Why do you believe? Part 2

[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]

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/diapsids/buzz/dinoscience.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.

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.