where is root?

God knows

NIMROD - Root was the one saying that I was in error. I have to assume that he was basing that judgment on something. He went on to offer this answer to what I posted about the proven scientific fact of the boiling point of water (Although the reason I posed the question seemed to have been missed by him):

I assure you the fact has not been missed, the proven fact of the boiling point of water is a mathmatical fact. The scientific question as to why the water boils cannot be given as absolute scientific proof!

This is why I stated as bolded below.

"I don't quite see the relevance here but I will go with it. Firstly your question would be better phrased as "why does water boil at different temperatures at different altitudes" the answer to which would be a scientific probability, the best guess based on the evidence obtained.

If you heat water at an altitude of 500ft you need to heat it to 100.5c. to get it to boil. At 1000ft you need to obtain a temperature of 101.0c for the water to boil. We can calculate the differing temperatures required to achieve a boiling point of water at a given altitude. (This is mathematical and thus a given fact).

ROOT - If I throw a stone, I could calculate how much energy is required for the stone to travel a set distance. Again this is mathematical and will offer an absolute truth just like the boiling point of water".

He did offer the same caveat as you though; "Of course, like I explained about "why" gravity does what it does and why "water boils" at a set temperature cannot be given as absolute truth, only the best "guess" based on current understanding on the world around us".

Nimrod - That is mostly just semantics though to say that science doesn’t prove anything, that it just offers probabilities and best guess'

I don't think it is semantics, I think it is fundamental to how we percieve the world around us and man's seemingly irresistable urge to obtain an absolute proof to such questions as you yourself asked of science which is my whole point here, you don't get an absolute proof you either get supporting data or not.

Science has proved that, if given the circumstances as they exist on Earth, it is a proven fact that water will boil at the same exact temperature as does on Earth. Not just probably, but to a certainty.

It does not require science, water boiling at a set tempurature is a mathmatical fact, not a scientific one.

Since Root used measurable events as an answer as to what he was getting at, I had assumed that if the presence of spirits becomes scientifically measurable then he would accept them as existing.

I did not use measurable events, I merely noted the difference between a mathmatical proof and scientific one.

Nimrod - His statement “An unproven God is not falsifiable so it is false until proven otherwise”; seemed to indicate the bad assumption that until something becomes detectable or measurable then it remains false.

You can't prove God exists currently. He either exists or he does not, what I mean to say specifically is that you cannot have a scientific theory where God exists because it is not falsifiable and has no supporting data. You can have a theory that God does not exist because that is falsifiable, all you have to do to falsify the theory is show God does indeed exist!

So, mirror this to your spirits. Currently the "spirit world" has no suppporting data so you cannot theoretically state a spririt world exists as a scientific theory. You can have a theory that claims the spirit world does not exist again because it is falsifiable all you need to do is obtain data that supports the existence.

Did you see him implying something differently?

When you state that all Root has been offering is an “opinion” that God doesn’t exist, I don’t quite see him saying the same thing as you are saying; “That he probably doesn't exist is an opinion (one which I share)”

Correct, because I am saying in a scientific theory God does not exist.

The statement I saw him make implyed “([God or the existence of spirits] My edit) is false until proven otherwise”.

Correct, until the current theory is falsified, if it ever is.

Did you see him implying something differently?

I hope you can see why I have worded my posts on this thread as I have:

some of the accounts I read about seemed very believable.

It was my one and only interaction with the spirit world, but it was also, for me, undeniable.

For me it became impossible (Not just to a moral certainty) to not believe in the afterlife.

My post not only shows why there is a suggestion that the supernatural exists, it also shows that for me it is a certainty.

For you yes. My whole point here is simply that you looked to science for an answer, when in fact you should have looked to science to see if it supported your "hypothosis" which of course it does not.

You have neither offered any reasonable alternative explanation, nor shown any open-mindedness towards the explanation I offered.

I could give you the scientific opinion to that which would be "The scientific data does not support your position" as it cannot clearly state either way.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

I think the confusion comes when people require absolute proof.........

Greetings Nimrod,

Originally Posted by Nimrod

Did you see him implying something differently?

I think this confusion on your part stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what science does. If you read up on Karl Popper's theory of falsificationism, you may begin to understand why some of the points in this discussion have been phrased as they have been. I've tried mentioning this before, but you don't seem to have noticed, so there's not much more I can do.

Please read this link: falsificationism.

Peace

Root, mathematics is a tool science uses in its study of the natural world.

The boiling point of water here on Earth is a scientific fact. Mathematics is used as a tool by science to express and make predictions concerning that scientific fact.

To say anything else is just semantics.

Root “You can't prove God exists currently”.

Will you finally understand that I NEVER made the claim that I could prove God’s existence and the I NEVER even implied such a thing?

Root “I think the confusion comes when people require absolute proof.........” I can see why that is a source of confusion for you.

I however was addressing probabilities with this thread.

If I correctly understand, the gist, of your objections to what I posted in the original post on this thread, it is that you have a real problem with the method I used to try and determine the probability of spirits existing.

The method I used seemed reasonable to me at the time, and in light of my further understanding of the events it still seems very reasonable.

If you don’t consider the study of the reports made, and the circumstances surrounding those reports, and the probability of the people making the reports being truthful to be relevant in pondering the question of the probability of the existence of spirits please show me why.

Given the limited resources of the average person, how would you recommend a person go about coming to some sort of understanding as to the possible or probable existence of spirits?

Why, do you think, were the conclusions I drew in my original post beyond reasonable?

I would assume that, at least in some realms, my conclusions would be seen as a reasonable possible conclusion or else we would see scientist stating over and over that all reports of interacting with spirits are beyond all reason, and to a moral certainty, false.

I don’t see any respectable men of science making such claims, although there maybe some and I am just unaware of them.

Thanks
Nimrod

C Z Gibson, I did read that link when you first provided it, I even book marked so that I can further study it.

I have tried to use common jargon on this thread so that it doesn't become bogged down discussing things like "define what "is" is".

I don't see Roots comments on this thread as being relevent, in my view they have mostly consisted of semantics and unproductive to the thread.

C Z Gibson you seem like a very reasonable person. If, in my ignorance, I have misunderstood something Root posted that had a real bearing on the original post on this thread, please continue to try and enlighten me.

I hope I have not come across as being “all-knowing”, I am more than open to correction.

I just happen to see most of what Root has posted as being mostly irrelevant to the topic in any meaningful way.

Thanks
Nimrod

C Z Gibson, for the purposes of have a discussion with laymen by a layman such as myself this is how I have been trying to use the word scientific fact.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...noscience.html

Disclaimer: This is a gross generalization of what science is about; science is actually much more complex than how it is described here, but this will give you a basic background if you need it.

1) Science is a human endeavor. Scientists are all human, with the typical faults and foibles that non-scientists have. Sociology, politics, psychology, and similar aspects of human nature all have a profound influence on how science is conducted.

2) Science follows certain rules and guidelines. Exactly what these rules and guidelines are depends on what area of science a specific scientific procedure falls within. The scientific method (i.e. hypotheses are formulated from observations, and theories develop from these hypotheses), sometimes cited as the one and only way that science is conducted, is not the paradigm that scientific inquiry must always follow, but it often is the best objective procedure. Science is not so monolithic and mechanical; it defies simple explanations, just like many other human endeavors.

3) Facts versus opinions. An important distinction to make clear when science is an issue is the difference between fact and opinion. "Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality (but still open to scientific inquiry, as opposed to an absolute truth, which is not, and hence not a part of science). Hypotheses and theories are generally based on objective inferences, unlike opinions, which are generally based on subjective influences. For example, "I am a humorous person" is certainly an opinion, whereas "if I drop this glass, it will break" could best be called a hypothesis, while "the Earth orbits the Sun," or "evolution occurs over time," or "gravity exists" are all today considered to be both facts and theories (and could possibly turn out to be wrong).
Opinions are neither fact nor theory; they are not officially the domain of science (but don't go thinking that scientists don't have opinions — they are only human, and opinions often help to guide their research). Thus, science cannot directly address such issues as whether God exists or whether people are good or bad.

4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.

I had assumed for the purposes of discussing the original post that was enough.

Thanks
Nimrod

Greetings Nimrod,

Originally Posted by nimrod

C Z Gibson, I did read that link when you first provided it, I even book marked so that I can further study it.

OK, sorry for doubting you.

I have tried to use common jargon on this thread so that it doesn't become bogged down discussing things like "define what "is" is".

****! I love discussions like that.

I don't see Roots comments on this thread as being relevent, in my view they have mostly consisted of semantics and unproductive to the thread.

Well, we have to be sure of what we mean, otherwise we really will get nowhere!

C Z Gibson you seem like a very reasonable person. If, in my ignorance, I have misunderstood something Root posted that had a real bearing on the original post on this thread, please continue to try and enlighten me.

OK, I think the central point of misunderstanding is this. Science as it is actually practised does not prove anything; it merely rules out options which are seen to be false. A hypothesis is determined as being false if observations contradict it.

So, my hypothesis that water boils at 5 degrees C under Earth conditions will be shown to be false by a simple observation. However, the view that water boils at 100 degrees C under the same conditions is true so far as we know. It could be that someone has a future observation that will show it to be incorrect, in which case our current understanding of boiling will have to be revised.

This is how science works. It does not progress from truth to truth; it actually adopts theories that are sequentially less inaccurate (hopefully). All of these theories therefore have to be falsifiable; that is, they must be such that it would be possible in theory to conceive of an observation that would refute them. If this is not the case, then science cannot comment on the matter.

So, let's take the case of god. If it is your hypothesis that god exists (and it has to be a hypothesis, because no supporting evidence has yet been found, according to scientists), then try to imagine what possible observation could decisively refute that hypothesis. There is none.

On the other hand, the hypothesis that god does not exist could be refuted - by an observation of god. Therefore, the hypothesis that god doesn't exist is the default position for scientists. Where there is a lack of evidence for the existence of something, scientists will always prefer the hypothesis that this something doesn't exist, because that is a falsifiable hypothesis.

My discussion of the god question here is directly analogous to the question of whether ghosts and spirits exist, and I think this is the point root has been expressing (although of course he can speak for himself, and I'd welcome any correction on his part if I've misrepresented his words).

I hope that clears things up.

Peace

Greetings Nimrod,

Originally Posted by nimrod

C Z Gibson, for the purposes of have a discussion with laymen by a layman such as myself this is how I have been trying to use the word scientific fact.

Right! This is the one to pay attention to:

4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.

(Even though the last two sentences there contradict each other - hopefully you get the general idea.)

Peace

Originally Posted by czgibson

Quote:
4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.

(Even though the last two sentences there contradict each other - hopefully you get the general idea.)

Gee, whay do you do in real life, czgibson?!

Can I put this heavy lingo in basic English?
Are you saying that there is no point debating matters of faith, because they cannot be proven or disproven?

Peace.

Nimrod -

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathmatical fact and so is the tempurature for the boiling point for water. Niether of them are scientific facts. You seem to have a real problem to grasp this idea.

Your post on the context of a "scientific fact" merely confirms what I have been saying all along, interestingly enough:

Evolution has just become a fact and I doubt many in this forum would support that (afterall evolution is just a theory right)! The non-existence of spririts has also just become a fact, along with the theory of general relativity. Of course, scientifically that fact could "change" if we later find out we were wrong......... So what is thje value of a scientific fact if only to disprove differing and often a competing hypothosis.

Facts in science are indeed as I said, best guesses based on the evidence collected to date, the attachment of the most probable.

Sorry for wasting your thread since we gone way OT.

If you don’t consider the study of the reports made, and the circumstances surrounding those reports, and the probability of the people making the reports being truthful to be relevant in pondering the question of the probability of the existence of spirits please show me why.

It's not about being truthful, I believe you believe what you seen and others too. However, I would merely point out to you that what you presume to think you saw was not in fact real.

I once as a child on numerous occasions heard my mum shouting me, when I came down stairs and asked my Dad where Mum was he would say she's been out for hours. To me, my mum shouting me was real and i simply explain this rationally by accepting what I heard may have seemed real (in as much as an experience) but it was not real in the real world........

I often think (God forbid) that had my mother had been dead, would it be logical or rational to believe that my mum's spririt was calling me. The world can become prity quickly a magnet of supertitions and false worshipping if it was not for a little bit of good ole rationality. Of course facts are not what they initially seem to be outside of a religous belief.

I was a young Army cadet at the age of 11 (I lied about my age) and I was very much scared of the dark, I was marooned in the middle of nowhere in complete darkness and overcome my fears by rationally understanding that "fear" of the night was nothing more than a left over "evolutionary warning" thrown back to a time when we were very much hunted since as a species we are very vulnerable at night. With this rational thinking and the logical concept that "creatures of the night" were not in fact real allowed me to overcome this fear. Belief, in an unproven beast of the night would have just a belief and verty much unfounded, just like your spirits.

Greetings,

Originally Posted by glo

Gee, whay do you do in real life, czgibson?!

I'm an English teacher. Behold my online English Department!

Can I put this heavy lingo in basic English?

Those aren't my words (apart from the bracketed bit) - they're quoted from somewhere else.

Are you saying that there is no point debating matters of faith, because they cannot be proven or disproven?

I agree that they can't be proven or disproven, but I don't agree that there's no point in debating them. After all, I spend quite a lot of time doing that myself!

Peace

Root what I saw was also seen 5 other people, all that the same time.

I have asked for a reasonable alternate explanation for the events I described.

I am sure there is one out there, but for me the one I came to makes the most sense to me considering what I witnessed.

Btw, Thanks for finally returning to the original topic.

Thanks
Nimrod

Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,


I'm an English teacher. Behold my online English Department!

Cool! English is not my first language, so perhaps I can make use of your online department sometime!

I agree that they can't be proven or disproven, but I don't agree that there's no point in debating them. After all, I spend quite a lot of time doing that myself!

That may be so, but feel slightly different about it.
Being married to an atheist (well, more of an antitheist, really), I have experienced many of such debates in my own home. Only they tend to get more emotionally laden, and they get under my skin. Tough times!

Perhaps one day I will feel ready to pursue such debates online.
Not now, though. For now all I can do, is dip in and out and make the odd flippant comment!

Peace.

i believe because i do not wish to deny the favours of my lord or reject his clear signs