Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Studying the supernatural

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Studying the supernatural
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 73 of 207 (634980)
09-25-2011 9:45 AM 		Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:39 AM

Re: It super and it's natural
Get saved and you can do that yourself. I can't do it for you.
​
Isn't that part of the oint of this thread? For something to be studied rigorously it needs to have data available to all, not just a subset of the population.
​
What you are saying is that it is only true is you already believe it is true.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 4:34 AM Larni has replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 85 of 207 (635053)
09-26-2011 7:02 AM 		Reply to: Message 80 by Chuck77
09-26-2011 4:34 AM

Re: It super and it's natural
If Straggler says we can study prayer then surley we can study the Bible to see it it's true.
​
That makes no sense at all.
​
If you want to study prayer you study prayer first hand; not what bronze age writers say.
​
Can you see why this would be a terrible way to study prayer? Don't you think a double blind design would be far better?
​
Or any experimental design, for that matter.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 4:34 AM Chuck77 has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2011 7:36 AM Larni has replied
 Message 95 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2011 2:11 PM Larni has replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 93 of 207 (635086)
09-26-2011 1:14 PM 		Reply to: Message 86 by Straggler
09-26-2011 7:36 AM

Re: Scientifically Studying The Efficacy of Prayer
Thanks for the link!
​
Does that mean we can conclude that the supernatural cannot be evidenced, I wonder?
​
I would like to see a meta analysis but I would be surprised if there were enough usable studies.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2011 7:36 AM Straggler has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2011 1:21 PM Larni has not replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 96 of 207 (635092)
09-26-2011 2:32 PM 		Reply to: Message 95 by Huntard
09-26-2011 2:11 PM

I see what you mean.
​
I interpreted him to say we can study prayer via the bible.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2011 2:11 PM Huntard has not replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 205 of 207 (638447)
10-22-2011 9:22 AM 		Reply to: Message 193 by Chuck77
10-22-2011 3:41 AM

You did all of that yourself. You got yourself through the hard times and it is a damn shame you refuse to take credit for it.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 3:41 AM Chuck77 has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024