Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[emilynghiem]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

OK back up

Science is used for ONE LEVEL or approach to falsify or verify the OBJECTIONS
to your proof.

So your proof works on one level to address LOGIC definitions and consistent relations

And Science works alongside it to address objections
that can be resolved by Science.

These are not in conflict at all but complementary levels.

 

[BreezeWood]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

So we don't exist?

mdr: So we don't exist?

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?


the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...


2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!

yes,


for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!

in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.

proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.

only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

So we don't exist?

mdr: So we don't exist?

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?


the question is not to definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...


2. The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!

yes,


for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!

in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.

proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.

only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

.

And so one can define God to be = the Everlasting, the Almighty
and this still speaks to "agreeing that God = something that exists)

no proof or argument needed
if there is already agreement God exists

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out

A Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.

Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things. Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of spiritual healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term supernatural is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as the Creator, which is in our minds, denotes potentially actual Being, thus, a natural Being, albeit, of a higher order of being.

 

[emilynghiem]

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just common sense, but affirmed by scripture.

then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first! You're still fighting them as you fight with me! I have nothing to do with them. They are objectively self-evident to all. Let them be so. Make that choice about them, and forget about me.

"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths! - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.

.

Hey BreezeWood I have an idea
Since you find the Seven Points not addressing the Whole of the Almighty/Everlasting

Do you like these Seven principles better? (Unitarian Universalist)
Unitarian Universalist Principles - Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism

Or these Seven principles? (Kwanzaa)
http://www.k12connections.iptv.org/pdfs/kwanzaa.pdf

BreezeWood can you write out
how YOU would spell out the EQUIVALENT
of MD's seven points,
but CLARIFY what he is leaving out?

What if you name God = to be the Almighty and Everlasting that you look at
as greater than how the Christians teach God as Creator and heavenly Father

How would YOU list 7 points or principles?

Maybe your system would make more sense to people.
Can you show me how to make that work for your understanding
of the Almighty and Everlasting? Maybe yours would work where MD leaves out the bigger picture?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out

A Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.

Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things. Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of spiritual healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term supernatural is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as Creator that is in our minds denotes an actual Being that is, therefore, naturally existent, albeit, of a higher order of being.

Yes, MD so proving that Spiritual Healing can be BOTH natural/consistent/demonstratable by science AND use the SAME process that Christians symbolize using "spiritual" terms and concepts that otherwise sound supernatural
would END THAT WHOLE argument Hollie uses to reject things
and allow agreement that there is a consistent process going on anyway.

So that removes the objections that Christians are pushing something make believe and unreal.
It is real and has real effects in the world measurable and quantifiable by science.
So there is no contradiction.

This helps people not reject your proof just because of a bias
against Christians pushing religious mumbo jumbo.

There really is real practical application to science and medicine
that makes this a much needed lifesaving therapy and treatment to cure conditions
that "medicine alone" cannot always cure but combining the mental, medical and spiritual treatment CAN help to cure.

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem do you have any links To studies that are not done by religious-based sources - on the spiritual healing thing?

I'm deff. Willing to look at some objective source without a bone to pick.

Hi GT

1. Negative results (but did not study Forgiveness as the key to healing therapy)
There was a publicized study on intercessory prayer at Harvard that
showed NO effect of "intercessory" prayer on recovering heart patients, or WORSE conditions:
HMS Press Release
But I see NO REFERENCE to any factor of FORGIVENESS therapy
to induce a CHANGE in the patient that would correlate with freer flow of natural healing energy.
So these studies may have LEFT OUT the KEY factor that spiritual healing is BASED on:
forgiving anything blocking maximum healing.

2. Positive results but using generic prayer (not specific spiritual healing methods):
here is one study that also used "generic prayer" and showed EFFECT on helping
patients with depression/anxiety
http://baywood.metapress.com/app/ho...l,33,186;linkingpublicationresults,1:300314,1

3. here is a reference to the Rheumatoid Arthritis study that did use the Spiritual Healing
methods. But if you look up Dale Matthews you would consider him biased:
Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. - PubMed - NCBI

there is no reason this study cannot be replicated to MAKE SURE it is not biased.

the only "bias" being the people have to AGREE to conduct such a study
(and agree to include the same process Dr. MacNutt uses with FORGIVENESS)
and not just "intercessory prayer" without that, while "magically" expecting anything to change
(unless you make generic prayer one of the control groups, like a placebo prayer that
does not require the deep spiritual therapy of diagnosing and forgiving past issues blocking the healing)

I thought I posted an excerpt of the results of this RA study
If I find that text, I'll copy it here. For the full passage in MacNutt's books
I'd have to type that in anew. I'll look and see if I can add it.

Just plain "intercessory" or personal prayer (in #1 and #2 above)
are generally NOT going to work to cure deeper conditions such
as cancer, drug addiction, and severe schizophrenia/criminal illness.

So I am more focused on the type of healing process in #3
that is very pronounced. Dr. MacNutt explains in his book
the difference between the personal type of prayer you can do yourself,
the intercessory type of prayer, and the deliverance and exorcism that requires
someone capable of taking on that role, which is DIFFERENT from other forms of prayer.

Dr. Peck took on that role, but I would not have recommended that
because it is too dangerous for inexperienced people
to be exposed to dark forces of energy in severe cases as he took on with a team:

In his 1983 bestseller, People of the Lie , Peck devoted a chapter to exorcism. In this astonishing new book, the megaselling author of The Road Less Traveled reveals his work as an exorcist and attempts to establish a science of exorcism for future research. Peck knows that many readers will be skeptical of or flummoxed by his report, and thus he emphasizes that he himself scoffed at the idea of demonic possession before encountering Jersey Babcock; Peck became involved in her case mostly to "prove the devil's nonexistence as scientifically as possible." But a comment by Jersey at their first meeting "blew the thing wide open." Jersey, a Texas resident who believed she was possessed and who was neglecting her children as a result, said that her demons were "really rather weak and pathetic creatures"—a statement so at odds with, as Peck puts it, "standard psychopathology" that his mind began to change.

Peck describes two cases in this book, that of Jersey and the more difficult case of Beccah Armitage, a middle-aged woman who grew up in an abusive family, married an abusive husband and was practicing self-mutilation when Peck took her case. Both cases result in full-blown exorcisms with Peck as the lead exorcist, and both, according to Peck, involved paranormal phenomena, including Beccah acquiring a snakelike appearance. Peck intersperses his calm but dramatic recitation of these cases with set-off commentary, and he concludes the book with a reasoned proposal for a science of exorcism ("An exorcism is a massive therapeutic intervention to liberate, teach, and support the victim to choose to reject the devil"). A report from what is to most of us a strange and distant land, Scott's book probably won't convince crowds, but it's powerful and concisely written enough to interest many, and maybe to give a few pause for thought. (Jan. 19)
====================

Here is that excerpt I did find from the RA study:
[excerpt from one of the exceptional healings from the rheumatoid arthritis study with Dr. Matthews] "Mike" a 65-year-old man had been diagnosed with RA when he was in his 20s. In the intervening decades, he had been through a great deal of pain, suffering, and medical treatment. Like many RA patients, Mike can describe a history of treatment with strong medications, from Prednisone to Cytoxan to methotreate; repeat surgeries and courses of physical therapy; and periods of remission, then relapse. Mike walked stiffly with a cane at the beginning of the session. He had severe pain in his hands, which had been operated on a number of times. A

fter receiving many hours of prayer and laying on of hands for healing, Mike reported dramatic results. "Look, no cane today!" he said. "I couldn't have walked without it yesterday or the day before. My feet are in good shape today. I'm able to walk a pretty good distance, and I couldn't have done this a night or two ago." [Mike also reported reduced pain and restored flexibility in his hands after prayer where he felt a warming sensation like energy vibrating down his hands] ... Relieved of the pain and disability his RA has caused, Mike is now living a full and active life. Ten months after the first healing-prayer sessions, Mike continues to report a remarkable improvement. He is, in fact, pain-free and able to go without medication of any kind for his arthritis. He says he feels better today than ever before in his life." (The Faith Factor, Dr. Matthews)

Although a few doctors in the past (such as Dr. Paul Tournier and Dr. William Standish Reed) have spoken and written about the value of prayer, I have a sense that we are truly on the verge of a new era where the false opposition between science and Christianity will finally be broken down. Already the dialogue has begun."

So this is the study cited above. With Dr. Dale Matthews working with Dr. Francis MacNutt.

GT I would like to conduct replicate studies on patients
with EATING disorders, either bulimia, anorexia, other eating phobias or anxieties,
self-mutilations, cutting and purging and other such dangerous self-destructive addictions
and see if these methods would start saving minds and lives, and allow people to heal
sooner and recover faster. The longer people abuse themselves, they shorten their lives and lower their chances of full recovery. So the sooner they get help, the better their chances.

 

[emilynghiem]

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...

No, Hollie doesn't believe in anything supernatural.

However, my friend Olivia who has done Exorcisms and Deliverance prayers to heal people
HAS seen this snakelike writhing, spitting tongues, and heads turning around backwards to curse at her.

So if you are serious about studying this level of spiritual experiences and process, she is definitely one of the sources I would include, along Dr. Francis MacNutt and Dr. Phillip Goldfedder.

You think this stuff is a joke, but the people who have seen it,
will tell you it gets extreme.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss!

I think your down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, you hold that your belief that these things are true logically is not the same thing as knowing these things to be true. It's that a fair statement?

 

[percysunshine]

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!

Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all? ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.

You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot know something is true. You can believe it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.

But perceptions can be deceiving. In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.

.

Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?

smh

.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.

To Infinity and Beyond Transcending our Limitations by Nassim Haramein

.

That is not a cat. I win.

Schr dinger s cat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
.

 

[Boss]

Boss!

I think your down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, you hold that your belief that these things are true logically is not the same thing as knowing these things to be true. It's that a fair statement?

That's pretty much it. I like your presentation and I don't disagree. I am pretty sure some ancient philosopher has articulated it much better than I can, but we can't ever 'know' things, we can only believe that we know things.

 

[sealybobo]

No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe. And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

Hi Sealybobo:
1. What about the percentage of people who have gone to war?
Versus the people who are like the Dalai Lama?
Does that mean we should all keep making war since more peopel do that
than people who win the Nobel Prize for Peace like the Dalai Lama?

Since the Dalai Lama and Nobel Laureates who believe in peace
are "fewer" that makes them "stupid" for believing in peace?

2. What % of the population believe or understand Einstein's theories?
What % don't give a rat's ass what Einstein, Mozart or Jefferson contributed
because it doesn't apply to them directly?

Sealybobo are you REALLY going to go with the majority
just because that's more common?

How many people are as smart as you are Sealybobo.
What % is that?

Would you trade how smart you are for whatever 50-90% of the population thinks like?
Just because that is a greater %?

Really?

This doesn't sound like the consistent reason I think you are driven by, SB.
Are you sure you really mean what you sound like you are saying?
Please tell me you were mouthing off and don't really expect to go by percentages.

The majority of population in Texas doesn't score as high on their academic exams
as the minority I'd rather have going through medical school and engineering
to practice medicine and design structures and machines.

Please tell me you don't expect to call the minority part of the population
"stupid" compared to the majority based on % of the population alone. Really?[/QUOTE]

1. Notice how popular the Dali Lama & Ghandi and MLK are/were. Not very. Why?

2. I see what you mean. I often do that in this debate. I say people who believe are stupid but then I realize the validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

3. I know that the popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

If it weren't for a very small percentage of humans who invented glass, fire, motors, gas, electricity, etc. we'd be still living in caves. I include myself in the masses when it comes to this because if electricity went away tomorrow I'd have to figure out how to rub 2 sticks together and when my cloths wore out I wouldn't know how to knit myself a new sweater.

 

[sealybobo]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:

• Infinite Regression
• Argument from Poor Design
• The Atheist’s Wager
• Non-belief Paradox
• Omnipotence Paradox
• Free Will Paradox
• Argument from locality
• Argument from Non-reason
• Argument from incompatible properties
• Fate of the Unlearned
• Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell

Lots of reasons your story makes no sense.

 

[sealybobo]

According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating, as the theist must now explain if the god itself was created by another intelligent designer, or if some process was able to create the god. In his view, if the existence of highly complex life on Earth is the equivalent of the Boeing 747 that must be explained somehow, the existence of a highly complex god is the "ultimate Boeing 747" that truly does require the impossible to explain its existence.

 

[sealybobo]

One formulation of the Atheist's Wager suggests that one should live a good life without religion, since Martin writes that a loving and kind god would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, a good person will leave behind a positive legacy. The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.

 

[MaryL]

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.

 

[emilynghiem]

Junk science.

Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside the positive proof of His existence in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

OK but just because something hasn't been demonstrated yet by science
is no reason to call someone stupid!

Edison had to have FAITH that a light bulb could be invented
or he would not search for the right combination that PROVED it could be.

Same with finding cures for cancer, leprosy, Ebola, etc.

Why is it STUPID to have faith that a solution can be found
in advance of Science proving it?

 

[Boss]

That is not a cat. I win..

Here you are Percy... a cat that is both alive and dead:

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.

W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out

A Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.

Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things. Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of spiritual healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term supernatural is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as Creator that is in our minds denotes an actual Being that is, therefore, naturally existent, albeit, of a higher order of being.

Yes, MD so proving that Spiritual Healing can be BOTH natural/consistent/demonstratable by science AND use the SAME process that Christians symbolize using "spiritual" terms and concepts that otherwise sound supernatural
would END THAT WHOLE argument Hollie uses to reject things
and allow agreement that there is a consistent process going on anyway.

So that removes the objections that Christians are pushing something make believe and unreal.
It is real and has real effects in the world measurable and quantifiable by science.
So there is no contradiction.

This helps people not reject your proof just because of a bias
against Christians pushing religious mumbo jumbo.

There really is real practical application to science and medicine
that makes this a much needed lifesaving therapy and treatment to cure conditions
that "medicine alone" cannot always cure but combining the mental, medical and spiritual treatment CAN help to cure.

Well, I gave you the only logically and scientifically bullet proof foundation for the defense of your position, insofar as spiritual healing goes, but if you'd rather ill-advisedly cut off the nose of Christianity to spite your face as you contradictorily opt for the weaker position, which firmly plants spiritual healing in the soil of religious dogma, it's no sweat off my face brow.

This leaves you with a scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous premise, pseudoscience, that not only cuts off the nose of Christianity, but, logically, that of every other religion, including yours, based on made up terms and arbitrary logic.