• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I have a question for all the different religions on this board

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I missed this post and thought the citation is worth responding to.

To each his own though. Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

I consider this more than a bit superficial obvious. Yes. 'To each his or her own' is superficially true, but is it meaningful?

There was something said which I think demonstrates reasonableness...
*** it-2 p. 411 Miracles ***
...capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible. Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.

The above statement to a degree simply reflects the standard of Methodological Naturalism that has been the standard of science for the 20th century irrespective of individual beliefs nor attitudes to those who believe differently. Science cannot make falsifiable theorems, hypothesis, not theorems concerning anything beyond the objective verifiable evidence, but there is a problem with the above . . .

One problem with the above that is a vague attempt for an 'argument of ignorance' concerning the biological science is that the source of energy for abiogenesis and evolution is the sun and the internal heat of the earth, Yes, science can say the source of energy is 'known.'
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I missed this post and thought the citation is worth responding to.



I consider this more than a bit superficial obvious. Yes. 'To each his or her own' is superficially true, but is it meaningful?



The above statement to a degree simply reflects the standard of Methodological Naturalism that has been the standard of science for the 20th century irrespective of individual beliefs nor attitudes to those who believe differently. Science cannot make falsifiable theorems, hypothesis, not theorems concerning anything beyond the objective verifiable evidence, but there is a problem with the above . . .

One problem with the above that is a vague attempt for an 'argument of ignorance' concerning the biological science is that the source of energy for abiogenesis and evolution is the sun and the internal heat of the earth, Yes, science can say the source of energy is 'known.'
I agree.

The quotation is from an evangelical Protestant physiologist, back in 1955, trying to make a case for miracles. All the quoted passage says, really, is that not everything is known, so there can be new discoveries. (And bears **** in the woods?)

The error the speaker makes, in my view, is in thinking that a new discovery would ever be classed by science as a "miracle". Any newly discovered reproducible phenomenon would be added to science's picture of the world, classified, explored and and treated as part of nature. So what room does that leave for a "miracle"? It seems to me it would have to be something non-reproducible. Which means it would not be accepted by science as real enough to take seriously.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I missed this post and thought the citation is worth responding to.



I consider this more than a bit superficial obvious. Yes. 'To each his or her own' is superficially true, but is it meaningful?



The above statement to a degree simply reflects the standard of Methodological Naturalism that has been the standard of science for the 20th century irrespective of individual beliefs nor attitudes to those who believe differently. Science cannot make falsifiable theorems, hypothesis, not theorems concerning anything beyond the objective verifiable evidence, but there is a problem with the above . . .

One problem with the above that is a vague attempt for an 'argument of ignorance' concerning the biological science is that the source of energy for abiogenesis and evolution is the sun and the internal heat of the earth, Yes, science can say the source of energy is 'known.'
I fear asking this question, since the last time I asked you to explain yourself, you just copied and pasted the same thing, but I will ask anyway.
What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with what I said?
Furthermore, what does the energy from the sun have to do with energy on a whole?
Your post totally lost me.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of thing science don't know or understand, and never will, imo.
"Science" is an abstract concept, it can't know anything. It is people who know (or don't know) things, science is just a set of methods we can use. We're all people and I strongly resent divisive efforts to create false "them and us" concepts like this.

The thing about people who are naturalist, is that they call anything impossible as long as they don't see it, or know of it, or even are skeptical about it.
More divisive rubbish. "Naturalists" (whether you're referring to the philosophy or the science) are as diverse as any other group. Some will say stupid things and some won't. Some will say things you think are stupid but actually aren't ("impossible" can be valid in the right context). The bottom line is that we're all basically the same.

There are things people are aware the cannot disprove, yet they will say - "Can't happen, Nope." They even go as far as to say they know, when they know nothing.
True, and some people will say "This is the unquestionable Truth!" even when they're aware they can't prove it. Human beings are flawed.

We know there are things that will never be accepted by the physical man (by that I don't mean mortal - see link).
This is an example of the problem we're talking about. You don't know it at all, you just have a bit of religious scripture you've interpreted to mean that.

We can look at results, but is prayer something someone can run an experiment on?
Not unless you define what you expect prayer to actually do. I'm not convinced there is a commonly agreed answer to that across all of the different people who pray in all sorts of different ways.

Isn't prayer something personal - between the individual and God?
Is it? Is there a God? Does he have anything to do with prayer? We don't know.

Can someone sit in a room and pray for something, in order that researchers can determine that prayer works?
Has anyone proposed such an experiment or are you creating a straw-man there?

If you are interested, this link gives some ideas of how persons feel Telekinesis is possible from a scientific point of view.
I'm vaguely aware of the various hypotheses and ideas, both rational and speculative. The range means they can't all be correct or they can't all be talking about the same thing so the question "Is telekinesis possible?" alone still can't be answered. A deeper question based on any of the specific hypotheses could be (though its generally going to be a "maybe").
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I fear asking this question, since the last time I asked you to explain yourself, you just copied and pasted the same thing, but I will ask anyway.
What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with what I said?

It has to do with what you cited. What you said other than that did not represent something I could respond to from the perspective of science.


Furthermore, what does the energy from the sun have to do with energy on a whole?
Your post totally lost me.

I was addressing the issue from the perspective of a biologist and physiologist that was the author, who apparently did not make his question clear as to what was his point was concerning the source of the energy. If you kick the problem down the road, or move the goal posts to the nature of the universe, and its origins from the scientific perspective, no problem. Of course, not all the questions have been answered, but as far as our universe goes, the energy is abundant and the Laws of Thermodynamics apply well as far as the origins and nature of galaxies, black holes, stars, planets and the origin of life and evolution. As far as the origin of the universe, and the energy, goes, The Space/Time, energy and matter and the laws of thermodynamics are emergent from the Quantum World by the nature of Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Gravity that resulted in the forming of a singularity, and/or black hole, and than the expansion of the universe as we know it...

Believing God is the origin at some point whether the beginning of our universe or our physical existence containing all possible universes is OK, but it represents a theological belief concerning the origin of energy, and not based on science.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
"Science" is an abstract concept, it can't know anything. It is people who know (or don't know) things, science is just a set of methods we can use. We're all people and I strongly resent divisive efforts to create false "them and us" concepts like this.
Trust me. I know what science is, and I am not using deceptive measures. I am merely using the language that most - that's virtually all - skeptics on these forums seem to prefer using.
If you doubt me, go here for that proof.

If you want, I can find all the posts where most users use the expression "science knows" including those who say they are scientists.
So this, I think, is the wrong tree to be barking up.
I speak people's language, as long as I understand what it is, and when I find it's a habit they have held on to for perhaps years, to the point it has become normal everyday speech. Of course, if I think there is harm in using it, I won't.
Right now, you are one, against how many, so what do I do here?
Science knows, or scientists know?
I'll think about it.

More divisive rubbish. "Naturalists" (whether you're referring to the philosophy or the science) are as diverse as any other group. Some will say stupid things and some won't. Some will say things you think are stupid but actually aren't ("impossible" can be valid in the right context). The bottom line is that we're all basically the same.
Well the first was not rubbish, otherwise virtually all the users skeptical of my views talk rubbish, which you have just suggested, above, they do. Want to take it back?
Now you are suggesting that you are talking rubbish by saying that there are people who are naturalist that say stupid things. Hence agreeing with me.
What's the deal here? Are you just trying to take shot at nPeace?
It might be good to take that one back, since it's directly hitting at you.

True, and some people will say "This is the unquestionable Truth!" even when they're aware they can't prove it. Human beings are flawed.
We agree here at least.

This is an example of the problem we're talking about. You don't know it at all, you just have a bit of religious scripture you've interpreted to mean that.
There are things we know without any religious literature.
We know from observation. They are called facts.
We know there are million of people who 1) died, 2) died not believing one thing or other, which later was proven to be so, 3) will continue to die believing one thing or other, and not accepting things, which will be proven later.
Hmmm. Are you sure you are not taking shots at me?

As regard what the scriptures say about the physical man, I believe it. I understand others don't, or are skeptics, but their opinions on the Bible by any means invalidate it.
However, we welcome their opinions. It helps us get their views and see how they are thinking, and perhaps why.

Not unless you define what you expect prayer to actually do. I'm not convinced there is a commonly agreed answer to that across all of the different people who pray in all sorts of different ways.
Okay, here is an example.
Someone says that prayer gives them a calm feeling, and peacefulness and peace of mind, or courage and strength, or comfort, or wisdom, or perception, etc., etc., in various situations. Take your pick.
They say they were not expecting the results. In fact, 90 percent of the time they were actually surprised at the result, or only thought about a connection between the result, and prayer, in hindsight.

Let's hear.

Is it? Is there a God? Does he have anything to do with prayer? We don't know.
That's why the word faith as used in the Bible is an important part of a believer. They believe God is, and they have faith in his word, and promises as are recorded in the Bible.
To be precise, I can only speak for those who believe as I do.

Has anyone proposed such an experiment or are you creating a straw-man there?
Yes, and no.
Yes it has been done.
No I'm not creating straw-man, unless you mean physical craft work.

Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials
The healing powers of prayer have been examined in triple-blind, randomized controlled trials. We illustrate randomized controlled trials on prayer and healing, with one study in each of different categories of outcome. We provide a critical analysis of the scientific and philosophical dimensions of such research.

Studies on intercessory prayer
...a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.

I'm vaguely aware of the various hypotheses and ideas, both rational and speculative. The range means they can't all be correct or they can't all be talking about the same thing so the question "Is telekinesis possible?" alone still can't be answered. A deeper question based on any of the specific hypotheses could be (though its generally going to be a "maybe").
The question I asked was [what] do you think?, and it was an open question to all. That's all.

People are investigating events which evidence seem to suggest are real, even though currently investigator can only speculate on the cause.
Some Days, Say Police, This New Jersey Psychic Can Indeed See Forever
Michael Kurcsics
John DeMars

However, science is an ongoing study. Some things are easier than others to figure out. Some things they are unable to find evidence. Some are just out of their scope.
Science has its limits.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It has to do with what you cited. What you said other than that did not represent something I could respond to from the perspective of science.




I was addressing the issue from the perspective of a biologist and physiologist that was the author, who apparently did not make his question clear as to what was his point was concerning the source of the energy. If you kick the problem down the road, or move the goal posts to the nature of the universe, and its origins from the scientific perspective, no problem. Of course, not all the questions have been answered, but as far as our universe goes, the energy is abundant and the Laws of Thermodynamics apply well as far as the origins and nature of galaxies, black holes, stars, planets and the origin of life and evolution. As far as the origin of the universe, and the energy, goes, The Space/Time, energy and matter and the laws of thermodynamics are emergent from the Quantum World by the nature of Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Gravity that resulted in the forming of a singularity, and/or black hole, and than the expansion of the universe as we know it...

Believing God is the origin at some point whether the beginning of our universe or our physical existence containing all possible universes is OK, but it represents a theological belief concerning the origin of energy, and not based on science.
Please, what was the point being made, from the source I quoted, and can you explain what anything you said has to do with it?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Please, what was the point being made, from the source I quoted, and can you explain what anything you said has to do with it?

Please reread my post. I was specific. One point that I made was your source raised question concerning a problem of energy concerning natural origins in science that is not reality a problem.

There is also a problem with the relationship between science and scientific discoveries, and what consists of a miracle. Contemporary science of the late 19th, 20th and 21st century, is always cautious, and does not attempt to say anything is impossible. All modern science only falsifies theories, hypothesis, and theorems, and does not prove miracles are not possible. Nonetheless when a natural explanation is falsified it is no longer considered a miracle. Actually the cautious approach of Charles Darwin, and his delays to publish, seeking peer review of his works was a model for scientific methods.

Even Newton made no effort to determine a scientific basis for the impossible.

Why did you cite the source?
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Trust me. I know what science is, and I am not using deceptive measures. I am merely using the language that most - that's virtually all - skeptics on these forums seem to prefer using.
You’re not talking to those idiots, you’re talking to me so let’s keep the language honest and conventional.

Well the first was not rubbish, otherwise virtually all the users skeptical of my views talk rubbish, which you have just suggested, above, they do. Want to take it back?
No, because your attack was against all “naturalists”, not the tiny subset of people you’ve ever discussed your views with. You’re also biased in saying they all talk rubbish – they probably say the same about you and either (or both) of you could be right. Again, this discussion is between you and me so the only relevant statements are yours and mine.

There are things we know without any religious literature.
Sure, but you made an assertion and presented a single line of (loosely interpreted) scripture to support it. That is not a valid logical argument since there is absolutely no reason to assume scripture (especially a specific interpretation) is accurate. It has no place in this discussion.

Hmmm. Are you sure you are not taking shots at me?
I’m taking shots at the things you’re saying that I believe are mistaken or flawed. It is in no way personal though. :cool:

Someone says that prayer gives them a calm feeling, and peacefulness and peace of mind, or courage and strength, or comfort, or wisdom, or perception, etc., etc., in various situations. Take your pick.

They say they were not expecting the results. In fact, 90 percent of the time they were actually surprised at the result, or only thought about a connection between the result, and prayer, in hindsight.
Well feelings as an abstract effect are obviously difficult to measure but as a general principle that’s a perfectly reasonable proposal. I even suspect that prayer can indeed have those positive effects on some people, though people report various forms of mediation, thoughtfulness or relaxed pastimes can achieve the same kind of things so there’d be further work needed if we wanted to understand the direct physical and/or psychological causes.

It is clear that there is absolutely no reason to raise any kind of “supernatural” or “spiritual” factors on the basis of this information alone. I’ve absolutely no issue with talking about prayer making people feel better in themselves, I would object to unsupported conclusions from this such as asserting this proves (their) God exists and must be directly influencing the effects.

That's why the word faith as used in the Bible is an important part of a believer. They believe God is, and they have faith in his word, and promises as are recorded in the Bible.
And I entirely accept that but the reason faith is needed is because religious beliefs can’t be proven. Faith doesn’t make your beliefs any more viable or significant from a cold factual point of view. If anything, it adds a powerful bias to your (and, to be fair, my) opinion on them.

Yes it has been done.
Doesn’t that answer your own question then? You can perform formal scientific experiments on specific claims for the effects of prayer but where people have done, the results are inconclusive. I think it’s significant that this is about specific observable effects, not the underlying causes. As above, even if it was shown that people prayer over had been medical outcomes, it wouldn’t be evidence of any specific divine or “supernatural” causes.

The question I asked was [what] do you think?, and it was an open question to all. That's all.
What I think is clearly more complicated than a simple yes or no and I think the yes/no questions asked in this field are generally leading and biased. That’s why I gave a more detailed explanation.

People are investigating events which evidence seem to suggest are real, even though currently investigator can only speculate on the cause.
Your original question was about telekinesis. You’d already shifted to prayer and now you’re referencing predicative psychics. They’re all entirely different phenomena and I see no justification to lump them together. This kind of scattergun approach flinging countless different claims in to the mix rather than focusing on the details of any one is a common dishonest method in this field and I think you’re better than that.

However, science is an ongoing study. Some things are easier than others to figure out. Some things they are unable to find evidence. Some are just out of their scope.

Science has its limits.
No it doesn’t. Our ability to apply science has it’s limits but science itself doesn’t. Regardless of what the root causes of the phenomena we’re talking about, they can theoretically be assessed using scientific method. The only blockers could be our physical ability to observe them (be that directly or via technological means).

For example, in the past we couldn’t study the far side of the moon because we simply had no practical means to observe it. Now we have satellites, and recently a rover on the surface, we can observe it. The far side of the moon was never “beyond the limits of science” though.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Please reread my post. I was specific. One point that I made was your source raised question concerning a problem of energy concerning natural origins in science that is not reality a problem.

There is also a problem with the relationship between science and scientific discoveries, and what consists of a miracle. Contemporary science of the late 19th, 20th and 21st century, is always cautious, and does not attempt to say anything is impossible. All modern science only falsifies theories, hypothesis, and theorems, and does not prove miracles are not possible. Nonetheless when a natural explanation is falsified it is no longer considered a miracle. Actually the cautious approach of Charles Darwin, and his delays to publish, seeking peer review of his works was a model for scientific methods.

Even Newton made no effort to determine a scientific basis for the impossible.

Why did you cite the source?
I read your post. You said...
One problem with the above that is a vague attempt for an 'argument of ignorance' concerning the biological science is that the source of energy for abiogenesis and evolution is the sun and the internal heat of the earth, Yes, science can say the source of energy is 'known.'

I think I realized what happened, and I am the one to blame for the confusion.
Apparently you read information I did not post, nor intend.
I was only interested in the quote by Professor John R. Brobeck, which I posted. His quote was included in the article to make a point for the article, not the thread.
It was just a quote, and I decided to just place the link to where I took it from.
In hindsight, that was my mistake, since the source of the quote was in the article - Time, July 4, 1955. So I apologize for that. I probably won't be able to edit the post now, so it will have to stay.

Since 1955 that reasonable comment was made.
Are you arguing that it's not reasonable then?

That was my point.
Some still say they know what's impossible despite the fact that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are not known.
Are you arguing that that is not true then?
Is that the reason you brought in energy of the sun?

Okay. So you need to let me know... What is your argument? Is the comment made by Professor Brobeck wrong? Are you arguing that all forms of energy known?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You’re not talking to those idiots, you’re talking to me so let’s keep the language honest and conventional.
What? Ouch. :frowning: It's a good thing I didn't give you a list, or maybe I should have, then I don't think you would be so... :nomouth:
Personally, I think there is no harm to adapting to a culture, as long as you understood the person's language, and there is no harm to it. Man, you're cold.

No, because your attack was against all “naturalists”, not the tiny subset of people you’ve ever discussed your views with. You’re also biased in saying they all talk rubbish – they probably say the same about you and either (or both) of you could be right. Again, this discussion is between you and me so the only relevant statements are yours and mine.
Please back up your claims with evidence. Where did I say "all".

Sure, but you made an assertion and presented a single line of (loosely interpreted) scripture to support it. That is not a valid logical argument since there is absolutely no reason to assume scripture (especially a specific interpretation) is accurate. It has no place in this discussion.
That's your opinion. Opinion acknowledged.

I’m taking shots at the things you’re saying that I believe are mistaken or flawed. It is in no way personal though. :cool:

Well feelings as an abstract effect are obviously difficult to measure but as a general principle that’s a perfectly reasonable proposal. I even suspect that prayer can indeed have those positive effects on some people, though people report various forms of mediation, thoughtfulness or relaxed pastimes can achieve the same kind of things so there’d be further work needed if we wanted to understand the direct physical and/or psychological causes.
The thing is, no matter what measure they use, the results will be based on their interpretations, which may be biased, and guided by skepticism. It's an open door that cannot be conclusively closed, just like the supernatural concept.

It is clear that there is absolutely no reason to raise any kind of “supernatural” or “spiritual” factors on the basis of this information alone. I’ve absolutely no issue with talking about prayer making people feel better in themselves, I would object to unsupported conclusions from this such as asserting this proves (their) God exists and must be directly influencing the effects.

And I entirely accept that but the reason faith is needed is because religious beliefs can’t be proven. Faith doesn’t make your beliefs any more viable or significant from a cold factual point of view. If anything, it adds a powerful bias to your (and, to be fair, my) opinion on them.

Doesn’t that answer your own question then? You can perform formal scientific experiments on specific claims for the effects of prayer but where people have done, the results are inconclusive. I think it’s significant that this is about specific observable effects, not the underlying causes. As above, even if it was shown that people prayer over had been medical outcomes, it wouldn’t be evidence of any specific divine or “supernatural” causes.
My point - you can't prove it one way or other. It's insane, imo. People playing wise beyond all wisdom.
The scriptures call it foolishness.
Yes the Bible has much to say on these religious debate forums.

What I think is clearly more complicated than a simple yes or no and I think the yes/no questions asked in this field are generally leading and biased. That’s why I gave a more detailed explanation.
"What do you think?" is not a yes or no question.

Your original question was about telekinesis. You’d already shifted to prayer and now you’re referencing predicative psychics. They’re all entirely different phenomena and I see no justification to lump them together. This kind of scattergun approach flinging countless different claims in to the mix rather than focusing on the details of any one is a common dishonest method in this field and I think you’re better than that.
It's a discussion, on a question that started with poltergeists. These type of questions spread to involve all that we are discussing. Feel free to duck, if any boulder seem too large. :D

No it doesn’t. Our ability to apply science has it’s limits but science itself doesn’t. Regardless of what the root causes of the phenomena we’re talking about, they can theoretically be assessed using scientific method. The only blockers could be our physical ability to observe them (be that directly or via technological means).

For example, in the past we couldn’t study the far side of the moon because we simply had no practical means to observe it. Now we have satellites, and recently a rover on the surface, we can observe it. The far side of the moon was never “beyond the limits of science” though.
It's nice that we can end agreeing on something. I should have been more specific, and said natural science.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Please back up your claims with evidence. Where did I say "all".
Your statement started "The thing about people who are naturalist...". That is referring to an alleged characteristic of anyone who is "naturalist".

That's your opinion. Opinion acknowledged.
Which part? The fact you based an assertion entirely on a particular interpretation of a single line of scripture or the fact that kind of faith based assertion has no place in a rational debate about scientific process?

The thing is, no matter what measure they use, the results will be based on their interpretations, which may be biased, and guided by skepticism. It's an open door that cannot be conclusively closed, just like the supernatural concept.
That's true to an extent though there are elements of psychological well-being that can be formally measured. The fact it makes some people feel better isn't really in dispute anyway, the question is what the root cause is. The fact meditation and other similar techniques can achieve similar benefits can give clues to that question though.

My point - you can't prove it one way or other.
That depends on exactly what the hypothesis is and whether you can perform double-blind experiments. That can be practically and morally difficult in areas like healthcare but not necessarily impossible (unless the hypothesis is deliberately written to render it difficult or impossible to prove of course).

"What do you think?" is not a yes or no question.
You asked; "Is it possible to move objects with the mind?". I'm actually answering with what I think right now.

It's a discussion, on a question that started with poltergeists. These type of questions spread to involve all that we are discussing. Feel free to duck, if any boulder seem too large. :D
It isn't one boulder, it's a pile of pebbles that you keep adding to. I think I've already said that there's no reason to lump all these different phenomena and ideas together other than to avoid the detailed difficult questions that challenge the assertions or assumptions commonly made about any one of them. We've not resolved poltergeists, we've not resolved telekinesis and now we're not resolving prayer.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Your statement started "The thing about people who are naturalist...". That is referring to an alleged characteristic of anyone who is "naturalist".
So you make another claim to back up your previous claim.
I won't bother asking you to back up that claim, since you will only make another claim.
This is not the way we establish fact, and I will assume you know better than that.
You can't interpret someone's words however you like and proclaim you are right. In fact, not that you can't, because you just did.
You are wrong.
I am glad for my training, because I have been taught it's best to verify what someone is saying, rather than conclude, you know. As people we operate differently, so I acknowledge your claims, though I don't take them seriously.

Which part? The fact you based an assertion entirely on a particular interpretation of a single line of scripture or the fact that kind of faith based assertion has no place in a rational debate about scientific process?
I'm sure you think you are right here also. I'm seeing a pattern.
In fact, I am seeing more than that, from your previous posts.

That's true to an extent though there are elements of psychological well-being that can be formally measured. The fact it makes some people feel better isn't really in dispute anyway, the question is what the root cause is. The fact meditation and other similar techniques can achieve similar benefits can give clues to that question though.

That depends on exactly what the hypothesis is and whether you can perform double-blind experiments. That can be practically and morally difficult in areas like healthcare but not necessarily impossible (unless the hypothesis is deliberately written to render it difficult or impossible to prove of course).

You asked; "Is it possible to move objects with the mind?". I'm actually answering with what I think right now.

It isn't one boulder, it's a pile of pebbles that you keep adding to. I think I've already said that there's no reason to lump all these different phenomena and ideas together other than to avoid the detailed difficult questions that challenge the assertions or assumptions commonly made about any one of them. We've not resolved poltergeists, we've not resolved telekinesis and now we're not resolving prayer.
Okay. Thank you.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
So you make another claim to back up your previous claim.
Everything we say is effectively only a claim and you're free to disagree with my understanding of the common meaning of the statement you made. I certainly don't understand why you'd refer to "naturalists" at all if you actually intended to talk about a much, much smaller and more tightly defined group though. Maybe you need to back up your claim?

I'm sure you think you are right here also. I'm seeing a pattern.
In fact, I am seeing more than that, from your previous posts.
We both think we're right. The only pattern I'm seeing is that you don't apply your rules to yourself. I have to back up my claims while you can just reference a random line of scripture and declare what truth it tells?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Everything we say is effectively only a claim and you're free to disagree with my understanding of the common meaning of the statement you made. I certainly don't understand why you'd refer to "naturalists" at all if you actually intended to talk about a much, much smaller and more tightly defined group though. Maybe you need to back up your claim?

We both think we're right. The only pattern I'm seeing is that you don't apply your rules to yourself. I have to back up my claims while you can just reference a random line of scripture and declare what truth it tells?
The thing is, you asked for neither. You assumed based on how you interpreted everything said... obviously from your way of thinking.
Are you asking?

First, I made no claim about what I meant, by what I said. I used an expression, which you wrongly concluded was what you thought the expression must mean.
There is no need for me to back up anything. What would you like me to do.... Would you like me to take out my brain so you can scan my mind, to determine what I meant.
If I asked you what you meant, and you told me, unless I can prove otherwise, I don't see a reason to argue with you.
I will admit when I am wrong, because for me, admitting I made a mistake, or misunderstood, is no big deal for me.
Pride is not my middle name. I associate with people, where pride doesn't thrive. Humility is a must, otherwise you'll "eat the dust".

Secondly, the scriptural text I referenced was straightforward.
I did not even interpret anything, but you claimed I interpreted a scripture. I wonder if you know what scripture I interpreted, and how I interpreted it.
I'm not going to even attempt asking you for that... or, maybe I will.
If you felt I misused a scripture, then you might want to express the correct application, rather than claiming that I made an interpretation.
How do I even know that you know what you are saying, or why you said it?
What scripture did I use, and how did I interpret it?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
***** Moderator Note *****

Thread moved to from Religious Q & A to Paranormal activity

*******************************
 
Top