Child dies of cancer

[bullethead]

Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

There are a lot of them so the range of credibility varies.
When the majority of them agree with something that is backed up by tests and constant retesting then they go with the best available evidence at the time. They do not stop. They continue to challenge the best available answers and look for new ones and are willing to accept any changes that may occur during the exhaustive continual process.

 

[WaltL1]

Not exactly what that is saying. When you asked “proof of what” my explanation to that was - “Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about”

Remember those libraries full of scientific books about why people believe in gods, miracles etc....
That's not "knowing nothing about it".
You can disagree with the libraries that are full but you cant claim science doesn't know anything about it.

 

[Spotlite]

Remember those libraries full of scientific books about why people believe in gods, miracles etc....
That's not "knowing nothing about it".
You can disagree with the libraries that are full but you cant claim science doesn't know anything about it.

Yes I can disagree with them. I can also agree that they might know a portion, at least enough to know the “whys”

I think we are closer on this than it appears, just looking at two separate issues.

They may indeed give a legitimate explanation of “something”......... but that something is not what we have.

So let me sum it up this way, it is my opinion that unless they know exactly what this is, they are not capable of having an explanation for it.

 

[bullethead]

Yes I can disagree with them. I can also agree that they might know a portion, at least enough to know the “whys”

I think we are closer on this than it appears, just looking at two separate issues.

They may indeed give a legitimate explanation of “something”......... but that something is not what we have.

So let me sum it up this way, it is my opinion that unless they know exactly what this is, they are not capable of having an explanation for it.

They use the evidence to produce a scenario that is more likely than not. It is isn't a guess.

How does your opinion statement coincide with a person explaning a spiritual entity that nobody has ever seen or talked to? Why are they capable of providing explanations of absolute unknowns?

 

[1eyefishing]

Walt, I've never studied organized religion or other cultures enough to know much about them. I think the Hindus like dogs too but I know I eat too much beef to fit in with them.
And I do disagree with mostly all that I've learned about Islam.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have trouble believing that one can be 'saved' by having some mortal man splash some holy water on you that he has blessed (baptism), or that being born again (I was born okay the first time) will forever save you from all your mortal sin.
I guess I believe that I am somewhat of the Methodist persuasion. If there is a good or a bad afterlife to be had, you will get there through your method of living, not whether you have the knowledge of formal religion or are one of the 'true believers' that believe only 'they' will get to enjoy heaven. Or were once dunked or splashed in holy water.
I am an educated scientist. I know science.
And I am a seeker. I seek to have faith and hope in the fact that there is something beyond this mortal life. And that living a good life and being good and fair to others is in my own best interest.
And I figure if THAT is not going to be of any use in an afterlife, it is still in my own best interest during this life.

 

[ambush80]

Walt, I've never studied organized religion or other cultures enough to know much about them. I think the Hindus like dogs too but I know I eat too much beef to fit in with them.
And I do disagree with mostly all that I've learned about Islam.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have trouble believing that one can be 'saved' by having some mortal man splash some holy water on you that he has blessed (baptism), or that being born again (I was born okay the first time) will forever save you from all your mortal sin.
I guess I believe that I am somewhat of the Methodist persuasion. If there is a good or a bad afterlife to be had, you will get there through your method of living, not whether you have the knowledge of formal religion or are one of the 'true believers' that believe only 'they' will get to enjoy heaven. Or were once dunked or splashed in holy water.
I am an educated scientist. I know science.
And I am a seeker. I seek to have faith and hope in the fact that there is something beyond this mortal life. And that living a good life and being good and fair to others is in my own best interest.
And I figure if THAT is not going to be of any use in an afterlife, it is still in my own best interest during this life.

As a scientist would you accept a personal revelation story as a good enough evidence of what really happened? It seems to me that the discussion between Bullet and Spotlight is based on evidence; what constitutes evidence and how we should properly gather and interpret it. At this point, Spotlite seems to be saying "There is a type of phenomena or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically. Therefore, it is immune to scientific inquiry". If that's incorrect or lacking nuance please correct me.

If my analysis of Spotlite's position is correct, I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.

 

[ky55]

And I am a seeker. I seek to have faith and hope in the fact that there is something beyond this mortal life. And that living a good life and being good and fair to others is in my own best interest.
And I figure if THAT is not going to be of any use in an afterlife, it is still in my own best interest during this life.

 

[1eyefishing]

As a scientist would you accept a personal revelation story as a good enough evidence of what really happened? It seems to me that the discussion between Bullet and Spotlight is based on evidence; what constitutes evidence and how we should properly gather and interpret it. At this point, Spotlite seems to be saying "There is a type of phenomena or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically. Therefore, it is immune to scientific inquiry". If that's incorrect or lacking nuance please correct me.

If my analysis of Spotlite's position is correct, I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.

I couldn't quite keep up with the discussion between bullethead and spotlight. Well having complete respect for both of their positions, I cannot quite wrap my mind around the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others.
I have always sought my own personal revelation to me, but have not found anything concrete or scientific.
I guess I do feel blessed to be on my ninth life. I have been knocked off my bicycle as a kid by a work truck on a rural route, inexplicably saved in huge surf from drowning when I thought for sure if I went ahead and breathed in some of that seafoam that there would be enough air in it for me to survive, I've had a high-powered rifle bullet intended for a deer go through the brim of my baseball cap about 1 inch from my forehead. Yet here I am. I graduated from a rough, rough, rough adolescence with no parental influence, yet made it to this point in my life that I am loving. Something has gotten me through, I have a hard time believing it is pure luck.
But, if I had a personal revelation, I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.

 

[ambush80]

I couldn't quite keep up with the discussion between bullethead and spotlight. Well having complete respect for both of their positions, I cannot quite wrap my mind around the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others.
I have always sought my own personal revelation to me, but have not found anything concrete or scientific.
I guess I do feel blessed to be on my ninth life. I have been knocked off my bicycle as a kid by a work truck on a rural route, inexplicably saved in huge surf from drowning when I thought for sure if I went ahead and breathed in some of that seafoam that there would be enough air in it for me to survive, I've had a high-powered rifle bullet intended for a deer go through the brim of my baseball cap about 1 inch from my forehead. Yet here I am. I graduated from a rough, rough, rough adolescence with no parental influence, yet made it to this point in my life that I am loving. Something has gotten me through, I have a hard time believing it is pure luck.
But, if I had a personal revelation, I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.

Why? Just think of all the people who aren't as lucky every second. Did you know that the chances of the Powerball coming out 1,2,3,4,5,6 are the same chances of any other combination? When someone wins is it "meant to be"? If someone wins because they picked 1-6 does that show that they were "REALLY supposed to win"? What if they win with 1-6 because the computer randomly printed those numbers on their ticket? Would that show that they were "REALLY, REALLY supposed to win?" As a scientist what would you say about that happening? How would a superstitious person interpret that kind of thing?

 

[ambush80]

I couldn't quite keep up with the discussion between bullethead and spotlight. Well having complete respect for both of their positions, I cannot quite wrap my mind around the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others.
I have always sought my own personal revelation to me, but have not found anything concrete or scientific.
I guess I do feel blessed to be on my ninth life. I have been knocked off my bicycle as a kid by a work truck on a rural route, inexplicably saved in huge surf from drowning when I thought for sure if I went ahead and breathed in some of that seafoam that there would be enough air in it for me to survive, I've had a high-powered rifle bullet intended for a deer go through the brim of my baseball cap about 1 inch from my forehead. Yet here I am. I graduated from a rough, rough, rough adolescence with no parental influence, yet made it to this point in my life that I am loving. Something has gotten me through, I have a hard time believing it is pure luck.
But, if I had a personal revelation, I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.

Why? You just said that personal revelation isn't enough to persuade you.

 

[Spotlite]

They use the evidence to produce a scenario that is more likely than not. It is isn't a guess.

How does your opinion statement coincide with a person explaning a spiritual entity that nobody has ever seen or talked to? Why are they capable of providing explanations of absolute unknowns?

evidence to produce a scenario

That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.

At this point, Spotlite seems to be saying "There is a type of phenomena or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically. Therefore, it is immune to scientific inquiry". If that's incorrect or lacking nuance please correct me.

If my analysis of Spotlite's position is correct, I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.

How does your opinion statement coincide with a person explaning a spiritual entity that nobody has ever seen or talked to? Why are they capable of providing explanations of absolute unknowns?

I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.....................There is a type of phenomena or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically.

See below.

I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others........I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.

 

[ambush80]

That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.

See below.

What is "the head of the nail" to you? How do you know and how would you know if you hit it?

 

[ambush80]

"Had that happen once, but it was chemically induced." ~Steve Earl

My wife asked me if I have transcendent experiences and by the typical definition of transcendent I answered "Most readily when I'm chemically altered". And it's true.

 

[WaltL1]

That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.
it is impossible to describe scientifically.

WHAT is impossible to describe scientifically?
You keep saying science cant describe IT.
What is IT?
Joy? Happiness? Satisfaction? A feeling? Those are all emotions. Science can show you how emotions are produced.
If its not an emotion what is it?

I really get the feeling that you cant describe what it is yet you want science to tell you what it is.

 

[bullethead]

That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.







See below.

But again, you dismiss the personal testimony of others who say their interaction was with a different god by stating that you do not belive their gods exist.
Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

 

[ambush80]

But again, you dismiss the personal testimony of others who say their interaction was with a different god by stating that you do not believe their gods exist.
Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

One can believe in the healing power of rabbit's feet while not believing in the fortune telling power of chicken feet.

 

[1eyefishing]

Why? You just said that personal revelation isn't enough to persuade you.

Someone else's personal revelation isn't enough to convince me, but I'm sure it is enough to convince them. I can't argue with what somebody else believes.
A personal revelation of my own would be enough to convince me but I wouldn't try to use that to convince others.
As far as the previous why question, I'm not exactly sure I understand your question. I think it was why do I have a hard time believing it is just luck.
I guess it could be luck, just as much as it could be divinity.
You are asking me questions that I rarely ask myself, and I can appreciate that. Not knocking it.
Maybe since I'm holding out hope that there is something for us other than this life on Earth that maybe somebody is watching out for me. Maybe I'm just wishing it wasn't luck. But I have to admit I'm one heck of a lucky guy.
My point is that there are Eternal questions that humankind CANNOT regarding what is beyond this life and beyond our physical universe.

 

[bullethead]

One can believe in the healing power of rabbit's feet while not believing in the fortune telling power of chicken feet.

Sure they can believe one over the other but it does not stop the hypocrisy when they dismiss the other for the same reasons they themselves believe.

 

[ambush80]

WHAT is impossible to describe scientifically?
You keep saying science cant describe IT.
What is IT?
Joy? Happiness? Satisfaction? A feeling? Those are all emotions. Science can show you how emotions are produced.
If its not an emotion what is it?

I really get the feeling that you cant describe what it is yet you want science to tell you what it is.

I don't think so, Walt. I'm thoroughly convinced that believers think that there's a "realm" or "dimension" that they access that's not been discovered or defined by science. It's the same thing as people who believe in Karma or "The Force". If I decided to believe in mental telepathy, if I believed I could do it, I'm sure I would see examples of my ability manifested left and right.

 

[ambush80]

Someone else's personal revelation isn't enough to convince me, but I'm sure it is enough to convince them. I can't argue with what somebody else believes.
A personal revelation of my own would be enough to convince me but I wouldn't try to use that to convince others.
As far as the previous why question, I'm not exactly sure I understand your question. I think it was why do I have a hard time believing it is just luck.
I guess it could be luck, just as much as it could be divinity.
You are asking me questions that I rarely ask myself, and I can appreciate that. Not knocking it.
Maybe since I'm holding out hope that there is something for us other than this life on Earth that maybe somebody is watching out for me. Maybe I'm just wishing it wasn't luck. But I have to admit I'm one heck of a lucky guy.
My point is that there are Eternal questions that humankind CANNOT [answer?] regarding what is beyond this life and beyond our physical universe.

You can and should argue with someone's personal convictions if they affect you negatively. There are plenty of threads that show the negative impacts of people believing in Christianity. My biggest problem is when they say things like "Physics has nothing to do with resurrection". I've gotten pretty deep into that one many times. It's a demonstration to me that people are willing to believe things without good proof. Things that they know contradict EVERYTHING else about reality as they understand it.

The previous question had to do with probability. As a scientist you understand probablity and how what I described with the Powerball example is absolutely, mathematically correct. What's interesting is how people interpret probabilistic outcomes that only seem strange but are in fact regular everyday stuff. Powerball coming up 1-6 is statistically everyday stuff, it just doesn't "seem" like it.