Christian and Skeptic??

[gecko]

a dualism...eh? Didn't touch too much on this in philosophy...a little with plato and descartes and some other rationalists.

To be perfectly frank with you, I can't really say. Most of the details of my faith are pretty cloudy, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I believe. I mean, I know what I believe, but at the same time its kind of a foundation and I haven't developed all of my opinions around it.

I think I would lean to the side of no at this time. Even if the intervention God provides is spiritual or non-physical, I don't think that means God isn't physical. To assume he is non-physical would be to assume that so much of the Bible interpreted as literal is now parabolic.

The trinity would also disagree that God is non-physical. God comes in 3 forms - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost(spirit). Therefore, by that belief, he is definitely physical in some ways.

I know its a really sketchy issue...but when you take the two premises that a)we have free will and b)God intervenes in our lives it gets confusing. Physical intervention would kind of be interfering in our lives...since then he's pretty much governing it, at our command. And I think God wants us to live and find him and make our own decisions about everything on our own. He is just here to guide us and be with us as always.

I'm sorry if I come off as arrogant when I say "He is" and not "He is, according to me,". Feel free to put that tag whenever I talk like that if it seems more fitting to you. I don't know if this helps, or clears anything up...its pretty hard to have an entire, objective, and truthful opinion on something so difficult to grasp.

 

[voidx]

The very concept is awash in difficulty, almost by definition. No need to seem as though your coming across arrogant, I didn't think you were. There's also no need to modify your opinions or how you put them forth on my account. They are your opinions, and you should not be shy to voice them. I would never ask you to put disclaimers in front of them on my account .

But I see from your descriptions, the problem that so many others wrestle with. Does God intervene in the world, and how do you reconcile that? To say that in some aspects he's physical, but in others perhaps not really hints at dualism. That there is a physical world, and then there is something else. The problem of course being how could the two ever interact. How can something non-physical interact with the physical world, because it would then by definition be physical in that instance. Either all that is the physical world is God, or God is seperate from the physical world. In either case the questions become, what conceivable interactivity would God have with the world. If none, then what purpose could God serve?

I think in large part the difficulty in grasping an explanation of God is built in to belief in general. We have a very abstract concept of wanting to believe things, of relating them to personal experience and so by definition they are hard to grasp because often the meaning of our experiences are also. There's so much we don't know yet, and the more you learn, the more mind boggling it becomes, the more complex. And I think many people want to get rid of the chaos, of the complexity, and have a simple and clean explanation. God is very much such a concept, but its a double edged one. In order for it to be a catchall to all we don't know, it must remain undefined, in some sense beyond our grasp, because it cannot in detail help us to describe the world around us which seems so chaotic and complex and vast. To a large extent we must put faith and belief in something we can never know anything about, or seemingly never know. But somehow that seems preferable to the alternative of us being out here all by ourselves, that we're a hiccup in the process of a particular universe.

 

[Kumar]

Thank you for the compliment... but I'm not sure you can cite homeopathy as being subject to the viewpoint I presented. Whatever claims homeopathy may make about the theory of why it works, there is a physical and objective aspect to it - in that there should be statistically verifiable results from it's use.

The "Power of Prayer" is subject to the same thing as homeopathy only if the contention is that the "Power of Prayer" doesn't rely on divine intervention, but only needs the act of praying to be effective. (In which case it's no longer prayer but "Positive Thinking"... or as I like to put it, "Wishful Thinking. )

It is yet to find out Whether homeopathy really works by materiastic or energetic traces of its substances, physiologically OR just by placebo ,psycologically. Anyway effects are there which are observed & experianced by its mass existing community. Statistically verifiable observations & experiances can be done by survey of homeopathic clinics.

There should be no contradiction about effects as placebo, psyclogical, mental or Positive/Wishful Thinking(can be best effect) of both, but still energetic scientific effects or divine effects/interventions or homeopathic high potency effects can still be there due to presence of energy upto E=mc2 which are yet pending to be seen in science.

There is no duality in this i.e. what we have already shown by science--we accept that & whatever peding but personally and/or mass observed & experianced, we think 'can/should be valid'. We may have to wait till we find it in full or till it dies in itself if fake.

Just look at some of my indications. We may not yet be entitled to know HER/HIS(PE/s, PM/s>>>>>) physicals in current age inspite it may be simplest or abc to know.

 

[drkitten]

I was referring to the power of prayer in the "guidance" section. I don't believe that God physically affects the world as it is. That would be stripping us of our free will. However, when we're lost and beaten along the track that is life, if we sincerely ask for his guidance and help, it can come.

Now, here's where I could go into some "testimonies" as you like to call them. Or, a bunch of bs to paraphrase the general opinon I'm getting. So I'm not going to worry about even trying it.

Be very very careful in what you claim here, because you are verging on something that may be testable.

One of the classic studies from the Victorian ages (by some early athiests) involved the study of "the power of prayer" to effect healing. The author, whose name and citation details I have unfortunately forgotten, compared the life expectancy and infant mortality rates of English clergy (who would be expected both to be praying and prayed-for) with income- and lifestyle-matched control groups. There were no observed differences. In other words, praying to God to save the life of one's ailing baby, even when done by the entire parish of St. Grottlesex, was not observably effective as medical treatment.

Oh, found the author. Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Similar effects have been observed more recently : (E.g -- A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes In Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit, W. S. Harris, et al. Arch. Intern. Med. 1999, 159, 2273-2278. Thirty six-measured parameters, of which one tested significant at the p=0.04 level, a result compatible with chance.) So there's objective, clinical evidence that prayer does not effect healing.

Does it effect guidance? Unfortunately, your claim that "however, when we're lost and beaten along the track that is life, if we sincerely ask for his guidance and help, it can come" verges on the testable. I could, for example, set up a Harris-like experiment where some group of demonstrably "lost and beaten" people, perhaps the incarcerated criminals or people in various halfway houses and homeless shelters, are prayed for and tracked, and see if they do better at getting their act together than the control group.

If I ran such an experiment and got an equally negative result, what would your reaction be?

 

[gecko]

The very concept is awash in difficulty, almost by definition. No need to seem as though your coming across arrogant, I didn't think you were. There's also no need to modify your opinions or how you put them forth on my account. They are your opinions, and you should not be shy to voice them. I would never ask you to put disclaimers in front of them on my account .

But I see from your descriptions, the problem that so many others wrestle with. Does God intervene in the world, and how do you reconcile that? To say that in some aspects he's physical, but in others perhaps not really hints at dualism. That there is a physical world, and then there is something else. The problem of course being how could the two ever interact. How can something non-physical interact with the physical world, because it would then by definition be physical in that instance. Either all that is the physical world is God, or God is seperate from the physical world. In either case the questions become, what conceivable interactivity would God have with the world. If none, then what purpose could God serve?

I think in large part the difficulty in grasping an explanation of God is built in to belief in general. We have a very abstract concept of wanting to believe things, of relating them to personal experience and so by definition they are hard to grasp because often the meaning of our experiences are also. There's so much we don't know yet, and the more you learn, the more mind boggling it becomes, the more complex. And I think many people want to get rid of the chaos, of the complexity, and have a simple and clean explanation. God is very much such a concept, but its a double edged one. In order for it to be a catchall to all we don't know, it must remain undefined, in some sense beyond our grasp, because it cannot in detail help us to describe the world around us which seems so chaotic and complex and vast. To a large extent we must put faith and belief in something we can never know anything about, or seemingly never know. But somehow that seems preferable to the alternative of us being out here all by ourselves, that we're a hiccup in the process of a particular universe.

I like the stuff you're saying. I don't know that I agree with all of it, but it is definitely a well refined and mature opinion. I understand a lot of the the things you are saying, but there are a few things that I am confused about/feel the need to clarify on.

First, the part about the catchall. Maybe some people look to God as that, but I don't really to be honest. The reason my belief in God, or many others belief in God, is so hard to reason, is because it wasn't founded on reason. I don't think many people looked at the world from a scientific point of view and said "I bet God exists". They found that belief by other means.

About the dualism...this is indeed confusing. Its not something I think about a lot to be honest. But its interesting. Can the non-physical interact with the physical? This is the very definition of paranormal, is it not? Some type of mental function interacting with a physical one. So...that really brings this whole issue into a debate on paranormal. Do humans have paranormal abilities? Are humans CAPABLE of developing them even if they haven't? Does God have paranormal capabilities, and is that how a non-physical being alters the world in a physical way?

Assuming the existence of God, as I have, there are so many twists and turns we can take it from there. Clearly, even those who have researched so much into christianity and religion are bound to be wrong on many things. We are trying to apply reason and logic to something that has come to us in the absence of reason and logic. This is a very confusing and tiresome process. I think this is why many christians don't really examine their faith on the level of reason, and, while I think the "how" is not essential to know, it is interesting to look into nonetheless.

I hope that the more I look into my life, the more answers and beliefs I develop in this area. However, right now, my mind is pretty much tabula rasa, or a clean slate, with the words "God Exists" pasted as the title. I haven't filled in the below yet.

Thank you again for your words, I deeply appreciate your indiscriminate tone and a true want to find out what's really out there. Even if this key foundation of our belief's is completely opposite, I'm guessing I would probably agree with you on a multitude of other concepts.

 

[Kumar]

What can it mean;

"PRIME ENERGY-FORCE"/ PRIME MATTER>>Fundamental Forces>>Fundamental/Elementary Particles>>Secondary Forces/Particles>>Atomic particles>>Atoms>>Complex atoms>>Molecules>>Molecular structures>>Complex molecular structures>>Cellular structures>>Complex cellular structures..Todays existances>>> AND reverse

Can't you convert it in what you want to know??

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is yet to find out Whether homeopathy really works by materiastic or energetic traces of its substances,

No, it is not. We have found out that there are no materialistic or energetic traces.

physiologically OR just by placebo ,psycologically. Anyway effects are there which are observed & experianced by its mass existing community.

Placebo, in the broad sense, is quite sufficient to explain homeopathy.

Statistically verifiable observations & experiances can be done by survey of homeopathic clinics.

Straight lie, Kumar. Statistically verifiable observations of the eficacy of homeopathy do NOT exist, and you know it.

There should be no contradiction about effects as placebo, psyclogical, mental or Positive/Wishful Thinking(can be best effect) of both, but still energetic scientific effects or divine effects/interventions or homeopathic high potency effects can still be there due to presence of energy upto E=mc2 which are yet pending to be seen in science.

Babble. You don't even know what E=mc2 means.

* snipped, more nonsense *

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What can it mean;

"PRIME ENERGY-FORCE"/ PRIME MATTER>>Fundamental Forces>>Fundamental/Elementary Particles>>Secondary Forces/Particles>>Atomic particles>>Atoms>>Complex atoms>>Molecules>>Molecular structures>>Complex molecular structures>>Cellular structures>>Complex cellular structures..Todays existances>>> AND reverse

Can't you convert it in what you want to know??

It can mean that you don't have a single clue about physics.

Hans

 

[Donks]

It can mean that you don't have a single clue about physics.

Hans

When you put it like that, it makes it sound lke Kumar actually has a clue about something.

 

[Kumar]

No, it is not. We have found out that there are no materialistic or energetic traces.

How you could measure traces of energies in homeopathic remedies? Do potentization process dilute out active substances beyond E=mc^2 in homeopathic remedies?

Placebo, in the broad sense, is quite sufficient to explain homeopathy.

Even if placebo or sense effect--Is it not specific to remedy given or remedy told? If you show red colour or tell anybody to visulize red colour, both can effect. Even if placebo then also effect is of red colour. Unless you are able to see all vibrations in body due to any cause, you can't declare any concept as invalid. Probably but mostly, our older's most learned ones, could see this by attaining "Divya Dristhi" i.e. the infinite/unlimited/extreme power of vision or sense, by deepest concentrations, regular & long practices.

Straight lie, Kumar. Statistically verifiable observations of the eficacy of homeopathy do NOT exist, and you know it.

I mentioned in homeopathic clinics. You can make statics & varify those there. Since, this system is not yet declared as conventional, full attentions & means are not yet provided equally. So it can be therefore, bit unorganized.

Babble. You don't even know what E=mc2 means.

May be all couldn't see this level.
Btw, what is the smallest/shortest form of energy/force?

It can mean that you don't have a single clue about physics.

It an also mean that inspite you have so much clues, you are unable to relate those concepts with these, which you want to understand at most basic level or abc level.

 

[Placebo]

The bible is evidence, although I certainly wouldn't (and don't) use it. (In fact, my view of the bible is that it's a book written by people to support organized religion. I have no idea if any part of it is based on "real" experiences with God or not.)

What I still find a problem with is this:

In order for us to be 'saved', we need to acknowledge God and his will for how we live our lives.

However, if he cannot provide reasonably convincing evidence of his existence and uncontestable statements as to his will (without confusion) - how can we be fairly judged when disregarding it all as woo?

In other words - to have faith in any god in order to be attract his good will seems not far from playing the lottery.
None of them provide any firm basis to know their complete will for certain.

Please keep in mind that I'm not referring to 'Do not murder' - that can be argued in a separate vein of thought. I'm referring to eg. religions that preach that we need to 'spread the good news'.
How can we possibly know that with the non-existent solid evidence available? And how can God expect us to?

 

[MRC_Hans]

When you put it like that, it makes it sound lke Kumar actually has a clue about something.

Well, I'm a skeptic. I cannot prove that there is nothing Kumar has a clue about. We just haven't found any.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How you could measure traces of energies in homeopathic remedies?

We cannot, because there aren't any.

Do potentization process dilute out active substances beyond E=mc^2 in homeopathic remedies?

Nonsense question. What does "beyond E=mc^2" mean?

Even if placebo or sense effect--Is it not specific to remedy given or remedy told?

No.

Unless you are able to see all vibrations in body due to any cause, you can't declare any concept as invalid.

And we can.

Probably but mostly, our older's most learned ones, could see this by attaining "Divya Dristhi" i.e. the infinite/unlimited/extreme power of vision or sense, by deepest concentrations, regular & long practices.

Probably nonsense. And certainly irrelevant.

I mentioned in homeopathic clinics. You can make statics & varify those there.

No you can not. Such data do not exist.

Since, this system is not yet declared as conventional, full attentions & means are not yet provided equally. So it can be therefore, bit unorganized.

It is not organized at all. But that is not he point, Kumar. The point is that you claimed:

"Statistically verifiable observations & experiances can be done by survey of homeopathic clinics."

That is an affirmative statement, and it is a lie. You are a liar.

You might say that you think or hope that such a survey would yield statistically valid information, but to say that it CAN yield it is lying.

...In fact, I can tell you that I have been looking and asking for such data for nearly two years now. I have not found any, and I frankly don't think it exists.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

We cannot, because there aren't any.

What technology you have applied for that, to measure upto E=mc2 levels?

Nonsense question. What does "beyond E=mc^2" mean?

You could have understood it easily. Anyway, I meant that, as you apply avogodro law for the presence of molecular presence, how you can calculate energy presense on diluting out any substance at its energetic level?



Unless you are able to see all vibrations in body due to any cause, you can't declare any concept as invalid.

And we can.

What will be the vibrations within human's live body on its interactions with visible wavelengths? You can provide a reputed link?

Probably nonsense. And certainly irrelevant.

What do you mean by "Statistically verifiable data"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think we should not derail this thread further; I just budded in to call your lies and misrepresentations. If you have any technical or statistical questions that make sense, ask them elsewhere.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

I think we should not derail this thread further; I just budded in to call your lies and misrepresentations. If you have any technical or statistical questions that make sense, ask them elsewhere.

Hans

That is what you/s only say, but biggest lies & misrepresentation is that ; you know homeopathy works in observations & experiances of millions of homeopathic community. You also say it is by placebo. But still you want Statistically verifiable data.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That is what you/s only say,

Another lie, Kumar! I am certainly not the only one who says so. The entire scinetific community agrees.

but biggest lies & misrepresentation is that ; you know homeopathy works in observations & experiances of millions of homeopathic community.

Yest another big lie and misrepresentation from YOU. I do not know that homeopathy works. Quite the contrary. I have found that all observed effects seem to be due NOT to homeopathy but to the group of factors we can, for simplicity, call "placebo". So, unless you are saying that homeopath=placebo, you just told another lie.

You also say it is by placebo. But still you want Statistically verifiable data. [/B]

I say that the observations can be explained by placebo (in the broadest sense).

There IS no such data, Kumar. If there was, we could discuss those effects on a scientific level, but I cannot find such data, can you?

Hans

 

[Kumar]

I say that the observations can be explained by placebo (in the broadest sense).

There IS no such data, Kumar. If there was, we could discuss those effects on a scientific level, but I cannot find such data, can you?

Hans

That is what you/s only say,

Another lie, Kumar! I am certainly not the only one who says so. The entire scinetific community agrees.

Notice you/s.

Now for others. Forget about how it works. Bus just confirm that;

Millions or mass of homeopathic community accept & endorss that homeopathic treatment is effective on them or not? If not, why they go to homeopathic clinics repeatedly-just to pass time, see drama, waste time or just to throw money?Are they all fool or illetrate?

 

[Donks]

Millions or mass of homeopathic community accept & endorss that homeopathic treatment is effective on them or not? If not, why they go to homeopathic clinics repeatedly-just to pass time, see drama, waste time or just to throw money?Are they all fool or illetrate?

Until you can present some evidence that homeopathy works in a DBPC study, or a fantastic reason why any effects it has can't be measured (other than there are no effects), forget your mass observations.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Forget about how it works. Bus just confirm that;

Millions or mass of homeopathic community accept & endorss that homeopathic treatment is effective on them or not? If not, why they go to homeopathic clinics repeatedly-just to pass time, see drama, waste time or just to throw money?Are they all fool or illetrate?

They are mistaken. Just like those who once believed the Earth to be flat.

Now, Kumar, this is the last homeopathy question I answer in this thread. Start a homeopathy thread if you want to discuss homeopathy.

Hans