• 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!

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
  1. If there is a Source of all creation, that is itself not created, and it has defined what it is about and what it is not about then logically anything that contradicts the Source's definitions is false.
I'm afraid that most of your points after point 1 assumes that this Source actually IS a sentient being and not just some mindless natural phenomena. For instance, only a sentient being can 'dictate a correct mindset or development.' And only a sentient being can 'intend' to have information kept or passed on.

I agree with you but again consider that IF #1 is proven to be true then it would stand to reason that there is level of sentience to the source of creation BECAUSE “it [the source of creation] has defined what it is about and what it is not about.” If the source of creation has at least the ability to define itself, and has actually in reality done so at some point in history, then it would stand to reason that it has some level of sentience; whatever that may mean. Again, this is only if. I.e. I am not putting constraints on the conclusion of step #1. The other steps rely on coming to a conclusion about step #1. The same is true for any experiment. The rest of the process relies on the first step.

The next challenge for a human would be, “how does sentience on the level of something that can create universes and realities communicate?” Thus, the points of 2 and on rely on one trying to determine the reality of step #1 in the postive or the negative.

YET, if is proven that the source of creation has not defined itself and what it is about and IF it is found that either the source cannot or will not define itself or even that humans will never have the capacity to understand the definition, no matter what they do, the other points are void of reason to investigate if this is a known fact. A person may do it just for the thrill of it but other than there is no pressure to do so.

For example, let's say that planets have the ability to communicate and they do so using gravity, surface events such as weather, volcanos, earthquakes, etc. A human being see all of these things and never come to the conclusion that the actual planet is communicating. Further, the humans who do conclude this is the case may never fully understand the intent of the communication. It could even be that the planet is not communicating with the life that resides on it. Maybe, these are events meant to only comminicate with other planets. It could also be that planets are simply not communicating and are simply mindless rocks with and without stuff on them. How someone manages themselves in the system they find themselves may differ based on what they find about what the reality is about the above presented example.
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Thus, a person could also put all religion aside and simply focus on what makes logical sense about the origin of the universe/reality based on their studies of how the world around them works.
A quote that I recently heard, attributed to the statistician George Box:
  • "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
    • From All models are wrong - Wikipedia
    • In Box's 1976 paper published in the Journal of the American Statistical Association, Box wrote:
      • 2.3 Parsimony
        Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.
        2.4 Worrying Selectively

        Since all models are wrong the scientist must be alert to what is importantly wrong. It is inappropriate to be concerned about mice when there are tigers abroad.
HOYLE’S LAW -A story
  • “By the time you understand the rules of a complex game, you will no longer be able to explain those rules to anyone who does not already understand the game.”

    Hoyle’s Law (apocryphal attribution)

    “What Hoyle’s Law says to a game theorist working in simulation
    is that a discussion of a complex system or situation—a ‘game’ in the parlance—
    requires a shared vocabulary of terms,
    a mutual comprehension of goals not clear from the outside,
    a concept of the limits on action set by assumed and thus normally unstated rules,
    and an understanding of the system’s environment.

    Only after a person absorbs all that data will an explanation of the game itself be comprehensible
    —but the background data is so complex,
    and contains so much contextual and implied information about the game,
    that by the time one absorbs it, the explanation is no longer needed.
 

izzy88

Active Member
Does your method of determining truth produce results that are either identical or at least consistent with the results produced by scientific methods of determining truth?
The scientific method doesn't determine truth, it determines facts.

Facts are subjective, in that all of the facts we discover are only applicable to our own unique and limited perspective.

Truth, in contrast, is completely objective; what's true is true from any angle, any perspective.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The scientific method doesn't determine truth, it determines facts.

Facts are subjective, in that all of the facts we discover are only applicable to our own unique and limited perspective.

Truth, in contrast, is completely objective; what's true is true from any angle, any perspective.

Excellent! I, too, believe salting broccoli is an excellent preparation for back-peddling chicken nuggets.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
The scientific method doesn't determine truth, it determines facts.

Facts are subjective, in that all of the facts we discover are only applicable to our own unique and limited perspective.

Truth, in contrast, is completely objective; what's true is true from any angle, any perspective.

So truth is the universe itself and we are limited in our ability to understand it so we come up with an approximation of the truth through the process of science. Seems reasonable.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If you ask a human scientist, are you living in the state out of space to claim laws relative to life living on Planet Earth?

The real answer is no.

If you ask a human, what is science as a human owned expression for human life and history lived human life?

Theories about laws, formulas about those laws, machines built and designed, owned and operated by human being, males originally as a brotherhood agreement...inventor of all statements and laws by a human psyche whilst living inside of a gas mass atmosphere.

So first a human in science has to apply natural living laws about self, before he goes about talking laws relative to his machine theories if he wants to live and survive in human life on Earth.

Then when you apply laws and formulas for your machine theories and reactions, you then realize that the laws you have been speaking about...forcing nothing, causing a place called space in mass not owning space....is all the laws you imposed and applied in relativity for science against mass existence.

If you want to own a natural life as a human living on Earth inside of a gas mass naturally owned law atmospheric body.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Here is another way of looking at it. Two religious people are argueing about the nature of what they call "god" and the authenticity of their "religions." Both of them agree that they beleive in a god and both of them claim to be a part of a religion.

A person who does not claim to beleive in a god and does not self-define/or subscribe to the concepts that both sides claim to be "religious" in nature stumbles on the debate. The obvious first questions could be, "What is a god and what is a religion? Who says that your concepts of a "god" and "religion" are even based on reality? Also, who is to say that whatever created/or caused everything to exist would even agree with your terms and definitions?"
Ehav4Ever,
Are you interested in discussing [NOT debating], or willing to discuss [NOT debate], or just letting me run some babbled thoughts by you ... in a One-on-One public OR private conversation?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever,
Are you interested in discussing [NOT debating], or willing to discuss [NOT debate], or just letting me run some babbled thoughts by you ... in a One-on-One public OR private conversation?

Sure, not a problem. How would you prefer to do it? If you like you can even message me and it is possible do it by Skype. (Sometimes typing answers can be a challenge;)
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Sure, not a problem. How would you prefer to do it? If you like you can even message me and it is possible do it by Skype. (Sometimes typing answers can be a challenge;)
Given the topic and the "casual, exploratory" thoughts I have, and my disinterest in performing on a public stage, I'd prefer a private Conversation exchange. I don't rule out Skype, but I'm pretty sure that I'd come across like a babbling old fool, plus my wife tells me I tend to mumble and ramble. Writing encourages me to focus a little more on what I want to get across and discourages more rambling than I have stamina and attention span for.
Because there's no urgency on my part, a written Conversation can be more leisurely. Write when a flash of brilliance hits me, doze off when my head hits the keyboard, respond quickly and delete quickly, and mull over things that merit mulling over. No rush. And if I should happen to fall off my horse and never get on again, ... so it goes. I'll get answers to questions in the world to come.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Given the topic and the "casual, exploratory" thoughts I have, and my disinterest in performing on a public stage, I'd prefer a private Conversation exchange. I don't rule out Skype, but I'm pretty sure that I'd come across like a babbling old fool, plus my wife tells me I tend to mumble and ramble. Writing encourages me to focus a little more on what I want to get across and discourages more rambling than I have stamina and attention span for.
Because there's no urgency on my part, a written Conversation can be more leisurely. Write when a flash of brilliance hits me, doze off when my head hits the keyboard, respond quickly and delete quickly, and mull over things that merit mulling over. No rush. And if I should happen to fall off my horse and never get on again, ... so it goes. I'll get answers to questions in the world to come.

Don't worry mumbling and such is not a problem for me. If you like you can write it out, send it to me and then we can schedule a time to talk over skype or another medium. Let me know.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I posted this in a different thread and I think it may have merit to be analyzed on its own. One of the discussion that is common on most "religious" discussions is the issue of comparison of beleifs and claims. In this thread I will provide some of the various concepts and ideas I have either written or put into video form.

To start, it would seem logical that humanity, in some form, should be geared to the determine the truth of the reality/or lack there of we find ourselves in. Taking the word "religion" out of the picture, consider the following:
  1. If there is a Source of all creation, that is itself not created, and it has defined what it is about and what it is not about then logically anything that contradicts the Source's definitions is false.
  2. If said Source of creation has dictacted the correct mindset and development for its creations then it is logical that anything that contradicts it would be not only false but useless.
  3. If said Source of creation has in the past revealed the correct method of thinking and actions that helps one operates in the reality that was created then it would stand to reason that anything that contradicts it would have no real short term or long term benefit for any intellegent/sentiant creation.
  4. Based on #3 it would also stand to reason that anything given by said Source of creation would be more beneficial and more based on reality than something created by a thing that is itself created; i.e. a resultant of creation is not compariable in its logic when compared to the logic of the Source.
  5. If said Source of creation intended to have the above information be kept and passed on throughout the generations among some of its creations then it would stand to reason that the delivery method would have to be in a way where the information would be kept, preserved, and available in a way where false concepts or fabrications could be easily indentified and avoided.
It would stand to reason that the only reasonable question is, "did this situation, information, mindset, philosophy, way of life, etc. actually come from the Source of creation and is it correct, based on the requirements of the Source, in relation to the Source of creation provided for operating in the reality it created."
and we should consider Moses as w proceed with this thread?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Does your method of determining truth produce results that are either identical or at least consistent with the results produced by scientific methods of determining truth?

Science often uses empirical and statistical methods. The former will simply correlate the data, the latter will have a margin of error. As such, neither are can be used to define the truth.

In empirical methods we draw the best curve through the data points. This can be useful but often many if not most of the data points don't even touch the curve. The curve is therefore not truth.

Statistical methods also deal and half truths; probability, since probability of 1.0 is considered asymptotic. Therefore we cannot trust these methods of science to tell us the truth. Scientific polling had Hillary Clinton the winner of 2016. While many medicines and pesticides that once met the criteria of science, are removed later, when the half truth that supported its initial release turned out to be less than half. One may need to be a scientist to understand the truth limits of science. One will need a better set of criteria if truth is the goal.

Science is not self sufficient when it comes to resources. It is beholden to Government, Business and private donors to provide its funding. These money givers have their own agendas and can impact science by betting on pet horses so they can generate the most favorable data. The result is a lot of science is mercenary. If you are a scientist working for a tobacco company, in a well paying job with lots of career advancement, your job is to perpetuate tobacco using science

As another example, the corona virus has been a windfall for science. However, big bucks in science comes with a cost, which in this case is connected to political and economic pressures and goals. There is no money or fame to be made with hydroxy chloroquine. This drug has been studied and applied for 60 years for malaria and lupus. It is harmless and very cheap to make and buy. It lasted over 50 years and continues to age used with minimal side affects.

A corona virus application for hydroxyl chloroquine would be counter productive to the needs of the news sets of donors in big government and big business. So they spend two week, looking at something that was studied for 60 years and found to be safe for human consumption, and then deem it unfit and dangerous. That is mind boggling since it had no previous bad history over its past 60 years with millions of data points.

Science can really work fast if they want to get rid of something that is already approved to be safe for 50 years. Did they also plot the millions of safe data points since the 1950's with three week study? Or was that left out? On the other hand, the very expensive alternatives, that have no proof, are left in science utopia without any negativity, These new things benefit the new donors in government and business. The foot dragging for the long shots also benefit the bureaucracy, while the projected $1000 per dose price tag ( versus $25 for hydroxy chlorine) helps big business. The mercenaries of science do what they are told, using methods that cannot deal with the truth; statistics and empirical.

Dr Fauci is a head bureaucrat in government. He is a scientist who is also a top level manager and bureaucrat, who is use to dealing with 5-10 year government funding plans. This time scale has to be justified each finding cycle. This is how government budgets money to science. His entire approach is to project 5 years of corona virus, to help make funding available. He needs to tell the politicians in Congress, who are not scientists, what they need to hear; procedure, so they will come up with the money. Hydroxy chloroquine could mess up those long term plans, since it can be applied too quickly It got the warp speed pseudo science and fake news kiss of death. Don't think truth can be found in science, when science is a passenger and politicians and businessmen drive the bus.
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Science often uses empirical and statistical methods. The former will simply correlate the data, the latter will have a margin of error. As such, neither are can be used to define the truth.

In empirical methods we draw the best curve through the data points. This can be useful but often many if not most of the data points don't even touch the curve. The curve is therefore not truth.

Statistical methods also deal and half truths; probability, since probability of 1.0 is considered asymptotic. Therefore we cannot trust these methods of science to tell us the truth. Scientific polling had Hillary Clinton the winner of 2016. While many medicines and pesticides that once met the criteria of science, are removed later, when the half truth that supported its initial release turned out to be less than half. One may need to be a scientist to understand the truth limits of science. One will need a better set of criteria if truth is the goal.

Please answer my question. Does your method of determining truth produce results that are either identical or at least consistent with the results produced by scientific methods of determining truth?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The answer is yes, since empirical and statistical methods of science have fudge factors, which would help any approach you use, if the goal was only parity with science.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I wonder if humans realize that science was a human invention, and hence what they study as human idealism is subjective to how they quote they will apply the subject to their study as based on their scientific observations.

With a lot of machines that they design based on the bio conscious concept of designing those machines to apply the said studies.

So wouldn't the machines actually produce an ability to format an identifiable human applied condition of the subject, as applied to the human owning the studies.

Then in causal circumstances....if you name a condition such as ground fission and it is natural, yet you come to understand how to copy it, then isn't science also just a concept of a human ability to say "copy", yet the natural body has to exist first created.

If the natural body in any form did not exist in any form then where is your science in reality? To say to design when no design existed?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The philosophy of science has limitations, built into itself, by design. Science limits itself to things that can collectively reproduced and verified. However, there are also data and phenomena that exist that cannot be approached this way. Science cannot properly address this data using its own philosophy.

For example, if I had a dream and I conveyed the details to an audience of scientists, there is no way to verify what I say is true, using the philosophy of science. We have all had dreams to know that dreams exist. We can also prove that someone is dreaming, by their brain waves and REM; rapid eye movements. But my particular dream, cannot be reproduced or directly verified by others, using brain waves or REM. The details of my dream could be real, reasonable, and even truthfully related to the audience. But these details still cannot be verified by science, using its own philosophy, which requires reproduction and verification by others from the outside. Claiming my dream did not happen, since everyone can't see it, is not truthful. It is only a conclusion based on the limitations of a philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, I am a scientist. From my own experience, I understand that limits that have been placed on science, by its own philosophy. There are places where science is not yet designed to go. To go there the philosophy would need to be modified and updated.

As a loose example of how the philosophy of science was created; say a group of people went to the woods at night to observe nature. Some within the group are nervous of the woods and the night. They hear what they think is a wild animal rustling in the bushes. The philosophy of science would limit our group to accepting only that data which everyone agrees upon, through our collective sensory systems. Since everyone did not hear the sound and everyone did not sense a wild animal, these data would not be considered verifiable or reproducible. Science will only accept that which we all can agree, such as the campfire is not starting easily. The goal was to narrow us down to collective sensory reality.

Like the dream, the audio data of the sound in the bushes could be real. The sensing of a wild annal could also be real, in the sense of being generated by the brain, using the imagination. However, this consciousness data is not reproducible by all. This line in the sand was consciously placed on science by its own philosophy. Science will try to get rid of subjective data, but in doing so, will get rid of unique brain connected data that may be real in and of itself. This is why consciousness will be the last frontier of science, as the line on the sand is moved outward. God appears to fit in that transition zone were science consciously stops itself, since such unique data events are not easy to reproduce by others.

Psychology deals with the things of the mind. It is considered soft science, since much of what it has to deal with are often unique and semi-unique data that may not be verifiable. Psychology may also require some faith that the test subject is being honest. Faith and experience helps one to verify the unique nature of the data generated by the patient. But since this data is outside the box of the philosophy of science, it is considered soft data, at best. Many scientists would prefer psychiatry over psychology, since psychiatry will input chemicals into a person, in a reproducible way, to induce similar data. The data may still be unique, but there is a sense of verifiable control. This allows some to stick their head outside the box, via an experimental chemical window.

The other way to approach this data is to go outside the box, by going inside your own mind, where mcc of the data is generated. In this case, the scientist would need to become both the experiment and the observer. As an example, if you have ever had a toothache, the extreme pain is part of the full data experience. This full experience is not easy to experience from the outside looking in. Watching someone wth the toothache falls short of the full data experience.

To become the scientist and experiment, in the above example, you would need to induce a toothache so you are on the inside observing the full data set. The pain will making it harder to stay in focus, in terms of the data observation and collection, since your mind shifts between being absorbed by the pain of the experiment, and being objective to the pain, as an observer. Surgeons are not allowed to operate on themselves since it is not easy to maintain the roles of observer and experiment, as two connected and distinct compartments that are independent of each other. Data such as religious experience, ofter submerge the person into the experiment and data. Observation is down through hindsight and memory. The last frontier will take unique skills; dual core processing.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Self for determining the truth.

Self, first and origin to self, suddenly manifest. A human as a human being a human.

A human aware looks around in its surroundings, knowing that anything it looks at pre existed their own form. Knowingly knew that no other body was theirs to own...and self was the only place self was owned. As a human, as a bio life and as ONE presence.

Yet realized that many other one presence of that human meant unity of the one presence....origin to self, totally natural living and existing naturally in their highest human ONE form. The teaching of ONE.

Science, an artificial machine replacement....not only took the minerals that water had allowed by sealing off from the sun radiation converting attack that had destroyed many other multi God bodies O once manifested in the cosmos....and said, I will convert the physical nature of everything artificially.

And heated up the water sealed mineral bodies and named it alchemy...to build an artificial body based on VISIONS....what he dreamed about, by communications that already naturally by history existed.

Which he did not own. So when he built his machines he introduced his own person into those visions/dreams...and then began to dream his life as well as live his life.

And he knew that reasoning true, for in his dreams were inanimate objects whose bodies own no condition whatsoever of his bio form....and in fact if he wanted to be an inanimate object by his desire to pretend he can create....then he termed that scientific statement to be ANTI of the heavenly presence.

That he named in science to be CH gas spirit evaluations that had arose out of the physical mass of stone he said was GOD O and defined GOD to be circular presence.

Why science cannot claim God O to be any other presence, for science says the circle exists.

So he used the CIRCLE to ANTI self by wanting to be the machine...claiming as he still does today that using machines will go to places where he personally cannot go...such as the mineral to own his machine was virtually visiting a molten volcanic mass...and his life is not there.

If he cared to use reasonable everyday natural and true to ONE self conscious presence before he tries to destroy us all as Stephen Hawking a holy sacrificed science brother knew...by self identification of having a lot of his conscious self expressions interacting with a physical machine.

When a psyche, such as what I endured, mind contact/mind coercion satellite and computer machine signalling studies of life in the MK ULTRA program stating the scientist will one day know everything....hopefully with the luck of spirit, the definition you espouse of I know it all, will come your way brother....and you will learn like I was forced to learn.

You know in the crown of thorn reasoning, to steal from the body of God by the machine and claim that you will survive...when Jesus said no you will not. How to learn in the dream/mind state that you are not of God or an inanimate object. Vision being of one origin....one way and just seen by purpose of forced communications.

We then began to dream for science, by machine conditions, for we were in fact introduced into the dream of science Mr know it all, the liar.
 
Top