K
keith1
Guest
I don't have any comments on the data, just putting forward a search result to satisfy the OP. Personally, I would find the 1907 data as crude in it's scientific nature, and without modern measuring equipment results.
Evidence for the supernatural.
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
so if you can post it here, there should be a storage site you can post it to also..
(the bold was hard to read..and it was long and not your own interpretation, with link, in case we wanted to know more.)
The bold was what I wrote... it was my own interpretation.
I did write in my previous post that that first article was free and made public. And I did post a link to the article in the first part of the post.
What are you going on about mate?
i know this is just my own opinion..i have seen other threads where users love that stuff..(mostly in the hard science threads,hardly in religion)
but
the bold was very distracting (i'll blame it on my eyes..)
the rest was just too long..(what does anyone else think?)
i know i tend to sound critical at times, but i hope it is constructive..
lol you know you just asked me to dumb down my replies so that religious people can understand them...that's kind of judgemental of religious people and their intelligence would you say?
lol and I just love the comment on the critical review of the experiment being too long. lol it was 450 words hahaha sorry that's just really funny to me. That's like not even 2 pages of the bible....
DOH! :jawdrop:
i was speaking for myself..(not much better really...)
but i can see that..lol
in context...
i can do long books,(wouldn't be able to read a long book online(maybe,haven't really tried))
long articles..i have read some online (discover/scientific american)
but still like book form better
short articles..link to..not in post..(good rule of thumb..if its bigger than the screen, its too big..)
ive always wondered if one can have their one private thread (no-one else can post there) so they can post things like that and link to them.
Quick question. Did you read the whole thread?
Not specifically, no.
I will however address your statement now that you've raised question, (I assume this is the reason for the question, if not - sorry)
No. I am saying that there can be no scientific data supporting any claim that some measurable phenomena is of supernatural origin.
Is that better?
lol. No matter how many way you say it to them, they'll never get it. You CAN'T measure it. It won't be measured. Once it is under measurement, it goes away. It's a matter of consciousness. You can observe it, witness it, interact with it, even help manifest it. . . but prove it? What's the point?
It's called faith and belief, the SUPER-natural for a reason. They want to turn something that is a matter of conscious will, into something that is an unconscious and a mechanistic repeatable principle. The new science doesn't work that way. Until we learn this, we will be stuck in our own tiny part of the solar system, twiddling around in this scientific dictatorship, where all papers, journals, etc. are pre-approved pieces and the establishment tries to maintain it's iron grip on it's view of reality.
In order to be of some help, it need be noted that science does not "prove", does not attempt to, nor can it be expected to. For more on this, those interested might want to read Karl Popper - Logic of Scientific Discovery.
The problem here is not that something "cannot be proven", (which it cannot), but that there is simply no valid scientific basis with which to declare supernatural causation of any material, phenomena that - by being measurable, loses it's entitlement to 'supernatural'.
That which is 'supernatural' must by very definition be forever inexplicable through scientific means. It is not ruled out in the world of science other than through the very reality that it is untestable.
What answers is doing is making an error between the philosophical and the methodological.
Certainly - but needless to say, faith and belief are entirely useless with regards to determining truth.
Apologies, what is "the new science"?
Although I could be mistaken, this appears to be some rather obscure cross between a conspiracy theory and outright silliness. "The establishment", whatever that might be, only maintains such 'iron grip', should such thing exist, because of what the actual data shows and supports.
It is not that the scientific "establishment" want to annoy theists by showing that the world isn't flat, isn't 7,000 years old, the sun didn't stop in the sky, Jonah wasn't living happily inside the belly of a whale, it's just that all the actual data, the actual evidence shows these claims to be baseless. We can accept them if we so desire - through "faith" and "belief", but in doing so we must also negate physics, biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry and every single endeavour used to actually understand the universe we live in.
If you have a method that is better at determining factual reality, kindly present it now.
Regards,
http://www.brianoleary.info/
We all choose to believe who we wish. That is the power of intention. I believe in the scientists I wish to.
We all choose to believe who we wish. That is the power of intention. I believe in the scientists I wish to.
lol..examining the storys to see if it is true or not?...
just like some scientist to be so focused on one thing and miss another..
the stories are just a means to a lesson..
keep in mind when they were written..the audience was much different than we are today..maybe that is how they needed to hear it and to learn it..
I do not agree that faith and belief negates the sciences.
there are lots of passages that say to seek knowledge..you think god would be afraid of us seeking knowledge?
learning all we can learn?
I believe god puts those 'eureka' moments into us just so we can see better..
Within narrowly defined limits, we all determine our own factual reality. . . that is what old science will never comprehend.
The caveat? As the shift draws nearer, those defined limits are going to becoming less and less narrow. Where is all the dark matter disappearing to? lol You guys and your "hard" science. :bugeye:
This is again an error in confusing the methodological with the philosophical[1]
Baseless claim. 'People long ago needed to learn fiction in order to understand reality'. Is there any evidence to suggest this is the case as opposed to people just didn't know what reality was yet attempted to explain it through whatever means they could?
And, lest we forget, we're not even talking about thousands of years ago but here and now. If we bother with such statistics, a near 50% of modern day Americans believe those claims to be factual. They believe in the Noachian flood, a young earth and so on.
Well do explain - what precisely in 'faith' or 'belief' is of merit in a scientific perspective?
1. There are "lots of passages" that will say anything you want them to say. From do drink alcohol to don't drink alcohol, do go to church, don't go to church and so on.
2. Of what relevance is it that "there are lots of passages", (I assume you mean in the Koran or Vedas, Enuma Elish or Bible - you weren't specific) to faith and belief being unscientific and of no worth in the scientific perspective? If the koran or vedas or bible say to seek knowledge, they are saying to put aside "faith" and "belief".
You are entitled and welcome to such baseless belief but it is utterly worthless as far as reality goes. My neighbour believes that leprechauns live under rainbows - that's fine for him, it says nothing of the world.
Unfortunately you did not provide any definition and as such I am somewhat unsure as to the context of "old science"/"new science".
However, it need be noted that again this is an error in understanding the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
I am unsure what you mean here - in this context - of "hard science". There are ineed soft sciences and hard sciences but the distinction seems to be missed in your statement.
Cosmology is just a baby in the grand scheme of things and yet it has explained so much that cannot be explained by 'god did it', (which explains precisely nothing). The problem here however is that a theist moans his socks off because understanding of our universe can be expected to change and develop yet does not seem to have any problem whatsoever asserting as true that which was simply mentioned by people the last theist poster was quick to dismiss as ignorant buffoons.
This is undoubtedly where countless theists tell me they feel it in their hearts or lungs or other internal organs that don't have thoughts or feelings. They are entitled to do so, given that we live in a society that, in context, is 'free'. But such claims have no worthwhile merit when considering the real world.
Regards,
-----
[1]
Explained very well by Eugenie Scott in Evolution vs Creationism
Snakelord.
You've got some really great replies.
One point I'd like to clarify is that I believe there can be scientifically obtained evidence for the supernatural. When I say evidence though I am not saying proof. Data never proves anything, that's basic knowledge for anyone in research. I probably should have explained it better.
However I do think it's possible to get evidence through the experimental method that produces data that indicates that there may be a supernatural explanation for the data.
If for example it was found that hospital patients that prayed before going into surgery never died in surgery, then these results may support a supernatural explanation. However there would also be other explanations, such as the placebo effect, or simply the explanation that the surgeon was a devout Christian and killed all non-christians in surgery. Who knows what the explanation could be. But data can indicate a correlation, even if it's not black and white causation.
You've got some really great replies.
One point I'd like to clarify is that I believe there can be scientifically obtained evidence for the supernatural. When I say evidence though I am not saying proof. Data never proves anything, that's basic knowledge for anyone in research. I probably should have explained it better.
However I do think it's possible to get evidence through the experimental method that produces data that indicates that there may be a supernatural explanation for the data.
If for example it was found that hospital patients that prayed before going into surgery never died in surgery, then these results may support a supernatural explanation. However there would also be other explanations, such as the placebo effect, or simply the explanation that the surgeon was a devout Christian and killed all non-christians in surgery. Who knows what the explanation could be. But data can indicate a correlation, even if it's not black and white causation.
An error to YOU perhaps. There is no confusion though. You are under the clear delusion that at this point in humankind's history that methodology can be cleansed and purified of any taint. It can't be.
You are woefully ignorant of the ego of the masters of this world. Methodologically naive, optimistically reliant on the scientific establishment as it were.
I think anyone following the theory of anthropologically caused global climatic change can see that all science is funded by the world ruling elites, and hence, their world view always has an agenda. The institutions that fund these agendas necessarily have goals irrespective of "science", whether they are aware of it or not. The universities, research institutions, and scientists hired to work in them, either pursue topics that are endorsed by their world view, or they don't get funding.
The schools, media, and universities likewise are controlled and ruled by these self same elite powers, so the people are raised and educated to think in these terms as well. Exhibit A, look at yourself. You and I are talking in two different languages, it is almost a pointless discussion at this juncture. I have thought as you once did; my mind shackled in " a step-ford wife, 1984, Brave New World" reality. There is more to life when you decide to awaken. I cannot communicate to someone that is still asleep, who chooses to talk down to me as a child disrespects their parent, believing they have all the answers.
You come at me with statements like;
I have made no error in confusing anything. What you have is a failure in imagination, and a failure to understand how a multi-dimensional reality operates on your part kind sir.
what does it mean 'give a guy enough rope and he will hang himself'..
does that mean if you can't find a guy with a rope, then the story is a lie?
you don't believe there was a great flood?
there is evidence of that all over the place..
don't know..ask a scientist..there is faith and belief in science .they need it to convince those with the money to pay them..
find me two passages that say things like that..(link them)
apparently you didn't click the link..
i said no such thing..i said god wants us to seek knowledge, as evidence that faith and belief does not negate science or vise versa..
i even linked some passages (that you did not read)..
are you just another users just trying to validate his own opinion or someone looking to 'turn' all of us believers to the dark side or are you truly seeking to understand and gain knowledge?
prove it..find me scientific data that shows faith and belief (im not talking god,i am talking about the actual definition of the words faith and belief) has no place in science.
lean not upon your own understanding..seek out the wisdom of others.
lol what a fucking nut job of a reply, don't waste your time replying to this one snakelord.
Last edited:
