Science ... NOT God ...

[Desert Snake]

Evidences.

Haven’t you been paying attention to what I have been saying?

I am talking about evidences for Natural Science, like physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science and astronomy, NOT evidences for Social Science, like fields in psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, economics, law/legislation, etc.

Natural Science required those evidences to meet the standards of (A) Falsifiability, (B) Scientific Method and (C) Peer Review, while evidences for Social Science don’t have to follow these requirements.

Evidences (for Natural Science) provide level of objectivity and impartiality, meaning they are independent of person’s preferences or desires.

The more evidences you have, the more capable you are to determine which of these falsifiable hypotheses are probable and which are not probable.

Yeah it isnt going to tell you what you are arguing it is. Its going to give you a 'probability'. You want to be avoiding that argument, so, now you didn't learn anything.

Thats the problem with your argument

 

[gnostic]

Yeah it isnt going to tell you what you are arguing it is. Its going to give you a 'probability'. You want to be avoiding that argument, so, now you didn't learn anything.

Thats the problem with your argument

So you are telling me that scientists should ignore the evidences? Is that right?

If yes, then it just show me how very little that you understand the working process of science.

Yes, the numbers of evidences FOR or AGAINST the falsifiable explanations and predictions will determine the probability if they are TRUE or FALSE. But you have to remember the evidences are real world answer, and not some imaginary belief.

Evidences, in Natural Science, are anything that can be observed or detected, that can be measured or quantified, tested or verified.

Religions (and philosophies too) deal with possibilities, not probabilities: so something that either “possible” or “impossible”.

The problems with belief and faith, is they are only in the mind of possibilities or impossibilities, and have the tendencies to cloud judgement or lead to biases.

I will always prefer to deal with probability (evidence-based science) over possibility (faith-based religion or logical-based philosophy).

Tell me, desert snake, you being a Christian, will obvious believe in the Bible, as a revealed scriptures, but many stuffs include revealed visions or prophecies, correct?

Can you always take such visions or prophecies as literal?

For instance, in Ezekiel 1, it described 4 angels, each one having multiple wings like some birds, and head with 4 faces that of man, lion, ox and eagle. They appeared from storm clouds:

5 In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. 6 Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another; each of them moved straight ahead, without turning as they moved. 10 As for the appearance of their faces: the four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle; 11 such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies.

My question here, is such a “being”, possible?

To me, it isn’t possible, can’t be take as literal or believable, and only exist in myths.

I am quite sure, that if you were to look or read about Egyptian gods, like the sky god Horus, having a body of man but head of falcon, or the warrior goddess Sekhmet with body of woman and head of lioness, as ridiculously impossible...as myths.

But what of Ezekiel’s 4 angels that I have already described? Are they impossible?

And in the real world, they are improbable, because no one has seen anything like that.

And this isn’t only vision that I find impossible and improbable, eg Revelation’s two Beasts, the golden woman or the dragon.

So if they are not possible in reality, then those visions cannot be taken as literal.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you are telling me that scientists should ignore the evidences? Is that right?

If yes, then it just show me how very little that you understand the working process of science.

Yes, the numbers of evidences FOR or AGAINST the falsifiable explanations and predictions will determine the probability if they are TRUE or FALSE. But you have to remember the evidences are real world answer, and not some imaginary belief.

Evidences, in Natural Science, are anything that can be observed or detected, that can be measured or quantified, tested or verified.

Religions (and philosophies too) deal with possibilities, not probabilities: so something that either “possible” or “impossible”.

The problems with belief and faith, is they are only in the mind of possibilities or impossibilities, and have the tendencies to cloud judgement or lead to biases.

I will always prefer to deal with probability (evidence-based science) over possibility (faith-based religion or logical-based philosophy).

Tell me, desert snake, you being a Christian, will obvious believe in the Bible, as a revealed scriptures, but many stuffs include revealed visions or prophecies, correct?

Can you always take such visions or prophecies as literal?

For instance, in Ezekiel 1, it described 4 angels, each one having multiple wings like some birds, and head with 4 faces that of man, lion, ox and eagle. They appeared from storm clouds:



My question here, is such a “being”, possible?

To me, it isn’t possible, can’t be take as literal or believable, and only exist in myths.

I am quite sure, that if you were to look or read about Egyptian gods, like the sky god Horus, having a body of man but head of falcon, or the warrior goddess Sekhmet with body of woman and head of lioness, as ridiculously impossible...as myths.

But what of Ezekiel’s 4 angels that I have already described? Are they impossible?

And in the real world, they are improbable, because no one has seen anything like that.

And this isn’t only vision that I find impossible and improbable, eg Revelation’s two Beasts, the golden woman or the dragon.

So if they are not possible in reality, then those visions cannot be taken as literal.

You didn't understand what I meant. I didn-t mean, "probability arguments are bad", I meant, you dont want to use probability argument, for your argument. Giving you advice so you don't waste more effort on that. Doing you a favor.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let me help you a little bit.

Evidences.

This is not a word, It is simply "evidence". There may be many "pieces of evidence", but in whole or in part, in singular or in plural, it remains "evidence".

(A) Falsifiability, (B) Scientific Method and (C) Peer Review

You are conflating the rules for scientific theory with the rules for evidence.

Evidence must be empirical; observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable

 

[Jollybear]

Because I don’t know where you are coming from, when I have re-read my reply that you have quoted from.

You wrote this:



I actually with your 2nd sentence - “Evidence is not the same as proof”, but I disagree with your assertion in the next sentence that “Proof is stronger then evidence”.

That’s not true.

In science, evidences always take precedence over proofs. If the evidences don’t back up the proofs, then the proofs are wrong, not the evidences.

Evidences always matter more than any mathematical proof (eg equations or formulas).

As to “intellectual honesty” that’s argument you were having with Polymath257, not with me.

Ok. So....how do we determine if something is true or not true?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. So....how do we determine if something is true or not true?

Observation and testing of our ideas?

 

[gnostic]

Ok. So....how do we determine if something is true or not true?

I have already told you.

Testing via observation. Examples of observation: evidence, experiment.

The answers are “evidence” and “testing”, Jollybear.

Evidence that you can and test.

And testing is very important part of Scientific Method.

Here are some of requirements for evidence, evidence must be:

1. observable or detectable
2. quantifiable
3. measurable
4. verifiable or refutable, which is another word for testable

You would try to obtain as many evidences as possible or perform as many experiments as possible, because this would help you determine if it is -

1. true and probable,
2. or false or improbable

There are other reasons why you would gather as many evidence as you could find, eg to weed out any errors or inconsistencies or cheats, and to verify and compare the evidences against each other as form of testing.

And if you can, you would double check any evidence, triple check it.

The answers are evidence and testing.

 

[Jollybear]

Evidences.

Haven’t you been paying attention to what I have been saying?

I am talking about evidences for Natural Science, like physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science and astronomy, NOT evidences for Social Science, like fields in psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, economics, law/legislation, etc.

Natural Science required those evidences to meet the standards of (A) Falsifiability, (B) Scientific Method and (C) Peer Review, while evidences for Social Science don’t have to follow these requirements.

Evidences (for Natural Science) provide level of objectivity and impartiality, meaning they are independent of person’s preferences or desires.

The more evidences you have, the more capable you are to determine which of these falsifiable hypotheses are probable and which are not probable.

Ok, what you said here sounds good. Not bad. Not bad at all. Id even give it a like, but i refrained due to not totally being sure of some deeper meanings behind some of these things that you may see.

Ok. Lets just jump to it. The concious soul. I consider this to have evidence. You dont. Why?

 

[gnostic]

Ok, what you said here sounds good. Not bad. Not bad at all. Id even give it a like, but i refrained due to not totally being sure of some deeper meanings behind some of these things that you may see.

Ok. Lets just jump to it. The concious soul. I consider this to have evidence. You dont. Why?

It depends on what you mean by soul.

The problem is, it has multiple meanings.

If you are referring to soul as a living person, then I have no problem with the word.

If you define soul as the consciousness, thinking process or memory or emotion of a person, then again, I would still have no problem with this definition.

But if you are talking about soul as in “spirit”, then there are no evidence for such existence, other than those portrayed in religious scriptural literature, myths and fiction, and those people who believe in them.

It depends on contexts.

I used to believe in the later, when I was younger, but I am now very doubtful that it exist.

I accepted that consciousness exist, but soul/spirit, not so much.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Ok. Lets just jump to it. The concious soul. I consider this to have evidence. You dont. Why?

In dealing with terms scientifically, epistemologically, logically or empirically, one must have very clear definitions of terms and words. So it is very important that you clearly define "conscious" and "soul" and clearly define what you mean when you put the two terms together.

What do these words mean?
-and-
What properties do these terms possess?

Science has no real definition of "soul" and the definition (or line that determines) conscious is still somewhat ambiguous and in debate. So for us to evaluate your claim that the "conscious soul" has evidence to support its existence, we need to know what these terms mean and what properties are "owned" by these terms.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. Lets just jump to it. The concious soul. I consider this to have evidence. You dont. Why?

Define your terms. What does it mean to be 'conscious'? How do we test to see if something is conscious or not?

What does it mean to be a 'soul'? How do we test to see if something is a 'soul' or not?

Without these *operational* definitions, the question is meaningless.

Now, if you don't have definitions, we can work on those first. What examples do you have of things that are clearly 'conscious' and things that are clearly not? What are some examples of things that are ambiguous or in question?

Same questions for 'soul'. What are some examples of thngs that are clearly souls and what are some that clearly are not? What are some ambiguous or questionable cases?

 

[Audie]

Christians should not have to park their brains at the door.

"Should".
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness,

What possible choice is there but to park brain?

 

[Jollybear]

It depends on what you mean by soul.

The problem is, it has multiple meanings.

If you are referring to soul as a living person, then I have no problem with the word.

If you define soul as the consciousness, thinking process or memory or emotion of a person, then again, I would still have no problem with this definition.

But if you are talking about soul as in “spirit”, then there are no evidence for such existence, other than those portrayed in religious scriptural literature, myths and fiction, and those people who believe in them.

It depends on contexts.

I used to believe in the later, when I was younger, but I am now very doubtful that it exist.

I accepted that consciousness exist, but soul/spirit, not so much.

Why do you refuse to accept NDEs as evidence for soul/spirit?

 

[ratiocinator]

Why do you refuse to accept NDEs as evidence for soul/spirit?

What does the 'N' stand for?

 

[Jollybear]

What does the 'N' stand for?

Near

 

[ratiocinator]

Near

Exactly.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why do you refuse to accept NDEs as evidence for soul/spirit?

Because these are purely subjective; and science has noted a rapid increase and erratic firing of neurons while the brain dies. As a result, it is far more likely that NDEs are hallucinations than they are evidence of soul. The evidence of NDEs being explained by chemical and neurological trauma of a dying brain far outweighs any supposed evidence of NDEs being explained by a "soul" leaving the body. To further harm the case, some NDE testimonies have later been recanted by the very people who reported them (The Boy Who Went To Heaven).

 

[FooYang]

Evidence must be empirical; observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable

It's curious that you say this while saying the complete opposite otherwise here.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It's curious that you say this while saying the complete opposite otherwise here.

Where do I say otherwise?

 

[Jollybear]

Because these are purely subjective; and science has noted a rapid increase and erratic firing of neurons while the brain dies.

Yes, the brain fires off, but just because it does this does not mean theres no soul that is independent of the brain.

As a metaphor, take a TV set. The station waves go into the TV and you see the program you watch on it. So, the wires are firing off in the tv. But, suppose the tv wer to "die", would this mean the station waves died? Absolutely not. The station waves are independent of the TV set.

As a result, it is far more likely that NDEs are hallucinations than they are evidence of soul. The evidence of NDEs being explained by chemical and neurological trauma of a dying brain far outweighs any supposed evidence of NDEs being explained by a "soul" leaving the body.

Actually, the soul being independent of the brain far outweighs the idea that the soul and brain are one in the same. Why? Because of a simple thing called "veridical NDEs". And if it wer not for these, your statement would have weight. But due to these veridical NDEs, your statement is debunked.

To further harm the case, some NDE testimonies have later been recanted by the very people who reported them (The Boy Who Went To Heaven).

Yes, some RARE cases have recanted. But most cases do not recant. And this case there was a clear motive, selling books and making money.

So, just because theres frauds out there who later confess does in no way dismiss those who have had real experiences.