pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: Asking the blind to prove they or others can be saved sounds like an exercise in futility to me. Even if a blind person was saved others would say he was biased and if he was not saved it would just mean he did not know or just had not done what it takes to be saved. Salvation has a lot to do with what happens after we die, don't cha know, and many of us just haven't died yet so we haven't experienced the total effects of salvation. Do you know what a double blind study is, or are you just trying to be funny?
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 Just now, pogi said: Do you know what a double blind study is, or are you just trying to be funny? Feel free to elaborate on what a double blind study is if you think I or others may not know. I'm pretty sure I know what is involved and I believe my summary of the double blind conclusions are fairly accurate.
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: Feel free to elaborate on what a double blind study is if you think I or others may not know. I'm pretty sure I know what is involved and I believe my summary of the double blind conclusions are fairly accurate. I'm not interested. You can look it up if you want. But I agree, that it would be an exercise in futility. That was my point. It can't be done.
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 1 minute ago, pogi said: I'm not interested. You can look it up if you want. But I agree, that it would be an exercise in futility. That was my point. It can't be done. But it could be done by using the scientific method of discovery. That was my point. A scientific study of the concept of salvation can't be done with any test tubes either, or Bunsen burners, but it can still be studied scientifically.
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 11 minutes ago, Ahab said: But it could be done by using the scientific method of discovery. That was my point. A scientific study of the concept of salvation can't be done with any test tubes either, or Bunsen burners, but it can still be studied scientifically. Ok, go for it Ahab. Publish and make millions.
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Ok, go for it Ahab. Publish and make millions. It's nothing new. People have been doing it for several millennia even if they did not refer to it as "science". Choose an idea and/or problem to research.Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.Experiment to test hypotheses.Examine results of the experiment(s).Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.Share what has been learned.CHEERS !
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: It's nothing new. Cool. Publish your results.
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, pogi said: Cool. Publish your results. i have been doing that here for years. Are you suggesting that I may be able to make some money from doing this? ...even though others are also saying pretty much the same things that I say?
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Ahab said: Are you suggesting that I may be able to make some money from doing this? If you can publish your results in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Absolutely. If all you have is a first person testimony, then you have as much scientific credibility as this guy, and probably wont make any money: Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, pogi said: If you can scientifically prove your results in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Absolutely. If all you have is a first person testimony, then you have as much scientific proof as this guy, and probably wont make any money: I think you may be missing my point about what science, and the scientific method of discovery, is. It's not as if all scientists agree with each other, so even if I published a paper on this in some scientist's favorite journal there would still be people who disagreed with the paper as well as some scientists who would agree that I had used the scientific method of discovery to discover what I know of religion. Edited August 26, 2020 by Ahab
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think you may be missing my point about what science, and the scientific method of discovery, is. It's not as if all scientists agree with each other, so even if I published a paper on this in some scientist's favorite journal there would still be people who disagreed with the paper as well as some scientists who would agree that I had used the scientific method of discover what I know of religion. I think you are missing my point about objectivity. How can you verify your results? What controls have you used? Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, pogi said: How can you verity your results? What controls have you used? Instead of me telling you what I did and do and then you telling me whether or not you approve or agree with my findings, I will just tell you this: When I have used the scientific method of discovery to discover the truth on religious issues, I have applied science to religion. And that is what I will continue to do when I. Choose an idea and/or problem to research.Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.Experiment to test hypotheses.Examine results of the experiment(s).Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.Share what has been learned.CHEERS !
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: Instead of me telling you what I did and do and then you telling me whether or not you approve or agree with my findings, I will just tell you this: In other words, the scientific community should just trust you and your methods and your interpretation of results? Ya, you probably won't be making much money after all. 2
mfbukowski Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: At present, they don’t. I was simply saying that science is not, in principle, opposed to the idea of an afterlife, but until it can be studied scientifically, it is not scientific - just like morality. Science isn’t opposed to the idea in principle, it just isn’t a question of science "Until"?? Until what? If it isn't a question of "science" then what will substitute for science to raise the question? It will never be a subject for science any more than ESP is. But I have opened a can of worms about all this I guess. I don't mean to be a wise guy- I just want to illustrate that it is our very language that confounds these issues. And until dead folks come back to life to return and report in a scientific manner, then there will be no experimentation possible, nor any predictions about the meaning or significance of death. I saw a fictional story - movie or tv- don't remember- where "scientists" administered a drug to someone which caused them to "die" for several minutes, and then they would be revived and return and report. Suppose that could happen- though of course medical ethics would have to be abandoned for it to happen- and who would put their lives at danger for that--- BUT ANYWAY- even then, the question would still be unsolvable- because it could be argued that they were not "really dead" or just having a "mental experience" caused by a dying brain etc- perhaps that has evolved among humans to allow them to do things like go into battles etc so they get their virgins in heaven. Culturally we need to honor heros who "give their lives for their country", so that people who believe that will actually do it! Remember I am a believer- I am just making a point! If the human race needs people who will not fear death, then it will evolve one way or the other. Or at least that is the atheist way of seeing it. If a body revives then obviously it was not "dead"- or at least that would be an on-going debate putting to doubt any information gained that way, just as it is with NDE's So no science may not be "opposed" to such experimentation, just that imo the "research" it self could be a killer of a problem that still would leave a huge hole of uncertainty about the experiments. In other words, we would still be as uncertain about it as we are now! Edited August 26, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 15 minutes ago, pogi said: I think you are missing my point about objectivity. I think you are missing my point about objectivity, too. Oh well.
mfbukowski Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, Ahab said: Share what has been learned. Yes I think this is what is lacking here. Contradiction! Says Mr. Spock! 1
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: "Until"?? 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And until dead folks come back to life to return and report in a scientific manner, then there will be no experimentation possible, nor any predictions about the meaning or significance of death. I think you just answered your own question I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. Are you disagreeing with my comment that science is not opposed to the idea of an afterlife. There is just nothing to be scientifically said about it at present. Science is agnostic as to the question of God and an afterlife. That is very different from being opposed to it.
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, pogi said: In other words, the scientific community should just trust you and your methods and your interpretation of results? Ya, you probably won't be making much money after all. No, they should do what I did and then see if they get the same results. Like you have done which is why we agree on some issues when we have the same testimony from God on those issues. When we don't agree that God has told us the same things, what do you think has caused our disagreement on that issue? I recommend that we use the scientific method of discovery to figure that out. We can use science. CHEERS!
mfbukowski Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 31 minutes ago, Ahab said: It's not as if all scientists agree with each other, so even if I published a paper on this in some scientist's favorite journal there would still be people who disagreed with the paper as well as some scientists who would agree that I had used the scientific method of discovery to discover what I know of religion. Alma 32 tells us how to experiment about religious faith, but it ain't gonna get published in any scientific journal. No reputable journal would even publish it
mfbukowski Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, pogi said: I think you just answered your own question I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. Are you disagreeing with my comment that science is not opposed to the idea of an afterlife. There is just nothing to be scientifically said about it at present. Science is agnostic as to the question of God and an afterlife. That is very different from being opposed to it. Well we agree but that is no surprise! I was disagreeing with you about the "until" part because it will never happen Even with the best imaginable evidence, it would be thrown out as "crackpot" stuff, like ESP and extra terrestrials and bigfoot and his cousins. Science is also terribly political. You have to go where the money is. And that is why pharmaceutical companies make all the money- but that is for another day. Edited August 26, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes I think this is what is lacking here. Contradiction! Says Mr. Spock! I understand that each person needs to receive their own personal testimony from God to be able to know what God knows. I was just talking about sharing what God has said personally to each person. And still use science. CHEERS!
mfbukowski Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: No, they should do what I did and then see if they get the same results. Like you have done which is why we agree on some issues when we have the same testimony from God on those issues. yeah but they can't because you don't tell what your methodology was!! I have a life to lead- sorry guys- I'm outahere!
Ahab Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Alma 32 tells us how to experiment about religious faith, but it ain't gonna get published in any scientific journal. No reputable journal would even publish it Philosophy is a science and religious and spiritual thoughts are at least as philosophical as any other thought or concept.
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I was disagreeing with you about the "until" part because it will never happen Even with the best imaginable evidence, it would be thrown out as "crackpot" stuff, like ESP and extra terrestrials and bigfoot and his cousins. It may happen sooner than you think that "dead folks come back to life and return and report". "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...". It wont be crackpot stuff for much longer, according to my faith anyway.
pogi Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I have a life to lead Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi 2
Recommended Posts