"spirits"... human, the Holy Spirit, ghosts and demons: is there such thing as a spirit?

[WalterP]

I'm sorry brothemario, but there are no proofs to be found within the parameters of the scientific method.

 

You are wrong about that.

 

I noticed your error in the first post you made in this thread.

 

On Thursday at 6:09 you wrote...

 

So why is it then that when a skeptic asks for “proof” of God existence, that skeptic will only accept physical proof using the scientific method? 

 

The only branch of the sciences that employs proofs is mathematics.

 

All the other empirical sciences do not employ proofs.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Brothermario]

Walter, isn’t to observe a thing, such as a bridge out, to use the scientific method in a limited sense, and our observation of the bridge being out proof of it?

 

Does the scientific method only entail all the rigors of science, and not each step along the way?

 

 I always thought that observation, and all our senses, were a scientist’s tools?

[WalterP]

Sorry Brothermario, but no.

 

These links will help you understand more.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof#:~:text=Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic%2C not,evaluation of scientific theory is evidence%2C not proof.

 

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#314b759c2fb1

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/can-science-prove-anything-3973922

 

https://grist.org/article/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#:~:text="Proof" is something that the opponents of science,suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrP4o9uT4xfjj8AMnYM34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?qid=20151216012204AAiMQon

 

https://woofreezone.com/scientific-proof-evidence-and-the-scientific-method/

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Brothermario]

Walter, I went to one link, and the first thing I read was that the scientific method begins with an observation.

 

I said that skeptics want “proof” of God’s existence within the parameters of the scientific method.

 

Science not proving anything is semantics. The steps of the scientific method are proof of many things. Water is H2O, not just called H2O. Chemistry “discovered” it, and now using chemistry can “prove” it again. This is semantics.

[WalterP]

No, Brothermario.

 

This is epistemology, not semantics.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

p.s.

Please do take the time to read and digest the contents of all the links I posted.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

This could go on forever, which is exactly what Mario desires.

[Brothermario]

Yes, it’s my fault.

 

And my Philosophy degree yields to Walter’s semantics.

[Brothermario]

In a word, a Scientific Fact can be proven, a Scientific Theory cannot.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Brothermario said:

I went to one link, and the first thing I read was that the scientific method begins with an observation.

It bears pointing out that this "intellectual," who prides himself in the use of logic, has drawn a conclusion based on the first thing he read on one link.

[florduh]

11 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

In a word, a Scientific Fact can be proven, a Scientific Theory cannot.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact supported theories are not guesses but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"Semantics" is useful when one has no counterpoint or rebuttal.  It provides one the means of belaboring an already lost argument by splitting hairs over the meaning of words.

[pantheory]

58 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Yes, it’s my fault.

 

And my Philosophy degree yields to Walter’s semantics.

 

Brothermario,

 

As you know, name dropping or mention of a degree is a logical fallacy in an argument. In your case sarcasm. -- Just a mention on my part.

 

But let's forget that. I am aware of your valid intellect, but as to spirits and gods, gods as a plural is used to explain the beliefs of a great many religions, not just a single religion that is polytheist. As to a God and spirits in general, one should believe whatever evidence he deems appropriate for his belief with the consideration that the beliefs of his family, his society, or of others may be wrong.

 

If you think you have personal experiences with God then no one may be able to convince you it is just a delusion, imagination etc. But if you are trying to convince someone else of your belief you have to provide evidence other than personal testimony which could be a delusion. So, the scientific method is not needed, but evidence of some kind is needed to assert the existence of God or spirits etc.

 

As for me, I am a pure atheist. I would bet my life and immortal soul against a six pack that all religion, spirits and God are all 100% BS. BS does not imply an intended fraud, it just means such a belief has no observable basis for it.  In my case I would say there is no logic at all to it. I'm sure you understand that personal testimony is not proof to anyone, or whether those considering someone's testimony believes it or not.

 

As an atheist I say that I believe there is no such thing as a God; show me the evidence. I also say the same thing in science. Tell me what you believe to be valid and show me the evidence for it. If I don't like the evidence presented I look for an alternate explanation. So I would say to you that you don't have to be a cynic, but look for the possible BS in everything that you choose to believe. 

[WalterP]

43 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

In a word, a Scientific Fact can be proven, a Scientific Theory cannot.

 

Brothermario, you wrote...

 

So why is it then that when a skeptic asks for “proof” of God existence, that skeptic will only accept physical proof using the scientific method?

 

But proofs play no part in the scientific method.

 

 

You can discover this FACT for yourself, Brothermario.

 

Please perform a Google image search for 'scientific method' and look closely at the diagrams that result.

 

They fall into two types; linear diagrams and circular diagrams.

 

In neither type is the word 'proof' ever indicated, listed or mentioned.

 

That's because proofs play no part in the scientific method.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Orbit]

1 hour ago, Brothermario said:

In a word, a Scientific Fact can be proven, a Scientific Theory cannot.

 

Theories are explanations that are based on facts. We test theories by applying new facts, based on observations as they become available. We do not "prove" theories; we test them, and that is the basis of science. If a theory is no longer supported by new observations/facts we refine the theory.

 

Theory, like science, is ever-evolving to take into account the latest observations. A theory stands until it falls. "Proving" it is not the point nor the process.

[Brothermario]

Guys, all I’m saying is that when a skeptic demands proof from me about experiencing God, that skeptic is asking me to only use the scientific method and provide him with repeatable data.

 

pantheory has just demonstrated very well the thinking and demands of the skeptic. He wants “observable” proof of God, and he will not accept any other proof.

 

And the first step in the scientific method is the observation of a thing.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

@Brothermario, are you a dipshit just because I've observed you to be?  Wouldn't you rather I back up my claim of your dipshittedness with some kind of testable evidence?

[alreadyGone]

Day two of my vigil:

 

-No signs or symptoms of demon manifestation.

-I'm drinking more yerba mate and less coffee. That helps.

 

-Still searching for any aplicable instrumentation or sensors which could be available now..

 

More later.

Stay well everyone.

 

 

[florduh]

2 hours ago, Brothermario said:

And my Philosophy degree yields to Walter’s semantics.

Who the hell thinks it necessary to keep mentioning their (supposed) degrees and accomplishments?

 

You want people to think you speak from authority and special revelation, but you just come off as a boorish know-it-all. 

 

It would seem all your accomplishments, advanced degrees and general godlike abilities are largely or entirely imagined.

 

[alreadyGone]

33 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

Guys, all I’m saying is that when a skeptic demands proof from me about experiencing God, that skeptic is asking me to only use the scientific method and provide him with repeatable data.

 

pantheory has just demonstrated very well the thinking and demands of the skeptic. He wants “observable” proof of God, and he will not accept any other proof.

 

And the first step in the scientific method is the observation of a thing.

 

May I...

Does this totally preclude the possibility that instead, it's only "why believe this, other than that it's how someone else feels about it? "

 

 

Speaking only for myself, I can't demand anything of you.

If you lived next door to me I wouldn't feel I were in a position to demand anything of you.

 

The only possible circumstances under which I can conceive that I would be in any position to impose demands upon you is if we had a contract of which you were in violation, or you had done malicious harmful damage to me or my property.

 

Otherwise..

 

[florduh]

48 minutes ago, Brothermario said:

He wants “observable” proof of God, and he will not accept any other proof.

What would that other proof be? Your say so?

[midniterider]

What is wrong with observable proof of God?

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Brothermario said:

Guys, all I’m saying is that when a skeptic demands proof from me about experiencing God, that skeptic is asking me to only use the scientific method and provide him with repeatable data.

 

pantheory has just demonstrated very well the thinking and demands of the skeptic. He wants “observable” proof of God, and he will not accept any other proof.

 

And the first step in the scientific method is the observation of a thing.

 

".........when a skeptic demands proof from me about experiencing God, that skeptic is asking me to only use the scientific method and provide him with repeatable data."

 

You have been talking to the wrong people. As has been mentioned in this thread, "proof" is the wrong word to use when making an assertion. The same people can also ask for the scientific method to be used when only simple convincing "evidence" is needed.

 

Repeatable data means little if you are trying to explain that your belief is based upon personal experiences. Personal experiences are related to one's interpretation of internal experiences and feelings. If you ever want to question your own personal religious experiences, question your interpretation of these events and related feelings.

 

For expressing your beliefs, you can be wasting your time in discussions with non-believers you don't know. For those folk who base their beliefs on personal experiences, I would suggest being more introspective and critical of your own belief if you realize that others may find it hard to believe.

 

But for the belief in anything, one will always find listeners and believers in those who believe the same thing as they do. But if you are trying to convince non-believers, then it means that you must find evidence that does not involve personal experiences or the testimonials of others to convince them.  This is simple logic, right?

 

 

[Brothermario]

Walter and Orbit, do you see the company you keep here?

 

Today’s skeptics are sometimes society’s misfits, and humanity’s dregs.

 

But the hardcore atheist is almost always just a self-absorbed idiot.

 

Time to fuck with them ...

 

Yes. I have a Philosophy degree, magna cum laude, which I achieved in three years by carrying as many as 28 credit hours in a single semester. And I have a Graduate degree in English, Professional Writing. And I counseled troubled teenagers for 12 years, while running my painting company, joemellopainting.com, established in 1983. And I have about 100 stories to tell about God revealing himself to me over a seven year period, from 23 to 30 years old. And I had about 50 beautiful girlfriends before I got married.

 

That should do it.

[Brothermario]

pantheory, I wasn’t thinking of you when I wrote the above.

[Brothermario]

pantheory, I have been quite clear that because God himself gave to me certain knowledge of his existence, it would be stupid of me to talk to skeptics, or anyone, for the purpose of giving to them what only God could give to me.

 

My purpose here, or anywhere, is to tell the truth about the living God I experienced so people will have a concept of God other than mere religious belief within a religion.

 

I know you think it is all simply belief, for you have said so above.

But I know it isn’t.