How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[amariselle]

Do you believe all christians have the same personal morals?

If they are obeying Christ, then yes. Their basic morality wouldn't differ in any noteworthy way.

 

[Gene2memE]

Slavery then - moral or not?

 

[devolved]

Slavery then - moral or not?

It seems to be a rhetorical question here. Doesn't matter who'd answer it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

you slander my character...

Hmmm... I seem to recall having a similar conversation with you several months ago, in which you repeatedly claimed that you were being slandered in one way or another. This was completely untrue of course, given that we were only examining the merits of your claims, not your character. But the conversation ceased to be productive simply because you were convinced that you were being slandered, even though you weren't. I see a similar pattern here. You cast aspersions on my reading comprehension, and yet later, despite clearly having misread my posts, you accused me of being hostile! I'm sorry to say, but I don't think that we can have an enlightening conversation so long as this pattern continues, so I will refrain from discussing this topic with you any further.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmmm, I don't see how we've "tempered our violent destructiveness over time" at all. Quite the opposite actually.

I understand - that's why I provided a link to a book by a respected cognitive scientist that makes the case in detail.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not asking your for definitive demonstration with all of the tested data here. I'm asking you about the method when it comes to analyzing a single person... before you move on to analizing lots and lots of people.

How can I explain this in even more simple terms.....some of in fact, most of the underlying causes could be psychological in nature, right? And some would be physical, right? Now, what professional in either field diagnoses a patient by what someone else tells them they have observed? Don't they have to question the patient themselves? You are asking me to show you answers to questions and actions that were observed in some cases long ago, so that you can prove to me that my method of testing is wrong....don't you see the insanity in what you are asking me to do? Seriously, how do you not see the insanity in that? I have offered examples of questions we would ask to get to the root "cause" of the thing we observed, and that wasn't enough because by your own admission you want to show me where I am wrong. IOW's you have already passed judgment and now insist that I prove you right by showing you something that we both know can't be done if we have a proper testing method.

If your method is valid, then I would make a fool out of myself trying to show that it's wrong, especially in a forum setting where people are very much welcome to pick false logic apart.

yep....and as I have repeatedly said, without the subject present we can NOT show testing. In addition I have already shown the method for one of the things we would test for, and that wasn't good enough for you because you couldn't use it to prove me wrong.

Here is another example of what I am saying to you, maybe eventually you will stop condemning me without a shred of evidence to suggest I am wrong. One of our children is having serious mental issues right now, long story. He is seeing a professional to get help. In order to diagnose to see what the cause of the problem is, he had a paper of 100 or more questions that needed to be answered so that he could diagnose the problem. You are asking me to present all the questions all the observation that went into the diagnosis so to speak in this case and even then, you demand that I show common denominator which only exists when we have lots and lots of samples to draw from. As I have said, what you are asking for, if the method of "investigation" is correct is impossible to provide in this format. So, keep asking and see what answer you get next time and the time after that and the time after that and the time after that until I loss my patience. If we use the proper method of testing it is impossible to show that method in this format, the closest we can come is examples which were already provided and ignored.

That's how scientific method works. First we set up constraints and method in a specific setting. We determine what we are going to measure.... SPECIFICALLY, and then we move on to analysis of wide range of subjects to study.

yep...all things I have already said and shown....yawning waiting for some real challenge rather than judgment and false accusations of my character...and yes these are false accusations of my character because they go to the issue of integrity when I have already talked about and shown evidence of this being the method and you refuse to accept that because by your own admission, you have already judged me to be wrong and thus are determined to evidence me wrong even though I have already demonstrated I am wrong.

I don't know, I think at this point, you somehow think that if you badger me enough, goad me bad enough I will somehow magically change my answers and beliefs about what is good testing....

If you can't even walk me through a hypothetical scenario about how you would test a single claim on a single person, and then determine what you would consider to be the "God-related" common denominator that you'd be looking for.... how are you going to expect such method to be applied more broadly? Is it such a difficult question to answer?

I gave several great examples and you all notice the all ignored them, I even challenged you all to walk through a "mock" example with me and that went ignored as well. You know, playing roles to see how it would all happen, but you didn't want that either.

We are talking about "how" in this thread, right? And I'm merely inquiring about specifics of your method.

so, I present the "formula" and that isn't enough, I give examples and that isn't enough, I give questions that would start us off and that isn't enough, I offer to do a "role play" of how it would work and that isn't enough cause all you will accept is me taking an example that we can't have present and show how to test that person that isn't here because you want to prove I don't know what I am talking about....geesh, I am beginning to think my son may be right....

 

[razzelflabben]

That's because I'm not arguing with you - I've been asking about your procedures and critiquing your methodology and interpretations.
Yes, you were quite right about that.
No, I'm suggesting that although you know what should be done, you appear not to know how to do it.
The histrionics don't impress, this is the philosophy forum - simplicity, clarity, and sound argument are the aims. I've read through the discussion more than once, and your posts contain logical errors that undermine your case. I can understand that you probably disagree, so I'm happy to go through them if you'd like - as long as you remain civil.
Straw man - I haven't claimed you said that.
This is a philosophy forum; criticising the ideas and arguments people post is what happens in philosophy forums. This is not an attack on your character or beliefs, and no excuse for such accusations.

More to the point, I'm noting a complete absence of answers to my very simple questions about your testing criteria, and an awful lot of bluster and bafflegab. I recommend taking a deep breath and thinking before you post.

face palm....It is an attack on my character and beliefs with you rewrite what I say and believe to offer judgments that don't fit. Take a post not long ago where in 2 sentences you misrepresented me no less than 5 times and take no responsibility for that, in fact, instead of taking responsibility, you went on some long justification of a comment in which there was a typo from IF to is and the numerous times I clarified what I was saying and you ignored....I let that go, even took responsibility for the confusion, but you didn't even accept it then. You see, the plan truth is that PHILOSOPHY forum is not an excuse to behave poorly which some of you all don't seem to understand. In fact, it still requires that you listen and honestly represent what the other person is saying rather than the dishonest stuff this thread has been full of. So if you want to challenge my ideas, please do, but don't misrepresent me and say...you can't get mad because this is what philosophy forum is all about...cause it isn't.

 

[devolved]

How can I explain this in even more simple terms.....some of in fact, most of the underlying causes could be psychological in nature, right? And some would be physical, right? Now, what professional in either field diagnoses a patient by what someone else tells them they have observed? Don't they have to question the patient themselves?

No they don't when it comes to evaluating the METHOD, and that's where you completely misunderstand how science works. Scientific research is first and foremost a METHOD.

Before you even get to research part it would actually be quite insane to see whether your method is flawed or not. That's why scientists scrutinize not only what they are doing, but what and how they are going to do something, because before research costs money.

So, if there's a study to be performed, then method with SPECIFICS of this method is disclosed as a proposal.

You are not disclosing any of that, so it's hard to understand what exactly it is that you are measuring and testing. It's not an insane question. It's being done every single day in psychology studies.

You are suggesting that we can test claims. I'm asking you FOR A METHOD YOU USE. That's how scientific research works.

I have offered examples of questions we would ask to get to the root "cause" of the thing we observed, and that wasn't enough because by your own admission you want to show me where I am wrong. IOW's you have already passed judgment and now insist that I prove you right by showing you something that we both know can't be done if we have a proper testing method.

Questions are not a METHOD. I can't pass judgement on what you have not disclosed. You claim you can test things, but you are not describing how in any specifics.

Here's a sample proposal with a method described... before we even get to research phase.

http://www.urop.uci.edu/SURP/sample_proposals/SURP Medicine 1.pdf

yep....and as I have repeatedly said, without the subject present we can NOT show testing. In addition I have already shown the method for one of the things we would test for, and that wasn't good enough for you because you couldn't use it to prove me wrong.

Yes... it could be used to prove you wrong. 1000 of research proposals are rejected because the methodology is flawed and will not likely lead to viable research or results.

I can't tell you if you are wrong, but if your method is wrong, then you are not likely to test things in any conclusive manner.

You are not describing any specifics of your methodology, and you are running in circles when it comes how it is that you get to tell the difference.

That's why I'm asking. Given the amount of typing that you've done already... it's not that difficult to describe your experimental set up on a single person, and which methodology you will use to determine how you would derive conclusions from a group research, and what differentiating factors you would use SPECIFICALLY when you observe SPECIFIC behavior traits.

 

[razzelflabben]

Slavery then - moral or not?

the unfortunate truth is that when talking about God everyone brings it back to morality. But the God of the Bible is NOT about morality at all, rather He is about justice which is a totally different matter.

You see, morality is a social construct, as such it is fluid. For example, in some countries it is morally acceptable to sell a child so that you can feed the other children in the family....we see right now a culture where rape is part of their law, as is murder. Morality is fluid depending on the society.

By contrast, justice is NOT fluid, either you broke the law or you did not. End of story. Right now in our country we are seeing a battle over this concept. Does the law apply to everyone equally or not? Justice says, yes, the law applies equally to all.

If you don't believe me, here is a challenge for you. Look in scripture and find 1 verse that talks about morality and God...then look and see how many talk about God being just.....

 

[devolved]

I gave several great examples and you all notice the all ignored them, I even challenged you all to walk through a "mock" example with me and that went ignored as well. You know, playing roles to see how it would all happen, but you didn't want that either.

Examples are not the same as methodology. Methodology describes how, and how of your tests are very vague. There are no specifics as to how you tell one from other apart from subjective interpretation.

Again, describe your method. If you can't or won't... then your test claims are useless.

 

[razzelflabben]

No they don't when it comes to evaluating the METHOD, and that's where you completely misunderstand how science works. Scientific research is first and foremost a METHOD.

Before you even get to research part it would actually be quite insane to see whether your method is flawed or not. That's why scientists scrutinize not only what they are doing, but what and how they are going to do something, because before research costs money.

So, if there's a study to be performed, then method with SPECIFICS of this method is disclosed as a proposal.

You are not disclosing any of that, so it's hard to understand what exactly it is that you are measuring and testing. It's not an insane question. It's being done every single day in psychology studies.

You are suggesting that we can test claims. I'm asking you FOR A METHOD YOU USE. That's how scientific research works.

did all that and it was scrutinized and we have a very long discussion about it...don't know how you missed it, but whatever, I am ignoring posts the forum rules say I should.

Questions are not a METHOD. I can't pass judgement on what you have not disclosed. You claim you can test things, but you are not describing how in any specifics.

Here's a sample proposal with a method described... before we even get to research phase.

http://www.urop.uci.edu/SURP/sample_proposals/SURP Medicine 1.pdf

the questions as you have repeatedly been shown are how we get the information we need....not sure what you don't understand so that I can help you understand....you keep confusing different things that I have said with other things, which might be why you misrepresent me so much....like above, we talked at great length about the Scientific method and how the research would look and etc. etc. etc. and you are claim it wasn't done only to confuse that with where I gave an example of what some of the tests would look like.

Yes... it could be used to prove you wrong. 1000 of research proposals are rejected because the methodology is flawed and will not likely lead to viable research or results.

but the method was already discussed in great length and scrutinized and I accepted and confessed and even pointed out some of the flaws that the method has mostly based on the very fact that we are testing for a belief not a tangible hold in my hand object. But you claim that whole discussion didn't happen because according to you I am not willing to present what I already presented and since that isn't a misrepresentation according to you, you know me doing something you saying I didn't over and over and over again, me even at times summarizing what I already said and did and you continuing to assert I didn't, well, we know how this ends....

I can't tell you if you are wrong, but if your method is wrong, then you are not likely to test things in any conclusive manner.

You are not describing any specifics of your methodology, and you are running in circles when it comes how it is that you get to tell the difference.

That's why I'm asking. Given the amount of typing that you've done already... it's not that difficult to describe your experimental set up on a single person, and which methodology you will use to determine how you would derive conclusions from a group research, and what differentiating factors you would use SPECIFICALLY when you observe SPECIFIC behavior traits.

did many times over, see above

 

[razzelflabben]

No they don't when it comes to evaluating the METHOD, and that's where you completely misunderstand how science works. Scientific research is first and foremost a METHOD.

Before you even get to research part it would actually be quite insane to see whether your method is flawed or not. That's why scientists scrutinize not only what they are doing, but what and how they are going to do something, because before research costs money.

So, if there's a study to be performed, then method with SPECIFICS of this method is disclosed as a proposal.

You are not disclosing any of that, so it's hard to understand what exactly it is that you are measuring and testing. It's not an insane question. It's being done every single day in psychology studies.

You are suggesting that we can test claims. I'm asking you FOR A METHOD YOU USE. That's how scientific research works.

did all that and it was scrutinized and we have a very long discussion about it...don't know how you missed it, but whatever, I am ignoring posts the forum rules say I should.

Questions are not a METHOD. I can't pass judgement on what you have not disclosed. You claim you can test things, but you are not describing how in any specifics.

Here's a sample proposal with a method described... before we even get to research phase.

http://www.urop.uci.edu/SURP/sample_proposals/SURP Medicine 1.pdf

the questions as you have repeatedly been shown are how we get the information we need....not sure what you don't understand so that I can help you understand....you keep confusing different things that I have said with other things, which might be why you misrepresent me so much....like above, we talked at great length about the Scientific method and how the research would look and etc. etc. etc. and you are claim it wasn't done only to confuse that with where I gave an example of what some of the tests would look like.

Yes... it could be used to prove you wrong. 1000 of research proposals are rejected because the methodology is flawed and will not likely lead to viable research or results.

but the method was already discussed in great length and scrutinized and I accepted and confessed and even pointed out some of the flaws that the method has mostly based on the very fact that we are testing for a belief not a tangible hold in my hand object. But you claim that whole discussion didn't happen because according to you I am not willing to present what I already presented and since that isn't a misrepresentation according to you, you know me doing something you saying I didn't over and over and over again, me even at times summarizing what I already said and did and you continuing to assert I didn't, well, we know how this ends....

I can't tell you if you are wrong, but if your method is wrong, then you are not likely to test things in any conclusive manner.

You are not describing any specifics of your methodology, and you are running in circles when it comes how it is that you get to tell the difference.

That's why I'm asking. Given the amount of typing that you've done already... it's not that difficult to describe your experimental set up on a single person, and which methodology you will use to determine how you would derive conclusions from a group research, and what differentiating factors you would use SPECIFICALLY when you observe SPECIFIC behavior traits.

did many times over, see above

 

[razzelflabben]

No they don't when it comes to evaluating the METHOD, and that's where you completely misunderstand how science works. Scientific research is first and foremost a METHOD.

Before you even get to research part it would actually be quite insane to see whether your method is flawed or not. That's why scientists scrutinize not only what they are doing, but what and how they are going to do something, because before research costs money.

So, if there's a study to be performed, then method with SPECIFICS of this method is disclosed as a proposal.

You are not disclosing any of that, so it's hard to understand what exactly it is that you are measuring and testing. It's not an insane question. It's being done every single day in psychology studies.

You are suggesting that we can test claims. I'm asking you FOR A METHOD YOU USE. That's how scientific research works.

did all that and it was scrutinized and we have a very long discussion about it...don't know how you missed it, but whatever, I am ignoring posts the forum rules say I should.

Questions are not a METHOD. I can't pass judgement on what you have not disclosed. You claim you can test things, but you are not describing how in any specifics.

Here's a sample proposal with a method described... before we even get to research phase.

http://www.urop.uci.edu/SURP/sample_proposals/SURP Medicine 1.pdf

the questions as you have repeatedly been shown are how we get the information we need....not sure what you don't understand so that I can help you understand....you keep confusing different things that I have said with other things, which might be why you misrepresent me so much....like above, we talked at great length about the Scientific method and how the research would look and etc. etc. etc. and you are claim it wasn't done only to confuse that with where I gave an example of what some of the tests would look like.

Yes... it could be used to prove you wrong. 1000 of research proposals are rejected because the methodology is flawed and will not likely lead to viable research or results.

but the method was already discussed in great length and scrutinized and I accepted and confessed and even pointed out some of the flaws that the method has mostly based on the very fact that we are testing for a belief not a tangible hold in my hand object. But you claim that whole discussion didn't happen because according to you I am not willing to present what I already presented and since that isn't a misrepresentation according to you, you know me doing something you saying I didn't over and over and over again, me even at times summarizing what I already said and did and you continuing to assert I didn't, well, we know how this ends....

I can't tell you if you are wrong, but if your method is wrong, then you are not likely to test things in any conclusive manner.

You are not describing any specifics of your methodology, and you are running in circles when it comes how it is that you get to tell the difference.

That's why I'm asking. Given the amount of typing that you've done already... it's not that difficult to describe your experimental set up on a single person, and which methodology you will use to determine how you would derive conclusions from a group research, and what differentiating factors you would use SPECIFICALLY when you observe SPECIFIC behavior traits.

did many times over, see above

 

[razzelflabben]

No they don't when it comes to evaluating the METHOD, and that's where you completely misunderstand how science works. Scientific research is first and foremost a METHOD.

Before you even get to research part it would actually be quite insane to see whether your method is flawed or not. That's why scientists scrutinize not only what they are doing, but what and how they are going to do something, because before research costs money.

So, if there's a study to be performed, then method with SPECIFICS of this method is disclosed as a proposal.

You are not disclosing any of that, so it's hard to understand what exactly it is that you are measuring and testing. It's not an insane question. It's being done every single day in psychology studies.

You are suggesting that we can test claims. I'm asking you FOR A METHOD YOU USE. That's how scientific research works.

did all that and it was scrutinized and we have a very long discussion about it...don't know how you missed it, but whatever, I am ignoring posts the forum rules say I should.

Questions are not a METHOD. I can't pass judgement on what you have not disclosed. You claim you can test things, but you are not describing how in any specifics.

Here's a sample proposal with a method described... before we even get to research phase.

http://www.urop.uci.edu/SURP/sample_proposals/SURP Medicine 1.pdf

the questions as you have repeatedly been shown are how we get the information we need....not sure what you don't understand so that I can help you understand....you keep confusing different things that I have said with other things, which might be why you misrepresent me so much....like above, we talked at great length about the Scientific method and how the research would look and etc. etc. etc. and you are claim it wasn't done only to confuse that with where I gave an example of what some of the tests would look like.

Yes... it could be used to prove you wrong. 1000 of research proposals are rejected because the methodology is flawed and will not likely lead to viable research or results.

but the method was already discussed in great length and scrutinized and I accepted and confessed and even pointed out some of the flaws that the method has mostly based on the very fact that we are testing for a belief not a tangible hold in my hand object. But you claim that whole discussion didn't happen because according to you I am not willing to present what I already presented and since that isn't a misrepresentation according to you, you know me doing something you saying I didn't over and over and over again, me even at times summarizing what I already said and did and you continuing to assert I didn't, well, we know how this ends....

I can't tell you if you are wrong, but if your method is wrong, then you are not likely to test things in any conclusive manner.

You are not describing any specifics of your methodology, and you are running in circles when it comes how it is that you get to tell the difference.

That's why I'm asking. Given the amount of typing that you've done already... it's not that difficult to describe your experimental set up on a single person, and which methodology you will use to determine how you would derive conclusions from a group research, and what differentiating factors you would use SPECIFICALLY when you observe SPECIFIC behavior traits.

did many times over, see above

 

[razzelflabben]

No they don't when it comes to evaluating the METHOD, and that's where you completely misunderstand how science works. Scientific research is first and foremost a METHOD.

Before you even get to research part it would actually be quite insane to see whether your method is flawed or not. That's why scientists scrutinize not only what they are doing, but what and how they are going to do something, because before research costs money.

So, if there's a study to be performed, then method with SPECIFICS of this method is disclosed as a proposal.

You are not disclosing any of that, so it's hard to understand what exactly it is that you are measuring and testing. It's not an insane question. It's being done every single day in psychology studies.

You are suggesting that we can test claims. I'm asking you FOR A METHOD YOU USE. That's how scientific research works.



Questions are not a METHOD. I can't pass judgement on what you have not disclosed. You claim you can test things, but you are not describing how in any specifics.

Here's a sample proposal with a method described... before we even get to research phase.

http://www.urop.uci.edu/SURP/sample_proposals/SURP Medicine 1.pdf




Yes... it could be used to prove you wrong. 1000 of research proposals are rejected because the methodology is flawed and will not likely lead to viable research or results.

I can't tell you if you are wrong, but if your method is wrong, then you are not likely to test things in any conclusive manner.

You are not describing any specifics of your methodology, and you are running in circles when it comes how it is that you get to tell the difference.

That's why I'm asking. Given the amount of typing that you've done already... it's not that difficult to describe your experimental set up on a single person, and which methodology you will use to determine how you would derive conclusions from a group research, and what differentiating factors you would use SPECIFICALLY when you observe SPECIFIC behavior traits.

Hum...I don't understand what I already presented already had scrutinized and already pointed out flaws that no one else here picked up on....interesting..how does that work? How if you are not misrepresenting me did I not do what I did and what you want to do already? You yourself confessed to wanting to show my method wrong, the problem is the method isn't wrong just because there are problems with the method....iow's yes, there are flaws in the whole method as it applies to this discussion, mostly due to the fact that we are talking about beliefs not some table and chairs sitting in the kitchen, but that does not mean the method of testing is wrong, as in the format that the testing fits in, only how certain aspects of that method apply to the discussion at hand, we already talked about all of this, yet you accuse me of being wrong because we haven't talked about it even though we had a lengthy talk about it and I showed the flaws.

See, by your constant reinvention of what I have and have not said, you paint me to be one of the "christians" that were talked about in the OP, one who has what is usually termed "blind faith" a concept that I am very much opposed to and have vocally spoken out against it. That is character assassination. You are also portraying me as someone who doesn't think things through and isn't fair about what the flaws are, which again is the very opposite of who I am and I have repeatedly demonstrated that. BY your own admission you have a notion of who I am in your head and you are going to prove that that is who I am.....the problem is, it isn't who I am. I am the opposite of that. I am not your typical Christian on these boards. In fact, the very first reputation I got years ago on here was for being so open minded and fair in my dealings with looking at things objectively not subjectively.....you know, seeing and pointing out flaws even if it goes against what I "desire" to be true. I am on a quest to know truth no matter where it leads and to use every method available to do so, no excuses...that is who I am. But with all your reinventing of me, you are painting me to be just the opposite. I even get assassinated by many "christians" because I refuse to compromise on truth wherever it leads, only to come here and have my character assassinated because I don't fit the traditional "christian" model. So, maybe, just maybe, you need to remove your bias and start talking to me rather than the "christian" you think I am, by your own admission.

 

[razzelflabben]

Examples are not the same as methodology. Methodology describes how, and how of your tests are very vague. There are no specifics as to how you tell one from other apart from subjective interpretation.

Again, describe your method. If you can't or won't... then your test claims are useless.

duh....

 

[devolved]

the questions as you have repeatedly been shown are how we get the information we need....not sure what you don't understand so that I can help you understand....you keep confusing different things that I have said with other things, which might be why you misrepresent me so much....like above, we talked at great length about the Scientific method and how the research would look and etc. etc. etc. and you are claim it wasn't done only to confuse that with where I gave an example of what some of the tests would look like.

You have described scientific method in general... but that's not how we conduct scientific research.

You've outlined the very basics of scientific method and you cast it very loosely on your own subjective means of analysis without disclosing the methodology as to how you even begin to tell whether the causes are really what people claim the causes are.

It's a loose example, but if a 100 people pray to God, and 90 of them die, does it mean that 10 survivors get to claim that it was their prayer that saved their lives?

I'm not saying that it's what you are doing, but it's not clear as to even how you get to determine whether the SPECIFIC Biblical claims are true in specific person you are going to test other than a claim and perceived behavior.

If the perceived behavior doesn't match the claim, you seem to say that there is further investigation as to whether they really "Know God", which again lacks a method that you disclose... you merely say things like "Well, if Person claims to know Obama, couldn't you know with a few questions you ask"... but you don't disclose the method in any of these cases. You seem to merely claim to know things... when I'm guessing you haven't conducted a single scientific study and understand the prerequisites.

So, I really see no further point in this discussion when I've asked you to summarize your method, and you claim that it's already been done. If it has been, then show me which post? It's not that difficult.

I would have certainly done that if you have asked me.

 

[devolved]

See, by your constant reinvention of what I have and have not said, you paint me to be one of the "christians" that were talked about in the OP, one who has what is usually termed "blind faith" a concept that I am very much opposed to and have vocally spoken out against it. That is character assassination. You are also portraying me as someone who doesn't think things through and isn't fair about what the flaws are, which again is the very opposite of who I am and I have repeatedly demonstrated that. BY your own admission you have a notion of who I am in your head and you are going to prove that that is who I am.....the problem is, it isn't who I am. I am the opposite of that. I am not your typical Christian on these boards.

I didn't paint you in any way or assassinate your character. I'm asking you to summarize the method by which you draw your conclusions from the data you gather, and present specific claim you test as to what it would specifically reflect in personal behavior... and how you are able to tell the difference between psychological tools that we use every day to help people through trauma, and that of Holy Spirit or God. You haven't done that.

I've asked that about 10 times now, and I'm not the only one asking here. You've made a claim that you can test using scientific method. I'm merely pointing out that in order to test anything you have to construct a study, and that includes methodology for both gathering the qualitative data you are gathering, and then how you are going about to linking the causes that you are claiming are responsible.

Saying things like "If God is the only common variable" is irrelevant if you can't present how you would determine that. I'm asking you how do you determine that.

In fact, the very first reputation I got years ago on here was for being so open minded and fair in my dealings with looking at things objectively not subjectively.....you know, seeing and pointing out flaws even if it goes against what I "desire" to be true. I am on a quest to know truth no matter where it leads and to use every method available to do so, no excuses...that is who I am. But with all your reinventing of me, you are painting me to be just the opposite.

I commend you for being open-minded, and I'm not painting you in any colors. You are subjectively casting my inquiry into your method as a character assassination. All I'm asking you to do is to clarify your method. Again...


You've made a claim that you can test using scientific method. I'm merely pointing out that in order to test anything you have to construct a study, and that includes methodology for both gathering the qualitative data you are gathering, and then how you are going about to linking the causes that you are claiming are responsible.

Saying things like "If God is the only common variable" is irrelevant if you can't present how you would determine that. I'm asking you how do you determine that.

I even get assassinated by many "christians" because I refuse to compromise on truth wherever it leads, only to come here and have my character assassinated because I don't fit the traditional "christian" model. So, maybe, just maybe, you need to remove your bias and start talking to me rather than the "christian" you think I am, by your own admission.

I have no bias here. It doesn't matter what the claim is about whether we test something, we have to first evaluate whether the methodology is valid. If the methodology isn't valid, then the test isn't valid.

I'm asking you about a summary of your methodology, and how you get to tell a difference when it comes to certain observed behavior. How is asking a question to clarify constitutes character assassination?

 

[razzelflabben]

You have described scientific method in general... but that's not how we conduct scientific research.

You've outlined the very basics of scientific method and you cast it very loosely on your own subjective means of analysis without disclosing the methodology as to how you even begin to tell whether the causes are really what people claim the causes are.

so what did I say about all of this? Come on, you are starting to go down the road of truth in what I said, keep going....I said that because it was a belief and not a tangible object, we could only loosely apply the method to the questions but it still provided the best way for us to know if our belief was true or delusion. What is so hard to understand about that? seriously, I don't get what you are finding so difficult about that claim....

It's a loose example, but if a 100 people pray to God, and 90 of them die, does it mean that 10 survivors get to claim that it was their prayer that saved their lives?

they can and will claim whatever they want, that doesn't make it truth, which is why we can test. But again, we went over all of this.....work on continuing to follow the truth of what was said and see how far we get in our discussion.

I'm not saying that it's what you are doing, but it's not clear as to even how you get to determine whether the SPECIFIC Biblical claims are true in specific person you are going to test other than a claim and perceived behavior.

questions and observations, we said that about a zillion times and you still don't hear...as previously stated, the scientific method is not perfect when it comes to a belief, however, it is the closest thing we have to a way to know if our belief is truth or delusion and so we apply it to the situation. In the scientific method on something like this, the closest we can come is observations and questions that will lead us to truth...I have openly and honestly and vocally stated that multiple times now.

If the perceived behavior doesn't match the claim, you seem to say that there is further investigation as to whether they really "Know God", which again lacks a method that you disclose... you merely say things like "Well, if Person claims to know Obama, couldn't you know with a few questions you ask"... but you don't disclose the method in any of these cases. You seem to merely claim to know things... when I'm guessing you haven't conducted a single scientific study and understand the prerequisites.

actually this is another where you get it wrong...since we are only looking for (in the example given not in the totality of belief, duh) only things that would testify to the existence of a relationship with God, we would want to know if there is evidence of a relationship with God before looking for other possibilities. The method of determining whether someone is in a relationship with anyone or not involves some well placed questions, as I said. That is how we would determine relationship with most people. We could check records and such, but again that involves some questioning....and exploration into claims etc. That would be how we would know if there is a common denominator of relationship...but it is also how we know (in the example given) if there is an element of the claim to the test.

Let me see, another way to say the same thing...in the example given, the claim we were testing was, is there a common denominator in all examples of these things that we are testing for of a relationship with God. Notice the specifics of the claim we are testing for. In fact, even though I gave you permission to step out of the claim being tested for and talk about other things, the claim in our example is very specific. Thus, in the claim as stated originally, alternate causes are not important. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT, BUT TO SAY AS PER THE ORIGINAL CLAIM EXAMPLE DOES NOT REQUIRES US TO KNOW THAT, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER CLAIM THAT WE WOULD TEST FOR...now, that being true, as per the example and the purposed simplicity of it for those that aren't following along very well, we would observe instances where we could see the things that are being claimed are evidence of God in an individuals life. When we see those things that are claimed and test to make sure that they fit the measurements for the claim, then we would test to see if there is evidence of relationship with God. That is how the scientific method works. How would we test, well, some well placed questions to start out with.....further observations would also be required in that the list of evidences rather long and all are needed to evidence relationship.

Now, let me say it again so that you have a much harder time twisting what I said, 1. we observe and test and observe and test 2. we test primarily by questions and looking for some key words and phrases that would tell us the difference between, I know X and I have heard of X 3. the example given was specific only for the claim that God is evidenced through X, Y, and Z....there are many other claims that we can and should test for, including but not limited to is there another cause for X, Y, and Z, but in the specific example that was not a claim we were testing, in fact, that would be the next test we would want to do. You know, after we see that there is a consistency, is there anything that could explain it further or separately from relationship with God. Both being very specific and narrow claims unlike the broad version you attribute to me.

So, I really see no further point in this discussion when I've asked you to summarize your method, and you claim that it's already been done. If it has been, then show me which post? It's not that difficult.

I would have certainly done that if you have asked me.

well, at least we have gotten to this level of truth on this thread....

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't paint you in any way or assassinate your character. I'm asking you to summarize the method by which you draw your conclusions from the data you gather, and present specific claim you test as to what it would specifically reflect in personal behavior... and how you are able to tell the difference between psychological tools that we use every day to help people through trauma, and that of Holy Spirit or God. You haven't done that.

okay, so we at least have a new question to address....see, trying to assert I am someone who doesn't answer questions by saying I didn't answer a question you didn't ask yet is a insult to my character....but the question...I did summarize the method many times over, new question not asked before so I could answer, "How you are able to tell the difference between psychological tools we use every day to help people through trauma, and that of the HS or God?

I have no idea, I never once claimed, hinted or insinuated that we could distinguish some kind of psychological help from help by the HS or God....that is a claim that someone else made that you are attributing to me. In fact, I personally believe that God uses every part of our world when He works in the lives of people. That means that I do not believe there is such a test that would distinguish the difference which is why I didn't make the claim nor why I would ever make the claim. In fact, I personally find the whole God of the gaps argument is disturbing and this question of yours would lead us to the whole God of the gaps argument which I am vocal about rejecting. Now, as the question would apply to your previous question about the alternate possible causes. Sure there can be and we need to explore those, but if let's again look at small enough numbers to see what we are talking about. Let's say we have 100 people all showing the same characteristic claims that are suppose to evidence God. Of those 100 samples, all show evidence of of relationship with God, 2 show evidence of psychotic issues, 1 shows signs of social pressure and 6 show signs of indoctrination...what is the single common denominator? God, right? This is what we are talking about...the rest of this is all made up in your own head and not mine at all.

I've asked that about 10 times now, and I'm not the only one asking here. You've made a claim that you can test using scientific method. I'm merely pointing out that in order to test anything you have to construct a study, and that includes methodology for both gathering the qualitative data you are gathering, and then how you are going about to linking the causes that you are claiming are responsible.

Saying things like "If God is the only common variable" is irrelevant if you can't present how you would determine that. I'm asking you how do you determine that.

I've told you dozens and dozens of times when do you start listening (since I can't say reading for comprehension which is more accurate)?

I commend you for being open-minded, and I'm not painting you in any colors. You are subjectively casting my inquiry into your method as a character assassination. All I'm asking you to do is to clarify your method. Again...


You've made a claim that you can test using scientific method. I'm merely pointing out that in order to test anything you have to construct a study, and that includes methodology for both gathering the qualitative data you are gathering, and then how you are going about to linking the causes that you are claiming are responsible.

Saying things like "If God is the only common variable" is irrelevant if you can't present how you would determine that. I'm asking you how do you determine that.

and I have repeatedly shown you why we are limited in our use of scientific method when it comes to beliefs....so, you really want me to write and entire paper explaining everything and submit it on these boards, the sample you gave was how many pages long? Mine would have to be longer because it would have to include the limitations the method has when it comes to beliefs....

I have no bias here. It doesn't matter what the claim is about whether we test something, we have to first evaluate whether the methodology is valid. If the methodology isn't valid, then the test isn't valid.

I'm asking you about a summary of your methodology, and how you get to tell a difference when it comes to certain observed behavior. How is asking a question to clarify constitutes character assassination?

see above