My Kidney Challenge

[katerinah1947]

Not accidentally - and the limits are there from HIMSELF.

If what you say is correct, then any atheist, any ANTI theist could do the same process and come to understand God's existence.

Hi,

So, you did put limits on God????, or are you really saying something else????

...me.,

 

[bhsmte]

Where is rod serling when you need him?

 

[Dave-W]

So, you did put limits on God????, or are you really saying something else????

I am saying God put limits on Himself.

 

[katerinah1947]

I am saying God put limits on Himself.

Hi,

If you managed yourself, like God does, then the limits might surely be there.

That after all is what separates, engineers, and their like, from many other professions.

Machine maintenance types, entrepreneurs, and actually nurses are all self managed types.

All scientists are also.

Is it limits? Or is it, what is the right thing to do?

LOVE,

 

[Kylie]

Hi,

The form of logic for this is the kind used in math and science.

Math and science is about proofs, and pretty much irrefutable and universal proofs, as used in the scientific community.

Disallowed, here for now are all Phiosophicsl definitions and perhaps all religious ones also, as they seem quite similar to me.

1). God is a Theory, that everyone, NORMALLY, starts out with no knowledge of.

2.) To study that theory, one has to gather and test all that can be found on that theory.

Is that logical so far?

I hope it is.

I would disagree a little.

It is not enough to STUDY a theory. It must be tested. And the best way to test a theory is to try to falsify it.

For example, let's use the example of Lamarkian evolution, which states that any traits that an animal gained during its life could be passed on to subsequent offspring. An example of this is the idea that giraffes started out with short necks, but an individual's neck lengthened as it stretched for leaves. If that individual then had a baby, that baby would have a slightly longer neck.

This idea can be falsified easily. Take a group of mice and cut their tails off. Then, allow them to breed. If Lamarkian evolution is true, then the offspring mice would have no tails. But this doesn't happen. Lamarkian evolution predicts something, but when we try it in the real world, we find that the prediction is not met. Thus, this is evidence against Lamarkian evolution. Since all experiments about Lamarkian evolution have shown that the results don't match up with what we would predict if it is true, then we must conclude that Lamarkian evolution is false.

So it is not enough to study what has been written about it, but also to do the experiments ourselves.

Also, you do not explain where this "theory of God" comes from. Where does the data come from that suggests God?

3.) As tests are set up to verify any provable statements from each religion, God is not expected to be found, nor is God expected not to be found.

Agreed, if we are conducting an experiment, we must try not to let our biases influence us.

4.) Tests are performed, and you collect data.

Results.

In my case there was a book that I could find no scientific errors in.

Are you suggesting that the Bible has no scientific errors? Or are you referring to a different book. If so, which book?

When run, Controlled experiments on testable Biblical items, all of them gave the same results, which can happen.

The data had no variance. That cannot happen in the Real world.

Yeah, but you are always working the same data set, aren't you? If I wanted to find the average beak length of pigeons, I could go out and catch a bunch of pigeons, measuring their beaks before releasing them. If, twenty years later, I want to measure their beak lengths again, I would be a fool to go back to my old data rather then collect new measurements.

Additionally more came out of the experiments than was put in, thus The Conservation of energy was violated.

Please give a specific example of this. In detail.

Both variance, the lack of it, and the anomalous more Energy out than energy put in, did not affect the results and were ignored, as the meaning of each of those items, was unknown, and were no part of the design of the experiments.

You really need to go into a lot more detail if you want me to accept any of these claims. All you have said is, "I did some experiments on the Bible, I got results I found implausible, therefore it must be God." There are many other explanations, such as poorly constructed experiments, inadequate data sets, etc.

The results showed The Bible not to be a work of man, but a work of God.

Please tell me how you eliminated all other possible explanations.

All of the techniques and methods used, are standard scientific methods, which only come from math and logic. The scientific types of math and logic.

Unfortunately, you have not given any details about the process you used to conduct these experiments.

In the above way, is how math logic and proofs, can be and were used in finding God.

I'm sorry, but you have been incredibly vague about the whole thing, so I can't just accept this all on nothing more than your say-so.

The Bible that was under study, passed, and this is what was learned about it.,

As I've said, you have not given a single detail about this study you conducted. Provide these details please.

Understanding, what is really in there and really meant, The Bible is Real, where the definition of Real, is That It Is True where It Says It Is True and It Is False where It Says It Is False.

I see no reason to arbitrarily claim that this is the definition of "real".

Additionally Real has the definition of, as though That Book Is Alive and A Real Person.

Books are not people.

Do you see how only math, logic and even the concept of proofs were used in that work, as it was totally done from a scientific and research point of view, and no other?

LOVE,

No, I do not see, because you have not shown me. You just said you used them. I'm going to need more than a claim to change my mind.

 

[Kylie]

So I won't end up worshiping your goddess (Mother Nature), who's starving them in the first place.

Who said I worship nature as a god? Who said I worship anything?

Stop jumping to conclusions, dude.

In any case, I am aware that nature is not some benevolent entity, so I don't expect it to try to reduce suffering.

However, since the Christian God is said to be all loving, all knowing and all powerful, don't Christians expect that God would indeed act to reduce such suffering? I've seen many Christians perform amazing mental gymnastics to try to explain why there is suffering despite an all loving, all knowing and all powerful God.

 

[Kylie]

Hi,

Yes anyone can repeat this work, scientifically, meaning they do not mix in other disciplines, or even themselves.

...me.,

And how do you expect anyone to repeat your work when you have not described what you did in even the slightest detail?

 

[Hoghead1]

When it comes to questions on the nature of God, what God is like in his or her own nature, there is more than one school of thought of thought or model of God in contemporary Christianity, KTS. Many Christians and laity think there is just one model of God. Wrong. There are two. One has a choice. The older model is called classical theism. The newer model is called neo-classical theism. Most or the time when the laity are addressing questions about God and suffering, they use the classical model. The result is that they fail to give satisfying answers. In recent years, the Christian model of picture of God has been undergoing a major face life. So there are new, alternative ways to approach these questions. I could go into more detail here, but it takes time and I don't know if you are interested. For right now, I am content to say that not all Christians today subscribe to the same picture of how God is built and works.

 

[katerinah1947]

And how do you expect anyone to repeat your work when you have not described what you did in even the slightest detail?

Hi,

I am sorry you see it that way. Earlier, you talked with great scientific clarity and understanding. I was pleased and stunned. You said you had a music background. Still I was surprised. Your responses were also scientific.

Let's try this. Rather than being taught, scientists try and learn on their own. They use a number of methods and tools to do that.

For me now, when the issue of God versus no God came up, I studied, listened and questioned, with the goal of, I needing to understand. I. I.

And pretty much that is what research is. It is an attempt to understand things, that I do not understand yet.

Essentially, in any field, and at any education level, it is a person who is gifted/stuck in the I must understand or else I don't know it mode.

Thus, the self learning, And in fact, research is not a Spectator Sport or activity, Without doing, one cannot learn, that is what research is.

It is a job.

Look at those descriptions as something to do, for that is what a researcher in science sees that information as.

He/she will see if DID, meaning that work was carried out, is in there. He/she will then look for any flaws. He/she will then compare those results to all she/he knows, and if she /he does not have anything, her/his testing will begin.

I think that all of the DID's are there. I will give them again, if you want to do the work.

Notice that trying to convince, is no part of this.

Are you though trying to convince me of something?

Data, is all that a researcher uses, in the end.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

I would disagree a little.

It is not enough to STUDY a theory. It must be tested. And the best way to test a theory is to try to falsify it.

Yes it must be tested.
No one in science falsifies. Science proves. Falsify is not scientific. Rather it seems to be an intrusion into science by the Philosophers. Proofs are used in science. Proofs can prove something in incorrect. They can be used to prove something is correct. Thesis are verified by proofs. Tests are generally done for proofs. The outcome, of those tests, is a summary of the data.

Since I knew of no tests then, I called God, really the theory of God. (I do not know how to translate easily from my science world/background to the non scientific world easily. I suppose theory is not the way non scientists use the idea of a unproven question. To me an unproven question is a theory, and theory is used in other ways, also, in the field that are more similar to questions than any proven work. That is an also, not the only way that word is used.)

For example, let's use the example of Lamarkian evolution, which states that any traits that an animal gained during its life could be passed on to subsequent offspring. An example of this is the idea that giraffes started out with short necks, but an individual's neck lengthened as it stretched for leaves. If that individual then had a baby, that baby would have a slightly longer neck.

This idea can be falsified easily. Take a group of mice and cut their tails off. Then, allow them to breed. If Lamarkian evolution is true, then the offspring mice would have no tails. But this doesn't happen. Lamarkian evolution predicts something, but when we try it in the real world, we find that the prediction is not met. Thus, this is evidence against Lamarkian evolution. Since all experiments about Lamarkian evolution have shown that the results don't match up with what we would predict if it is true, then we must conclude that Lamarkian evolution is false.

Although called a proof, and not a falsification, that is correct as far as I know.

So it is not enough to study what has been written about it, but also to do the experiments ourselves.

Yes.

Also, you do not explain where this "theory of God" comes from. Where does the data come from that suggests God?

That is from me. Since God is not a fact for me back then, and not for anyone I knew back then in a way that I understood them, I called it a theory. I tested the theory of God.

Agreed, if we are conducting an experiment, we must try not to let our biases influence us.

Yes.

Are you suggesting that the Bible has no scientific errors? Or are you referring to a different book. If so, which book?

I am stating, that in my work, I could not prove anything in the Bible was Scientifically wrong, with a proof that would stand up, in scientific circles.

Further I am stating that then, and briefly after that work was completed, no one else had come up with a proof that the Bible is wrong, scientifically.

And, I am stating that with a proof that will stand up in science, no one still has proved the Bible is wrong scientifically.

I could not prove that book wrong, and I tried. No one else has proved that book is wrong who has tried either. No one.

What is out there is all circular logic of one form or another so far. Scientifically what is out there is mistaken science.

Mistaken science is done by some even with full Credentials. Cold fusion is one of those occasions. Nicotine is not habit forming is another one. There are more examples.

Yeah, but you are always working the same data set, aren't you? If I wanted to find the average beak length of pigeons, I could go out and catch a bunch of pigeons, measuring their beaks before releasing them. If, twenty years later, I want to measure their beak lengths again, I would be a fool to go back to my old data rather then collect new measurements.

No. The data looked at is generally not old data, except if I look at someone's proof. If a proof does not exist, one way or another, then I might generate new data.

It my case, all new data was generated.

Please give a specific example of this. In detail.

This will be hard. It was ignored but noted. I will try and remember. A presence, undefined, was sensed and felt, outside and inside of me, while testing. Thus rather than being exhausted, bored out of my mind, it was as though I was more than I normally was, when testing.

You really need to go into a lot more detail if you want me to accept any of these claims. All you have said is, "I did some experiments on the Bible, I got results I found implausible, therefore it must be God." There are many other explanations, such as poorly constructed experiments, inadequate data sets, etc.

The data is neutral. It is just data. The data was summarized only. Five controlled experiments were designed by me. It is something that I do, when I need to. I ran the five controlled experiments.

The first one was to compare a known, how my parents were faring with my inputs, and an unknown, how they would fare using a comparable Statement in The Bible and following it, because it is written in there. And of course, telling no one ever that this was being done.

When I used that comparable statement, Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, as it was written, and because it was in there, the results were always good. Prior to running that test, I was al ready doing that. I compared the difference.

Please tell me how you eliminated all other possible explanations.

Actively, I try and find fault in me, and my data collection. I will use others. I do everything in my power, to prove that I am making a mistake in my data collection. And if I find one, that data is eliminated.

It is rather a violent operation. I am taking the data. I am also trying to prove that I am not doing it correctly, or have made an error.

With that process, whether it is weather, medicine, sleep problems, anger, bias, inaccurate calibration of a piece of equipment, incorrect calibration of a person, the data is looked at to find faults. Normally, that is done by others if need be. Normally, weekly meetings are had, to have someone else try and prove that I am making a mistake. It is called Devil's Advocacy by some.

That process was used in my data collection on Bible experiments.

Unfortunately, you have not given any details about the process you used to conduct these experiments.

Two things are compared, after you cannot prove the Bible wrong. By then, you actually will know how to read the Book apart from all the false information out there on that book.

I'm sorry, but you have been incredibly vague about the whole thing, so I can't just accept this all on nothing more than your say-so.

I am not asking you to accept anything. I am presenting what I have done.

As I've said, you have not given a single detail about this study you conducted. Provide these details please.

I was not studying the Bible. I was investigating claims by some people. The motivation was very high. They made statements of veracity, that captured two of my family members.
I wanted to know if they were right or not. They would tell me virtually nothing, but they kept talking.
They said they followed the Bible.
I did research to see if that book was Fake or Not.

As a scientist, then engaged in Research to solve manufacturing problems in something called semiconductors, and by myself, I was the only one they had to do that work, I took on the Bible in the only way I knew how.

I did not know if the book is fake or not. I decided to see if I could prove it was a fake. If it is man made, there should be one mistake in there, that I can find from my background, which was some, not all science.

I chose proving the Bible false, as my method. No one prior to me had done that. In 8 1/2 years I could not. If I could prove the Bible is man made, then that would be a great service to all of mankind. And, that was on my mind. It was no matter what answer I got, even if I got no answer, it would be useful.

Even if I got no answer, that would be reported. I Curtis/Mary P.... Heimberg, could not prove the Bible is wrong; has anyone else yet, proved it wrong?

I see no reason to arbitrarily claim that this is the definition of "real".

Real is not arbitrarily there. It is just the definition that was used, in this instance.

Books are not people.

This book acts like a person. I was not expecting that. It did in testing. It acted like a person.

No, I do not see, because you have not shown me. You just said you used them. I'm going to need more than a claim to change my mind.

Hi again,

I am not here to change your mind. I am just here.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

And how do you expect anyone to repeat your work when you have not described what you did in even the slightest detail?

Similar questions have been asked of this person in the past, many times.

I have yet to see any direct answers, only long drawn out responses, that have nothing to do with the question.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes it must be tested.
No one in science falsifies. Science proves. Falsify is not scientific. Rather it seems to be an intrusion into science by the Philosophers. Proofs are used in science.

That's all in conflict with accepted ideas.

Misconceptions - Understanding Science
Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

 

[katerinah1947]

That's all in conflict with accepted ideas.

Misconceptions - Understanding Science
Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Hi,

Are you saying, what I think you are saying?????

Are you saying that within science, Karl Popper has no place that is used within and by scientists?

For sure, us who are scientists, do not really understand that Philosopher.

And, I would never use nor have used, his ambiguous, description of the concept called Proof.

No one else, I have ever met, uses his words for proof either.

Science, for others, is about proof.

Philosophy by research, is the field of study of all human thoughts, and with proofs, but kicking out all proven items by them, as soon as they are proven.,

I use five, of their, products, in my work.

I use, the nature of reality, in science. Is this or that or I real?

I use, the idea of bias. How do I know, that I have not influenced the results? How do I know others have not influenced the results?

I use the idea of, how do I know what the truth is. When is something true? How do you know if something is true? Can anything be Absolutely true? What level of truth is correct? Is that level possibly absolute..... Etc.

Math as used in science, and logic as used in science, are products of Philosophy as far as I know. They are credited by me, as being the source of, those.

Proofs, are a mathematical concept. And proofs, not falsifiability are used.

Popper, a person at Stanford wrote a Phiosophical paper on science. From, that, the word falsifiability came to be used, mostly by non scientists.

It has no place in science, apart from science recognizing the fact, that a Philosopher, has some ideas about science, in the realm called proofs.

LOVE,

 

[Goatee]

I would gladly give one of my kidneys

 

[SkyWriting]

Science, for others, is about proof.

I doubt it. Please prove your suggestion.

 

[katerinah1947]

I doubt it. Please prove your suggestion.

Hi,

No, not until I understand your statement.

I said this, with those words, though maybe poorly, for other people and not you, as I think you already know this, science is really about proofs, and not about falsifiability.

Falsifiability, is a philosophical word with a philosophical definition. It is primarily trying to deal with the concept of proofs in the science world.

Even if it applies to science, all of us have and will continue to have no use for that word.

We won't because we are not Philosophers. We are scientists. As scientists, falsifiability is adding philosophy to science in an amount that is entirely too much, to help get answers.

Instead our old concept of Proven-Wrong and Proven-Right are less difficult to understand, and already work essentially flawlessly.

They are also the industry standard, and is generally shortened to proof.

I can prove what I say, or I cannot.

Now, was I wrong in assessing, (a guess), that you already understand the use of proof in science, and therefore I do not have to say anything to you on that?

Or, did I error twice, in that falsifiability is your understanding of the way science works; and that also how a lot of people look at science is with proofs rather than falsifiability?

I was under the impression, that you would see science as a set of proofs.

I was under the impression that people see science as that which is not falsifiable.

LOVE,

 

[SkyWriting]

I said this, with those words, though maybe poorly, for other people and not you, as I think you already know this, science is really about proofs, and not about falsifiability.

"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

[katerinah1947]

Science is not about proof of anything.

Hi,

Okay then, tell me in your own words, what I was doing all those years.

LOVE,

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi,

Okay then, tell me in your own words, what I was doing all those years.

LOVE,

Tell me one of the things you proved in those years.
Or today.

 

[nightflight]

I thought this was going to be one of those "how long do you think I can hold it in" challenge threads.