Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 305 (358085)
10-22-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Nighttrain
10-22-2006 2:35 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
I`m waiting to validate the methods of detecting demons. ...
When one hears voices, or simply feels an input from some supernatural force, can we determine whether they are god or demon?
How would one know?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Nighttrain, posted 10-22-2006 2:35 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 10-22-2006 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 305 (358132)
10-22-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
10-22-2006 9:34 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
How would one know?
Do they know the secret handshake?
Do they have the Glow in the Dark Magic decoder ring?
and most importantly:
Are they telling you what you want to hear?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 9:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 1:39 PM jar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 305 (358140)
10-22-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
10-22-2006 12:59 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
Do they have the Glow in the Dark Magic decoder ring?
I had one of those, but it went on the blink ...
Are they telling you what you want to hear?
Or what your sub-conscious is saying?
Indeed one needs to consider the possible source(s) before reaching conclusions.
If other people have similar experiences, then that lends credence\concordance to the concept ...
... but one needs to look at all the similar concordant experiences and try to determine common elements.
Edited by RAZD, : opty

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 10-22-2006 12:59 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Nighttrain, posted 10-23-2006 2:07 AM RAZD has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 64 of 305 (358244)
10-23-2006 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
10-22-2006 1:39 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
If only we could access the autopsy reports on those Gergesene/Gadarene swine. I`m sure Grissom could construct a fail-safe detection test. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 1:39 PM RAZD has not replied

warner
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 305 (358293)
10-23-2006 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
10-21-2006 11:02 PM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
The problem is not to explain this experience\phenomena in terms of your personal experience but to explain it and similar experiences\phenomena in ALL other religions by people all over the world. One conclusion is that all gods must exist. Another is that is doesn't matter WHAT you believe.
Yes I do agree! As unscientific as it sounds, these things do seem to happen in all sorts of religions. My belief is wholeheartedly in the word of God. It is the standard that I compare all things to simply because I believe that there is a God and that the Christian God is the Almighty God above all other gods as the Bible declares. How and why have I concluded this is simple.
Science is great in that it explains a great deal about what we see and touch. I love it for that purpose and I think it is God ordained. True science and God are interconnected of course (in my opinion) because I believe that God is the creator of all that we see, therefore it is His science. True science does not disprove a God, it proves Him. I know that probably has a scientific blasphemous ring to it. My problem though, is not explaining the natural but the supernatural. The natural can be explained in the natural and the supernatural. But more interestingly to me, is that the Word of God (christian God) declares that the “unseen things can be understood by the seen things, even unto the Godhead” (paraphrased) Apparently God did not want to hide Himself in His creation, but expose Himself. Some scientist say, “I know it seems highly improbable that what we see has happened as it seems it has happened, but the proof is here before us” and I say they are right! Which makes the highly improbable idea of a God that created it possible! Do you see what I’m saying? The word says that “he looks for people who wish to understand to reveal truth to” (paraphrased) If indeed there are supernatural governing forces, then I would conclude that it would be quite scientific to see into them. We should seek EAGERLY into what we can about them. To find out indeed WHICH supernatural authority is indeed in charge. I would love to discuss this with a levelheaded person. Concerning other religions I do not contend their existence nor the powers within them. There is substantiated reason for these other gods. They are in subjection to the supreme God. It is all accounted for in the word of God. All the way down to science. The problem is making that which is unexplainable to science, believable to science, enough so, that they would venture into a different direction with their search. To consider that there are other forms of experimentations to be done and reckoned with. Do you suppose that maybe they might be afraid to find out that there is a God? A God that expects obedience to His laws? I sometimes think, that that in itself would stem somebody to disprove the existence of the pesky supernatural possibility of a God in charge.
Then again, I would think that it would strike a certain dread in them, in the private center of themselves, to not consider this possibility that claims authority over their very existence.
Do you know what the word of God has to say concerning this desire that we have to not want to die?
Maybe you already know, just thought I’d ask. If you would like to know I will tell you.
I agree that I cannot exclude the perceptions of others that are less fantastic.
I think its all fantastic that we care enough to seek it out.
Thanks for your time and input.
P.S.
I'm a little slow, and didn't get the dyslexic joke
Edited by warner, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 11:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 11:44 AM warner has replied
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2006 6:49 PM warner has replied

warner
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 305 (358295)
10-23-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by warner
10-23-2006 11:35 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
The problem is not to explain this experience\phenomena in terms of your personal experience but to explain it and similar experiences\phenomena in ALL other religions by people all over the world. One conclusion is that all gods must exist. Another is that is doesn't matter WHAT you believe.
The above was supposed to be in a quote box
Edited by AdminJar, : Fix quote box warner, use peek and you can see how it was done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 11:35 AM warner has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 11:46 AM warner has not replied

warner
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 305 (358296)
10-23-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by warner
10-23-2006 11:44 AM


Re: Reality: What a concept!
i forgotthe steps for a quote box! HELP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 11:44 AM warner has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminJar, posted 10-23-2006 11:49 AM warner has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 305 (358297)
10-23-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by warner
10-23-2006 11:46 AM


quote box
warner, I edited your message to fix quote boxes. Use peek and you can see how it was done.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 11:46 AM warner has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 69 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 6:13 PM AdminJar has not replied

    warner
    Inactive Member


    Message 69 of 305 (358387)
    10-23-2006 6:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by AdminJar
    10-23-2006 11:49 AM


    Re: quote box
    you guys are really on top of things here!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by AdminJar, posted 10-23-2006 11:49 AM AdminJar has not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1395 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 70 of 305 (358399)
    10-23-2006 6:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 65 by warner
    10-23-2006 11:35 AM


    Re: Reality: can we validate it?
    Yes I do agree! As unscientific as it sounds, these things do seem to happen in all sorts of religions.
    You then talk almost exclusively about your personal faith, which is fine, but not about any way to validate that perception - which is what I am trying to ascertain.
    I agree that I cannot exclude the perceptions of others that are less fantastic.
    It's a little more complicated than that.
    We also know from some brain scan studies that catholic nuns praying and tibetan monks in meditation have the same basic brain pattern, one different from normal waking or sleeping patterns.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1847442.stm
    It would seem that the personal experience is shaped by the preconceptions of the person rather than by the experience.
    We also know that a similar pattern can be induced by a magnetic field and the person (generally) has a 'religious' experience.
    Holy visions
    http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm
    http://web2.airmail.net/dsh440/mind.3.htm
    Fewer preconceptions about the experience and greater variety of perception of what the experience entailed.
    This means we can validate the mental experience by it's outward appearance even if we cannot validate the content.
    Enjoy.
    I'm a little slow, and didn't get the dyslexic joke
    It's an from old old joke about a dyslexic agnostic based on the popular misconception that dyslexics see words backwards - he wasn't sure if he believed his dog existed.
    Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
    Edited by RAZD, : subtitilation

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 11:35 AM warner has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 7:24 PM RAZD has replied

    warner
    Inactive Member


    Message 71 of 305 (358406)
    10-23-2006 7:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
    10-23-2006 6:49 PM


    Re: Reality: What a concept!
    You then talk almost exclusively about your personal faith. But not about any way to validate that perception
    Well... then what sort of questions must I answer do you think for us to come to some discoveries. I talk of my personal faith because it is my validated proof of my faith. I cannot tell you about the experiences of others, but they could. You would have to gather information about their experiences from them and mine from me.
    It's a little more complicated than that.
    I'm not familiar with the wide variety of problems as you probably are. I would be happy to offer whatever insight that I could from my own experiences.
    We also know from some brain scan studies that catholic nuns praying and tibetan monks in meditation have the same basic brain pattern, one different from normal waking or sleeping patterns.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1847442.stm
    thanks for the info. Concerning the above mentioned. I'm not sure why we might assume that the supernatural occurances could be detected with brain scans. Not to say that they can't. But because none were detected does not mean that they didn't. And prayer is not considered a supernatural occurance I wouldn't think.
    It would seem that the personal experience is shaped by the preconceptions of the person rather than by the experience.
    If you are concluding the above statement from the brain scan test then you might be considered one who is out to prove that supernatural occurances are somehow self-contrived. I'm not talking about a high here, I'm talking about real miracles. You can't preconcieve an event that has not taken place no matter how spiritually high you are! lol! Don't get me wrong, I know there are cases just like that, but don't let that deter you from discovering the real ones. I hope that doesn't make me sound arrogant. I probably at one time fell into that catagory. Mixing my emotions with religion causing a superficial high. What I'm talking about is a whole lot more serious. Healings, visions, and dreams of a prophetic nature. The kind of things that make doctors scratch their heads and wonder what happened. Scientifically, it shouldn't have, but it did. What would have been called by scientist impossible suddenly is true. That is God.
    We also know that a similar pattern can be induced by a magnetic field and the person (generally) has a 'religious' experience.
    thats assuming they even know what defines a religious experience. Magnetic fields do not create the kind of things I'm talking about.
    Fewer preconceptions about the experience and greater variety of perception of what the experience entailed.
    This means we can validate the mental experience by it's outward appearance even if we cannot validate the content.
    I think I follow you here. But again, I think you are completely on the wrong track concerning these experiences as you keep calling them. These are not experiences that you could track in such a way I do not think. It's like trying to track where the next lightening will strike and how. Or something similar that is impossible to predict. God is not to be put to the test. That is in His word. That does not mean you cannot find it out however. Just not in that way. It's like me saying, you are welcome to come to my home, but you must come dressed properly, and ring the front door bell and wait for the door to opened to you. You of course are not allowed to sneak in, break in, or enter in from any other means. And I am able to see to it that you do not.
    I'm a little slow, and didn't get the dyslexic joke
    It's an from old old joke about a dyslexic agnostic based on the popular misconception that dyslexics see words backwards - he wasn't sure if he believedhe existed
    i fink eye dits it

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2006 6:49 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2006 9:26 PM warner has replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1395 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 72 of 305 (358419)
    10-23-2006 9:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by warner
    10-23-2006 7:24 PM


    Re: Reality: What a concept!
    I talk of my personal faith because it is my validated proof of my faith. I cannot tell you about the experiences of others,...
    What interests me is that such experiences are common, and it makes me wonder if you could take exactly the same experience you had, but cast it in a different faith perspective, say that of a Theravada Buddhist, would the conclusions and behavior\choice\feeling of direction be the same?
    I cannot judge that for you. It would take someone well versed in both faiths and committment eh? It might be possible for one to retro-view it based on new learning or switching faiths, but again it would take the person with the subjective experience to do so.
    I'm not sure why we might assume that the supernatural occurances could be detected with brain scans. ... And prayer is not considered a supernatural occurance I wouldn't think.
    I wouldn't think prayer or meditation or any other religious observance would qualify as supernatural behavior. We would need someone performing a miracle to scan at the time the miracle was performed and be able to validate that it was in fact a miracle eh? That kind of thing seems to be in remarkably short supply.
    But the state of mind involved is more than just prayer here, it is a level - supposedly - conducive to communication with a spiritual source.
    If you are concluding the above statement from the brain scan test then you might be considered one who is out to prove that supernatural occurances are somehow self-contrived.
    No, I am just skeptical of the specific interpretations, given that similar experiences can have entirely different specific interpretations.
    The specific interpretations may not be reflecting what is actually being perceived, and that is the issue -- perceptions of reality eh?
    I'm talking about real miracles.
    How do you define and validate a real miracle?
    You can't preconcieve an event that has not taken place no matter how spiritually high you are!
    Oh? Why is there a defined term for this situation then?
    quote:
    dé”j vu”[dey-zhah voo, vyoo; Fr. dey-zha vy]
    1. Psychology. the illusion of having previously experienced something actually being encountered for the first time.
    2. disagreeable familiarity or sameness: The new television season had a sense of déj vu about it”the same old plots and characters with new names.
    (color for emPHAsis)
    Joseph Heller goes on for a couple pages with variations on this theme in Catch 22 IIRC.
    Not to say that the experience is not real, but again that specific interpretation may not reflect what is actually being perceived.
    thats assuming they even know what defines a religious experience. Magnetic fields do not create the kind of things I'm talking about.
    I'm assuming that you have not tried such a helmet experience, or you would know what kind of experience is generated by the magnetic field. Only then could you judge whether it was similar or not.
    But consider this: we know from the brain scans what the brain activity is like for a religious experience, magnetic fields can induce electrical patterns that would entirely mimic those patterns.
    What the person experienced could be indetectable from a non-generated experience. I prefer to keep an open mind eh?
    I think you are completely on the wrong track concerning these experiences as you keep calling them. These are not experiences that you could track in such a way I do not think. It's like trying to track where the next lightening will strike and how.
    You might be surprised at how much lightening can be predicted, after all it has been validated that lightening does indeed strike the same place twice, if not several times.
    But that's aside the point. The issue is not that the experience itself can be validated, just that it occurred. That would be the beginning of a more general investigation eh?
    Or something similar that is impossible to predict. God is not to be put to the test. That is in His word. That does not mean you cannot find it out however. Just not in that way.
    Seems you don't want to put it to the test, but would rather keep it mysterious. There are three possible outcomes: (1) validation of a correlation, (2) invalidation of a correlation, (3) indeterminate results.
    It's like me saying, you are welcome to come to my home, but you must come dressed properly, and ring the front door bell and wait for the door to opened to you. You of course are not allowed to sneak in, break in, or enter in from any other means. And I am able to see to it that you do not.
    So that rules out a logical approach?
    i fink eye dits it
    (and much closer to actual dyslexia.)

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by warner, posted 10-23-2006 7:24 PM warner has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by warner, posted 10-24-2006 6:04 PM RAZD has replied

    warner
    Inactive Member


    Message 73 of 305 (358606)
    10-24-2006 6:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
    10-23-2006 9:26 PM


    Re: Reality: What a concept!
    I talk of my personal faith because it is my validated proof of my faith. I cannot tell you about the experiences of others,...
    What interests me is that such experiences are common, and it makes me wonder if you could take exactly the same experience you had, but cast it in a different faith perspective, say that of a Theravada Buddhist, would the conclusions and behavior\choice\feeling of direction be the same?
    you know its real important to address the issue here that needs to be addressed. There are many aspects to this topic that could be addressed but the one I feel is the most important is the idea that there actually is a spiritual realm in which spiritual powers and authorities dwell. If that can be logically proven, and I think it could if we were to accept into reality the most obvious two question that are seemingly ignored by science. And I think science (should, would), need and want to know the answers to these questions, in order to deny the spiritual realm its existance. I'm sure these questions already have forums created for discussion.
    The questions being:
    " Why are we here and why does it seem evident that the universe was waiting for us?"
    Can we and should we ignore the evidences of the supernatural in all of history wheather good or bad experiences. Are we to truly assume that all these people who claim the existance of the supernatural are indeed idiots who cannot come to grip with the proposed reality that declares, 'all that is here is what you see with your eyes?' and so therefore project supernatural wonders into their realities to explain the unexplainable? Is science content to say, "I know all that we see seems impossible but look, there it is" and just stop at that? Shouldn't we be investigating the possibility of what seems so obvious. When something so intelligent comes into existence bearing with it unique realities and environments that are specifically crafted to cater to that existance in such a balance that traumatizes the idea of it being 'chanced' into existance. Shouldn't we at least be inclined to think that superintelligent should most likely come from something intelligent?
    It's so logical to conclude that, and so illogical to not.
    To say that super intelligence came from chance is like telling me that fire comes from cold and cold comes from fire. (The example is meant to make a point, not to incite the urge to disprove the example itself)
    And since logic is part of our science procedure, shouldn't we consider the logic of that last statement?
    What about reckoning with the emotions and mental facilities of man?
    Do they not count in our scientific findings? Should we not attempt to unite facts and findings with logical reasoning? I think that scientist already do.
    Take for instance the wind. There are no pictures of it but yet we can prove its existance by seeing what it does and by feeling it. We conclude that it must be there because we can both feel it and we see its effect. We believe in love though it is not an object that can be touched or examined but an emotion that is real and causes one to behave a certain way. The same way with anger. Are we to conclude that anger is not part of the pieces to this puzzle? Fear? Where did these emotions come from? Why do we have them? It seems as though they have a specific purpose. What about pain? We are equipped with pain sensorys that help us to establish what is safe for us and what is not. Why are we so equipped with such things? I know these are alot of questions and don't expect you to answer each one. Just some thoughts I have.
    I wouldn't think prayer or meditation or any other religious observance would qualify as supernatural behavior. We would need someone performing a miracle to scan at the time the miracle was performed and be able to validate that it was in fact a miracle eh? That kind of thing seems to be in remarkably short supply.
    Yes I agree but again, to the issue, which is, is their a spiritual realm where spirits dwell and have some sort of communication with us humans, and if so, shouldn't we look into this? If you could find one miracle and prove it was authentic, wouldn't that suffice to say, we have an entire seperate realm worthy of investigating and contemplating when doing our scientific research?
    If you are concluding the above statement from the brain scan test then you might be considered one who is out to prove that supernatural occurances are somehow self-contrived.
    No, I am just skeptical of the specific interpretations, given that similar experiences can have entirely different specific interpretations.
    If you are even considering a spiritual realm at all, would it be so simple as to say, well if it was this way for this person then it should be that way for that person? If another realm exists with beings that are different interacting with beings that are individuals having in themselves differences, why should we expect it to be the same. On the contrary, I would expect not one to be the same.
    I will have to finish my response later
    thanks for your time

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2006 9:26 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2006 8:09 PM warner has replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1395 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 74 of 305 (358632)
    10-24-2006 8:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 73 by warner
    10-24-2006 6:04 PM


    Spiritual Logic
    If that can be logically proven, and I think it could if we were to accept into reality the most obvious two question that are seemingly ignored by science.
    Science not only isn't needed for logical proof, it can't logically be used. Proof requires certainty of the truth of precepts and a valid logical structure, then - and only then - can it arrive at a valid conclusion as true as the precepts.
    Lacking proof of truth of precepts then the BEST we are left with is a conclusion that IF they are true THEN the conclusion is true (IF the structure is valid).
    The questions being:
    " Why are we here and why does it seem evident that the universe was waiting for us?"
    I couldn't find a second question.
    This 1st question, however, is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, coupled (as usual) with a few arguments from incredulity.
    It's so logical to conclude that, and so illogical to not.
    Sorry.
    Consider that IF abiogenesis and evolution are the correct understanding of the development of life on earth that THEN the conditions for life would HAVE to be in existence for this to happen. Life as a whole, given sufficient time, would also evolve to BEST fit the ecosphere available: it would adapt so that it would match what the ecosphere provides, regardless of what that ecosphere was.
    For regardless of how likely the development of life from chemical primordial earth was, the conditions would HAVE to be conducive before it COULD happen. Therefore the conditions being conducive for life on earth are not evidence that it could not have happened by random natural means.
    At best it is evidence that the cosmic designer made the universe in such a way that life would naturally develop and evolve to fill the ecosphere, but that is more of a Deist view eh?
    Think of it like this: it is just incredible that we have just exactly the right kind of yeast available for making baked bread! That yeast must be there just so we could bake bread, for without it we couldn't ... oh, hang on ... wait a minute ...
    ... there are other ways to make bread, and there may well be other ways to "make" life ... we don't know.
    Logically it could go one way or the other. Perhaps the Buddhists are correct and it is all illusions.
    And I think science (should, would), need and want to know the answers to these questions, in order to deny the spiritual realm its existance.
    It doesn't deny spiritual existence, just that there is currently any evidence for it. In fact many attempts have been made to investigate all kinds of spiritual phenomena. What they generally find is that the results are inconclusive at best, and that certain phenomena are untestable.
    Science is necessarily agnostic - neither pro nor con the possibility of {anything}: in the absence of evidence one way or the other science simply says "we don't know". Some people go a little further and conclude that there are things we will NEVER know, but that is a philosophical conclusion.
    And science STARTS with evidence as a basis for initial hypothesis. Wind pressure on sails and windmills, molecules of gases in the air, pressure differences from place to place, etcetera. We can assume that wind is the result of pressure differences and the attempts of the gases to reach a state of equilibrium, thus moving molecules of gas from high pressure areas to low pressure areas. Then we can test that hypothesis and when it proves accurate in making predictions we can build on it until we can predict the approximate behavior of hurricanes for days in advance.
    Take for instance the wind. There are no pictures of it but yet we can prove its existence by seeing what it does and by feeling it.
    There are lots of pictures of wind - it is the redistribution of air molecules across pressure gradients. Forecasters at NOAA put out maps every day showing the wind even thought they have not measured the actual force and direction based on pressure gradients:
    This site shows color enhanced view of water vapor in the air, and if you click on the boxes labeled {HDW-high} {HDW-mid} {HDW-low} you will see arrows of these winds.
    GOES-18 Test Site - Imagery Viewer - NOAA / NESDIS / STAR
    And you can see the clouds of water vapor - part of that air mass that makes up the wind - actually following those wind arrows.
    We conclude that it must be there because we can both feel it and we see its effect.
    More than that, we can measure it and quantify it and predict the conditions under which big winds occur.
    We believe in love though it is not an object that can be touched or examined but an emotion that is real and causes one to behave a certain way. The same way with anger. Are we to conclude that anger is not part of the pieces to this puzzle? Fear? Where did these emotions come from? Why do we have them? It seems as though they have a specific purpose. What about pain?
    Science is studying these things as best we can manage. But we don't need to assume a priori that anger or fear is due to demonic possession, do we?
    Why are we so equipped with such things?
    Evolution has some answers for these, as they can increase survival and reproductive ability in individuals. We also see evidence of emotions mentioned in many other species, so we don't need to posit a "special" case for humans only either.
    Take pain: one part of common definitions of life is that the {object\organism} reacts to stimuli. We also do NOT see organisms adapted to seek out painful experiences, but to avoid them.
    ... is their a spiritual realm where spirits dwell and have some sort of communication with us humans, and if so, shouldn't we look into this?
    You must go through different check-out counters at the supermarket than I do. It seems that all kinds of people are looking ... the problem is not in the looking, but in the finding of evidence on which to base hypothesis to make predictions for further looking: without a basis in evidence there can be no scientific investigation.
    This doesn't rule out philosophy or religion or the reality of any possible spirit world, it just says science cannot go there until there IS evidence.
    That leaves us with having to use other methods, and that leaves us with problems of finding ways to validate those methods. SO far the best indicators we have are:
    • rule out anything that has been invalidated
    • consider anything for which there is multiple cross-cultural experiences in concordance
    Anything else is making bias a basis of belief.
    If another realm exists with beings that are different interacting with beings that are individuals having in themselves differences, why should we expect it to be the same. On the contrary, I would expect not one to be the same.
    Expect identical experiences? That would be unreasonable, especially as two people side by side watching a car accident have different experiences.
    But they DO have relatively similar experiences, as do two people watching car accidents on opposite sides of the earth with entirely different kinds of vehicles, climate conditions, and ability of drivers etc etc etc.
    We would expect some similarities, some common experiences.
    And if we didn't then it becomes rather a mystery what anyone could hope to accomplish by investigating\measuring\quantifying\categorizing\etc any and all supernatural experiences --- as the same results could be achieved by a random generator eh?
    Look at all the pantheons of gods and such in all the mythologies of the world past and present, including the ones buried\adapted in certain so-called mono-theistic religions, and what do you find for common denominators? What seems to be the most "popular" kind of god?
    Does that give us some idea of the spirit world?
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by warner, posted 10-24-2006 6:04 PM warner has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by warner, posted 10-25-2006 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

    warner
    Inactive Member


    Message 75 of 305 (358869)
    10-25-2006 8:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
    10-24-2006 8:09 PM


    Re: Spiritual Logic
    this takes soooo long. Is there any way for us to chat this out? I've thought alot about what you've said and it makes alot of sense. I'm thinking I'm coming to the conclusion that science and the supernatural are like from different planets. And though we may see evidence and signs of the one from the other planet it is not in such a way that science can test it. I can understand that.
    The only other thing that maybe I might be misunderstanding the evolutionists to believe, and maybe there are as many kinds of evolutionists as there are kinds of christians if you know what i mean... but, the only thing that I have a problem with is why don't they teach at least the possiblility of a divine creator? Or do they? You mentioned that when science doesn't know one way or another that is what they report. That they don't know. Do you think there is bad blood between the two sides and they both think that if they somehow agree with one another then that means that that would make them a 'believer' one way or the other? I was just wondering you know. Trying to understand whats really going on with this evolution/creation thing.
    I have alot to think about and STILL think that there must be a way to unite the two if indeed they are both true. And I believe that they are, its my theory anyway. Well, I'd love to chat this out so that I could come to quicker conclusions than this.
    Let me know if thats possible.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2006 8:09 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2006 8:06 PM warner has replied
     Message 78 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2006 8:56 PM warner 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