Looking for friends

[i blame blame]

Did you get what I said about what the devil is up to? Why would guys like Faust sell their souls to the devil, if something "useful" (to a foolish purpose) weren't reliably offered as a reward? "Give the devil his due." goes the proverb. The confusion is limited to purpose and priority. Treasure on earth, not heaven. Success on worldly objectives, to the total neglect of what God thinks or feels about it. Can you get a lover to more horribly betray the beloved, then by getting them to ignore the feelings of the beloved? Can you break God's heart any more terribly, then by getting "His" scientists to work on nontheistic "technology" instead of His plan to solve problems?

Most have never agreed to be god's lovers, nor was god ever noticeably around, except to those who don't want evidence of his existence but believe he exists, because they have been taught to by their parents or gurus, who in turn have been taught by their parents etc.. Why shouldn't he expect his heart to be broken? Why does this god not want the intelligent beings he created understand things about the universe they're a part of and that this god also created?

Of course, I am, with all the faith that, so I suspect I hear, has been granted to me. But you and everyone else has a similar "vocation," and most of the strife and starvation in the world is due to the failure of most people (and me, for much of my life) to "pray" (His meaning, not the Christian lie) as we were supposed to. So, I get local answers, here and there. The only way I can get the power to pray effectively for the problems that were originally assigned to you, for example, is for God to forsake you utterly, and give me your assignment. So far, both I and the starving children you care about hope you'll "get it" in time.

How do you know that that's what the starving children hope I "get it"? Please show how prayer is more effective than sending them food, or materials to plant their own food, or, if their land has been rendered infertile by corporate monoculture from rich cuntries, teach them how to engage in non-agricultural economic activity and send them materials to do so.

"Pray without ceasing" is a command everyone refers to when we consider the observation that we all are in sin. Haven't gotten even close. No. all of my answered experimental prayers were limited enough in time that there was a meaningful coincidence to amaze me.

All of the events you've listed so far would have been likely to happen without prayer. Have you ever heard of any miraculous curse, that should've been totally impossible, like the re-growing of a severed limb?

Like Einstein saw no evidence for relativity and forgot the theory. Or, oh yes, he saw an atomic bomb blast, and said, "Now I see it! E=MC**2!" C'mon blame, you know how it works!

On the contrary. Einstein saw the results of experiments that didn't make sense in the classical Newtonian world with the ether as absolute frame of reference. From this evidence he came up with first the special theory of relativity which explained the strange experimental results, and then general relativity, which resulted from the equivalence of acceleration of gravity. Some predictions of the latter theory were then confirmed by the gravitational lensing effect of the sun that you later mention.

You imagine something as weird as, "Oh my God, Newton was wrong!" and predict where stars will be in an eclipse. That Condors will fly at Palisades National Park. and then you see it, and believe. Darwin broke the rules for scientific theory, by invoking an assumption that was new to science, and unprovable, while neglecting what he and others were seeing all the time. If he (and modern evolutionists) were honest scientists, they would predict and look for evidence that God artificially selected the existing species to create them.

Many old-earth creationists do look for this evidence, and have so far found none.

But they hate God, and science, and you, and want only to be left alone with their head in the sand.(Not that creationists are any improvement. Talk about a narrow gate! Don't agree with me, if you are hoping for more than one friend!)

There are many serious theistic "evolutionists" who love god, and many others who don't believe in god, but don't hate him, since they don't believe he exists.

You've seen all the evidence? Your examination of evidence has been so thorough that you can claim, against all philosophical counsel, that there is none that reflects God intervention, in existence, in the whole world and all of history? I bow before you!

There are probably still many undiscovered species. But among the species known so far, there is no evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I don't work for the devil, so I analyze adaptation, time patterns, and the "selection" process as distinct problems. Yep, adaptation is a useful concept for understanding why organisms are shaped the way there are. yep, there's been a while since the "beginning." But natural selection? How would you ever know? The mathematicians have told us that it is impossible to know. The null hypothesis is never actually proven. Can't actually be true. But people can choose stupidity.

Natural selection is actually a pretty simple process that has been observed time and time again: As organisms multiply, some errors occur in the DNA copying process. Those organisms whose mutations is disadvantageous for them in their environment tend to leave fewer offspring than those whose mutations are advantageous.

Free will is out there.

No it ain't.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Free_will

Incompatibilists Who Don't Believe In Free Will

The incompatibilist who rejects free will argues something as follows:

Let us neglect quantum effects for the moment, and take the universe to be deterministic. Suppose that I am then offered a choice, such as whether to eat asparagus. Then, the universe being deterministic, I am as fated to say "yes" (or, as it might be, "no") as certainly as a stone is destined to fall when I drop it: it is simply a result of the state of the universe (which includes my brain) and the laws of nature at the point when I am asked if I want asparagus, or at which the stone is dropped.
I may, to be sure, have the illusion of making a choice; and perhaps the stone believes that it's passionately in love with the ground and wants to be near it. The fact is that I have never made a choice any more than the stone chooses its trajectory.
[edit] Incompatibilists Who Believe In Free Will

Alternatively, we might accept the validity of the chain of reasoning in the argument above, take free will to exist, and so conclude that one or more of the premises of the argument is false. For example, we might reason as follows:

Determinism is incompatible with free will.
I know darn well I have free will.
Therefore, the Universe is not deterministic.
[edit] Randomness As Free Will

The syllogism given above may seem to have a lot going for it, not least the fact that the randomness apparently implicit in Quantum Mechanics has given scientific credence to the idea that the universe is not entirely deterministic. Whether such non-determinism could affect the workings of your brain is, so far as we know, an open question.

This sort of argument accounting for free will has a long pedigree: amongst the ancient Greek philosophers, the Epicureans supposed that the material universe was not entirely deterministic, but that it had, almost literally "wiggle room", which could account for free will.

It is not clear that this resolves the problem. The man who doubts free will might reply to such arguments as follows:

Now you attempt to console me with talk of quantum mechanics, and tell me that the universe is not deterministic after all. This is no use to me, for what is not deterministic is random. Do you suppose it is "free will" that a photon might dance this way or that way in my brain? Not at all! That is simply having my destiny determined by something which, being random, is out of my control. So, let the laws of nature be deterministic or random, you have not explained how free will is possible.
[edit] An Immaterial Soul As A Source Of Free Will

One response to incompatibilist arguments is to postulate an invisible intangible thing, sometimes called the "soul" but for which we will prefer the more neutral term "mind", and which has the faculty of free will.

This does not, in fact, solve the problem. The question of free will has traditionally been posed in terms of a material universe with a material brain doing your thinking; but this is not intrinsic to the problem.

If the materialist faces the problem that the future state of his brain is determined by the present state of his brain, the sense data received by his brain, and possibly some random factors not determined by the state of his brain --- then the immaterialist faces exactly the same problem, only substituting the word "mind" for the word "brain" throughout. The invisible, intangible world, just like the material one, is either deterministic in its responses to stimuli, or partly random. Either a particular set of stimuli perceived by the same frame of mind will always have the same set of results, or there is a spread of different possible results determined by something other than the frame of mind you're in.

The misconception that the immaterialist has an easier time than the materialist in accounting for free will is sometimes used as an argument in favor of immaterialism. It is, as we have shown, a mistake, and a common one: that of supposing that a difficult question can be solved by postulating the existence of an invisible man having the property of solving the problem.

[edit] Compatibilists Who Believe In Free Will

The argument may be presented as follows:

When Incompatabilists say that they have no free will, what they mean, in part, is that the state of their brain, or their mind, determines their choices. But this determination is exactly what I mean by the phrase "free will".
When someone demands that in order for his will to be free, it must be free of his brain, his mind, or whatever he imagines instantiates his will, what he is asking is that his will should be so free that it's free of his will. He is chasing after a chimera.

Hitler seemed very confused. Maybe he was a creationist at 8, 10, and 12 every day, and an evolutionist whenever he had to make decisions about eliminating Jews. I have no hope that he was ever consistent.

What evidence do you have that he used "evolutionist" principles when he had to make decisions about eliminating jews?

You think the devil is stupid?

No, I don't think he exists.

He is smarter than you. and well able to combine truth and deception. Have you never seen something "work" until it cornered and destroyed you?

No. I never claimed all technology is always used for good. In fact, most technologies can be used for ethical as well as unethical purposes.

Read Tolkien.

No thanks. I tried getting into Lord of the Rings but found it exceedingly boring after a few dozen pages or so.

And think about what technology has done to make human life richer. Not less miserable. Richer. "It's only the good times you remember."

What do you mean by "richer"?

theomatics. Look it up.

Done: http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/theomatics.html

On the page http://www.theomatics.com/theomatics/proof.html, the theomatics author anticipates that some skeptical heathens will be critical of his work, so he "puts them to bed" immediately. He says, "The phenomenon only works in the Bible and nowhere else. No other work of literature ever written, never has, and probably never will, be able to consistently demonstrate anything like theomatics."

Balderdash. I just did it, didn't I? It didn't take that long, either. People who don't know how to write their own programs are just easily impressed by a fancy argument backed up by a program.

It bears mentioning that the Dave Rhodes letter is approximately two pages of text. Yet I effortlessly found more than half a dozen phrases using each of the important numbers. Now suppose you apply the same technique to the Bible, which is about 1000 printed pages. Do you think you'll find a lot of meaningful phrases? You betcha. Is it a miracle? Actually, it would be a miracle if you didn't find anything at all, especially when you get to fudge the numbers (such as 888 really means 111).

Finally, I would like to make note of another very important statement on this last page: "It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics."

This is a straight declaration that theomatics is not falsifiable, which by definition means it is not a science. Not only that, but it has no predictive power. You arbitrarily pick which numbers are important to you, then you crop out phrases that look good, but there's no way to tell ahead of time exactly what phrases you'll find. Therefore, theomatics is completely useless.

Well, drinking water would eliminate the virus reproductives in the host's mouth, so that when they bit others, there would be fewer viruses to spread.

Okay, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the first host.

You seem to have agreed that more virus is worst for the new host.

No I haven't. What evidence is there for this?

And my health authorities remind me that a virus infection produces lots of destroyed cell parts, that need lots of water for excretion.

Aren't most dead cells pooped out? I guess you need some water for that too.

Remember, there are few honest men or women, according to Diogenes. Lots of liars who will tell you what you want to hear. They charge you on the 1-900- numbers, but lots of liars are free.

True, but people tend to not lie when it's not in their interest to and when the reprecussions are substantial when they're found out. What would the immunological community gain by lying about water combating the rabies virus?

[i blame blame]

The history of cultural change is not, though, promising, in the face of the sorts of problems global warming presents.

That doesn't mean it's futile to try. Moreover, fossil fuels are likely to have been used up by the end of the century.

This article does not cite any references or sources. (since it is printed above, I will delete it here)

That's not true though. The following sources are cited in the Debate:

^ Gregg WW, Conkright ME, O'Reilly JE, et al. (March 2002). "NOAA-NASA Coastal Zone Color Scanner reanalysis effort". Appl Opt 41 (9): 1615–28. doi:10.1364/AO.41.001615. PMID 11921788.
^ Basgall, Monte (2004-02-13). "Goal of ocean 'iron fertilization' said still unproved". Retrieved 2006-11-27.
^ Scientists to fight global warming with plankton ecoearth.info 2007-05-21
^ Planktos kills iron fertilization project due to environmental opposition mongabay.com 2008-02-19
^ Venture to Use Sea to Fight Warming Runs Out of Cash New York Times 2008-02-14
^ http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2009/03/2 ... nt-carbon/

This is a very good summary. I hope that the possibly feasible approach will get the research it needs. What we want is an approach that can aim at the production of increased biomass of marine organisms that build carbonate shells, in sea regions known to be experiencing warming, acidification, or reduced productivity. Either isolated from humans, or close enough that any increase in useful production might increase harvests. I would recommend including calcium and trace minerals with the iron.

Interesting proposition. I've not delved much into this subject.

My hope, and prayer, is for rock dust (Azomite? Mining by-products?) to be touted as a "grass-roots" (Ha, ha. But truly tree roots.) solution, that all can invest in in a micro level way. In this scheme, everyone with trees on their property buys a bag of rock dust for each tree, and tills it into the soil around those trees. This (we need more research to be sure!) ought to about double the carbon sequestration of that tree. Maybe each such tree, and those adopted in parks or forests, can be discreetly labelled honoring the caretaker. Sort of an adopt-a-tree program. This, I hope, would stimulate the political energy for a larger scale public effort.

The rock dust idea, researched now for 50 years, I believe is about due to become, like Semmelweis' anti-sepsis, an idea whose time has come.

When the tree loses its leaves and when it finally dies, much of its carbon is released back into the atmosphere in CO2.

But, thank you for the article. Very helpful. Where did you find it? where are the citations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ferti ... References

I have read many discussions where the debaters were clearly, to me at least, talking about different parts of the problem.

Why shouldn't they?

Please remember that, in order to properly evaluate an idea or hypothesis, I make every effort to understand it, and "believe" it for the sake of argument, as we say, or making predictions that can be tested. Since all truth is reasonable, when a claim against an idea is made, that it is unreasonable, the counter is to show that within the assumptions of the system, the "unreasonable" statement is actually consistent.

The system is, there is in our ecosystem what is found in the ecosystem of every other species we know of, other living forms that are epistemologically more sophisticated. More senses, bigger brain, more intellectual possibilities, greater vocabulary. One of these beings has an ethological interest in us, and has devised a means of communication with us. He has sent us a "book" like our other books, but in this case a guide book to this means of communication.

Are you saying that there are many species with more sophisticated brains, intellects etc. than others, there must be one with a superior intellect etc than us?

Must? No, not "must." But inductive reasoning makes it plausible.

It is plausible that more intelligent entities may exist somewhere in the universe. I know no evidence that there are superior intellects interacting with us.

Biblically based theology (read, the inquiry into the nature of beings that are more epistemologically sophisticated than us) actually supposes several layers of these "gods." Of course, as with "top predators" we suppose there is a "top god" in such hierarchies. By induction. But "must" is outside the argument.

In which Biblical passage(s) is this supposed?

The question seems based on a deceptive twisting of the meaning of the word, "prophesies." If God says that if X, then Y, and we respond by stopping X. Then, Y does not happen.

So you claim god formulated testable theories in the bible?

Read the book of Jonah in the bible.

What "prophesy" or testable hypothesis is stated in this book?

In the process of finding God, we test for the validity of certain proposed experiments, like tithing. As I have collected evidence, 100% of those who tithed as commanded have prospered, as prophesied.

This can easily be disproven. Until a few hundred years ago, most of Europe was theocratic. That is, 100% pf those who had an income, paid tithe. Yet millions died in famines, epidemics and wars.

100% of those that have sought God with all their might have had an experience that was persuasive to them that they had found Him. As prophesied.

If they seek god with all their might, they must already believe in him and thus already fallen prey to what Dawkins calls "the god delusion".

But, God had "prophesied" that nuclear wars would happen, unless we prayed effectively against them, which we tried to do. No evidence here, really. But no nuclear wars, either, which in no way could be regarded as something that wouldn't have happened anyway.

Where did he prophesize this? A nuclear war did happen: WW2. I once did something very stupid that caused an injury to my foot, but it could easily have mutilated my genitals. I didn't pray beforehand.

When the instructions heard over the "earphones" propose strange experiments, that work, the idea that we are in communication with a more sophisticated collaborator. For example, in talking with God about the Dickcissel, a bird that had been declining in population for as long as the Fish and Wildlife Service had been collecting data, about 13 years. I heard that if I forsook my tenured position as a university professor, and my hope of being internationally known for my Dickcissel research, He would save the species. My research had at this point led me to predict publically that the species was doomed. Anyway, I made the decision around 1979, and retired at the end of 1980. The Dickcissel population, by my multi-variate analysis, stopped declining that very year, The f&W say it bottomed out around 1978. We both were getting these numbers in the mid-80's, as the raw data became available.

So even though the number of Dickcissels started increasing near the end of 1979, god made you relinquish your tenure in 1979? What a dick!

Did you ever pray for the following birds not to go extinct?
Colombian Grebe
Alaotra Grebe
Atitlán Grebe
Bush Wren
Eiao Monarch
Semper's Warbler
Catanduanes Bleeding-heart
Sakarha Pygmy Kingfisher
King Island Brown Thornbill
Hiva Oa Monarch
Marinduque Blackish Cuckoo-shrike
Western Turner's Eremomela
Amik Gölü Bearded Reedling
Norfolk Island Thrush
Gonâve Western Chat-tanager
Todos Santos Rufous-crowned Sparrow
Mariana Mallard
Bar-winged Rail
New Caledonian Rail
Jamaican Pauraque
Cuban Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Kauaʻi ʻŌʻō
Ua Pou Monarch
Guam Flycatcher
White-eyed River Martin
Moorea Reed-warbler
Aldabra Brush-warbler
Olomaʻo
ʻŌʻū
Oʻahu ʻAlauahio
Italian Grey Partridge
Andalusian Hemipode
Ogasawara Japanese Woodpigeon
Rarotonga Kingfisher
Mount Lofty Spotted Quail-thrush
Guam Rufous Fantail
Jamaican Golden Swallow
Eastern Canary Islands Chiffchaff
Western Turner's Eremomela
Guam Bridled White-eye
St Lucia Forest Thrush
Maui ʻAkepa
Dusky Seaside Sparrow
Norfolk Island Boobook
Kāmaʻo
Bachman's Warbler
Nukupuʻu
Oʻahu ʻAlauahio
Moroccan Bustard
Principe Olive Ibis
Siquijor Colasisi
Norfolk Island Morepork
Sangihe Dwarf-kingfisher
Manu'a Shrikebill
Barbados Scaly-breasted Thrasher
Oʻahu ʻAkepa
New Providence Yellowthroat
Slender-billed Curlew
Imperial Woodpecker
Cozumel Thrasher
Poʻo-uli
Cape Verde Kite
Southern Star Finch

Anyway, the coincidence of events was improbable. Combined with results from the Condor prayers (remember, prayer means two-way conversation) and others, I found the "delusion" hypothesis less and less probable.

It's anecdotal evidence. For evidence to be conclusive, you need to pray for a large number of species that are critically endangered and not pray for a similarly large number. Then compare the fractions of species that recovered of the prayed-for species with the fraction of species that recovered of the non-prayed for species.

First, they are not indistinquisable.

How do you tell which person is being truthful if they both say "god told me that if x happens, he does y.", but one of them is either lying or mistaking an auditory hallucination for god?

Second, they are a threat to the devil, who would therefore go to great lengths to make counterfeits that are as indistinquisable as possible.

How do you distinguish between the two? Could god not speak with a booming voice to all people in all extant languages from all directions what he wants them to do? Could the devil counterfeit that?

Here's a study I'd like to see done. Individuals who have had what they report is an encounter with God, make great changes in their lives. Bill W. of AA fame is a well known example.

There are also people who make great changes in their lives after non-religious experiences. Even if a study were to show that reliligious people tend to be better at making changes in their lives "for the better" than non-religious people, this would say nothing about whether the deities they believe in exist. It might however show that religion may bear an evolutionary advantage.

Now, I have heard that hypnotic therapy, which readily, according to James, produces "religious" experiences indistinquisable from those reported by saints, are often used to cure smoking of drinking habits. But where are the success stories? I mean, if hypnotism were able to stop people from drinking as effectively as God coming into your room, you'd think there would be more reports.

I have neither heard of hypnotic therapy, nor "religious therapy" being effective at moderating one's drinking behavior.

People who smoke cigarettes. People who lie to their spouses about an inclination or opportunity to commit adultery. People who abuse their children. Religious people who openly practise hypocrisy.

Oh, behavior that's harmful to the body and behavior that's ethically questionable.

In this case, I had exhausted all the ways I has ever heard of to make these changes happen. But they were not changing, and didn't, untiL I did the experiment.Even blind studies. These experiments with their confirmations make the idea quite plausible to me. But you'll have to do your own studies to achieve the same confidence.

More later, if you like.[/color]

What sorts of blind studies?

More, I would pray, or not pray, for my daughters when they fell to quarreling. Then note how long it took till they made up. All this without moving from my desk or calling out to them. Many other similar such studies.

Interesting, but prone to bias. Did you flip a coin to decide whether or not to pray during each quarrel? If not, your decision may have been influenced by the perceived intensity of the quarrel. If you wanted prayer to work, you may semi-consciously chosen more trivial quarrels to pray for, while laying off the tougher ones.

[Arising_uk]

...Now, I have heard that hypnotic therapy, which readily, according to James, produces "religious" experiences indistinquisable from those reported by saints, are often used to cure smoking of drinking habits. But where are the success stories? I mean, if hypnotism were able to stop people from drinking as effectively as God coming into your room, you'd think there would be more reports.

Check NLP for such stories and youtube "Derren Brown Instant conversion" for a modern approach to belief in 'God'.

[i blame blame]

Check NLP for such stories and youtube "Derren Brown Instant conversion" for a modern approach to belief in 'God'.

Thank you for this suggestion!
Do you get how he made the guy fall at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzn9rX7r ... 1#t=1m5­0s ?

[Arising_uk]

Do you get how he made the guy fall at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzn9rX7r ... 1#t=1m5­0s ?

Unfortunately these are now blocked to me by copyright, so I can't tell you.

[groktruth]

Most have never agreed to be god's lovers, nor was god ever noticeably around, except to those who don't want evidence of his existence but believe he exists, because they have been taught to by their parents or gurus, who in turn have been taught by their parents etc.. Why shouldn't he expect his heart to be broken? Why does this god not want the intelligent beings he created understand things about the universe they're a part of and that this god also created?

We agree that "the gate is narrow, and few find it." That is, that the example of most of humanity is one of delusion. So, my approach is not spend much time with their example, but to focus on scholarly integrity in dealing with the bible. Starting with it's claim to be inspired by God, and able to "make one wise," meaning to provide a pathway that succeeds in it's objectives.

And, of couse, God does anticipate that His heart will be broken. But, there is a chance that the traitor will choose otherwise, and in His love for them, He chooses to give them the best chance He can. At great cost to Himself, but that's what love is all about.

Of course, I am, with all the faith that, so I suspect I hear, has been granted to me. But you and everyone else has a similar "vocation," and most of the strife and starvation in the world is due to the failure of most people (and me, for much of my life) to "pray" (His meaning, not the Christian lie) as we were supposed to. So, I get local answers, here and there. The only way I can get the power to pray effectively for the problems that were originally assigned to you, for example, is for God to forsake you utterly, and give me your assignment. So far, both I and the starving children you care about hope you'll "get it" in time.

How do you know that that's what the starving children hope I "get it"? Please show how prayer is more effective than sending them food, or materials to plant their own food, or, if their land has been rendered infertile by corporate monoculture from rich cuntries, teach them how to engage in non-agricultural economic activity and send them materials to do so.

I wrote this dogmatically. Sorry. My hope is to remember that I don't claim to "know" anything, but have thoughts that seem plausible to me, based on what I "believe" I am hearing in my conversations with God. A source that is supposed to require confirmation. I believe that He told me that part of the faith and blessing associated with being poor is a recognition that one's best hope for help is Him working through His plan to involve others, like yourself.

Now, in biblical wisdom, sending them food, etc without prayer is subject to corruption, and thievery. But the prayer without the help is equally ineffective.

"Pray without ceasing" is a command everyone refers to when we consider the observation that we all are in sin. Haven't gotten even close. No. all of my answered experimental prayers were limited enough in time that there was a meaningful coincidence to amaze me.

All of the events you've listed so far would have been likely to happen without prayer. Have you ever heard of any miraculous curse, that should've been totally impossible, like the re-growing of a severed limb?

I once had an encounter with a fellow whose eye had been punched out by a barbed wire fence, who had a glass eye. We were invited to do our best taping hankercheifs over his good eye, were invited to watch him take out his glass eye, which he passed around, were allowed to probe all we wanted the empty socket. Then we showed him various credit cards, library cards, ID's, which he placed before his empty socket and read without error. This ability had come to him back in the late 40's, at a tent meeting. I believe his full history is archived at ORU. Timmy sonething or other.

But I did my best not to be taken in, as a professional scientist. Greatly increased my sense that the plausibility of theological truth was quite high, if mysterious.

What was interesting, also, was that though the meeting was well advertised, only three people came to see the evidence for themselves. That's where I learned that most people have their head in the sand, and instead of using their reasoning to find the truth, use it to explain away any evidence that might be available.

Like Einstein saw no evidence for relativity and forgot the theory. Or, oh yes, he saw an atomic bomb blast, and said, "Now I see it! E=MC**2!" C'mon blame, you know how it works!

On the contrary. Einstein saw the results of experiments that didn't make sense in the classical Newtonian world with the ether as absolute frame of reference. From this evidence he came up with first the special theory of relativity which explained the strange experimental results, and then general relativity, which resulted from the equivalence of acceleration of gravity. Some predictions of the latter theory were then confirmed by the gravitational lensing effect of the sun that you later mention.
Like I said, you know how it works. See a problem. explain it with a hyopthesis. Predict something new to science from the hypothesis, test the prediction. If it is confirmed, take your hypothesis more seriously, make more predictions, test them, and so on. That's what I have done with the theological hypothesis, starting with the, to me, mysterious popularity of the bible, and Sagan's "Contact" SF hypothesis imagining living beings epistemologically more sophisticated than us.

You imagine something as weird as, "Oh my God, Newton was wrong!" and predict where stars will be in an eclipse. That Condors will fly at Palisades National Park. and then you see it, and believe. Darwin broke the rules for scientific theory, by invoking an assumption that was new to science, and unprovable, while neglecting what he and others were seeing all the time. If he (and modern evolutionists) were honest scientists, they would predict and look for evidence that God artificially selected the existing species to create them.

Many old-earth creationists do look for this evidence, and have so far found none.

Creationists are far more worthy of scorn than evolutionists. Both are dogmatic, but creationists should know better, and do far more harm in their misrepresentation of God. Evolutionists seem to me like horticulturists hoping that a particular crop is "natural" so they don't have to pay royalties, therefore discounting the written claim of the Creator that He deserves credit. But creationists try to paint a picture of a loving. all-powerful "Daddy" whose written claims must be examined without actually asking Him directly what He thinks, or what happened. Their goal is to do their own thing, pretending to serve God, but setting Him up as being unavailable to actually tell them what He truly wants. The evolutionists rob God of a little, and stumble a few souls. But the creationists cause many souls to stumble, and be lost. Or so I believe I have heard.

But they hate God, and science, and you, and want only to be left alone with their head in the sand.(Not that creationists are any improvement. Talk about a narrow gate! Don't agree with me, if you are hoping for more than one friend!)

There are many serious theistic "evolutionists" who love god, and many others who don't believe in god, but don't hate him, since they don't believe he exists.

I imagine a MIA soldier, with a hating enemy who, say, wants to marry the wife of the MIA soldier. Despite written messages from the MIA that "if you search for him with all your might, you will find him," the hater tells all that the fellow is dead, not MIA and a captive. The written message, a false hope. So, the search is discouraged, and maybe wife marries the lying enemy of her husband. That's hate.

Atheists rarely look for the evidence that God is. They look for reasons to explain away the evidence that others have found. They speak nonsense lines, such as "There is no evidence..." as if they are so well informed, but in fact they usually show no respect for the evidence that is out there (prayer studies, testimonies, NDE's, theomatics, Bible codes), respect being an effort to replicate themselves, and not believe everything they read that "discredits" the existing work. (As epistemologically invalid means of argument.)

Reflecting that the pain of betrayal is proportional to the intensity of the love, the hate crime of telling seekers that "there is no evidence" for faith in God has to be the most devastating of all.

You've seen all the evidence? Your examination of evidence has been so thorough that you can claim, against all philosophical counsel, that there is none that reflects God intervention, in existence, in the whole world and all of history? I bow before you!

There are probably still many undiscovered species. But among the species known so far, there is no evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that humans, like so many, maybe all, other species, have to deal with an epistemologically more sophisticated life form, operating in a part of the world that is beyond their senses. (Does any other species sense radio waves?) It would be extraordinary if we were the top of this hierarchy. And, we have so many apparent adaptations for dealing with such beings (religion, etc.) Earthworms have adaptations for dealing with birds and moles that are beyond their usual ken, which they might take as evidence that these "higher" beasts exist.

I don't work for the devil, so I analyze adaptation, time patterns, and the "selection" process as distinct problems. Yep, adaptation is a useful concept for understanding why organisms are shaped the way there are. yep, there's been a while since the "beginning." But natural selection? How would you ever know? The mathematicians have told us that it is impossible to know. The null hypothesis is never actually proven. Can't actually be true. But people can choose stupidity.

Natural selection is actually a pretty simple process that has been observed time and time again: As organisms multiply, some errors occur in the DNA copying process. Those organisms whose mutations is disadvantageous for them in their environment tend to leave fewer offspring than those whose mutations are advantageous.

Free will is out there.

No it ain't.

Let's finish this at the free will discussion.http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Free_will

[

Hitler seemed very confused. Maybe he was a creationist at 8, 10, and 12 every day, and an evolutionist whenever he had to make decisions about eliminating Jews. I have no hope that he was ever consistent.

What evidence do you have that he used "evolutionist" principles when he had to make decisions about eliminating jews?

You think the devil is stupid?

No, I don't think he exists.

He is smarter than you. and well able to combine truth and deception. Have you never seen something "work" until it cornered and destroyed you?

No. I never claimed all technology is always used for good. In fact, most technologies can be used for ethical as well as unethical purposes.

Read Tolkien.

No thanks. I tried getting into Lord of the Rings but found it exceedingly boring after a few dozen pages or so.

As I say, atheists avoid seeking the evidence.

quote="groktruth"]And think about what technology has done to make human life richer. Not less miserable. Richer. "It's only the good times you remember."

What do you mean by "richer"?

More joy, glory, love.

theomatics. Look it up.

Done: http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/theomatics.html

On the page http://www.theomatics.com/theomatics/proof.html, the theomatics author anticipates that some skeptical heathens will be critical of his work, so he "puts them to bed" immediately. He says, "The phenomenon only works in the Bible and nowhere else. No other work of literature ever written, never has, and probably never will, be able to consistently demonstrate anything like theomatics."

Balderdash. I just did it, didn't I? It didn't take that long, either. People who don't know how to write their own programs are just easily impressed by a fancy argument backed up by a program.

It bears mentioning that the Dave Rhodes letter is approximately two pages of text. Yet I effortlessly found more than half a dozen phrases using each of the important numbers. Now suppose you apply the same technique to the Bible, which is about 1000 printed pages. Do you think you'll find a lot of meaningful phrases? You betcha. Is it a miracle? Actually, it would be a miracle if you didn't find anything at all, especially when you get to fudge the numbers (such as 888 really means 111).

Finally, I would like to make note of another very important statement on this last page: "It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics."

This is a straight declaration that theomatics is not falsifiable, which by definition means it is not a science. Not only that, but it has no predictive power. You arbitrarily pick which numbers are important to you, then you crop out phrases that look good, but there's no way to tell ahead of time exactly what phrases you'll find. Therefore, theomatics is completely useless.

Here is the way of the rabid dog. First, it avoids water. then it foams at the mouth, Then it bites the hand that feeds it.

Well, drinking water would eliminate the virus reproductives in the host's mouth, so that when they bit others, there would be fewer viruses to spread.

Okay, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the first host.

You seem to have agreed that more virus is worst for the new host.

No I haven't. What evidence is there for this?

And my health authorities remind me that a virus infection produces lots of destroyed cell parts, that need lots of water for excretion.

Aren't most dead cells pooped out? I guess you need some water for that too.

Remember, there are few honest men or women, according to Diogenes. Lots of liars who will tell you what you want to hear. They charge you on the 1-900- numbers, but lots of liars are free.

True, but people tend to not lie when it's not in their interest to and when the reprecussions are substantial when they're found out. What would the immunological community gain by lying about water combating the rabies virus?[/quote]

Most liars are naive pawns in the hands of the malicious. 95% of Bernie Madoff's victims got their lie from people who thought they were telling the truth. Liars who who were careless and foolish in their epistemology.

[Aetixintro]

It's just that Bernie Madoff had been chairman at the Nasdaq! A better name in USA, prior to the scandal, can can hardly be obtained!

[groktruth]

...Now, I have heard that hypnotic therapy, which readily, according to James, produces "religious" experiences indistinquisable from those reported by saints, are often used to cure smoking of drinking habits. But where are the success stories? I mean, if hypnotism were able to stop people from drinking as effectively as God coming into your room, you'd think there would be more reports.

Check NLP for such stories and youtube "Derren Brown Instant conversion" for a modern approach to belief in 'God'.

Interesting displays of what James was talking about. Thank you.

But, you understand, I hope, that I'm pursuing the hypothesis that these are counterfeits of something real, and that while they may impact "your story," because of free will, they will not affect "His story, " history, because He cannot be fooled. Thus, saints reporting such events, maybe the real thing, impact history, while hypnotic entranced persons never go on with a transformed life to do great things. AA has impacted history, based on Bill W.'s report that God came into his room, in answer to a desperate prayer, stopped him from drinking again, and told him how to found a program that would restore mant others.

[DonnieDarko81]

But have you never regretted having learned about something that you would rather forget later on but couldn´t because your memory was so good ?

Vita festinat. = Life goes on quickly.

If you spend your time looking at the ugly face of human nature you may miss something delightful, because you cannot pay attention to more than one thing during a specific period of time.

Best ever piece of advice.

[Arising_uk]

Apologies groktruth, missed this.

Interesting displays of what James was talking about. Thank you.

Not quite, as 'hypnosis' is a subset of NLP and it would be considered unethical to 'convert' someone into a 'saint' or 'prophet'. Unless this is what they actually wanted

But, you understand, I hope, that I'm pursuing the hypothesis that these are counterfeits of something real, and that while they may impact "your story," because of free will, they will not affect "His story, " history, because He cannot be fooled. Thus, saints reporting such events, maybe the real thing, impact history, while hypnotic entranced persons never go on with a transformed life to do great things. ...

As I say, it'd be unethical for a hypnotist, if they could, to do such a thing but most people do not seek 'faith' from 'hypnosis'and I have seen people transform their life through NLP so it'll be what you mean by "do great things"? Personally I think it may well be possible to impart such a belief to one who actually wants such a thing,

AA has impacted history, based on Bill W.'s report that God came into his room, in answer to a desperate prayer, stopped him from drinking again, and told him how to found a program that would restore mant others.

As does NLP as its results with addictions is pretty good. I have no doubt that AA has worked for many(generally the ex-faithful I suspect) and I accept that group therapy and the buddy support system can be an effective one when attempting change, but I personally doubt the ecology of the 'once an alkay always an alky' approach and note that recidivism rates are pretty high even amongst the now-faithful and I suspect that many alkys' are put off from the start by the obvious religiosity, so I'm not sure how much AA has "impacted history", other than impacting strongly upon this Bill.W's life.
Is this is what you are hoping for? A revelation from 'god'?

[groktruth]

Apologies groktruth, missed this.

Interesting displays of what James was talking about. Thank you.

Not quite, as 'hypnosis' is a subset of NLP and it would be considered unethical to 'convert' someone into a 'saint' or 'prophet'. Unless this is what they actually wanted

But, you understand, I hope, that I'm pursuing the hypothesis that these are counterfeits of something real, and that while they may impact "your story," because of free will, they will not affect "His story, " history, because He cannot be fooled. Thus, saints reporting such events, maybe the real thing, impact history, while hypnotic entranced persons never go on with a transformed life to do great things. ...

As I say, it'd be unethical for a hypnotist, if they could, to do such a thing but most people do not seek 'faith' from 'hypnosis'and I have seen people transform their life through NLP so it'll be what you mean by "do great things"? Personally I think it may well be possible to impart such a belief to one who actually wants such a thing,

AA has impacted history, based on Bill W.'s report that God came into his room, in answer to a desperate prayer, stopped him from drinking again, and told him how to found a program that would restore mant others.

As does NLP as its results with addictions is pretty good. I have no doubt that AA has worked for many(generally the ex-faithful I suspect) and I accept that group therapy and the buddy support system can be an effective one when attempting change, but I personally doubt the ecology of the 'once an alkay always an alky' approach and note that recidivism rates are pretty high even amongst the now-faithful and I suspect that many alkys' are put off from the start by the obvious religiosity, so I'm not sure how much AA has "impacted history", other than impacting strongly upon this Bill.W's life.
Is this is what you are hoping for? A revelation from 'god'?

Point me to a report of the results of hypnosis on addictions.

In pursuing the experiment, "If you seek Me with all your might, you will find Me.", I guess I was expecting a revelation from God, some sort of experience similar to those reported by saints. Never occrued to me to get there through hypnotism. But the question was, what is the truth about these putative spiritual beings?

But as I was doing science at the time, I rejected the "one experiment, or piece of evidence, proves all." Just needed confirmations, one then another, with confirmation failures eventually being "the exception that proves the rule." I was an exponent of the Lakatosian research programmes.

I agree, however, that AA could be vastly improved, if it weren't so dogmatic. Another great beginning, that quit growing.

[i blame blame]

We agree that "the gate is narrow, and few find it." That is, that the example of most of humanity is one of delusion. So, my approach is not spend much time with their example, but to focus on scholarly integrity in dealing with the bible. Starting with it's claim to be inspired by God, and able to "make one wise," meaning to provide a pathway that succeeds in it's objectives.

Does scholarly integrity not require that its claims need to be questioned and tested?

And, of couse, God does anticipate that His heart will be broken. But, there is a chance that the traitor will choose otherwise, and in His love for them, He chooses to give them the best chance He can. At great cost to Himself, but that's what love is all about.

How can they be traitors if they never pledged allegiance to him? What is this great cost to himself? And if he loves them so much, why does he condemn them to an eternity of pain?

I wrote this dogmatically. Sorry. My hope is to remember that I don't claim to "know" anything, but have thoughts that seem plausible to me, based on what I "believe" I am hearing in my conversations with God. A source that is supposed to require confirmation. I believe that He told me that part of the faith and blessing associated with being poor is a recognition that one's best hope for help is Him working through His plan to involve others, like yourself.

Now, in biblical wisdom, sending them food, etc without prayer is subject to corruption, and thievery. But the prayer without the help is equally ineffective.

How do you know that this "wisdom" is correct?

I once had an encounter with a fellow whose eye had been punched out by a barbed wire fence, who had a glass eye. We were invited to do our best taping hankercheifs over his good eye, were invited to watch him take out his glass eye, which he passed around, were allowed to probe all we wanted the empty socket. Then we showed him various credit cards, library cards, ID's, which he placed before his empty socket and read without error. This ability had come to him back in the late 40's, at a tent meeting. I believe his full history is archived at ORU. Timmy sonething or other.

But I did my best not to be taken in, as a professional scientist. Greatly increased my sense that the plausibility of theological truth was quite high, if mysterious.

What was interesting, also, was that though the meeting was well advertised, only three people came to see the evidence for themselves. That's where I learned that most people have their head in the sand, and instead of using their reasoning to find the truth, use it to explain away any evidence that might be available.

Then why is he not the most famous person in the world? Why were no videos of him reading stuff with his socket made? Why wasn't he brought to an optician etc? It would've been an amazing medical find. Neurologists would've killed each other for the privilege of doing experiments with him.

Like I said, you know how it works. See a problem. explain it with a hyopthesis. Predict something new to science from the hypothesis, test the prediction. If it is confirmed, take your hypothesis more seriously, make more predictions, test them, and so on. That's what I have done with the theological hypothesis, starting with the, to me, mysterious popularity of the bible, and Sagan's "Contact" SF hypothesis imagining living beings epistemologically more sophisticated than us.

Sagan would probably be spinning in his corduroy jacket if he knew his work helped someone delve out of skeptical inquiry and into mysticism.

Creationists are far more worthy of scorn than evolutionists. Both are dogmatic, but creationists should know better, and do far more harm in their misrepresentation of God. Evolutionists seem to me like horticulturists hoping that a particular crop is "natural" so they don't have to pay royalties, therefore discounting the written claim of the Creator that He deserves credit.

Wha?

I imagine a MIA soldier, with a hating enemy who, say, wants to marry the wife of the MIA soldier. Despite written messages from the MIA that "if you search for him with all your might, you will find him," the hater tells all that the fellow is dead, not MIA and a captive. The written message, a false hope. So, the search is discouraged, and maybe wife marries the lying enemy of her husband. That's hate.

The analogy doesn't work, because the premise is that the enemy already hates the MIA. Also, he knows he's alive but spreads lies that he's dead. That's like saying atheists hate god, but "know" he exists but knowingly spread the lie that he doesn't, which would be batshit crazy.

Atheists rarely look for the evidence that God is.

Theists rarely look for evidence that magical unicorns are.

They look for reasons to explain away the evidence that others have found.

And what evidence would that be?

They speak nonsense lines, such as "There is no evidence..." as if they are so well informed, but in fact they usually show no respect for the evidence that is out there (prayer studies, testimonies, NDE's, theomatics, Bible codes), respect being an effort to replicate themselves, and not believe everything they read that "discredits" the existing work. (As epistemologically invalid means of argument.)

It has already been shown that theomatics is bullshit earlier in the thread. Near death experiences occur because the brain releases hallucinogenic drugs in such desperate situations. Bible codes were also debunked: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... #Criticism

You may call it "explaining away" but according to actual science it's called "explaining".

Reflecting that the pain of betrayal is proportional to the intensity of the love, the hate crime of telling seekers that "there is no evidence" for faith in God has to be the most devastating of all.

Nobody argues there's no evidence for faith in god. It's just that there's no evidence for god. Why stating an obvious fact is now a hate crime escapes me.

But there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that humans, like so many, maybe all, other species, have to deal with an epistemologically more sophisticated life form, operating in a part of the world that is beyond their senses. (Does any other species sense radio waves?)

I don't think so but many species can sense magnetic fields, other can "see" ultrasound, some can see ultraviolet light. One species has to be the epistemologically most sophisticated one in its corner of the universe.

It would be extraordinary if we were the top of this hierarchy. And, we have so many apparent adaptations for dealing with such beings (religion, etc.)

You'd think that with time, the religious would learn more about these beings over time and eventually converge into one religion. The very opposite is occurring.

Earthworms have adaptations for dealing with birds and moles that are beyond their usual ken, which they might take as evidence that these "higher" beasts exist.

What adaptations for dealing with birds and moles do they have?

As I say, atheists avoid seeking the evidence.

Are you saying that there is evidence for deities in fantasy novels?

More joy, glory, love.

Technologies used in the arts and leisure can bring joy. Musical instruments, fast transportation to and telecommunication with loved ones...

Here is the way of the rabid dog. First, it avoids water. then it foams at the mouth, Then it bites the hand that feeds it.

First, you avoid the evidence that disproves theomatics, then you make an inane retort.

Well, drinking water would eliminate the virus reproductives in the host's mouth, so that when they bit others, there would be fewer viruses to spread.

Okay, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the first host.

You seem to have agreed that more virus is worst for the new host.

No I haven't. What evidence is there for this?

And my health authorities remind me that a virus infection produces lots of destroyed cell parts, that need lots of water for excretion.

Aren't most dead cells pooped out? I guess you need some water for that too.

Remember, there are few honest men or women, according to Diogenes. Lots of liars who will tell you what you want to hear. They charge you on the 1-900- numbers, but lots of liars are free.

True, but people tend to not lie when it's not in their interest to and when the reprecussions are substantial when they're found out. What would the immunological community gain by lying about water combating the rabies virus?[/quote]

Most liars are naive pawns in the hands of the malicious. 95% of Bernie Madoff's victims got their lie from people who thought they were telling the truth. Liars who who were careless and foolish in their epistemology.

So whose pawns are the immunological community? The devil's? Do immunology students have to undergo secret satanic rituals and secretly convert to satanism before graduating?

[groktruth]

We agree that "the gate is narrow, and few find it." That is, that the example of most of humanity is one of delusion. So, my approach is not spend much time with their example, but to focus on scholarly integrity in dealing with the bible. Starting with it's claim to be inspired by God, and able to "make one wise," meaning to provide a pathway that succeeds in it's objectives.

Does scholarly integrity not require that its claims need to be questioned and tested? It requires precisely that.

And, of couse, God does anticipate that His heart will be broken. But, there is a chance that the traitor will choose otherwise, and in His love for them, He chooses to give them the best chance He can. At great cost to Himself, but that's what love is all about.

How can they be traitors if they never pledged allegiance to him?Good point. Traitor is only the appropriate term in certain situations. What is this great cost to himself? Humans were supposedly created by God to accomplish a goal having to do with His creation of earth. Technically, they were His possession, and He hoped that they would choose to grow into being His children. At first, He suffered because that hope was disappointed. Later, He was hurt because the job He wanted done was left undone. He could, of course, have just gotten it done on His own, but that would have required giving up on the people. Eventually, He went through all that we understand with the sacrifice of Jesus, to, legally, buy people back out of the slavery into which they had sold themselves. But, still, He left them free, and though He had bought them, He still gave them their freedom. When this plan is rejected, He grieves. He didn't have to get His hopes up, of course, but doing so makes it more likely people will choose to walk with Him. And if he loves them so much, why does he condemn them to an eternity of pain? Good question. One hypothesis is that eternal pain is a default condition of the universe. The physicists believe that, if we do have 21 gram souls, it is inevitable that at the end of time, they will fall into a black hole, with a subsequent subjective eternity of "pain". Others argue that by having Hell in the picture, people are again more likely to choose Him. Pascal is the prime example of this. A third idea is that great love betrayed (this often happens. It's called backsliding.) needs a great act of vengeance. When I ask about the question, He convicts me of thinking more highly of myself then I ought. So, my summary is, "Don't know."

I wrote this dogmatically. Sorry. My hope is to remember that I don't claim to "know" anything, but have thoughts that seem plausible to me, based on what I "believe" I am hearing in my conversations with God. A source that is supposed to require confirmation. I believe that He told me that part of the faith and blessing associated with being poor is a recognition that one's best hope for help is Him working through His plan to involve others, like yourself.

Now, in biblical wisdom, sending them food, etc without prayer is subject to corruption, and thievery. But the prayer without the help is equally ineffective.

How do you know that this "wisdom" is correct? I have asked for such wisdom a lot, and walked it out, to find that it got whatever I hoped done. But, walking by faith and not sight means that a lot of what I strongly suspect is wisdom has yet to be confirmed. Biblical wisdom recommends such patience, once one has plenty of "evidence of things not seen."

I once had an encounter with a fellow whose eye had been punched out by a barbed wire fence, who had a glass eye. We were invited to do our best taping hankercheifs over his good eye, were invited to watch him take out his glass eye, which he passed around, were allowed to probe all we wanted the empty socket. Then we showed him various credit cards, library cards, ID's, which he placed before his empty socket and read without error. This ability had come to him back in the late 40's, at a tent meeting. I believe his full history is archived at ORU. Timmy sonething or other.

But I did my best not to be taken in, as a professional scientist. Greatly increased my sense that the plausibility of theological truth was quite high, if mysterious.

What was interesting, also, was that though the meeting was well advertised, only three people came to see the evidence for themselves. That's where I learned that most people have their head in the sand, and instead of using their reasoning to find the truth, use it to explain away any evidence that might be available.

Then why is he not the most famous person in the world? Why were no videos of him reading stuff with his socket made? Why wasn't he brought to an optician etc? It would've been an amazing medical find. Neurologists would've killed each other for the privilege of doing experiments with him.So you would think. But proving he was an authentic miracle would have put tremendous pressure on hypocrites to start living their lives differently.

Creationists are far more worthy of scorn than evolutionists. Both are dogmatic, but creationists should know better, and do far more harm in their misrepresentation of God. Evolutionists seem to me like horticulturists hoping that a particular crop is "natural" so they don't have to pay royalties, therefore discounting the written claim of the Creator that He deserves credit.

Wha?Think about it!

I imagine a MIA soldier, with a hating enemy who, say, wants to marry the wife of the MIA soldier. Despite written messages from the MIA that "if you search for him with all your might, you will find him," the hater tells all that the fellow is dead, not MIA and a captive. The written message, a false hope. So, the search is discouraged, and maybe wife marries the lying enemy of her husband. That's hate.

The analogy doesn't work, because the premise is that the enemy already hates the MIA. Also, he knows he's alive but spreads lies that he's dead. That's like saying atheists hate god, but "know" he exists but knowingly spread the lie that he doesn't, which would be batshit crazy.I spent years working with drug and alcohol abusers in denial. Batshit crazy is pretty close.

Atheists rarely look for the evidence that God is.

Theists rarely look for evidence that magical unicorns are. Theists, as I have said, are worse than atheists. Dogma is against their rules, but atheists may not know any better. But who cares about unicorns? The hypothetical God is, if true, of great importance in living well.

They look for reasons to explain away the evidence that others have found.

And what evidence would that be?

They speak nonsense lines, such as "There is no evidence..." as if they are so well informed, but in fact they usually show no respect for the evidence that is out there (prayer studies, testimonies, NDE's, theomatics, Bible codes), respect being an effort to replicate themselves, and not believe everything they read that "discredits" the existing work. (As epistemologically invalid means of argument.)

It has already been shown that theomatics is bullshit earlier in the thread. Near death experiences occur because the brain releases hallucinogenic drugs in such desperate situations. Bible codes were also debunked: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... #CriticismYou want to bet your eternal life on those criticisms, be my guest. Excuse me as I put my trust in the many implausible confirmations that were produced by people responding to the claims of these studies with further predictions.

You may call it "explaining away" but according to actual science it's called "explaining"."Actual" science is a fraud, the work of dishonest men and women hiding from the truth, not seeking it. They tell as much irrelevant truth as they must to make their claim plausible, but they don't play by the rules. Hence, their lie that "explaining" is a part of science. It's not, except as a means of producing an hypothesis that can be tested.

Reflecting that the pain of betrayal is proportional to the intensity of the love, the hate crime of telling seekers that "there is no evidence" for faith in God has to be the most devastating of all.

Nobody argues there's no evidence for faith in god. It's just that there's no evidence for god. Why stating an obvious fact is now a hate crime escapes me.

Did you read Loehr's Power of prayer on Plants?
But there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that humans, like so many, maybe all, other species, have to deal with an epistemologically more sophisticated life form, operating in a part of the world that is beyond their senses. (Does any other species sense radio waves?)

I don't think so but many species can sense magnetic fields, other can "see" ultrasound, some can see ultraviolet light. One species has to be the epistemologically most sophisticated one in its corner of the universe.And hubris would claim, "It's me! It's me! It's Meeeee!"

It would be extraordinary if we were the top of this hierarchy. And, we have so many apparent adaptations for dealing with such beings (religion, etc.)

You'd think that with time, the religious would learn more about these beings over time and eventually converge into one religion. The very opposite is occurring.

Not me! I wouldn't think that, given the array of disinformation higher beings with no respect for human dignity, while the only truth-serving higher being waits to be asked.
Earthworms have adaptations for dealing with birds and moles that are beyond their usual ken, which they might take as evidence that these "higher" beasts exist.

What adaptations for dealing with birds and moles do they have?Setae that reflexly extend into the earth when the worm's head is pinched, anchoring it. Also, fisherman in Florida collect earthworms by sending a vibration into the soil that mimics a passing mole. This makes the worms rise to the surface where they can be collected. I forgot where I read that. A recent scientific American, maybe.

As I say, atheists avoid seeking the evidence.

Are you saying that there is evidence for deities in fantasy novels? Actually, the beauty of Tolkien's writing, that he would attribute to inspiration from God, as well as the illumination therein of certain theological mysteries, is evidence that spiritual beings are out there. Stephen King, in his essay on writing also lends credence to "muses."

More joy, glory, love.

Technologies used in the arts and leisure can bring joy. Musical instruments, fast transportation to and telecommunication with loved ones...

Here is the way of the rabid dog. First, it avoids water. then it foams at the mouth, Then it bites the hand that feeds it.

First, you avoid the evidence that disproves theomatics, then you make an inane retort.The test of finding similar results in other writings is interesting. Not a test I would have used, since I wouldn't know what to predict. The construction of passages using random letters, which is my understanding of the calculation of the original probabilities, for both theomatics and Bible Codes, is a proper null hypothesis.

[

Remember, there are few honest men or women, according to Diogenes. Lots of liars who will tell you what you want to hear. They charge you on the 1-900- numbers, but lots of liars are free.

True, but people tend to not lie when it's not in their interest to and when the reprecussions are substantial when they're found out. What would the immunological community gain by lying about water combating the rabies virus?

Most liars are naive pawns in the hands of the malicious. 95% of Bernie Madoff's victims got their lie from people who thought they were telling the truth. Liars who who were careless and foolish in their epistemology.

So whose pawns are the immunological community? The devil's? Do immunology students have to undergo secret satanic rituals and secretly convert to satanism before graduating?[/quote]
No, the devil butts in where-ever he can. Since most scientists are atheists, they are easily used by the devil. Read the Screwtape Letters by C.S Lewis.

[i blame blame]

It requires precisely that.

All your claims have been tested falsified except for one whose result is inconclusive (do epistemologically superior beings exist?) and one has evidence (earthworms having powers to escape moles and birds).

Humans were supposedly created by God to accomplish a goal having to do with His creation of earth.

And what goal is this? If god is omnipotent, how can the cost be great? Even if he's not omnipotent, but just powerful enough to create a universe, how can that which happens on an insignificant mote of dust orbiting a dwarf star on the outskirts of a moderately large galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of the universe be costly to him?

Technically, they were His possession, and He hoped that they would choose to grow into being His children.At first, He suffered because that hope was disappointed. Later, He was hurt because the job He wanted done was left undone.

Why was he such a dumbass and created humans with a sense of not enjoying being posessed by someone rather than a sense of obedience? Why did he not explicitly and clearly tell them what the job was? He seems stupider than the Plutonians in Aqua Teen Hunger Force who, in the 11th episode of the 1st season titled "Bad Replicant" create a replicant, dump him on earth without telling him what his mission is, but later telling him to replicate other people, even he probably can't replicate others.

He could, of course, have just gotten it done on His own, but that would have required giving up on the people.

Why "giving up"? He could just have let them be.

Eventually, He went through all that we understand with the sacrifice of Jesus, to, legally, buy people back out of the slavery into which they had sold themselves.

Whom did they sell themselves to? The devil? Did the devil take Jesus in exchange for mankind?

But, still, He left them free, and though He had bought them, He still gave them their freedom. When this plan is rejected, He grieves. He didn't have to get His hopes up, of course, but doing so makes it more likely people will choose to walk with Him.

Giving his hope up makes it more likely people will "walk with him"?

Good question. One hypothesis is that eternal pain is a default condition of the universe.

If he's so powerful and loving, why doesn't he remove them from the default position? I suppose you "know" all these facts from the Bible "preface" you made up with the bullshit practice of theomatics?

The physicists believe that, if we do have 21 gram souls, it is inevitable that at the end of time, they will fall into a black hole, with a subsequent subjective eternity of "pain".

I have never heard of any physicist who believes anything like that.

Others argue that by having Hell in the picture, people are again more likely to choose Him. Pascal is the prime example of this.

The problem with that stupid wager is that there are thousands of deities with mutually exclusive moral codes, none of whom have any evidence supporting their existence. Doing anything in accordance with your beliefs will land you in the hell of some other, equally valid belief. Indeed, there is literally an infinity of conceivable deities with mutually exclusive moralities.

A third idea is that great love betrayed (this often happens. It's called backsliding.) needs a great act of vengeance.

So this loving deity petty, vengeful and infinitely cruel. Isn't this revenge out of proportion? Somebody rejects you and you don't throw acid in their face, nay, you create a technology to sustain them forever and inflict unspeakable pain on them forever.

When I ask about the question, He convicts me of thinking more highly of myself then I ought. So, my summary is, "Don't know."

When you ask the question of why he condemns people to eternal suffering he accuses you of thinking more highly of yourself than you ought to? You don't see any flaws in his character?

I have asked for such wisdom a lot, and walked it out, to find that it got whatever I hoped done. But, walking by faith and not sight means that a lot of what I strongly suspect is wisdom has yet to be confirmed. Biblical wisdom recommends such patience, once one has plenty of "evidence of things not seen."

Biblical wisdom recommends patience when trying to find out whether biblical wisdom is correct. So, you have no idea whether it's correct.

So you would think. But proving he was an authentic miracle would have put tremendous pressure on hypocrites to start living their lives differently.

Except, scientists wouldn't have treated it as a miracle. They would have treated it as an extremely exciting scientific curiosity and attempted to find out how it works. The fact that no videos were made and spread, not many people even saw this "miracle" being performed and it created no stir in popular media leads me to conclude that it was probably just a trick.

Creationists are far more worthy of scorn than evolutionists. Both are dogmatic, but creationists should know better, and do far more harm in their misrepresentation of God. Evolutionists seem to me like horticulturists hoping that a particular crop is "natural" so they don't have to pay royalties, therefore discounting the written claim of the Creator that He deserves credit.

Wha?Think about it!

I don't understand your analogy. Who would a horticulturists have to pay if their crop weren't "natural"?

I spent years working with drug and alcohol abusers in denial. Batshit crazy is pretty close.

Yep, some of the addicts of the "god drug" are pretty much that, which leads me to ask myself why I'm being so retarded in even bothering to reply to you.

Theists, as I have said, are worse than atheists.

According to all you have said in most of your posts, you are a theist. Unless your secret definition for "theist" varies widely from the dictionary definition.

Dogma is against their rules, but atheists may not know any better.

Most theists actually base their beliefs on a dogma or dogmata.

But who cares about unicorns? The hypothetical God is, if true, of great importance in living well.

So are unicorns. Because you see, if you find one, it will grant you π wishes. I read that on the preface of the magical book of unicorns for children aged 5-7.

You want to bet your eternal life on those criticisms, be my guest.

Yeah, I debunked Pascal's wager earlier.

Excuse me as I put my trust in the many implausible confirmations that were produced by people responding to the claims of these studies with further predictions.

You're excused, as long as you don't try to infect the minds of those whose intellectual immune system is less mature or attempt to force others to live in accordance with your beliefs.

"Actual" science is a fraud, the work of dishonest men and women hiding from the truth, not seeking it.

And yet awesome new facts about our world are continuously learned, and cool new technologies based on newly discovered principles discovered. Didn't you say you were an ornithologist in your previous life? Were you a fraud back then?

They tell as much irrelevant truth as they must to make their claim plausible, but they don't play by the rules.

So most technologies you take for granted, most notably that which allows you to illustrate your beliefs on this forum are irrelevant. By what rules don't they play? Your religious ones?

Hence, their lie that "explaining" is a part of science. It's not, except as a means of producing an hypothesis that can be tested.

That's right. The hypotheses of bullshitters have been tested and falsified.

Reflecting that the pain of betrayal is proportional to the intensity of the love, the hate crime of telling seekers that "there is no evidence" for faith in God has to be the most devastating of all.

At the risk of repeating myself: There is no betrayal if one never pledged allegiance to this entity for which there is no evidence.

Did you read Loehr's Power of prayer on Plants?

No.
quote="groktruth"]And hubris would claim, "It's me! It's me! It's Meeeee!"[/quote]No. Evidence suggests this. It may be that dolphins are deeper thinkers than humans or that there are clever beings who are invisible to us. But there's not the slightest shred of evidence for it.

Not me! I wouldn't think that, given the array of disinformation higher beings with no respect for human dignity, while the only truth-serving higher being waits to be asked.

Waits to be asked what? How do you know you aren't among those being deceived by higher beings with no respect for human dignity?

Setae that reflexly extend into the earth when the worm's head is pinched, anchoring it. Also, fisherman in Florida collect earthworms by sending a vibration into the soil that mimics a passing mole. This makes the worms rise to the surface where they can be collected. I forgot where I read that. A recent scientific American, maybe.

Sounds interesting.

Actually, the beauty of Tolkien's writing, that he would attribute to inspiration from God, as well as the illumination therein of certain theological mysteries, is evidence that spiritual beings are out there.

No, it's just evidence that he was very imaginative.

Stephen King, in his essay on writing also lends credence to "muses."

He may mean it metaphorically, or he was inspired by women (mythological muses are usualyl female) who were close to him. Or he may actually believe that there are "supernatural" beings who inspired him. Him believing in them is no evidence for their existence. If people only become respected authors if supernatural beings inspire them (I don't mean that they are inspired by their belief in supernatural beings. Many geniuses in the middle ages and beyond were driven to science in part by their religious beliefs), then what are those beings' criteria for selecting whom to inspire?

The test of finding similar results in other writings is interesting. Not a test I would have used, since I wouldn't know what to predict.

So you only test theomatics on bible passages, for which you already know what to predict?

The construction of passages using random letters, which is my understanding of the calculation of the original probabilities, for both theomatics and Bible Codes, is a proper null hypothesis.I don't understand what you mean by this.

No, the devil butts in where-ever he can. Since most scientists are atheists, they are easily used by the devil. Read the Screwtape Letters by C.S Lewis.

By what mechanism does the devil use them?
Are you saying that a novel, a work of fiction contains evidence for this?

[groktruth]

This for i blame blame,

I am grateful for the thoroughness of your reading of my post, and have considered your questions. I am comfortable with the answers that came to mind, but believe that I would do you a disservice if I robbed you of the satisfaction of digging up the answers for yourself. Remember that the scriptural wisdom is that it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. If I search out those matters for you, I would be hypocritical in my belief that scriptural wisdom is trustworthy. Or I'd be robbing you of your glory. There are good answers to your questions, and you will find it most satisfying to search them out. You don't need my answers, which you might not find persuasive anyway.