SHEEPEOPLE

[ScottA]

Your fourth point has not been verified in any way so far....

It has not for a minority of the earth's population, but for the majority...it has. What HAS been verified, however, it that without said spiritual realm...when you die, you're dead.

 

[Smidlee]

Except we're not talking about interpretation, we're talking about the evidence itself. Evidence by definition is objective.

Put another way, if you interpret the evidence incorrectly, it doesn't actually change what the evidence is in reality.

If an ape see a person on the floor with 5 gunshots in the back with the banana in his hand the only evidence it will see is the banana and not a murder. Evidence and/or data is useless without something or idea to put all the evidence/ data into.

 

[Loudmouth]

Faith is required since evidence can only take someone but so far.

Evidence can only take us to the truth. I guess if you want to keep going to the make believe, then faith would be required.

You can't unless more evidence reveals the "truth".

Then why did you say that conclusions are wrong if you are going to ignore the evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

If an ape see a person on the floor with 5 gunshots in the back with the banana in his hand the only evidence it will see is the banana and not a murder.

Doesn't change the fact that the other evidence can still be seen. It isn't invisible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Faith is required since evidence can only take someone but so far.

Not really... more often than not if you discover all the evidence, you can draw a correct conclusion from examining that evidence without resorting to faith.

 

[Smidlee]

Evidence can only take us to the truth. I guess if you want to keep going to the make believe, then faith would be required.

Evidence can take you away from the truth. For example in the past the evidence pointed toward the sun went around the earth.

Not really... more often than not if you discover all the evidence, you can draw a correct conclusion from examining that evidence without resorting to faith.

How can anyone know when they have "all evidence"?

 

[HitchSlap]

Evidence has to be interpreted which requires a mind. This is why evidence can cause someone to come up with the wrong conclusion.

First, let me say thank you for such a nice and reasonable response.

Please do not take what I am going to say as metaphysical, it's well beyond that, which must first be understood. It is one thing to sit in a place and contemplate something or somewhere else, but something complete different to actually go. In this case, one must actually believe...which I understand is difficult without some good reason. In my case, I tried everything else first being unwilling to try it first, and when I had exhausted all other possibilities, it was simply a process of elimination. Bottom line, when I came forward...I didn't believe ANYTHING...but I was sincere. So...rather than believing in something you have no good reason to believe, you at least have to be sincere. This may not seem like life and death to you, but at the time, I had already passed that point, thus my sincerity was indeed acceptable. Your own sincerity is the gauge of whether or not you will be able to see behind the curtain. This test, this demonstration, is not on the faith talkers, it's on you.

Consider relativity. Consider one reality where one believes beyond a certain point, and consider another reality where one only believes up to that certain point. I am no expert, but it stands to reason that the only person who will get beyond that certain point, is the one whose reality includes it. Sorry, I'm not sure that helped.

Bottom line, you are going to have to put a toe out there and be willing to get it wet. Scary, but that's how it's done. If we were talking about dancing or talking to some big scary figure, you might even need a push. In the case of dancing, you have to pull your fingers out of your ears and hear the music, feel the beat, let your backbone slide. Again, this is on you, and you don't have to do it. But before you just write all this off as crazy talk, think about how YOU would describe something like, say, love: It exists, it's invisible, but it's real, and you sound like an idiot no matter what you say. But one thing is true...without it, you don't know what you're missing.

Keep seeking. Step up. Be sincere.

I enjoy science fiction novels on occasion. Does that count?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It has not for a minority of the earth's population, but for the majority...it has. What HAS been verified, however, it that without said spiritual realm...when you die, you're dead.

Actually, it hasn't been verified for anyone as far as I'm aware. Believing that a spirit realm exists is not the same thing as having your belief verified.... even if you believe very strongly.

Saying the majority of the worlds population believes something doesn't make it true. In fact, that's just an appeal to popularity fallacy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If an ape see a person on the floor with 5 gunshots in the back with the banana in his hand the only evidence it will see is the banana and not a murder. Evidence and/or data is useless without something or idea to put all the evidence/ data into.

Um... What?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Evidence can take you away from the truth. For example in the past the evidence pointed toward the sun went around the earth.

How can anyone know when they have "all evidence"?

No, actually the evidence clearly shows the earth goes around the sun. Those that thought otherwise were (as we described above) in error. There is no evidence that the sun goes around the earth.

 

[Smidlee]

No, actually the evidence clearly shows the earth goes around the sun. Those that thought otherwise were (as we described above) in error. There is no evidence that the sun goes around the earth.

You didn't know that there were evidence that the sun went around the earth. It had something to do with how the star appear in the sky which was revealed as an illusion created by our atmosphere after man went into space.

Don't anyone here knows how the real world works.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

"Such anomalies demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism. Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. And this is why the decline effect is so troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren’t surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

 

[ScottA]

Can people sincerely believe something that isn't true?

Of course, and people can be cool without being original too. But original, is better...and that is part of the equation also.

The difference being that you shouldn't have to rely on belief. If something exists, then you should be able to demonstrate that it exists.

In worldly matters, yes. In these matters, no. You say that like you could produce a gallon of water within a quart jar. How many times do we have to say, "Your little demo world ain't big enough for all of reality!"?

We can demonstrate that music exists outside of the mind of the person making the claim. Poor analogy.

Darn...that's what I get for listening to The Lovin' Spoonfuls!

 

[Smidlee]

Darn...that's what I get for listening to The Lovin' Spoonfuls!

Actually music,art and words doesn't exist outside a mind. Even sounds and color only exist within the mind.

 

[ScottA]

I enjoy science fiction novels on occasion. Does that count?

Indeed it does...tushay...extra points for HitchSlap!

 

[ScottA]

Actually music,art and words doesn't exist outside a mind. Even sounds and color only exist within the mind.

...And sometimes in museums.

 

[ScottA]

Actually, it hasn't been verified for anyone as far as I'm aware. Believing that a spirit realm exists is not the same thing as having your belief verified.... even if you believe very strongly.

Saying the majority of the worlds population believes something doesn't make it true. In fact, that's just an appeal to popularity fallacy.

This is where the term "witness" would apply. Witnesses, do NOT "believe", but have first-hand verification of the truth. There are millions upon millions of us.

Fallacies are indeed popular...but that is not what I was referring to. Different topic.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is where the term "witness" would apply. Witnesses, do NOT "believe", but have first-hand verification of the truth. There are millions upon millions of us.

Fallacies are indeed popular...but that is not what I was referring to. Different topic.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You didn't know that there were evidence that the sun went around the earth. It had something to do with how the star appear in the sky which was revealed as an illusion created by our atmosphere after man went into space.

After man went into space? We figured out the earth went around the sun centuries before that. Copernicus figured that out in the 16th century, and it was championed and popularized later by Galileo, until he was silenced by the Catholic Church for his "heretical views".

And if the appearance the sun makes in the sky is evidence of the sun going around the earth, could you please show what the sky would look like if the earth rotated around the sun instead?

Don't anyone here knows how the real world works.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

"Such anomalies demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism. Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. And this is why the decline effect is so troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren’t surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

What are you trying to prove with this article?

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is where the term "witness" would apply. Witnesses, do NOT "believe", but have first-hand verification of the truth. There are millions upon millions of us.

Fallacies are indeed popular...but that is not what I was referring to. Different topic.

Can you provide me with someone who witnessed this spiritual realm first hand, and has testimony that can be verified? By that I mean, we can show their claims are correct, and not a product of their own imagination or whatnot.

 

[ScottA]

Knowledge is demonstrable.

Correction:

Finite knowledge is demonstrable in a finite setting, while infinite knowledge is not.