The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

quote:

---

The God, Jehovah, is extraordinarily malign, so He has written, to those who reject His love.

---

And this is different from Satan, how?Buddha loves everyone, except those who cause others pain and suffering. You don't have to worship or love him at all.Hmmmmm... who is the jealous, malign entity and who is the tolerant, loving entity? Honestly, I am asking you to square this odd vision that Buddha is a demon and God the great guy, when these are the standards they have set forth.I might add to this that for God, the end of the world is a nightmarish holocaust of everyone that does not bow down to him and his might on earth, while for Buddha there is no true end of the earth, but rather a gradual and hopeful end to suffering for all.Yeah... having a hard time with your worldview

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Satan is malign whether you love him or not.

---

I want this explained. You have said that demons and Satan can seduce by giving things to people that accept them instead of God.For example you agreed with Buz that that fakir was helped by a demon, instead of being helped by the deity he claimed was helping him... Ironic since your criticism of MN is its not accepting people's claims at face value.So how do you determine whether your prayer experiments are not the result of seduction by a demon, rather than actual aid from a God?And that is of course assuming for sake of argument that there are legitimate prayer experiments. [quote]Christians and Moslems think Buddha is a demon. I understand that he was a very good man who ernestly tried to lead people into a lifestyle that prepared them for whatever any good God that might be out there had for them.{/quoteWhy isn't the simplest explanation that Buddhists are correct? Why do you not accept the claims of Buddhists at face value?

quote:

---

Think of it this way.

---

Okay. I did and I find it pretty repellent. Why would a God need to kill everything in order to start over? If he is in control and could create things, or alter them at any time (creationist theory), why not simply change things for the better? And free will is no excuse. Slaughtering those you don't like is just the same (actually worse) than changing them.Now why don't you think of it this way? We are alive and not sure exactly what's going on but we're trying to find out as best we can. In some cases where there is a lack of knowledge, humans attempt to create explanations of nonmaterial entities to fill the gaps. They also use these entities to help describe/justify moral assessments.Or why not think of it this way? We live in a finite environment with limited means. This coupled with desire leads to pain and suffering, made greater by unjust acts to reduce personal suffering by increasing the suffering of others. There is no cosmic entity with designs to wipe everything out, just living beings of all kinds that can move toward harmony and a reduction of pain/suffering by tempering desire.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

But my agreement was "most plausible interpretation."

---

Yeah, but I don't get why the most plausible interpretation is that he was possessed by a demon, rather than gaining the benefit of the deity he claims.Let's assume for sake of argument that he wasn't cheating. A man's proven ability to go 10 days without eating or drinking would help me buy his story, or his religion's story, rather than the side asserting he is a demon.It seems to me that according to H-D you'd have to as well.

quote:

---

There's a biblical test, where you have to ask the voice speaking to and directing you to talk about Yeshua walking in the flesh. There's the fruit of what you experience, mostly love, peace, and joy.

---

Unfortunately this test is no good. You could be duped. And I think you would agree.For example the fakir would say the same thing about the Goddess which grants him his powers. To believe he is really possessed by a demon is to charge that, despite using the same criteria as you, you won't trust the test when it relates to his god.And as far as your test goes... from my perspective... I would have to balance those feelings of joy with the rather opposite notion all life that does not love him must be killed in the end, not to mention the horrific amount of violence he wrote throughout the OT.

quote:

---

What claims are you thinking of?

---

I meant the tenets of Buddhist faith, which can encompass all the effects you claim to have but without the angry jealous deity, and an apocalypse.

quote:

---

Because they neglect that duty, Jehovah is left with no other option, but to let the disaster happen.

---

No. he's God. He can choose to make anything happens the way he wants. That means he is choosing death and apocalypse... or at least the threat of it. Sounds like a demon to me.

quote:

---

I experimented with the ways of thinking you suggest. I've had a better life since I began operating under the hypothesis that orthodox theological ontology is accurate. It has generated more interesting and confirmed predictions.

---

My experience has been the exact opposite.And I know for certain that I would never have gotten anywhere in chemistry class, and doing analytical chem research using H-D.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I had replies to your answers about demons and God, but in respect to the admin I'll skip them here. As it is I think it is more important to address your underlying H-D style of science.

quote:

---

Subjects in which I was a miserable failure. So, there you are.

---

Maybe this is exactly the time to reiterate a point I made earlier.Science is the study of our natural world. How and why do things work as they do? In doing this over many centuries, MN has arisen as the best method. Your proposed H-D "best method" would screw up tons of ongoing research. This is where the title "best" becomes rather silly when applied to science.What it seems like you really want to study is your faith. Now many faithful people say you should not attempt to disect faith with the tools of science, but you can choose to if you want. That does not make what you are doing science, unless you follow all the appropriate methods. If you pick and choose which ones to use, then what you are still only practicing faith, just with a scientific flair. This is what makes it a pseudoscience. It is similar to, but not, science.This is why I found your criticisms odd, as MN research has proven so successful in studying science's area of focus. Why should it suddenly consider itself weak because those of faith find it too hard to jump immediately to claims of knowledge using it?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Percy beat me to the punch on a response to this post. It was to him so I suppose that's fair, but the glaring problem of using Bayes theorem (which I generally critiqued in another thread) is glaring in your drawn out example.While I won't say you can't call your form of science H-D, I will say that everything in your method devolves rapidly from point 5 on.If you cannot recognize the biased and circular reasoning introduced here (and the following steps), then I am at a loss for what to say.You have reached for a lead life preserver, claiming that since it is made of lead (and so stronger than styrofoam), it must work better a life preserver. There's only so long I am going to try and convince you otherwise. Good luck.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I always keep asking for predictions about unknown patterns or experimental outcomes. From what I have seen, there is so much we don't know about ecology, so many many variables entering into the error term in an unknown way, that it is easy to enter into mathematical overkill.

---

This is very true for many sciences besides ecology. Trying to model the internal actions of simple polyatomic atoms can be very complex, if one is looking for outcomes. And the problem is degree of variables, or perhaps it would be better stated as "inputs".You have to know quite a bit about the system, and then quite a bit about how to factor in all of the inputs allowed to a system.This is of course how Chaos theory came about, but then you'd still have to move from the theoretical models you develop, to knowing (measuring) the starting inputs of an ecological system to figure out what possible outcomes you'd have.It is very tough, and I'd wager it'll be a long time before a major tool of ecologists in the field will be calculators (to figure definite outcomes of a population).

quote:

---

Simple math often predicts justs as well as complex mathematical structures, so we invoke a sort of Occham's razor and stay with the simplist math that gets today's job done. H-D methodology will eventually get you to theories that require more sophisticated mathmatical modelling.

---

How you moved from that earlier assessment to this latter one I have no idea. Okay, if simple formulas get you answers, it is not necessary to use the more lengthy ones.But that says nothing about BSH-D allowing you to jump to conclusions regarding existence of demons and gods, in order to accept evidence which would not otherwise be allowed just so you can back up your preconceived notions.A circle may be simple, but that does not mean occam's razor allows for circular reasoning.And I have to point out that the simplest explanation for cargo cults and the actions of the aztecs, were mistaken ascriptions of characteristics... not demon possession.This does not require any preconceived notions or entities at all. It comes from recognizing that we ourselves can make mistakes in judgement. Unless every mistake we make is due to demon possession?So for example, taken from another thread, I don't understand the difference between hairtypes in various races and ascribe characteristics I think are correct, but am later proven incorrect. That means I was demon possessed?If not in that case, then why must I be if I make a similar mistake in ascribing supernatural characteristics to something I do not yet understand?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh my, have you been following this thread, or any other threads in which Steve has been posting.In this post he is trying not just to argue for simpler mathematical formulas, but a simplification of scientific research methodology, such that he can a priori assume demons and gods, and specific characteristics of demons and gods (like farts are signs of a demon leaving, and dark matter/energy are demons) in order to make any experiment he wants (and ignore counterevidence) so as to support his initial assumption.I find this last post of his especially amusing as he hails simple math, and yet he has gone on at length about the validity of Bible Code studies (which requires involved mathematical techniques).This guy goes back and forth so much it's like watching a ping pong game. One of my favorites is when in one thread he tells me that regular science is so bad (and boring) because it uses double blind techniques, then in another thread I find him backing up a study he wanted to support saying that it had been conducted "double blind". So is double blind good or bad?Is complex math good or bad?Is Occam's razor good or bad?Which way is the wind blowing this minute?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)