exchemist
Veteran Member
Members of a class of unreproducible alleged phenomena, which seem unlikely to be physical and more likely psychological in origin.What do you think poltergeists are?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Members of a class of unreproducible alleged phenomena, which seem unlikely to be physical and more likely psychological in origin.What do you think poltergeists are?
To each his own though. Everyone has a right to their own opinion.
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.
I agree.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.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.'
Mischievous ghosts according to lore, myth, and legend.What do you think poltergeists are?
An urban legend.What do you think poltergeists are?
"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.There are a lot of thing science don't know or understand, and never will, imo.
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.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.
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.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.
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 know there are things that will never be accepted by the physical man (by that I don't mean mortal - see link).
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.We can look at results, but is prayer something someone can run an experiment on?
Is it? Is there a God? Does he have anything to do with prayer? We don't know.Isn't prayer something personal - between the individual and God?
Has anyone proposed such an experiment or are you creating a straw-man there?Can someone sit in a room and pray for something, in order that researchers can determine that prayer works?
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").If you are interested, this link gives some ideas of how persons feel Telekinesis is possible from a scientific point of view.
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.
Demonic activity.What do you think poltergeists are?
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."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.
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?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.
We agree here at least.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.
There are things we know without any religious literature.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.
Okay, here is an example.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.
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.Is it? Is there a God? Does he have anything to do with prayer? We don't know.
Yes, and no.Has anyone proposed such an experiment or are you creating a straw-man there?
The question I asked was [what] do you think?, and it was an open question to all. That's all.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").
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?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?
You’re not talking to those idiots, you’re talking to me so let’s keep the language honest and conventional.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.
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.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?
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.There are things we know without any religious literature.
I’m taking shots at the things you’re saying that I believe are mistaken or flawed. It is in no way personal though.Hmmm. Are you sure you are not taking shots at me?
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.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.
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.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.
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.Yes it has been done.
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.The question I asked was [what] do you think?, and it was an open question to all. That's all.
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.People are investigating events which evidence seem to suggest are real, even though currently investigator can only speculate on the cause.
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).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.
I read your post. You said...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?
What? Ouch. 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...You’re not talking to those idiots, you’re talking to me so let’s keep the language honest and conventional.
Please back up your claims with evidence. Where did I say "all".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.
That's your opinion. Opinion acknowledged.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.
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.I’m taking shots at the things you’re saying that I believe are mistaken or flawed. It is in no way personal though.
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.
My point - you can't prove it one way or other. It's insane, imo. People playing wise beyond all wisdom.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.
"What do you think?" is not a yes or no question.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.
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.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 nice that we can end agreeing on something. I should have been more specific, and said natural science.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.
Your statement started "The thing about people who are naturalist...". That is referring to an alleged characteristic of anyone who is "naturalist".Please back up your claims with evidence. Where did I say "all".
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?That's your opinion. Opinion acknowledged.
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.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 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).My point - you can't prove it one way or other.
You asked; "Is it possible to move objects with the mind?". I'm actually answering with what I think right now."What do you think?" is not a yes or no question.
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.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.
So you make another claim to back up your previous claim.Your statement started "The thing about people who are naturalist...". That is referring to an alleged characteristic of anyone who is "naturalist".
I'm sure you think you are right here also. I'm seeing a pattern.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?
Okay. Thank you.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.
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?So you make another claim to back up your previous 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?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.
The thing is, you asked for neither. You assumed based on how you interpreted everything said... obviously from your way of thinking.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?