malign beings, isn't an unquestioning acceptance of atrocities one of the greatest tools a malign entity could hope to wield against humanity and Good?
I for one do feel the power to judge better and worse, or beneficial and malign. At least in the most extreme actions. Mass slaughter is "worse". It is "malign". Any entity which calls or supports an act against life, especially innocent life, is malign.
Any person claiming that they must do such things for their deity, is malign and should be fought. If that is the nature of his/her deity then that deity must be fought.
But maybe that makes me evil. My being against wholesale slaughter of innocent beings is evil. My being against blindly following orders that call for the detruction of innocents makes me evil.
Mmmmhmmmm. What then is the definition of Satan and deceit to you? What is good?
I honestly cannot tell what is the line between God and Satan, if "Good" supports Osama, Stalin, and Hitler, and blames their victims.
I guess I'd like to end on this question (I just thought of it so edited it in): If humans are made in God's image, and what we do to ourselves is representative of what we do to him, then shouldn't we be able to judge if Satan or God is calling us to any particular action based on how humane the request is? And in that way avoid being fooled?
[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-02-2004 1:38 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-04-2004 11:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 273 (76460)
01-04-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
01-02-2004 4:59 PM


Resisting the evil genius
Holmes,
I found your post one of the best stream of consciousness displays of a pondering mind I have ever read. As they say in the Guiness commercials, "Brilliant!"
No doubt I am impressed because I find your reasoning irresistable, and myself in agreement. You set out most clearly the need for clearly defined, defensible methods, for getting at the truth. Here are, I think, our main points of agreement:
Authorities might be useful for deciding to explore idea A over idea B. But, they are never the last word.
That an idea "works" reflects some truth to it, but that truth could reflect something either good or bad, useful or warning.
Life is good, death is bad. Truth, either useful or warning, is good, life-enhancing. Lies, deception, murder (duh) is bad. I think, too, that we agree that "death" cannot simply mean the end of a single organism's living, but must mean some sort of long term finality. The death of individuals that preserve the species (e.g. salmon that kill themselves getting to the breeding grounds) is still good. Extinction type death is bad, for sure.
My own struggle to deal with what to believe, which I sense you agreeing with, is first to affirm life and living. In the end, any given method for getting to the truth, that produces truth that enhances life, is to be chosen over other methods. In your example with Tarot Cards, for example, the cards told you the future, but was the information useful for enhancing life? I rejected Horoscopes because, although they often "worked" in some sense, I felt my life slipping away as I got the knowledge they provided.
Some knowledge distracts, other helps.
Trustworthy authorities, as I have described them, are mostly fruitful and humble. Intelligence counts for a little. Love, self-control, being understanding, having followers or children that are happy and prospering, these things count for more.
But I also get a lot out of art. "Truth is beauty, beauty truth." No conclusions, of course, but encouragement to pursue an idea. The Messiah by Handel is so wonderful, it energizes my study of orthodox theology and the Bible.
These things behind me, I have studied the scientific method diligently. Popper, Polanyi, Lakatose, Bayes, Tricker, Urbach, Toulmin, Kuhn being main sorts of inspiration. Which sets of scientific rules have "worked" and still "work" (as described above) the best? The Hypothetico-deductive method, working under strong inference, evaluated by Bayes Theorem has so far emerged as the best set of rules to follow. Applying this method to orthodox theology as a scientific hypothesis has generated consistent confirmation, and both intuitively and objectively raised the plausibility of that hypothesis to very high levels.
Note how OT presents the evil genius problem. First, OT declares that the universe must be viewed as the creation of a tight group, that works as a single personality. An essential purpose of that creation is to produce other personalities (both angelic and human) with free will, to see what these will choose. Angels have used, and are using, this free will to choose evil as defined above, tactically hating the Creator. Humans, made in the image of the creator, become vulnerable to these evil angels. The angels are so much smarter and more powerful than humans, that they constitute an "evil genius" in the sense of Descartes, in human epistemology. The human condition thus becomes hopeless, unless there is intervention by the Creator (a "benign genius", to both angels and humans). We can do nothing without God, but with God, we can do "anything." The Creator has provided a written guide (the Bible) on how to interact with Him, to overcome, epistemologically, the "evil genius." This Bible warns us that the evil genius will mostly try to deceive us through something called religion, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which will always be with us, to choose or reject.
Now, I am taking all that for the sake of testing scientifically, and look at studies of prayer, bible codes, near-death experiences as efforts to confirm what we would expect or not, given the OT hypothesis to be true. Do confirmations prove OT? Well, Witztum's bible codes studies are powerful, really putting OT beyond reasonable doubt. But they are only science. Newton's theories were once beyond reasonable doubt. That means that they are useful, but maybe not so exactly true.
Finally, history also confirms OT, in the sense that there is a strong correlation between non-hypocritical biblical involvement in a culture, and its prosperity.
But, the directions of the Bible are this: Only by asking God to speak to you directly can you have confidence that you know the truth. And, God will only speak to you directly if you "keep His commandments." Thus, Yeshua's epistemological summary is, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Free from the "evil genius."
Epistemologically, once we grant that OT could be true, we are obliged to follow, for the sake of testing, it's demands to see if our life improves, to see if we prosper. Otherwise, we might be under the sway of the evil genius, deceived. If we do what the "materials and methods" of the bible say, and experience no increase in prosperity (as defined by OT--clear conscience, love, health, joy, honor, freedom from fear, etc.), then we have evidence that OT is false. We have to hope that this means, at least, that the evil genius does not exist, is not out there to be dealt with.
At least, this is how I have dealt with the questions you have raised. And my experience has been generally confirming. When I tithed, I did experience an outpouring of various blessings. When I did seek God, I found Him. When I asked Him to speak to me about how to obey certain commandments, I heard His voice, and received faith. When I prayed as He told me to pray, amazing, miraculous things happened.
But let me address a few of your remarks specifically.
I honestly cannot tell what is the line between God and Satan, if "Good" supports Osama, Stalin, and Hitler, and blames their victims.
As God presents Himself in Scripture, He says that He never creates victims. He says that He has always given everyone a way out of every trauma, abuse, horror, a way to overcome evil with good. He is the ultimate empowerer of persons. So, when we are overcome with evil, the evil is still evil, and God repeatedly affirms that He will deal vengefully and justly with evil. But we didn't have to be overcome; if we had been diligent learning how to overcome evil with good, we could have escaped the evil. Or at least, turned it to good.
He makes it clear that we are in a war, and some suffering is the lot of everyone. Suffering that generates good is not to be regretted. Witness the suffering of women in childbirth.
Of course, I puzzle over children who suffer abuse, who have not had the age or resources to learn how to overcome evil with good. I hope that there is some grace to cover those situations. I have heard of certain saints, being burned at the stake, who were aware that they were accomplishing some good, and took their suffering as a woman takes the suffering of childbirth, without regrets. And, I have prayed with adults reliving childhood abuse, who came to see that abuse in the same light.
But, evil-doers that get away with their foul plans because we failed to pray, or leave, or do what we could to foil them, are still evil. We bear some responsibility, but blame is too narrow a word.
I guess I'd like to end on this question (I just thought of it so edited it in): If humans are made in God's image, and what we do to ourselves is representative of what we do to him, then shouldn't we be able to judge if Satan or God is calling us to any particular action based on how humane the request is? And in that way avoid being fooled?
Yes. God calls our worse deeds "abominations" meaning ab- hominations, flights from humane-ness.
But the evil genius is constantly trying to muddy our understanding of what being human is all about. Trying to confuse pain (good, a warning of danger) and hurt (bad, damage to our life), carnal or temporal life and eternal life, being comfortable and at peace, freedom with responsibility and power with control, fame and love, etc. But, if we study "man," his niche, biology, attributes, ecology, we dodge these lies.
I appreciate, for example, the way our human social interaction makes me think more clearly. Makes me more human.
Hope your humanity prospers as well.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 01-02-2004 4:59 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2004 12:49 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 273 (76476)
01-04-2004 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-04-2004 11:04 AM


quote:
Note how OT presents the evil genius problem.
Actually there are three separate problems...
1) While the OT might be correct, it might also be incorrect, even with some predictions under its belt. I suppose this is the difference between most scientific theories and religious based theories. Newton's theories had a way to be made false, and while OT is given a way to succeed in your method, I have not actually seen a way for it to fail... ever. You can simply chalk it not working in some instances as not having prayed right. Or obvious human action as a result of God's use of humans to fulfill the prayer.
This point though, is not its falsifiability, but rather that if it is not correct human agents may still appeal to it and use it to their own ends. A Human evil genius.
2) If it is true, then there is the possibility of the evil genius... I guess in this case satan.
3) And finally even if true, there is still the possibility of humans can appeal to it and act as an evil genius.
Thus the OT's credibility actually presents three different evil scenarios. Although it might be better to term them "gullibility" scenarios. It presents leverage for an opponent to fool one into making mistakes.
quote:
The Creator has provided a written guide (the Bible) on how to interact with Him, to overcome, epistemologically, the "evil genius." This Bible warns us that the evil genius will mostly try to deceive us through something called religion, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which will always be with us, to choose or reject.
Since there is no question that the Bible as we know it is a compilation of religious writings which have included and excluded texts from that time, and done so in order to promote a religion, how was Satan incapable of messing with it. The Bible seems to fit your description of how Satan would seek to deceive us to a "T".
quote:
Well, Witztum's bible codes studies are powerful, really putting OT beyond reasonable doubt. But they are only science.
I don't want to address bible code in this thread. I don't think we have to in order to address prayer studies. If you think it's necessary then fine, but I think it raises all sorts of other issues and will detract from our current discussion.
That said, I will state that I think the bible code is pretty much garbage. It is intriguing, but points to nothing... especially beyond a reasonable doubt. But as I said, I think prayer studies rise or fall separate from that.
quote:
Epistemologically, once we grant that OT could be true, we are obliged to follow, for the sake of testing, it's demands to see if our life improves, to see if we prosper. Otherwise, we might be under the sway of the evil genius, deceived.
There are several problems with the above argument. First of all this would then apply to every kind of religion, not just Xtianity.
Second, as far as other religions go, I have already shown that there have been benefits to other religious practices. Buz acknowledges this and blames them on demons... which leads to the third problem.
Third, Satan gives out prosperity if it serves his purpose of turning people away from God. If anything prosperity would have to be, after unquestioned obedience, one of his best lures.
quote:
As God presents Himself in Scripture, He says that He never creates victims. He says that He has always given everyone a way out of every trauma, abuse, horror, a way to overcome evil with good.
Job.
quote:
He makes it clear that we are in a war, and some suffering is the lot of everyone. Suffering that generates good is not to be regretted. Witness the suffering of women in childbirth.
This can be used by any human or divine evil genius. Who is to be arbiter of what is "good" so as to judge the effects of a war? Isn't the tree of knowledge which grants such insight deceptive? That is the first thing Satan handed man. And we immediately judged how god made us as bad. But we are supposed to then be able to judge whether an end is good enough to kill mass numbers of people?
This seems horribly inconsistent. It is one of the reasons that I believe the Amish are some of the few true Xians around. They certainly have foiled any evil genius from using them to suit his ends. Without killing, they survive.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-04-2004 11:04 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 12:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 273 (76626)
01-05-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
01-04-2004 12:49 PM


Gullibility insurance
Holmes,
You ask,
Since there is no question that the Bible as we know it is a compilation of religious writings which have included and excluded texts from that time, and done so in order to promote a religion, how was Satan incapable of messing with it. The Bible seems to fit your description of how Satan would seek to deceive us to a "T".
Jehovah, as described in Job, has Satan on a leash. He can do certain things, but not others. The Bible only seems to fit my description of how Satan would deceive us, because the Bible gets a lot of confusing press from religionists. For example, it is fairly clear in Scripture that anyone calling themselves Christian, or who says that they "go to church", who every uses the term "my church" or "kids" is a tare, a false "believer" a son of Satan, a liar, doomed to Hell. Scriptures stating this are normally hidden from bible studies in "Christian" churches, for obvious reasons.
But, if you read the Scriptures with intellectual integrity, you see at once that they only point to hearing Jehovah or Yeshua speak, and doing everything you do because of what comes out of His mouth, not what is written. Except the written statement that you must not do or believe anything because the "bible told me so" except get into God's presence and do what He says. They also advise you on how to know it is Him speaking, and not some demon spirit.
About Job.
Job proves the above point most clearly. At the end of his trial, Job says, "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. Therefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes." See, Job was righteous by the knowledge of good and evil, not walking in Jehovah's presence. And, evil came upon him. When evil comes onto me, I run right away into Jehovah's presence, and ask what's up? Then, if some sort of test is underway, I get involved in the decision to do it. Sometimes I choose to endure, sometimes I choose to ask to be delivered from evil. But, either way, I am empowered to overcome evil with good.
Who is to be arbiter of what is "good" so as to judge the effects of a war? Isn't the tree of knowledge which grants such insight deceptive? That is the first thing Satan handed man. And we immediately judged how god made us as bad. But we are supposed to then be able to judge whether an end is good enough to kill mass numbers of people?
To test the scriptures, to see whether they are true, I went through them and pulled up every statement where Jehovah calls something good. Then, I went about seeing whether by prayer I got more of those things. Stuff like justice, mercy, hearing God's voice. Later, more complex issues I handle by talking to Jehovah directly.
It is one of the reasons that I believe the Amish are some of the few true Xians around. They certainly have foiled any evil genius from using them to suit his ends. Without killing, they survive.
Hear, hear! They are clear historical evidence that biblical principles generate some sort of "good." The Calvinistic Swiss are a K-selected example. But, both appear to me to be vulnerable to the standard disasters of history. The Amish are vulnerable to invasions from evil war-liking marauders. And the Swiss have begun the downward moral slide that historically has always led to revolutions and chaos. They both should learn from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and start getting more prophetic leadership.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2004 12:49 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2004 5:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 273 (76637)
01-05-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 3:48 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
quote:
Evolution addresses the very meaning of human life
It does?
Since when does any science address any kind of philosophical "meaning"?
People may take scientific findings and ascribe their own philosophical "meaning" to them, but that is not science nor is it scientific to do so.
Science doesn't make value judgements.
quote:
Evolutionists who ignore well established scientific methods, which validate God's claims commit this sort of injustice.
So, please elaborate upon which well-established scientific methods have validated any supernatural anything.
quote:
Of course they wail that there is "no evidence" (like, right, they have examined all available evidence!).
So, are you saying that because we have not examined all evidence we cannot use the evidence we do have to reach tentative conclusions?
We do not have perfect knowledge, and never will, so we can never know anything at all?
quote:
If they open their eyes to the evidence that is out there, they find a stack of bills to pay.
Please present your scientific evidence of God.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-05-2004]

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 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 10:01 PM nator has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 39 of 273 (76645)
01-05-2004 2:05 PM


Topic drift check
Haven't been following this one closely, but it seems to be an above average topic. It may or may not be drifting off somewhere outside of the original intent.
I suggest that all review the beginings of this topic.
This is NOT a "this topic is close to closing" message.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2004 4:52 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 273 (76689)
01-05-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Adminnemooseus
01-05-2004 2:05 PM


While the language used may seem a bit off, I think we are still on course for the main topic. He was presenting his "best" scientific method and at this point I am working over a piece of that method. I guess we are dealing more with the moral than science implications of that piece, but its hard to disentangle the two when the scientific method is worshipping God.
At least that's the way I see it.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-05-2004 2:05 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 273 (76698)
01-05-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 12:44 PM


quote:
For example, it is fairly clear in Scripture that anyone calling themselves Christian, or who says that they "go to church", who every uses the term "my church" or "kids" is a tare, a false "believer" a son of Satan, a liar, doomed to Hell.
Unfortunately this is saying most Xians are wrong, which is a bit of a hard sell. Maybe not to me but to them, and you'll have to deal with their arguments on your particular theory.
Frankly I'd love to see this idea get around so as to remove discussion of religion and piety from holders of public office.
This said, I do not think it is self-evident from scripture that Satan is perfectly leashed at all. He has managed to upset God, which means good can be corrupted.
quote:
Job proves the above point most clearly.
Uhmmmm. While I agree Job does show the point in this last post, it was a perfect counterexample to what you stated in your previous post. God does not always forewarn anyone, and sometimes there is absolutely no way out of calamity.
Sometimes God will wager with Satan on how you will endure unjust suffering which he allows to happen. A very disturbing concept.
And keeping it on the issue of science, who can say whether God and Satan are wagering again, whether humans will understand the world God created through the means God gave us, or believe a book of religious writings compiled by men (some of whom may have been corrupt and mixed truth with falsehood)?
What's worse this seems to all keep coming down to me having to believe you are actually talking to God in order to get "data". If it were strictly prayer=result, there may be something, but it seems tied in with your contacts outside the experiment as well. Like maybe there was an inconsistency, but you talked with God and got his answer. How am I supposed to believe you over someone else saying the same thing (but giving a different explanation)?
This is where you can see how the scientific method developed an exclusion of data that can only be reproduced by one person.
quote:
The Amish are vulnerable to invasions from evil war-liking marauders.
If God always protects those who follow his commandments, how can his most faithful be vulnerable to anyone? This clearly counters what you said earlier that God always grants the faithful a way out of peril.
As far as I can tell the worst that will happen is that a few get killed and they move on to the next area to live.
If they can be overrun by the unfaithful because they do not practice war, what good is God? Or exactly how powerful is he?
I hate to say this... because you seem pretty nice... but the gap in your method's armor is pretty visible at this point.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 12:44 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-06-2004 12:21 AM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 273 (76748)
01-05-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nator
01-05-2004 1:26 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
schrafinator,
You ask,
Since when does any science address any kind of philosophical "meaning"?
Science began as "natural philosophy" and evolution was originally proposed as an answer to the theologically relevant question, "Are species immutable?" If we are created beings, our purpose or meaning in life is determined by our creator. This "creator" is proposed to be a god, named Jehovah, who sets before us the scientific challenge (Malachi 3:10) "prove Me now in this." setting up an experimental proceedure that we can use to prove or disprove Him. His "creator's manuel," the Bible, is full of directions for a scientific method, one which has been independently proven by historians and philosophers of science to be very, probably most, effective.
So, please elaborate upon which well-established scientific methods have validated any supernatural anything.
The first post in this thread answers this question. These methods were used to predict and find statistically improbable Bible Codes, for example, validating the claim to supernatural authorship to at least part of the Bible.
So, are you saying that because we have not examined all evidence we cannot use the evidence we do have to reach tentative conclusions?
We do not have perfect knowledge, and never will, so we can never know anything at all?
I am saying that because you have not examined all evidence, you cannot state that evidence that might refute your point does not exist. You can state that, to your knowledge, you are unaware of any such evidence. But, as some is brought to your attention, you ought to fairly examine it according to scientific standards (Did the study follow sound scientific methodology? Can it be replicated? Has evidence been ignored that does not confirm stated predictions from the hypothesis being tested? Are the predictions tested a priori implausible? Are they contradictory to, or consistent with competing theories?)
The absence of "perfect knowledge" does limit our dogmatism and arrogance. We are forced into statements of plausibility, and away from statements of certainty.
Please present your scientific evidence of God.
The Bible Codes studies of Witztum and his colleagues, including Gans' discussion of the embarrasing efforts of critics to squirm out from under the implications of these studies, are plenty of evidence of God. But, you can also read Ivan Panin's works, Del Washburn's Theomatics, or prayer studies (those of Harold Koenig at Duke, or Larry Dossey's summaries are good.) I have described in many postings here personal experiments. Since knowledge of God is a personal matter, I regard any reticence on evolutionist's part to personally collect such evidence in their own experience as an example of injustice and hypocrisy.
Not, therefore, the best science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 01-05-2004 1:26 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2004 11:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 45 by edge, posted 01-06-2004 12:22 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 273 (76753)
01-05-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 10:01 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
The first post in this thread answers this question. These methods were used to predict and find statistically improbable Bible Codes, for example, validating the claim to supernatural authorship to at least part of the Bible.
So you have actually chosen to hang the validity of your religion on the bible codes??? !!
Leaving aside, for the moment, the validity of these, you actually are comfortable with bringing the supernatural into the natural world and to have it tested? You're ok with putting God up to scientific and statistical tests?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 10:01 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-06-2004 12:30 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 273 (76761)
01-06-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
01-05-2004 5:10 PM


Walk with God!
Holmes,
Your summary statement,
What's worse this seems to all keep coming down to me having to believe you are actually talking to God in order to get "data". If it were strictly prayer=result, there may be something, but it seems tied in with your contacts outside the experiment as well. Like maybe there was an inconsistency, but you talked with God and got his answer. How am I supposed to believe you over someone else saying the same thing (but giving a different explanation)?[/qs]
says it all! If the Amish talk to God, He will keep them out of trouble, just as He would have kept Job out of trouble, if Job had bothered to deal with Him face to face. Troubled by what I am hearing? Ask God yourself. It's the whole point of the Bible, to hearken to His voice, to settle all matters. Hence, to scientifically test the bible, you have to do what it says, hearken to His voice. And keep His commandments. Ideally, the two at once. ("Jehovah, you say to choose life. Now, what do I do to do that?") Are Xians lost? Ask God. Or, ask them if they "walk with Him, and talk with Him, and He tells them they are His own." Ask them what He has commanded, and what He has told them about it. You'll see. Or do both. Want to avoid problems? Pray (listen!) without ceasing. Hey, He never leaves nor forsakes you. Just stay in real close touch. "You going to test me today, Lord? Now please don't do that. You need me to change or learn something, you got my attention right now, you don't need to sic Satan on me to wake me up." Then listen.
It has to be done this way, according to Scripture, and really no other mandate in Scripture is compelling without doing this first. So, to test the Bible, and see it's promises confirmed in practise, the main answer is, ask God directly.
Stephen
[qs]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2004 5:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2004 11:58 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 273 (76762)
01-06-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 10:01 PM


Re: Nature and human nature research
quote:
Schraf: Since when does any science address any kind of philosophical "meaning"?
Science began as "natural philosophy" ...
Actually, science began as a search for knowledge. It just turned out that naturalism gave the best results in virtually all areas of study.
quote:
...and evolution was originally proposed as an answer to the theologically relevant question, "Are species immutable?"
No. That question came later. It was an answer to how did the diversity of life originate.
quote:
If we are created beings, our purpose or meaning in life is determined by our creator.
An unsupported assumption. What if we were given free will to choose our own purpose or meaning? What if the creator created us simply as a passtime?
quote:
This "creator" is proposed to be a god, named Jehovah, ...
Or any of a hundred other beings.
quote:
...who sets before us the scientific challenge (Malachi 3:10) "prove Me now in this."
And we have proceeded to do so. However, I do not necessarily take your word on this. I see little in this command to do science, per se. There could be hundreds of other pursuits. You make another assumption here and fail to consider alternatives.
quote:
...setting up an experimental proceedure that we can use to prove or disprove Him.
Please elaborate. Where do you read a scientific method or procedure into this?
quote:
His "creator's manuel," the Bible, ...
Or any of a hundred other books.
quote:
...is full of directions for a scientific method, one which has been independently proven by historians and philosophers of science to be very, probably most, effective.
Please elaborate. Where does the bible mention reproducibility or experimental methods? I think you are being a bit credulous here. Do you read Jeanne Dixon as well?
quote:
Schraf: So, please elaborate upon which well-established scientific methods have validated any supernatural anything.
The first post in this thread answers this question.
So, you are not going to elaborate as requested?
quote:
These methods were used to predict and find statistically improbable Bible Codes, for example, validating the claim to supernatural authorship to at least part of the Bible.
Or a clever person. Or perhaps just chance. I am not convinced.
quote:
Schraf: So, are you saying that because we have not examined all evidence we cannot use the evidence we do have to reach tentative conclusions? We do not have perfect knowledge, and never will, so we can never know anything at all?
I am saying that because you have not examined all evidence, you cannot state that evidence that might refute your point does not exist.
Few say it does. WE only say that it has not been discovered and that evolution actually works.
quote:
You can state that, to your knowledge, you are unaware of any such evidence. But, as some is brought to your attention, you ought to fairly examine it according to scientific standards
Actually, this has been done. That is why creationism was abandoned years ago. You continue to commit the error of thinking that history started with modern YECism.
quote:
(Did the study follow sound scientific methodology? Can it be replicated?
Actually, you have replicated nothing here.
quote:
Has evidence been ignored that does not confirm stated predictions from the hypothesis being tested?
No YEC has yet brought us such information. Are you holding out on us?
quote:
Are the predictions tested a priori implausible? Are they contradictory to, or consistent with competing theories?)
Frequently, yes. This has been pointed out on numerous threads on this board. If yo have something new, we'd love to hear it.
quote:
The absence of "perfect knowledge" does limit our dogmatism and arrogance. We are forced into statements of plausibility, and away from statements of certainty.
It does not, however, limit the dogmatism of YECism, because YECs preach perfect knowledge. And I see that you have a problem with certainty. Does not knowing everything bother you?
quote:
...I have described in many postings here personal experiments.
You mean NOT repeatable experiments? Why should we accept them? What was your methodology? Who were the control population?
quote:
Since knowledge of God is a personal matter, I regard any reticence on evolutionist's part to personally collect such evidence in their own experience as an example of injustice and hypocrisy.
And I consider it an injustice and hypocrisy for YECs to hold evolution to a standard that they cannot meet themselves.
quote:
Not, therefore, the best science.
You mean, not PERFECT science, which is what you want. Preferrably one that agrees with your preconceived notions.
I am sorry, Steve, but I don't follow, or accept your grandiose, sweeping statements presented throughout this thread. YOu have obviously preselected what is science, good science, the best science and rationalized your own notions; which, I might add, are partly what you criticize in generations of scientists before you. I submit that you, yourself, have refused to consider alternatives that are available to you, as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 10:01 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2004 12:06 PM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024