how can any one religion make a valid claim to be the fundamental truth?

quote:

---

Is it from your mind (which is your soul)

---

The mind is the soul?Does that mean that when the brain is damaged, altering the mind, is the soul altered as well?

quote:

---

The reason I asked is that I did learn some time ago that Jehova Witnesses translated the bible to conform it to what they think it should say to meet their doctrinal needs. In this they rival the Church of the Latter Day Saints, ignoring the directive that nothing should be added or taken from scripture.

---

Do you also mean the Council of Trent, in which the Catholic Church also decided which books should be added to or taken from scripture, they just did it earlier?Their descisions are more valid than the JW or the LDS why?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-16-2005 11:19 AM

quote:

---

My answer implicated that, rather than reliance on someone's biased academic study of the prophecies or historical analysis, the best approach is to do one's own hands on objective study of it.

---

Yes, but what measures did you take to ensure your objectivity?Did you seek out many contradictory historical accounts and honestly try to determine if they were more likely, or did you seek only to confirm your wished-for result?Did you seek out many alternative and stricter interpretations of the requirements of the prophecies in order to make sure you were not simply looking for results that confirmed your preferred results?

quote:

---

How is it the same?

​

Have you inspected and compared the interpretations both churches rendered to suit their need?

---

"Truth is in the eye of the beholder", isn't it?

quote:

---

One of the ways he talks is in a small still voice. Usually it is the first thought that enters your mind after asking a question.

---

Uh, that's me talking to myself.

That's me talking to myself all the time, as far as I can tell.Why wouldn't it always be me?

LOL!Wonderful.

quote:

---

Even as a kid, I knew that Santa was make believe. Santa never felt real in a personal sense. I suppose that some kids are so deluded, however.

---

I totally believed that Santa Claus was a real, magical person that left presents under the tree when I was a amall child.My parents told me that he was real, and the cookies I left for him were always eaten, and the carrot for Rudolph, too. All that was left were crumbs and the end of the carrot (both eaten by my grandfather, I lare learned).I can distinctly remember trying really hard to stay awake so I could hear the reindeer and sleigh on the roof.

quote:

---

Jackalopes don’t exist and thus have no relevance to the ecosystem, despite featuring in many stories, web pages and now brilliant animation by Pixar.

---

Bound, bound, bound!!!

quote:

---

You are not listening. The truth is inside you, seek it and you will find it. You are a smart person, and you will not be decieved.

---

...unless he is fooled by the Devil or a demon, right? He could think he was talking with God, but it could just as easily be a demon who is pretending to be God.

quote:

---

Science would like to have everything proved 100%, and when it can it will. But often things can’t be proved one way or the other with 100% confidence in that proof, so it remains a theory. In other words we say this is what we believe is happening to the best of our understanding and knowledge, but as we can’t give proof right now we are not gonna say that this is the 100% truth of what is happening with out that proof. If a scientist made a claim to have proved something beyond doubt he better have damn good results and good experimental practice cause he will be asked to prove that claim to be 100% true.

---

Actually, nothing in science, in principle, is ever 100% proven.That is the tenet of tentativity.Because science is a human endeavor, and humans are imperfect and limited creatures, and we can never have all evidence of all things, it is always possible that we could be wrong.If we were to ever consider any scientific explanation 100% correct, it would become dogma.We must always allow that we are coming closer and closer to 100% understanding of a given phenomena but will never, ever consider it 100% understood. We must always allow for new evidence, which may contradict the old understanding.Of course, this does not mean that we don't have great confidence in the reliability of many of our findings and conclusions, but it does mean that we can never say that we understand anything 100%, or "proved" it.Furthermore, even if we were able to "prove" a scientific theory 100%, it would still be a theory. A Theory is an explanitory framework that organizes evidence related to a specific phenomena in nature.Just because a theory becomes highly confirmed doesn't mean that it is no longer an explanitory framework.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-23-2005 10:27 AM

No worries.I have found that being precise in language in these discussions is extremely important so that we all can at least try to use terms similarly.Not to mention that the whole "prove" thing is so often misused by those not up on their philosophy of science/scientific method.Cheers.

quote:

---

is it right to say you can prove something to be true, but only for a given vlaue of 'true'?

​

if so how do you define that given value?

---

I think the word "prove" as referring to scientific theories is problematic, as it implies finality.The term "provisionally accepted" or perhaps "well-supported" are better.The "value" you speak of is more to do with abstractions like mathematics, in which one has the opportunity to work within fixed rules.Nature is far too complex and changing, and the opposite of an abstraction.In general, I think of the scientific method as being able to more fully "disprove" things compared to "proving" things.

quote:

---

Or lust.
Same part of the brain.
Doesn't prove anything.

---

So, you're a neuroscientist now? You know all about what parts of the brain correspond to each emotion and behavior?Please explain which pats of the brain are connected to sex/love.

quote:

---

Good point.
How do you prove you love someone?

---

What do you mean by "prove" here?