bookofmormontruth Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 You guys are presenting a caricature of the view of science I have when I have directly said what my position is. I don't believe science "knows it all" nor that it can know it all (actually, it has been proven - and here we can use the word "proof" properly - that that can't be accomplished). I already said, also, that science doesn't prove anything to be true (well, probably that some theories, somewhere, are false but that's it). You have a great misunderstanding of what faith is. In the now-closed thread I wrote a post explaining why this is the case. You may look for it if you want.Correction. You are not getting it, at all. Let alone faith.Let me explain it to you very carefully so I won't have to repeat myself. Your position was to "test" G-d was it not? Now you are stating "that science doesn't prove anything to be true". Contradiction much?Seriously, should we just expect you to be a flip-flop shape-shifter on this thread? If so, I am off this "what the?...roller-coaster".
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Jeff K., on 27 May 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:It appears you are the one with a lack of understanding regarding faith. How can you possibly know about something you have no ability to foster?You just implied a moment ago that I do have faith in many (if not most) of the decisions I make. Are you going to change your view on faith?, because you aren't making any sense here.You have the inability to measure it, to see it, to understand it. Like the blind man who wears a yellow suit. You cannot seem to contemplate its existence so you insist that your suit has no color, and anyone seeing the color of your suit obviously see's something that isn't there.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Correction. You are not getting it, at all. Let alone faith.Let me explain it to you very carefully so I won't have to repeat myself. Your position was to "test" G-d was it not? Now you are stating "that science doesn't prove anything to be true". Contradiction much?Seriously, should we just expect you to be a flip-flop shape-shifter on this thread? If so, I am off this "what the?...roller-coaster".I'm not saying to "prove God" but to test what are said to be effects of God. Dude, that was what the whole thread (the one now closed) was about.... you missed the point entirely.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 QuoteProbability tables are something you have your faith on, and yet they often lead to the wrong conclusions. We see people imprisoned based on such probability tables. People who have spent years in prison because they likely carried out a crime, only to be resolved later. And yet, with such errors we still have faith in our probabiliity tables. Probability does NOT tell you who the winner is. It tells you who is more likely to win. How can you not even get that? You seem to missing a great number of points entirely. Perhaps it is your dogmatic grasp on values that do hold up well to questioning? You use probability tables and you claim faith means going against the probability tables. When shown that is not the case, you decide to myopically point out that you have faith in probability tables because they aren't absolutely true, just kind of.... wow, and you still don't get it.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 I'm not saying to "prove God" but to test what are said to be effects of God. Dude, that was what the whole thread (the one now closed) was about.... you missed the point entirely.You make a ridiculous assertion since you don't have instruments sufficient to test or measure faith or God's effects. How does a blind man test the color yellow?This has already been explained to you several times. You seem to be filled with dead ends and inconsistencies.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 You have the inability to measure it, to see it, to understand it. Why? You just explained (though VERY inconsistent) what faith was and it seems rather easy to understand. Plus, I'm not asking religious people to put the "faith" to the test but the objects of their faith. The object of religious faith with regard to miracles is that they come from a physical God that can influence physical stuff in a very powerful way. That's what I'm asking you to test (also God, though).Like the blind man who wears a yellow suit. You cannot seem to contemplate its existence so you insist that your suit has no color, and anyone seeing the color of your suit obviously see's something that isn't there.By your very use of (not your definition of) faith (how you use the word), you also don't contemplate God's existence but you believe that he is there. If you "contemplated" God then you wouldn't need faith anymore than you need faith to recognize the color black or blue. Blah, you are just full of inconsistency after inconsistency as I've never seen in this forum. Just knock it off, man, and try to think about this issue more carefully. I'm not going to be pointing out EVERY mistake I see. There's just too much. I'm not just saying that, I'm showing you why you are wrong.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Jeff K., on 27 May 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:You have the inability to measure it, to see it, to understand it.Why? You just explained (though VERY inconsistent) what faith was and it seems rather easy to understand. Plus, I'm not asking religious people to put the "faith" to the test but the objects of their faith. The object of religious faith with regard to miracles is that they come from a physical God that can influence physical stuff in a very powerful way. That's what I'm asking you to test (also God, though).Telling someone what dark matter is does not make it easy to measure. One does not necessarily lead to the other.If faith cannot be measured, then how can you even think to measure the effects of something you cannot measure? You are still inconsistent in your reasoning.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 QuoteLike the blind man who wears a yellow suit. You cannot seem to contemplate its existence so you insist that your suit has no color, and anyone seeing the color of your suit obviously see's something that isn't there.By your very use of (not your definition of) faith (how you use the word), you also don't contemplate God's existence but you believe that he is there. If you "contemplated" God then you wouldn't need faith anymore than you need faith to recognize the color black or blue. Blah, you are just full of inconsistency after inconsistency as I've never seen in this forum. Just knock it off, man, and try to think about this issue more carefully. I'm not going to be pointing out EVERY mistake I see. There's just too much. I'm not just saying that, I'm showing you why you are wrong. I see the color yellow. You don't. Faith is what helps me know God is there.You have reduced yourself to babbling and avoidance. Spurious mutterings of inconsistency (when your own have been clearly shown) merely reflect your level of desperation. It sems to me you are merely retreating to avoid reason and hold on to dogma. Isn't it at this point you requested the other discussion be shut down?
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 You make a ridiculous assertion since you don't have instruments sufficient to test or measure faith or God's effects. "Feeling God" isn't testing God. You can just accept God's existence on faith, I have little problem with that. My point, however, was that gods/spirits/miracles are not best explanations. Do you accept this?. Now, I also mentioned that if you say God works real miracles then that sounds like something to test. I mean, if you say God cured X's cancer then that's something to put to the test. IF YOU CAN'T THEN THAT'S SOMETHING BASED ON FAITH ONLY AND NOT ON ANY EFFECT.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Jeff, you say I don't know what faith is but your definition doesn't work. Correct it or I can't help you.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 "Feeling God" isn't testing God. You can just accept God's existence on faith, I have little problem with that. My point, however, was that gods/spirits/miracles are not best explanations. Do you accept this?. Now, I also mentioned that if you say God works real miracles then that sounds like something to test. I mean, if you say God cured X's cancer then that's something to put to the test. IF YOU CAN'T THEN THAT'S SOMETHING BASED ON FAITH ONLY AND NOT ON ANY EFFECT.You haven't shown that they aren't best explanations for faith, you have only tossed out an opinion regarding something you cannot seem to see or measure. The effects of God are difficult for you to measure and you therefore tell us it must not exist if you cannot measure the effects (the illogic of that alone is a chasm of silliness). We on the other hand tell you we do feel it and we are aware of the effects.
Brian 2.0 Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 If faith cannot be measured, then how can you even think to measure the effects of something you cannot measure? You are still inconsistent in your reasoning.I think he said faith cannot be measured, but the OBJECT OR BELIEF PEOPLE HAVE FAITH IN sometimes can.I posted an entire thread about this trying to talk about the specific point of priesthood blessing and healings (which has come up again in the priesthood power thread). And I got the same "God/Faith cannot be proved of disproved by scientific means". That's not the question being asked. It's about the details, which sometimes can be tested scientifically.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Both God and his effects cannot be measured by the scientific method because we cannot differentiate between the effects of the source and happenstance. Also if the source imbues much more than we are aware of, then it is impossible to know when specifically the effect is isolated or not.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 You haven't shown that they aren't best explanations for faith, you have only tossed out an opinion regarding something you cannot seem to see or measure. Parsimony. Go back to the other thread, I explained why quite carefully.The effects of God are difficult for you to measure and you therefore tell us it must not exist if you cannot measure the effects (the illogic of that alone is a chasm of silliness). We on the other hand tell you we do feel it and we are aware of the effects.I don't say "therefore God doesn't exist". Again, you missed the point entirely.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Both God and his effects cannot be measured by the scientific method because we cannot differentiate between the effects of the source and happenstance. Also if the source imbues much more than we are aware of, then it is impossible to know when specifically the effect is isolated or not.Then there is no reason to accept God's existence other than just wanting to believe in him.
bookofmormontruth Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 I'm not saying to "prove God" but to test what are said to be effects of God. Dude, that was what the whole thread (the one now closed) was about.... you missed the point entirely.Still not getting it and we are now on a different (new) thread. Let me help you out since I am in a very good mood today. To "prove G-d" is exactly what you are saying - when you state: "why not test and see if they indeed exist'. This is not the same as "test what are said to be effects of G-d" no matter how much you shape shift it. Thank you for verifying your award winning flip flopping abilities. Enjoy!
bookofmormontruth Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Both God and his effects cannot be measured by the scientific method because we cannot differentiate between the effects of the source and happenstance. Also if the source imbues much more than we are aware of, then it is impossible to know when specifically the effect is isolated or not.And we can't "observe" which is numero uno in the scientific method.Yet, the world of naysayers and unbelievers demand to use the "scientific method" to verify G-d's existence/effects.
Brian 2.0 Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Both God and his effects cannot be measured by the scientific method because we cannot differentiate between the effects of the source and happenstance. Also if the source imbues much more than we are aware of, then it is impossible to know when specifically the effect is isolated or not.If one of God's effects is healing people who have priesthood blessing (even only some of the time), then that is something that can be measured by the scientific method and you can differentiate between the effect of God and happenstance. It's why you have control groups that did not have the blessing.IF the claim is that one of the benefits of Priesthood Blessings is that God can heal you of your physical disease, then you can form tests/gather data to support that claim.AGAIN... I'm not talking about proving or disproving God. There are PLENTY of aspect of religion and belief that the scientific method cannot touch. But there are areas where belief and science/research do overlap, so you can't throw science out of the equation on those specific tenants.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Still not getting it and we are now on a different (new) thread. Let me help you out since I am in a very good mood today. To "prove G-d" is exactly what you are saying - when you state: "why not test and see if they indeed exist'. This is not the same as "test what are said to be effects of G-d" no matter how much you shape shift it. Thank you for verifying your award winning flip flopping abilities. Enjoy!I'm not going to bother much with what words mean here. Think about it this way. If I said that Neptune's mystical influence over the Earth caused person X's cancer to disappear, what would you do? Would you accept it? Don't you think this is something to test by much more reliable means other than "look! There's cancer, and there's Neptune. Now cancer is gone. Therefore, Neptune's power did it"? Religious people are claiming left and right that God's power cures cancer sometimes (or does many other "miracles")... why should someone take that any more serious than Neptune's explanation? Even more, it seems Neptune's mystical power is more credible since the planet Neptune has more evidence going for it (we can see Neptune). You can accept Neptune's influence on faith, that's fine, but I think we can easily see that this explanation isn't the most likely to be the case over other options. Even if we didn't know what caused the cancer to disappear, therefore Neptune did it?
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 Jeff K., on 27 May 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:You haven't shown that they aren't best explanations for faith, you have only tossed out an opinion regarding something you cannot seem to see or measure. Parsimony.That must be your word for agreement.
Deborah Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 If one of God's effects is healing people who have priesthood blessing (even only some of the time), then that is something that can be measured by the scientific method and you can differentiate between the effect of God and happenstance. Brian, the reason such testing can't be done is that healing isn't always the result of such blessings, but there are other results which can't be measured. I think it was in the old movie called "Qui Vadis" a soldier asks a woman who can't walk why she is happy when she wasn't healed after being blessed by an Apostle. Her response was "But I was healed. I was a bitter person and when I was blessed I learned that I could sing and bring joy and comfort to others." She was healed but not in the way she initially expected. Priesthood blessings sometimes bring healing but more often bring peace to the individual and family and give them the strength to go on. Atheists don't accept miracles unless the see the actual amputated leg restored, but the miracle may be in all that the person can accomplish and the joy the person imparts despite the absent limb.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 That must be your word for agreement. I wrote more than that. Whatever, man, you clearly don't want to make the effort. Go in peace.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 If one of God's effects is healing people who have priesthood blessing (even only some of the time), then that is something that can be measured by the scientific method and you can differentiate between the effect of God and happenstance. It's why you have control groups that did not have the blessing.IF the claim is that one of the benefits of Priesthood Blessings is that God can heal you of your physical disease, then you can form tests/gather data to support that claim.AGAIN... I'm not talking about proving or disproving God. There are PLENTY of aspect of religion and belief that the scientific method cannot touch. But there are areas where belief and science/research do overlap, so you can't throw science out of the equation on those specific tenants.No, you cannot. Unless you have the instrumentation to measure say the effects of the priesthood or the effects of medicine without the intercession of God or the priesthood. You cannot do this if you cannot measure the amount of intercession. Nor can you do it if God power is diffused among several different branches including His desire to help. Remember God doesn't need the priesthood, but the priesthood needs God in such cases. So no, you cannot isolate the effects if you cannot measure the power effecting the what it is you are attempting to study.How does one measure the gravitational pull of Jupiter upon an individual upon the earth when the heavens are closed to us?Your approach does not work.
Jeff K. Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 I wrote more than that. Whatever, man, you clearly don't want to make the effort. Go in peace.The word "Parsomony" reflects your 'effort'? Seriously? Really? Lets hope not.
elguanteloko Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 The word "Parsomony" reflects your 'effort'? Seriously? Really? Lets hope not.I said I wrote more than what you quoted. Read it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.