Why do you believe? Part 2

[nimrod]

There are those who say that there is no Spirit world. That this life is all that there is, after that you are no more than worm food.

When I set my mind to pondering that question, I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers of our natural world, it is lacking in answering the existence of the supernatural, the beyond natural.

One of the areas I set my mind to pondering was the reports of people, seeing or interacting with spirits. The thought of ghosts or spirits is widely lambasted by not only the unbelievers but by many believers as well, and in many cases rightly so.
There is probably no other tool that is used by charlatans to better effect than the claim of dealing with the spirit world. Folks have used claims of dealing with the dead and other superstitions to manipulate people since the earliest known times.

While I scoffed (And still do) at most claims of seeing or interacting with spirits, some of the accounts I read about seemed very believable. I started thinking of a way to reasonably determine the truthfulness of the claims. At first I was at a loss as to how to determine a reasonable truthfulness of the claims.

The approach I took was to try and determine the truthfulness and motives of the people making the claims. This allowed me to dismiss a large percentage of the claims as being made by people with a motive to make money or control people or to gain power by making such claims. This group was too tainted to be useful.

That left me pondering the reports made by ordinary everyday people. I could write off a large group of these people as either liars or mistaken. Surely not all of them were liars though, so that left me with those who were honest and maybe mistaken. Of that group some were simply mistaking natural phenomenon for things from the spirit world.

An example of this can be seen in the state where I grew up, Louisiana:

When the roads that went through the swampy areas were paved there started to be reports of strange balls of light repeatedly hovering over some areas of the roads.
Many folks thought these balls of light were from the spirit world. Educated people looked for a natural explanation for the lights.

The answer was a simple one, the road beds had been constructed using oyster shells as a base. The shells often times had small bits of oyster flesh still attached. As this matter decomposed, it gave off methane gas. The pavement did a much better job of containing the gas till some small crack developed in the pavement. This allowed the gas to be released in a concentrated form and repeatedly in the same location. As the cars drove through to low hanging gas ball, the engines would often ignite it. There was nothing supernatural about it at all.

That left me with the question, could all the reports from honest people simply be a result of simply being mistaken. The answer for anyone who has studied the subject is No.
No matter how many different ways I sliced and diced it, I couldn’t reasonably reduce the number of the “almost to a certainty real events reported by honest people” to zero.
If the number remains at even one, then the spirit world reasonably exists.

I dare say that, that is why any scientist worthy of his diploma will NOT say to a certainty that the spirit world doesn’t exist.

That is where my mind left the subject for quite some time. Some time later this occurred:

I have always been very good at remembering my dreams. I can remember a few specific dreams from when I was three years old.

I sleep light and I am almost always aware that I am dreaming when I dream. I will control my dreams. I will often times rewind my dreams and make them come out differently.
I have found this tool to be very useful in solving mechanical problems or construction problems. I can build a project in my dreams and when a problem is uncovered I simply rewind the dream and modify the approach till many if not all of the problems are solved. I can often restart my dreams the next night if need be.

One of the dreams, from when I was four or five years old, stuck in my mind.
In the dream my family lived in an old farm house. The house was built very plain. The house was a three bedroom house with plain fixtures. The light fixtures were turned on and off by pulling on a chain that hung from the base.

In my dream my brother James and I shared a bedroom; he is one year younger than me.
We were lying on the bed one night and looking at two orbs of soft light floating around the room very near to the ceiling. It was frightening and we called out to Mom and Dad to do something about it.
Mom and Dad came into the room along with my two older brothers. They all stood looking at the orbs of light, not believing what we were all seeing. The sighting of the light orbs was repeated a number of times over a number of days, the longer it went on the more frightened my brother and I became.
In my dream my Dad finally resorted to speaking to the orbs of light. I didn’t remember the words he spoke, but I did remember him speaking very firmly to the orbs of light. After he spoke to the orbs, they never returned.

I just filed that dream away, along with any other childhood dreams I had remembered.

When I was about 30 years old I was at a family gathering. The topic of conversation turned to my Grandfather and his tale of living in a house as a young man.
My Grandfather had told me of a house he lived in at about the turn of the last century that had the sound of a clock ticking even though there wasn’t a clock in the whole house. He also told me about the front door coming un-latched and having to re-close the door.

The door latch in that house consisted of a lift bar and a hook on the inside. The lift bar had a short piece of cord tied to it. The door had a small hole in it just above the lift bar. During the day a person would hang the end of the cord out through the hole so that the door could be opened from outside. At night a person would pull the cord back inside and then the door was secure.

My Grandfather was a plain spoken man and I never knew him to be un-truthful or prone to exaggeration.

He told me that some nights as he and his kids were sitting around the fireplace they would see the lift bar slowly lift and the door would open slightly, even though the lift cord had been pulled in for the night. They would have to go back and shut the door.

As I was telling the account of what my grandfather had told me, my Aunt took over the account and told what she had remembered from her childhood of living in that house. It was almost word for word a recount of what my Grandfather had told me.
It was more than clear to me that she wasn’t making it up or simply repeating something she had heard Granddad telling about.

After we had finished talking about that, my brother James asked me if I remembered to orbs of light that had kept showing up in a bedroom of one of the houses we lived in as kids.
I just sort stared at him blank faced. My Mom chimed in that she remembered it. She told that when James was about 3 and I was 4 that we moved into the old Thames house.

Mr. and Mrs. Thames had just recently passed away. They died with about a month apart from each other. They had been married for about 50 years when they died.
The bedroom my brother and I shared was their bedroom.

My Mom told how the orbs of light would just float around the room near the ceiling. She told how the orbs appeared repeatedly for almost a full month. She said as more time went by the more a feeling of apprehension becoming stronger and stronger.

She said that she and Dad had discussed what to do about it and why it might be happening.
They came to the conclusion that the orbs were the spirits of Mr. and Mrs. Thames. Dad decided out of frustration that he would just talk to the orbs and tell them that while we meant them no harm we were there to stay.

The last night the orbs showed up, my Dad spoke firmly to the orbs. He said that the house was ours now, and that we meant no disrespect to the memory of the Thames, but we were there to stay and he firmly told the orbs that it was time for them to move on.
The orbs were never seen again.

Their recount was exactly like the dream I had remembered. It was then that I realized that my dream wasn’t a dream at all. It was a real memory of a real occurrence. 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.

That led me to my studies of the 5 major religions. You can look at my “way of life” to see the choice I came to as the most complete and believable.

I know most of you have chosen a different path, that’s ok. The point of this topic isn’t Christianity verses Islam:

It is the question of why you believe.

I hope to follow up with one more thread “Why do you disbelieve?”

Thanks
Nimrod

[root]

When I set my mind to pondering that question, I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers of our natural world, it is lacking in answering the existence of the supernatural, the beyond natural.

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

it is lacking in answering the existence of the supernatural, the beyond natural.

It does answer it and is not lacking. Thier is no reason to suggest the supernatural exits, that's the human mind playing with u friend. It's pure hypothosis

[Alphaseed]

The Answer you seek is not found in science, as science can only test what it can see and touch, it is limited to this tridimensional world.

When God created man, he created him in his image, that is spiritually, and if God is eternal so are we.

But science tells you that no energy is ever lost, it simply changes to another form, that is all you can use of science to prove a spirit world, yet in the scriptures you can find the answer.

What we should worry is , where do we spend eternity???

[root]

The Answer you seek is not found in science, as science can only test what it can see and touch, it is limited to this tridimensional world.

I don't look to science for answers since science does not give answers.

When God created man, he created him in his image, that is spiritually, and if God is eternal so are we.

This is simply a faith based assumption. You have no proof what so ever and that is further compounded that the scientific probability of you being correct is a bet I would never back in your favour. Not in a million years.

But science tells you that no energy is ever lost, it simply changes to another form,

I don't know what u mean?

that is all you can use of science to prove a spirit world, yet in the scriptures you can find the answer.

Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability, (when i drop a stone the probability is that it will fall to the floor, I know this because of the theory of general relativity which is a theory and thus falsifiable and open to being changed in the future as more knowledge is gained). The theory of general relativity is not scientifically proven as a fact 100%. To believe science can offer absolute proof is beyond science.

Scriptures are too modern a phenomenum and I prefer older text to look at the "big questions".

What we should worry is , where do we spend eternity???

Worry, an interesting choice of words. When I die I will return to the same place I was in 1969!

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[nimrod]

Alphaseed, when you say the answers a person seeks are not always found through science, that is a very true statement.

Alphaseed, as an interesting aside, way back in the dark ages when I first started studying electronics, I was taught that one of the first rules of our universe is that energy is neither created or destroyed. It is simply converted from one form to another.

This was further refined to show that matter could be converted to energy (E=MC2), but the inverse was discounted. Since then it has been proved at a college in Texas (Texas A&M, if I remember correctly) that energy can be converted to mass.

Root, somehow I suspect the implication of what I have posted has sort of bypassed you.

sci•ence n.

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

Root, where did I say this "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part"?

Root “It does answer it and is not lacking”.
No, it doesn’t answer the question of the supernatural or the existence of God or the spirit world.

Root “There is no reason to suggest the supernatural exits”.
My post not only shows why there is a suggestion that the supernatural exists, it also shows that for me it is a certainty.

Root “I don't look to science for answers since science does not give answers”, you need to decide which side of the fence you are sitting on.

Root “Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability”.
Root, what is the boiling point of fresh water at sea-level here on Earth? Why does water boil? What effect does elevation changes have on the temperature required to boil water, ect. ?

Root I am not sure you will grasp this but your denial of God, based on your understanding of what science proves or disproves, is rather like those who believe in God but who also deny evolution.

I will be so bold as to state that at some point in the future, atheistic beliefs based on science, will be viewed with the same ridicule that the religious anti-evolution views based on religious texts, are today.

To be a little less cryptic, you are ignoring all opposing evidences as well.

“Those who have ears let them hear”

Root, will you explain exactly what you mean with this statement, it might be interesting, “Scriptures are too modern a phenomenon and I prefer older text to look at the "big questions"?

Thanks
Nimrod

[syilla]

we believe there are other than human being, other species (jinn) living in this world that we cannot see with our naked eyes... as it had been mentioned in the quran...

[extinction]

if you were to ask my why do i believe what I believe without seeing any miracles or anything or seeing any proof ...my answer is I believe what our prophet s.a.w and Allah s.w.t has said.<<<(period/fullstop)

[north_malaysian]

I believe:

God's creatures are

1) Angels
2) Satans
3) Jinns (includes the ghosts, aliens, bigfoots)
4) Animals
5) Plants

[root]

Root, somehow I suspect the implication of what I have posted has sort of bypassed you.

sci•ence n.

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

Perhaps. But tell me is Christian science scientific?

Root, where did I say this "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part"?

here are your words:

When I set my mind to pondering that question, I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers

It's a valid point but I feel it is misplaced. You are pondering an hypothosis with your spirits and afterlife. As such science will not and cannot "give you answers".

Root “It does answer it and is not lacking”.
No, it doesn’t answer the question of the supernatural or the existence of God or the spirit world.

ok, a contradiction on my part. Science it is true deals with natural phenomenum and not supernatural. I live in a universe made of natural law and order, supernatural could simply be a descriptive word for something we don't yet understand that is afterall quite natural. the supernatural is not falsafiable, the supernatural NOT existing is!

Root “There is no reason to suggest the supernatural exits”.
My post not only shows why there is a suggestion that the supernatural exists, it also shows that for me it is a certainty.

I did not see where you showed it existed!

Root “I don't look to science for answers since science does not give answers”,
you need to decide which side of the fence you are sitting on

I disagree and here is why. It seems as part of a modern society we like to think we can be given absolute truth to our questions, no if buts or maybe. But consider, is absolute truth even attainable with our current understanding of the world & universe we reside in. Even the theory of general relativity is not "absolute truth" yet it explains our "current" understanding of gravitational forces whose natural laws are used with great accuracy.

Root “Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability”.
Root, what is the boiling point of fresh water at sea-level here on Earth? Why does water boil? What effect does elevation changes have on the temperature required to boil water, ect. ?

I don't quite see the relavence here but I will go with it. Firstly your question would be better phrased as "why does water boil at different tempuratures at different altitiudes" the answer to which would be a scintific 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 temurature of 101.0c for the water to boil. We can calculate the differing tempuratures required to achieve a boiling point of water at a given altitude. (this is mathmatical and thus a given fact.

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

Of course, like I explained about "why" gravity does what it does and why "water boils" at a set tempurature cannot be given as absolute truth, only the best "guess" based on current understanding on the world around us.

As you can see, it's not that I am sitting in the fence. Religion seems to imply it offers "absolute truth", depending on what religion you actually subscribe to. Science, does not. It either supports an idea or it does not. To come full circle science does not support the existence of the supernatural.

Root I am not sure you will grasp this but your denial of God, based on your understanding of what science proves or disproves, is rather like those who believe in God but who also deny evolution.

You mean my denial of "your God"! or do you accept all Gods described by man. Again, science niether proves norr disproves the existence of god and no creator is falsifiable. An unproven God is not falsifiable so it is false until proven otherwise.

I will be so bold as to state that at some point in the future, atheistic beliefs based on science, will be viewed with the same ridicule that the religious anti-evolution views based on religious texts, are today.

Perhaps you are right, however. Currently the probability is strongly stacked against you.

To be a little less cryptic, you are ignoring all opposing evidences as well.

I am always open to the interpretation of truth. A few hundred years ago the truth was that the sun revolved around the earth, ask anyone from that time it was possible. Thunder and lightening is no longer a "supernatural" entity either.

“Those who have ears let them hear”

The mind is like a parachute, it does not work unless it is open.

Root, will you explain exactly what you mean with this statement, it might be interesting, “Scriptures are too modern a phenomenon and I prefer older text to look at the "big questions"?

Sure, religous text are only a few thousand years old. DNA "text" goes back to the beginning of life itself!

Finally, a quick question for you. Why do you suppose that when someone sees a "Ghost" they consider it to be a spirit and not a time traveler?

[nimrod]

Root, I hope you will take the time to re-read this thread. You seem to be missing many of the finer points of what I have posted.

As to your quick question, which do you feel is more probable and why?

Thanks
Nimrod

[root]

Root, I hope you will take the time to re-read this thread. You seem to be missing many of the finer points of what I have posted.

I did I can assure you twice. (even though I find it hard to bear with "dreams" and supersticious unqualified claims). I see nothing that you express as supernatural proving anything supernatural.

As to your quick question, which do you feel is more probable and why?

Why are u answering the question by asking a question! If you don't consider actual time travel what about "time" anomolies, I mean Ghost, time traveler and time anomolies are no less or more probable.

Some scientists scoffed at the ghostly observations and at the prediction from the pre-Apollo era that such a phenomenon could occur.

Nobody is scoffing now. New results from Casolino, of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics at the University of Rome, Tor Vergata, move scientists closer to understanding how cosmic rays apparently generate these mysterious light flashes, as they are called.

Cosmic rays are highly energetic, charged particles -- mostly protons -- that originate throughout the galaxy when stars explode, scientists believe. They constantly bombard astronauts. They can penetrate a spacecraft and the human body. Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, however, mostly protect the planet from this perpetual onslaught.

[afriend]

I belive because....things have happened to me....although I was born a Muslim, I was just known to be one by name, as I grew older I just did things cos my parents said that I'm a muslim, as time went on, I strayed from the straight path.

I found myself helpless, with nobody to turn to...

And I remembered what my parents once said, if u ask Allah, then Allah will help you.

So I did exactly that, in hope to get help from him.

Within a month, my situations changed completely, things that I thought would never be put straight, I don't want to disclose here...But things that were far beyond any help, were solved, all because of one SINCERE prayer...:'(

[nimrod]

Root perhaps a 3rd reading is in order for you.

I do find it mildly interesting that you have at the same time attempted to dismiss all that I have stated, yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated.

You have asked why I answered your question with a question. It is because your answers raise larger questions than those you seek to disprove, while failing to address the points that have been raised.

A quick question in return, what exists beyond the rim of time and space?

Surely anyone who has studied the subject of time-travel has considered the implications of the answer.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

There have been some intresting posts made on this thread, I just wanted to take the time to say a word of thanks who took the time to offer a reply.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Alphaseed]

It is written :

" To the Natural Man, the things pertaining to God , seem like craziness"

You will never understand God if you try with your limited mind, to understand something that exists in a spiritual realm and measure it by the standards of the natural such as science is impossible.

It is also written;"Man have no excuse, becasuse God revelas himselg through the handiwork of his Hands"

Peace

[root]

I do find it mildly interesting that you have at the same time attempted to dismiss all that I have stated, yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated.

I have not endorsed time travel at any time.

You have asked why I answered your question with a question. It is because your answers raise larger questions than those you seek to disprove, while failing to address the points that have been raised.

I call that "spin"

A quick question in return, what exists beyond the rim of time and space?

what do you mean by the "rim", do you mean the edges of the universe? A quick question back, is the "rim" or edges of the universe a "physical barrier"?

Surely anyone who has studied the subject of time-travel has considered the implications of the answer.

I am quite sure the hypothosis of time travel has been well considered.

Thanks
Nimrod

Your welcome

[syilla]

do u know the big bang theory...

is mentioned in the quran u know...

[extinction]

Im sure root is well aware of that....

[------]

It doesnt look like he is....

[nimrod]

Root “I call that spin”. This is what I call spin:

The placement of quotation marks as though you were quoting something I stated:

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part." Was your’s and your’s alone.

When it was brought to your attention:

“Root, where did I say this "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part"?, you failed to edit your original post or to take credit for the statement in your following posts.

Your post:

“here are your words:”
When I set my mind to pondering that question, I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers. Is at best a half-hearted attempt at making a correction.

Still failed to state that what you implied was not what I said.

More spin:

“I have not endorsed time travel at any time”.

“Finally, a quick question for you. Why do you suppose that when someone sees a "Ghost" they consider it to be a spirit and not a time traveler?”

You in no way qualified your “quick question” with any remarks such as “while I don’t and never have endorsed time travel, not even as a possible explanation for claims of sighting ghosts or spirits”

In intellectual discussions what you did is often times seen as indorsing the alternative as being logically or historically equal. That is why I made the reply:

“I do find it mildly interesting that you have at the same time attempted to dismiss all that I have stated, yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated”.

Your response neither clarified your original statement nor correctly addressed my reply:

“Why are you answering the question by asking a question! If you don't consider actual time travel what about "time" anomalies, I mean Ghost, time traveler and time anomalies are no less or more probable”.

“As to your quick question, which do you feel is more probable and why?”

The article you cited in no way address’ the points I raised in my original posting, or even time-travel for that matter.

Your final statement “I have not endorsed time travel at any time” in no way helps prove or disprove anything in regards to my original posting.


You have also repeatedly failed to answer many of the points I have raised, and in many of your attempts, your answers contain statements that imply I have said something that I didn’t:

“I did not see where you showed it existed!”

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

Many of your posts simply do not make sense:

Root “Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability”.

My reply, “what is the boiling point of fresh water at sea-level here on Earth? Why does water boil? What effect does elevation changes have on the temperature required to boil water, ect.”?

Your reply, “which would be a scientific probability”.

So now it is no longer a scientific FACT that fresh water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level?

Your statement, “Again, science niether proves norr disproves the existence of god and no creator is falsifiable. An unproven God is not falsifiable so it is false until proven otherwise”.

Fails to address the points I raised as to the probability of the existence of spirits and the implications that if there are, within reason, spirits then it is not unreasonable to believe that there is a God.

If you want to counter my original post, then show everyone why it would be a moral certainty for a reasonable person to disclaim EVERY single claim anyone has ever made concerning inter-acting with a spirit.

Your statement of “I am always open to the interpretation of truth” is not backed up by your statements on this thread.

I truthfully related an incident in my life. I gave you my interpretation of what I thought occurred. You have neither offered any reasonable alternative explanation, nor shown any open-mindedness towards the explanation I offered.

Your statement “The mind is like a parachute, it does not work unless it is open” is very true, perhaps you will ponder your statement in regards to yourself.



Root I could spend the morning going back through your posts and showing them for what they are, but it is getting to be a bit of a bore already.

Perhaps a 4th re-reading of my posts on this thread, along with your replies would be helpful for you.

I will try to post the 3rd thread “Why do you disbelieve?” this week. Perhaps it will suit your rebuttals a little better.

As to your last question:

I know of no scientific argument suggesting that there was a physical barrier beyond the rim of space and time just moments before or during or after the “Big Bang”.

So unless you can present me with a scientifically accepted theory showing that one exists now at the rim of space and time, I will remain convinced that in fact, no physical barrier exists now, or at any time in the past.

Thanks
Nimrod

[czgibson]

Greetings Nimrod,

Many of your posts simply do not make sense:

Root “Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability”.

My reply, “what is the boiling point of fresh water at sea-level here on Earth? Why does water boil? What effect does elevation changes have on the temperature required to boil water, ect.”?

Your reply, “which would be a scientific probability”.

So now it is no longer a scientific FACT that fresh water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level?

Sorry to interrupt here, but it seems that root is outlining the falsificationist understanding of how science operates, an idea that you may or may not be familiar with. In simple terms, science cannot prove anything to be true, but it can prove some things to be false.

Peace

[hanifi]

"They recognize the bounty (blessings) of Allah, yet they deny it and most of them are disbelievers". [An-Nahl 16:83]

[nimrod]

C Z Gibson, I agree with your post. What I see in Roots posts, among other things, is his falsely attempting to makes claims as to the probability or not God’s existence and wrap those attempts in science.

He goes on a number of bad assumptions, just a couple are:

#1 Is that unless we have instruments or methods to measure something it doesn’t/can’t or even probably exist. X-Rays existed long before we were aware of them.

#2 The assumption that all spirits are or will never be delectable by some scientific manner.

It has been speculated that spirits may disturb the magnetic fields or could/may be detected in other ways. If this one day becomes provable, then for Root the spirit world becomes scientifically true.

That in its self has no more bearing on today’s existence of spirits than it did on the existence of X-Rays before science could detect them.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Abdullah4ever]

:sl:

When you say spirit wat do u mean?

[nimrod]

Abdulla4ever, for the intents of this thread, I am using the word as defined by # 2 and # 4 a,b.

Thanks
Nimrod

spir•it
n.
1.
a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.
2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as:
a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.
5.
a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit.
b. The essential nature of a person or group.
6. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.
7.
a. An inclination or tendency of a specified kind: Her actions show a generous spirit.
b. A causative, activating, or essential principle: The couple's engagement was announced in a joyous spirit.
8. spirits A mood or an emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering.
9. A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit.
10. Strong loyalty or dedication: team spirit.
11. The predominant mood of an occasion or a period: “The spirit of 1776 is not dead” (Thomas Jefferson).
12. The actual though unstated sense or significance of something: the spirit of the law.
13. An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance. Often used in the plural with a singular verb.
14. spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

C Z Gibson, I agree with your post. What I see in Roots posts, among other things, is his falsely attempting to makes claims as to the probability or not God’s existence and wrap those attempts in science.

I don't think he is. I think you're missing root's basic point, which is that science can't prove anything, but it can disprove some things. So, on the question of god, we can say his existence hasn't been proven or disproven. That he probably doesn't exist is an opinion (one which I share) - I don't think root's trying to make out that science somehow shows this to be the case.

He goes on a number of bad assumptions, just a couple are:

#1 Is that unless we have instruments or methods to measure something it doesn’t/can’t or even probably exist. X-Rays existed long before we were aware of them.

Where has he assumed this?

#2 The assumption that all spirits are or will never be delectable by some scientific manner.

Where has he assumed this?

The ghost question is similar to the god question - at the moment there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. When decent evidence arrives, then people should make up their minds. You believe you've already seen convincing evidence, and that's fine - it's just that some of us haven't.

Peace

[glo]

You believe you've already seen convincing evidence, and that's fine - it's just that some of us haven't.

Wise words. :)
That's really what it boils down to.
My belief in God in based on evidence within, if you like.
It may be difficult to convey that evidence to non-believers, or they may not agree that my evidence stands up to their personal scrutiny.
For me personally, however, it does. It has, and to this day continues to be strong enough evidence for me to base my faith on!

Before I go, I gotta go off topic for a sec and ask:
Who is that guy on your avatar?
And is he yawning, crying or shouting? :rollseyes

Peace. :)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Wise words. :)

Thank you.

That's really what it boils down to.
My belief in God in based on evidence within, if you like.
It may be difficult to convey that evidence to non-believers, or they may not agree that my evidence stands up to their personal scrutiny.
For me personally, however, it does. It has, and to this day continues to be strong enough evidence for me to base my faith on!

I think this is exactly what separates believers and non-believers.

Before I go, I gotta go off topic for a sec and ask:
Who is that guy on your avatar?
And is he yawning, crying or shouting? :rollseyes

That's my favourite composer, satirist and scourge of the Religious Right, Frank Zappa. The picture is taken from his 1970 album 'Chunga's Revenge', and I'm reliably informed that he's yawning. It's ambiguous though, and I like that. :)

Peace

[glo]

I think this is exactly what separates believers and non-believers.

Being married to an atheist I know it only too well ... and I learned it the hard way! :rollseyes

That's my favourite composer, satirist and scourge of the Religious Right, Frank Zappa. The picture is taken from his 1970 album 'Chunga's Revenge', and I'm reliably informed that he's yawning. It's ambiguous though, and I like that. :)
Peace

Zappa! I should have known!
I know him as a musician, but know nothing about his 'scourge of the Religious Right'. Perhaps I will read up on him. :)

Peace.

[nimrod]

Cz Gibson I didn’t, and still don’t, see a problem with my original wording “I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers of our natural world, it is lacking in answering the existence of the supernatural, the beyond natural”.

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 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).

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".

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

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.

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.

Did you see him implying something differently?

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.

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)”

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

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.

You seem to be missing many of the finer points of what I have posted.

yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated.

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

What I see in Roots posts, among other things

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Thanks
Nimrod

[syilla]

where is root?

[------]

God knows :rollseyes

[root]

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.........

[czgibson]

Greetings 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

[nimrod]

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

[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

[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

[czgibson]

Greetings 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".

Damn! I love discussions like that. :p

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

[czgibson]

Greetings 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

[glo]

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?! ;D

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? :rollseyes

Peace.

[root]

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.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

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

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? :rollseyes

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

[nimrod]

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

[glo]

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. :rollseyes
Not now, though. For now all I can do, is dip in and out and make the odd flippant comment!

Peace. :)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

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

:peace: :sl: