dad'd "Box"

[dad]

You offered something you believe in and cannot provide evidence for.
[For the supernatural, there are many evidences. You simply refuse to accept them, apparently. You have to say all religions pretty well on earth are wrong, and all their gods, and spirits, and miracles, are all something else, you can not say what! You have to say all prohesy, and esp, and animal extra perceptions, etc, are Physical Only somehow, you just don't know how yet (yeah right). You have to say the witnesses to Jesus ressurection were liars, or insane, or some other liar or dope just recorded it wrong etc, as with the whole bible, and it's angels, and spiritual world. All dreams are strictly in box, and the angel that warned Joseph to flee, or came to Mary, was all delusional. Even the thousands of healings, some witnessed by doctors of Aimee Semple Macpherson were all fake, I guess you'd also have to say. And on it goes, where you'd have to insult, and explain away billions of people's experiences, and try to cram em into some PO box, where they could never fit! Don't tell me there is no evidences out there! Just none you like]


It doesn't do it any way, from sunday or any other day. Whether you like it or not, they physical exists, [No one disputes that, why pretend they do?] and we can observe it and make reliable predictions based upon those observations. [Yes we can! And they have their place. But it only goes so far!] This says nothing whatsoever about the existence or properties of any spiritual realm; [Of course the poor PO doesn't say anything about what it isn't able to talk about, who says it can?] for you to claim it does is simply dishonest. [See last comment]


That's because you are woefully ignorant as to science.
[Actually, it isn't that I do not know about it, it is that I recognize that PO bits of science are not all there is, and, alone, cannot give us the big picture on the past or future, or known supernatural]



We don't have to show it was 'needed'; we can and have shown that it has happened.


That's nice. I can invent fairy tales to demonstrate the power of anything I like. Without supporting evidence, however, they are just that - fairy tales. [Listen, kids, here comes the story of Granny...just remember now, children, God and angels are just a lie]


Not on this thread, because that is not the purpose of this thread. Again you are dishonest, because you know as well as I that the evidence provided for evolution has convinved the vast majority of the world's scientists, most of whom are theists, and thus cannot be 'onlyphysics' devotees. [On this point, I would debate that. They simply have bought into the PO conclusions, and adopted compromise bible theories to try to correlate the bible to what they thought was too strong to argue against]


They don't need to disprove it; until you offer some evidence they can simply disregard it. [If they teach kids I'd say they do, especially if it is in a largely bible believing country]


No, it's not. Again you demonstrate your ignorance and hatred of science.
[How many times I gotta tell you, science is my friend, I like it-a lot! But heaven forbid I should take the PO speckulations so far as to try to kill the spiritual, and God]


The only version of science is the 'physical version'. Science cannot and does not study anything outside the physical. [Ahh, I like to hear that, it reminds us how limited it really is! Just as there is more than the physical only, there is more science than PO. All you are saying is thats all the science that will fit in the box![]!]


My head is not in any sand. There may well be a spiritual world; that is not at issue. [Oh, but since it was merged before, and will be again, changing everything, it is absolutely the issue!] That spiritual world (if it exists) is not the province of science. [Yes it is, it is just that men don't yet know much about true science that encompasses physical and spiritual (merged). But we could know quite a little bit about it, and how it works if we at all wanted to] To denigrate people who study science simply because they (unlike you) recognise science for what it is, again, simply dishonest. [I like science, and have had a little boo at it myself, not much mind you compared to many. What I want to do, is stop them from denigrating creation, and the merged universe that includes all, not just their bits]


It explains nothing.


Yup, just like religion is totally inept at describing baseball scores. Anything is inept at describing something totally outside its sphere. [Thank you] You seem to think that this is a bad thing, which again just reveals your ignorance of science. [Only bad, when kids are taught something not true as a result of incomplete info-which attacks faith in God as a result, and the bible]


No, thats what science is. ALL science is 'physical only'. That's all science studies. Nor can you demonstrate that science is what the bible calls 'science falsely so called'. [A study, for example based on the premise of evolution is science falsely so called. There I just demonstrated it]


Nope. Science looks at the physical. Sorry, but you don't get to invent some new version of something, [Says who, as to who gets to think of what, or invent what?] add the 'spiritual' to it and then claim that what you've invented is the real thing. If there is or can be some sort of combination of science and the spiritual, then the result is not science, [Of course it is, just not PO science. Science comes from the word knowledge, and we have quite a bit of knowledge about the wonderful spiritual world. This is not acceptable to believers, to force children to learn that there is only the PO science as all knowledge] however useful it may be.


"feeble, inappropriate"..."silly desparation"...sounds like creationism to me, as well as your silly attempt to characterise scientists as being 'in a box'. [Hey, you yourself repeatedly in this post even, clearly stated that science is limited to PO!!!! These very limits you drew are the borders of the box! Don't blame me]

.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You offered something you believe in and cannot provide evidence for.
[For the supernatural, there are many evidences. You simply refuse to accept them, apparently. You have to say all religions pretty well on earth are wrong, and all their gods, and spirits, and miracles, are all something else, you can not say what! You have to say all prohesy, and esp, and animal extra perceptions, etc, are Physical Only somehow, you just don't know how yet (yeah right). You have to say the witnesses to Jesus ressurection were liars, or insane, or some other liar or dope just recorded it wrong etc, as with the whole bible, and it's angels, and spiritual world. All dreams are strictly in box, and the angel that warned Joseph to flee, or came to Mary, was all delusional. Even the thousands of healings, some witnessed by doctors of Aimee Semple Macpherson were all fake, I guess you'd also have to say. And on it goes, where you'd have to insult, and explain away billions of people's experiences, and try to cram em into some PO box, where they could never fit! Don't tell me there is no evidences out there! Just none you like]


It doesn't do it any way, from sunday or any other day. Whether you like it or not, they physical exists, [No one disputes that, why pretend they do?] and we can observe it and make reliable predictions based upon those observations. [Yes we can! And they have their place. But it only goes so far!] This says nothing whatsoever about the existence or properties of any spiritual realm; [Of course the poor PO doesn't say anything about what it isn't able to talk about, who says it can?] for you to claim it does is simply dishonest. [See last comment]


That's because you are woefully ignorant as to science.
[Actually, it isn't that I do not know about it, it is that I recognize that PO bits of science are not all there is, and, alone, cannot give us the big picture on the past or future, or known supernatural]



We don't have to show it was 'needed'; we can and have shown that it has happened.


That's nice. I can invent fairy tales to demonstrate the power of anything I like. Without supporting evidence, however, they are just that - fairy tales. [Listen, kids, here comes the story of Granny...just remember now, children, God and angels are just a lie]


Not on this thread, because that is not the purpose of this thread. Again you are dishonest, because you know as well as I that the evidence provided for evolution has convinved the vast majority of the world's scientists, most of whom are theists, and thus cannot be 'onlyphysics' devotees. [On this point, I would debate that. They simply have bought into the PO conclusions, and adopted compromise bible theories to try to correlate the bible to what they thought was too strong to argue against]


They don't need to disprove it; until you offer some evidence they can simply disregard it. [If they teach kids I'd say they do, especially if it is in a largely bible believing country]


No, it's not. Again you demonstrate your ignorance and hatred of science.
[How many times I gotta tell you, science is my friend, I like it-a lot! But heaven forbid I should take the PO speckulations so far as to try to kill the spiritual, and God]


The only version of science is the 'physical version'. Science cannot and does not study anything outside the physical. [Ahh, I like to hear that, it reminds us how limited it really is! Just as there is more than the physical only, there is more science than PO. All you are saying is thats all the science that will fit in the box![]!]


My head is not in any sand. There may well be a spiritual world; that is not at issue. [Oh, but since it was merged before, and will be again, changing everything, it is absolutely the issue!] That spiritual world (if it exists) is not the province of science. [Yes it is, it is just that men don't yet know much about true science that encompasses physical and spiritual (merged). But we could know quite a little bit about it, and how it works if we at all wanted to] To denigrate people who study science simply because they (unlike you) recognise science for what it is, again, simply dishonest. [I like science, and have had a little boo at it myself, not much mind you compared to many. What I want to do, is stop them from denigrating creation, and the merged universe that includes all, not just their bits]


It explains nothing.


Yup, just like religion is totally inept at describing baseball scores. Anything is inept at describing something totally outside its sphere. [Thank you] You seem to think that this is a bad thing, which again just reveals your ignorance of science. [Only bad, when kids are taught something not true as a result of incomplete info-which attacks faith in God as a result, and the bible]


No, thats what science is. ALL science is 'physical only'. That's all science studies. Nor can you demonstrate that science is what the bible calls 'science falsely so called'. [A study, for example based on the premise of evolution is science falsely so called. There I just demonstrated it]


Nope. Science looks at the physical. Sorry, but you don't get to invent some new version of something, [Says who, as to who gets to think of what, or invent what?] add the 'spiritual' to it and then claim that what you've invented is the real thing. If there is or can be some sort of combination of science and the spiritual, then the result is not science, [Of course it is, just not PO science. Science comes from the word knowledge, and we have quite a bit of knowledge about the wonderful spiritual world. This is not acceptable to believers, to force children to learn that there is only the PO science as all knowledge] however useful it may be.


"feeble, inappropriate"..."silly desparation"...sounds like creationism to me, as well as your silly attempt to characterise scientists as being 'in a box'. [Hey, you yourself repeatedly in this post even, clearly stated that science is limited to PO!!!! These very limits you drew are the borders of the box! Don't blame me]

This grows rather repetetive. Let's see exactly where we stand, and maybe we can go from there.

There exists the physical, which can be and has been studied by men. This aids us in obtaining knowledge and making predictions about the physical. I think on that we agree. This study is known as science.

You believe that there also exists the spiritual, which can be and has been studied by men. This (you believe) assists us in obtaining knowledge and making predictions about the spiritual and the physical (I think). This study is known by many names, among them theology and religion.

You believe study of science alone is limited, in that it does not/cannot give the full picture (for which religion is needed). You want to somehow combine religion and science, and you claim that this new product is 'true' science, with what we now call science (your 'po' science) being 'science falsely so-called'. People who study science are 'in a box'.

I believe this sums it up. As to conclusions...

Science studies the physical. That's ALL it studies. By all means, combine it with religion to form a new method of study. But that won't be science. That doesn't mean it's bad, or worthless, it just means it's not science, because science, by definition, studies only the physical. It's nonsensical to talk of 'po' science, because ALL science is 'po'. As soon as it stops being 'po', it stops being science.

As for 'boxes', you claim that those who study science are 'in a box', in that they cannot see/study religion. This is blatantly false. Most scientists are theists; a plurality are christians. To say that they study science only is simply dishonest. They merely don't believe that it's needed to go beyond science to study certain things. Now, you believe that same thing. You're happy to accept science as the best tool to study many things...but there are things that you think science can't study, and that religion and science need to be combined to study. So do they. You just differ on what those things are. You, however, want to lambaste and criticise them for not agreeing with you on what they are.

As for those who study science and do not study religion (ie., atheists) - perhaps when you can provide actual evidence (not argumentum ad populum) as to religion's uses or validity, or when you can actually demonstrate anything that religion has ever actually discovered that can be verified, they'll consider it of use. Oh, and don't give me the rubbish about people needing spiritual perception to see what the spiritual can discover. The discoveries achievements of science are there for anyone to see. What it is useful for can be examined and seen and used by everyone, regardless of how much they know about science. The spiritual, however (you claim) discovers 'special' things that only some people can perceive. Of course, you can't evidence these things to those who can't perceive them. Which makes them completely indistinguishable from nothing at all which you imagine to exist.

Oh, and no, you're no friend of science. If you were, you wouldn't keep trying to kill it (and yes, you are trying to kill it, by uniting it with the spiritual. Whatever this process would yield, it wouldn't be science).

 

[coolstylinstud]

What rubbish. the only people I ever see doing that here are certain Christians, and sometimes it almost makes me ashamed to be one. Not quite, but almost.

What are you taling about this whoe thread is about the fact that just because we obey the rules and believe in god we are supposibly in the box at least we dont judge
and you should never be ashamed of being a christian no matter what

 

[dad]

This grows rather repetetive. Let's see exactly where we stand, and maybe we can go from there.

There exists the physical, which can be and has been studied by men. [Men can also study all science, that includes the spiritual, at least somewhat. very importantly also, is the ramifications to our temporal decaying physical world. When we realize that the merge was and will be, it changes everything. ] This aids us in obtaining knowledge and making predictions about the physical. [Thats what I say, predictions like the decay we now see will not last billions of years at all, nor has it.] think on that we agree. This study is known as science. [A part of knowledge, and when we refer to only the PO we should try to denote it as such, so people don't think we mean that onlyphysics covers everything!]

You believe that there also exists the spiritual, which can be and has been studied by men. [Hey, we're rolling here] This (you believe) assists us in obtaining knowledge and making predictions about the spiritual and the physical (I think). [Of course] This study is known by many names, among them theology and religion. [Well, religion is more like PO science, it is more a belief, than an actual study of the spiritual world. And theology is the same, basically, so these are not apt phrases. Perhaps something like spirysics might convey it better. It is not really a belief, rather than a study of a known part of our universe]

You believe study of science alone is limited, in that it does not/cannot give the full picture (for which religion is needed). [Again, not religion as I think of the word. The way I see it, belief granny appeared is religion. Belief that our entire universe was not created by God, but came from a tiny hot soup at one time big as a pepper speck is religion. Belief there is only a spiritual, or only a physical, despite the evidence would be religious perhaps as well, etc. ] You want to somehow combine religion and science, [In other words expand knowlege and science, yes.] and you claim that this new product is 'true' science, [It isn't new, the spirit world, or the physical and spiritual. It only might seem new to some who were long confined in the dark place of the PO.] with what we now call science (your 'po' science) being 'science falsely so-called'. [Right, physical only if called complete knowlege would have to be false, and a mere tool of devils and men who would like to keep God out of their knowledge] People who study science are 'in a box'. [No! They study something that has borders, boundries, and limitations, like say, a box does, and that is the physical only universe. I suppose we could say the study of the PO is in the box, and I may have been loose with the term here and there a time or two, and sought a little lightheartedness, and not stuck to the actual defintion of the box!]

I believe this sums it up. As to conclusions...

Science studies the physical. That's ALL it studies. By all means, combine it with religion to form a new method of study. But that won't be science. [Religion, as I say I am not too interested in, in the sense that I don't think Jesus was religious, it was the religious who killed Him. But combining a study of the spiritual, and the physical is indeed science in the true sense, and PO science especially as it does an end run around the creator, and bible, is false.] That doesn't mean it's bad, or worthless, it just means it's not science, because science, by definition, studies only the physical. [Actually "What is science? This is a very reasonable question, but unfortunately it isn't easy to provide a simple, definitive answer because there is no entity with the authority to define science. Coming up with a proper definition of science is not unlike coming up with a proper definition of other human institutions, like religion or family: there is so much going on that long, complex books are written in an effort to explain it all - and still people disagree.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_index.htm
SCI'ENCE, n. L. scientia, from scio, to know.
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
http://www.studylight.org/dic/kjd/view.cgi?number=T4954
SCIENCE
si'-ens:
This word as found in the King James Version means simply "knowledge." "Science" occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Daniel 1:4, "children .... understanding science" (yodhe`edha`ath, "those who understand science"). The meaning of the term here is "knowledge," "wisdom." The only other occurrence of "science" is in the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:20, "avoiding .... oppositions of science falsely so called," tes pseudonumou gnoseos, "the falsely called gnosis"). "Science" is the translation of the Greek gnosis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered "knowledge." The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted. "
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7700
----no, science by definition (knowledge) does not have to be limited like that. Only modern science has adopted those beliefs, but they are not proved adequate to explain orgins, and replace children's faith]
It's nonsensical to talk of 'po' science, because ALL science is 'po'. As soon as it stops being 'po', it stops being science. [No, it just leaves the modern falsely so called stuff in the dust. They may not have a monopoly on knowledge, or the word-as much as they want to, and try to insist on!]

As for 'boxes', you claim that those who study science are 'in a box', in that they cannot see/study religion. [Already covered this above] This is blatantly false. Most scientists are theists; a plurality are christians. To say that they study science only is simply dishonest. They merely don't believe that it's needed to go beyond science to study certain things. [Whatever they might believe, my concern is that it fits with the evidence, that includes the bible. And PO just don't cut it] Now, you believe that same thing. You're happy to accept science as the best tool to study many things...but there are things that you think science can't study, and that religion and science need to be combined to study. So do they. [I think you are still talking about the nominal bible believers in science here? If so, they should remember this. Without the spirit, the words in the bible are dead. Without the spirit, all men are forever dead as well, and there is no heaven, or angels, or departed loved ones, or salvation, or hope for mankind] You just differ on what those things are. You, however, want to lambaste and criticise them for not agreeing with you on what they are. [Hey, I poke a little fun at the limitations of the box, and granny, etc. Doesn't mean I think people can't change their mind, and see the light that there is more to science than PO]

As for those who study science and do not study religion (ie., atheists) - perhaps when you can provide actual evidence (not argumentum ad populum) as to religion's uses or validity, or when you can actually demonstrate anything that religion has ever actually discovered that can be verified, they'll consider it of use. [They ought to seek it out if they are interested, as I say it is all around. I look at the miracles of even Aimee Semple Mcpherson, and see thousands of them, sometimes as I say, doctors were amoung witnesses. Perhaps you could use another word than religion, it makes my skin crawl. Reminds me of horrid, jealous, petty silly men who killed Jesus, and start wars, and squabble, and are money grubbers, who'll lie for a little spare change. Not that they all are, but that's the kind of thing I think of with that word. As far as the spiritual, I think it's testable, and repeatable, and such. Works every time, the laws of the spirit.] Oh, and don't give me the rubbish about people needing spiritual perception to see what the spiritual can discover. [Even worse that that, really, you need to be born again, to begin to really get it! But for those who chose not to, don't try to keep kids in the same darkness, and claim there is no spirit world, just because you never want to leave the box] The discoveries achievements of science are there for anyone to see. What it is useful for can be examined and seen and used by everyone, regardless of how much they know about science. The spiritual, however (you claim) discovers 'special' things that only some people can perceive. [no, God is no respecter of persons, and all can come to Him, and His world. The PO says it discovers 'special' things too, like granny and the speck. But it's not for us to perceive how, apparently, cause they admit they can't either] Of course, you can't evidence these things to those who can't perceive them. Which makes them completely indistinguishable from nothing at all which you imagine to exist. [Long as you can perceive a bible, you can learn many wonders, that go beyond the PO]

Oh, and no, you're no friend of science. If you were, you wouldn't keep trying to kill it (and yes, you are trying to kill it, by uniting it with the spiritual. [ So if it expands it's little knowlege you think it dies? No, it corrects itself, and grows out of it's little planter box, to where the sky is not even the limit] Whatever this process would yield, it wouldn't be science). [Just look at the question of how could plants have been there to feed the animals off the ark? Po alone can't do it, along with most other mysteries. How did man live near a thousand years, where did the flood waters go, etc?]

.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

What are you taling about this whoe thread is about the fact that just because we obey the rules and believe in god

What rules say we should believe in God. Did some one pass a law in my absence. You may believe in God because you are told to, I just believe because I have faith.

we are supposibly in the box

I think you have missed the point of the thread and the reference to being “In the box”. It is Dad’s catch phrase about the scientific method.

at least we dont judge

You can’t gave been here long. I see judgemental Christians all the time. The atheists here in this instance are not being judgemental, they are trying to point out that there can be no evidence for or against God, or other metaphysical concepts.

Like it or not, we believe in God on faith, not evidence.

and you should never be ashamed of being a christian no matter what

If all Christians acted like Christians no one ever would be.

Ghost

 

[coolstylinstud]

What rules say we should believe in God. Did some one pass a law in my absence. You may believe in God because you are told to, I just believe because I have faith

No i meant that we follow the bibles rules and we have faith that there is a god not that there is a law that says to beleive in god

 

[dad]

I think you have missed the point of the thread and the reference to being “In the box”. It is Dad’s catch phrase about the scientific method.

To be fair, the box refers really to the entire physical universe, and the billions of galaxies. Pretty big box, I'd say. The physical shall pass away, and cannot last forever, even physical science knows this. The majority of the world think and know there is more, also a spiritual universe. That is why those whose studies are strictly about our physical universe miss most of the picture, and are limited, and you might say, 'in box' only.
This, I believe is also why the questions of the flood have seemed impossible, in only physical-they are.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Men can also study all science, that includes the spiritual, at least somewhat. very importantly also, is the ramifications to our temporal decaying physical world. When we realize that the merge was and will be, it changes everything.

No, science does not include the spiritual. Nor does the 'spiritual' have any demonstrable ramfiications to our physical world.

Thats what I say, predictions like the decay we now see will not last billions of years at all, nor has it.

Completely unsupported claim.

A part of knowledge, and when we refer to only the PO we should try to denote it as such, so people don't think we mean that onlyphysics covers everything!

We do. Science addresses the physical. That's all it addresses. Everybody knows that.

Well, religion is more like PO science, it is more a belief, than an actual study of the spiritual world. And theology is the same, basically, so these are not apt phrases. Perhaps something like spirysics might convey it better. It is not really a belief, rather than a study of a known part of our universe

Yeah, right. A study that can't be done with any demonstrable successes, methods or empirical behaviour.

Instead of 'spirysics', why don't we call it what it really is - pseudoscience. Something that isn't science trying to pretend it is.

Again, not religion as I think of the word. The way I see it, belief granny appeared is religion.

Then you need to consult a dictionary. As well as not knowing what 'science' means, you don't know what 'religion' means, either.

Belief that our entire universe was not created by God, but came from a tiny hot soup at one time big as a pepper speck is religion.

Seel above. Time for you to get out that dictionary again.

In other words expand knowlege and science, yes.

You can't expand science. As soon as you do, it's not science. You can certainly expand knowledge (by studying science as well as other disciplines; you can also expand scientific knowledge by studying science; you can't expand science).

It isn't new, the spirit world, or the physical and spiritual. It only might seem new to some who were long confined in the dark place of the PO.

What's new is your new pseudoscience.

Right, physical only if called complete knowlege would have to be false, and a mere tool of devils and men who would like to keep God out of their knowledge

Please cite any part of science that dictates that science is the only path to knowledge. You can't, of course, which makes this claim of yours simply dishonest.

No! They study something that has borders, boundries, and limitations, like say, a box does, and that is the physical only universe. I suppose we could say the study of the PO is in the box, and I may have been loose with the term here and there a time or two, and sought a little lightheartedness, and not stuck to the actual defintion of the box!

Yeah, like any study of any field, it has boundaries. Geography, economics, history, science...they all have boundaries and limitations. I guess anyone who studies any of those things is in a box? Come off it. Your entire problem isn't the so-called box - it's that everyone doesn't believe regarding religion as you do.

Religion, as I say I am not too interested in, in the sense that I don't think Jesus was religious, it was the religious who killed Him. But combining a study of the spiritual, and the physical is indeed science in the true sense, and PO science especially as it does an end run around the creator, and bible, is false.

No, "combining a study of the spiritual, and the physical" is pseudoscience.

Actually "What is science? This is a very reasonable question, but unfortunately it isn't easy to provide a simple, definitive answer because there is no entity with the authority to define science. Coming up with a proper definition of science is not unlike coming up with a proper definition of other human institutions, like religion or family: there is so much going on that long, complex books are written in an effort to explain it all - and still people disagree.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_index.htm
SCI'ENCE, n. L. scientia, from scio, to know.
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
http://www.studylight.org/dic/kjd/view.cgi?number=T4954
SCIENCE
si'-ens:
This word as found in the King James Version means simply "knowledge." "Science" occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Daniel 1:4, "children .... understanding science" (yodhe`edha`ath, "those who understand science"). The meaning of the term here is "knowledge," "wisdom." The only other occurrence of "science" is in the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:20, "avoiding .... oppositions of science falsely so called," tes pseudonumou gnoseos, "the falsely called gnosis"). "Science" is the translation of the Greek gnosis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered "knowledge." The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted. "
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7700
----no, science by definition (knowledge) does not have to be limited like that. Only modern science has adopted those beliefs, but they are not proved adequate to explain orgins, and replace children's faith

Philosophy is down the hall.

No, it just leaves the modern falsely so called stuff in the dust. They may not have a monopoly on knowledge, or the word-as much as they want to, and try to insist on!

Once again, you cannot demonstrate or provide any evidence whatsoever that science is what the bible called 'falsely so called science'. I have heard people suggest that it's creationism that the bible referred to.

Whatever they might believe, my concern is that it fits with the evidence, that includes the bible. And PO just don't cut it

Ah, now the truth comes out. It's not the spiritual you're interested in at all. It's YOUR beliefs regarding the spiritual. You don't want science to incorporate the spiritual - you just want it to include fundamentalist chrisitanity.

I think you are still talking about the nominal bible believers in science here? If so, they should remember this. Without the spirit, the words in the bible are dead. Without the spirit, all men are forever dead as well, and there is no heaven, or angels, or departed loved ones, or salvation, or hope for mankind

No, I'm talking about the vast majority of the world's christians, who don't believe as you do, who aren't fundamentalists like you prepared to disregard anything that contradicts their own narrow interpretation of the bible.

Hey, I poke a little fun at the limitations of the box, and granny, etc. Doesn't mean I think people can't change their mind, and see the light that there is more to science than PO

Yes, and poking that fun just makes y ou look ignorant.

They ought to seek it out if they are interested, as I say it is all around. I look at the miracles of even Aimee Semple Mcpherson, and see thousands of them, sometimes as I say, doctors were amoung witnesses. Perhaps you could use another word than religion, it makes my skin crawl. Reminds me of horrid, jealous, petty silly men who killed Jesus, and start wars, and squabble, and are money grubbers, who'll lie for a little spare change. Not that they all are, but that's the kind of thing I think of with that word. As far as the spiritual, I think it's testable, and repeatable, and such. Works every time, the laws of the spirit.

What complete bullshirt. Nobody has ever come up with any tests for the spiritual which are testable and repeatable, nor are any laws observed.

But hey, prove me wrong. Please outline a series of tests which are repeatable by which we can test and observe the spiritual.

Even worse that that, really, you need to be born again, to begin to really get it! But for those who chose not to, don't try to keep kids in the same darkness, and claim there is no spirit world, just because you never want to leave the box

Right...back to this. It's not the spiritual...it's simply your religious beliefs. You keep talking of how billions accept the spiritual, and ignore the fact that most of these billions think YOUR version of the spiritual is a load of bunk.

no, God is no respecter of persons, and all can come to Him, and His world. The PO says it discovers 'special' things too, like granny and the speck. But it's not for us to perceive how, apparently, cause they admit they can't either

Now back to demonstrating a complete ignorance of science.

Long as you can perceive a bible, you can learn many wonders, that go beyond the PO

Back to admitting that it's not the spiritual that you're interrsted in, but merely your religious beliefs.

So if it expands it's little knowlege you think it dies? No, it corrects itself, and grows out of it's little planter box, to where the sky is not even the limit

If it goes beyond its limits, it's not science. This isn't hard to understand. We can acquire knowledge beyond geography, beyond history, beyond economics, beyond math...that doesn't mean that those fields have expanded. Geography hasn't expanded because we've discovered other worlds beyond ours, because geography is the study of OUR world. Similarly, science wouldn't expand if you were to (ha ha) come up with some evidence of the spiritual. As soon as it did expand, it would stop being science.

Just look at the question of how could plants have been there to feed the animals off the ark? Po alone can't do it, along with most other mysteries. How did man live near a thousand years, where did the flood waters go, etc?

There's no such question, because we know the flood didn't happen.

This last paragraph is actually great evidence for your position. You claim an event happened which, to the best science can demonstrate, did not happen. But you claim it did anyway. And the impossibilities which result from its happening you explain away by appealing to your religious belief. Now all of that might be very comforting to you, but it has absolutely nothing to do with - in fact, is diametrically opposed to - science.

 

[dad]

No, science does not include the spiritual. Nor does the 'spiritual' have any demonstrable ramfiications to our physical world.
[Ramifications include eternal life, angels, and a totally different physical universe than that one you base your claim that science does not include the spiritual on. Real science does, the mickey mouse modern monkey man madness merely meddles in the material, missing more that matters than my mortal mouth can mention]

Completely unsupported claim.
[The bible supports the fact the sun will not decay away]


We do. Science addresses the physical. That's all it addresses. Everybody knows that.
[It does what it can, and should be humble about what we know it can't-rather than trying to bypass God with it's also physical only assumptions. Not everyone knows that science (knowledge) addresses only the physical. It addresses a whole lot more. Men have knowledge of the spiritual as well, and always have had, right from the garden]


Yeah, right. A study that can't be done with any demonstrable successes, methods or empirical behaviour. [I disagree-not the kind you might want, but God's good spiritual laws work on cue. 'love begets love' 'you reap what you sow' 'give, and it shall be given' 'seek, and ye shall find' 'in the day you call upon me with your whole heart, I will answer' 'the nation that will not obey shall be turned into hell' etc. When history is studied properly, we see the hand of God in it, and how nations rose or fell, as a result of how they reacted to Him, or His people. Then there are all the things it describes from the spirit world, very detailed. More dependable than the laws of physics]

Instead of 'spirysics', why don't we call it what it really is - pseudoscience. Something that isn't science trying to pretend it is.
["Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
So that term takes in a lot, not just the study of the spiritual. That is basiclly a hand waving term, for anything that the high priests of mainstream (in box) don't wish to believe in. The scientific method is just another way of saying 'limit it to the physical only'. Therefore, rather than the scientific method giving them a monopoly, it cuts them off from the better half of all knowledge. It is why smart God calls it science falsely so called, it is just that. It's like saying 'anything the pope don't like is pseudoscience' -basically a religious statement. No, the study of the spiritual world, and the physical are essential parts of real knowledge, and even a real knowledge of physics! Otherwise they get to thinking thats all there is, and, naturally, come up with ridiculous, Godless conclusions]


You can't expand science. As soon as you do, it's not science. You can certainly expand knowledge (by studying science as well as other disciplines; you can also expand scientific knowledge by studying science; you can't expand science).
[." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines science as, "Knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods." Carl Sagan, just prior to his death, defined science as "a way of thinking, an error-correcting process by which we figure out what is true and what is not." http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/IsSciencetheSourceofTruth.htm
And this does not preclude the general laws of the spirit, or knowledge of it!]
What's new is your new pseudoscience. [Ha, in other words, the mainstream don't like it-yet, at least]


Please cite any part of science that dictates that science is the only path to knowledge. You can't, of course, which makes this claim of yours simply dishonest.
[Keeping God out of knowlege since He is a spirit, means harping on the physical only, with it's resulting fables, and lack of creator, and imaginary old ages]

Yeah, like any study of any field, it has boundaries. Geography, economics, history, science...they all have boundaries and limitations. I guess anyone who studies any of those things is in a box? [No, God is in history, even geography, how He seperated the continents, etc. -as well as economics, and everything. The box is the physical only universe, why is that so hard to get? If someone teaches Godless history, or music, etc, they simply are ignorant, unwittingly, or willingly, depending on the person, and situation. ]Come off it. Your entire problem isn't the so-called box - it's that everyone doesn't believe regarding religion as you do.


No, "combining a study of the spiritual, and the physical" is pseudoscience. [If it also fits in that silly self righteous word, fine, all true science, by the PO types can be called that. Nevertheless that word is a catch all for anything, and not a word to describe the important element of science that studies the spiritual]


Ah, now the truth comes out. It's not the spiritual you're interested in at all. It's YOUR beliefs regarding the spiritual. You don't want science to incorporate the spiritual - you just want it to include fundamentalist chrisitanity. [I won't accept it drawing God out of the circle, and teaching christian children that only in the circle is truth, no.]

No, I'm talking about the vast majority of the world's christians, who don't believe as you do, who aren't fundamentalists like you prepared to disregard anything that contradicts their own narrow interpretation of the bible. [I don't have a narrow interpretation, I just believe it. The narrow interpretation comes in believing in the PO and nothing else. If you have something to put up against what I say, fine. It is pretty cheap trying the old devide and conquer routine on christians worldwide. ]


Yes, and poking that fun just makes y ou look ignorant. [No, it shows where ignorance starts and stops "
Ig´no`rance
n.1.The condition of being ignorant; the lack of knowledge in general, or inrelationtoaparticularsubject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed."

Being ignorant of physics I am not, being ignorant of the laws of the spiritual-they are.]



What complete bullshirt. Nobody has ever come up with any tests for the spiritual which are testable and repeatable, nor are any laws observed.
[They are observed everyday in so many ways. Not by you, apparently.]

But hey, prove me wrong. Please outline a series of tests which are repeatable by which we can test and observe the spiritual.
[Give love, and you will receive love. Works every time. I listed a few, did you miss them? As far as you touching or observing spirits themselves, or heaven in a lab, thats not how laws of the spirit work. That is PO stuff. Never the twain shall meet. You probably wouldn't believe it if some told you of ghosts they saw, or healings, or demons, or the ressurection of Christ. This is far beyond your powers of observation. If you saw God, you'd die. So I see Him in bible prophesy, like a perfect symphony, right on cue. I see Him in miracles I read down through the ages. I see Him in changed lives-the best test tubes there are! I see Him in His creation. I see Him in a mother's love. I see Him in physics, and math, and history, and music, and almost everything. I see Him in lessons learned. No, I've not really seen too much of Him in a lab.]


Right...back to this. It's not the spiritual...it's simply your religious beliefs. You keep talking of how billions accept the spiritual, and ignore the fact that most of these billions think YOUR version of the spiritual is a load of bunk.
[ Whatever they think, or not, they know it exists. As for fine tuning, as to which is which, thats another battle. If you say it does not exist, you stand against us all-as well as God]


Now back to demonstrating a complete ignorance of science.
[No, they say a lifeform appeared on earth. Most also say there was the big bang. Don't try to hand me that line it's just you think I don't understand. I've been told many times these things-go ahead, stick your neck out, I think others will do the work there for me, if you doubt it]


Back to admitting that it's not the spiritual that you're interrsted in, but merely your religious beliefs.
[Why not admit your beliefs in the PO? What else do you hold sacred? God? The devil? Go ahead, let us know. I am interested in the spiritual universe because of God, and because it pertains to what happened in history. It allows children faith in a real live God, and a flood, and heaven, etc. No, it's not some guru like metaphysical multicultural anyspirit goes thing. I want the kids not to be robbed of faith, and lied to. Based on the part of science taken too far, and gone amuck, mere physical only. I can't let some people's hatred of God, masked under a veil of so called science of Po to bully bible believers, and innocent children]


If it goes beyond its limits, it's not science. This isn't hard to understand. We can acquire knowledge beyond geography, beyond history, [There is no beyond history, men were here in creation week] beyond economics, beyond math...that doesn't mean that those fields have expanded. Geography hasn't expanded because we've discovered other worlds beyond ours, because geography is the study of OUR world. [Yes, but adding the spiritual causes of why and how He did it this way expands knowledge, a seemingly foreign concept to you] Similarly, science wouldn't expand if you were to (ha ha) come up with some evidence of the spiritual. As soon as it did expand, it would stop being science.
[No, it just forces you to understand there was more to it all along]


There's no such question, because we know the flood didn't happen.
[We know for a certainty that it did, and PO reasoning to the contrary doesn't cut it any more]

This last paragraph is actually great evidence for your position. You claim an event happened which, to the best science can demonstrate, did not happen. [The best PO science can demonstrate is of little concequence concerning the flood.] But you claim it did anyway. [God claims it, actually, I just agree] And the impossibilities which result from its happening you explain away by appealing to your religious belief. [No, the limitations of PO science only think anything outside the box is impossible. Because with only the physical it is impossible. It is their religious belief that that is all there is that tries to explain away the reality of complete science, and the merge, and spiritual aspects.] Now all of that might be very comforting to you, but it has absolutely nothing to do with - in fact, is diametrically opposed to - science. [Only in the handicapped fashion you perceive it to be. The spiritual is an intricate part of the universe, and cannot be ignored, and proper results attained!

.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Part 1 of 2

[Ramifications include eternal life, angels, and a totally different physical universe than that one you base your claim that science does not include the spiritual on.

Oops, you missed the word 'demonstrable'. I can claim any sort of ramifications of anything I like...unless they're demonstrable, they're just baseless claims - as are yours above.

Real science does, the mickey mouse modern monkey man madness merely meddles in the material, missing more that matters than my mortal mouth can mention]

Science deals with the material. That's all it deals with. Cute alliteration, though, although it doesn't quite distract from the paucity of your argument.

[The bible supports the fact the sun will not decay away]

Good for the bible. You might have a book there that says it'll decay away. Doesn't matter. Unsupported assertions are unsupported assertions, whether they come out of someone's mouth or out of a book.

[It does what it can, and should be humble about what we know it can't-rather than trying to bypass God with it's also physical only assumptions. Not everyone knows that science (knowledge) addresses only the physical. It addresses a whole lot more. Men have knowledge of the spiritual as well, and always have had, right from the garden]

Yes, science does what it can, and it's neither humble nor not humble - it can't be either. They're attributes of people. It doesn't try to bypass god in any way, shape or form.

Anyone who knows anything about science knows that it addresses the physical. i can understand that y ou don't konw this, since you continually demonstrate you know nothing at all about science.

Science does not mean 'knowledge'.

I disagree-not the kind you might want, but God's good spiritual laws work on cue. 'love begets love' 'you reap what you sow' 'give, and it shall be given' 'seek, and ye shall find' 'in the day you call upon me with your whole heart, I will answer' 'the nation that will not obey shall be turned into hell' etc. When history is studied properly, we see the hand of God in it, and how nations rose or fell, as a result of how they reacted to Him, or His people. Then there are all the things it describes from the spirit world, very detailed. More dependable than the laws of physics]

Great. Just some trite cliches that you seem to think represent your pseudoscientific truths.

["Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
So that term takes in a lot, not just the study of the spiritual. That is basiclly a hand waving term, for anything that the high priests of mainstream (in box) don't wish to believe in.

Umm...nope. The key words are 'scientific method'. If the spiritual could be studied using the scientific method, it would be.

The scientific method is just another way of saying 'limit it to the physical only'.

Oops, wrong again.

Therefore, rather than the scientific method giving them a monopoly, it cuts them off from the better half of all knowledge.

This 'knowledge' that you can't even demonstrate exists.

It is why smart God calls it science falsely so called, it is just that.

Once again, you have not - and cannot - demonstrate that science is what the bible calls 'science falsely so called'.

It's like saying 'anything the pope don't like is pseudoscience' -basically a religious statement.

No, it's not. Back to the dictionary again for you.

No, the study of the spiritual world, and the physical are essential parts of real knowledge, and even a real knowledge of physics! Otherwise they get to thinking thats all there is, and, naturally, come up with ridiculous, Godless conclusions]

The study of the spiritual world may well be an essential part of real knowledge. It's no part of science, however.

[." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines science as, "Knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods." Carl Sagan, just prior to his death, defined science as "a way of thinking, an error-correcting process by which we figure out what is true and what is not." http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LV...urceofTruth.htm
And this does not preclude the general laws of the spirit, or knowledge of it!]

Yes, it does, because the spiritual cannot be studied by the scientific method.

What's new is your new pseudoscience. [Ha, in other words, the mainstream don't like it-yet, at least]

No, in other words, something that doesn't use the scientific method.

[Keeping God out of knowlege since He is a spirit, means harping on the physical only, with it's resulting fables, and lack of creator, and imaginary old ages]

Once again, please cite any part of science that insists or claims it is the only part of knowledge.

No, God is in history, even geography, how He seperated the continents, etc. -as well as economics, and everything. The box is the physical only universe, why is that so hard to get? If someone teaches Godless history, or music, etc, they simply are ignorant, unwittingly, or willingly, depending on the person, and situation.

Back to YOUR religious beliefs, again. You don't want to actually investigate the spiritual - you just want your religious beliefs taught as fact. Nice try.

I won't accept it drawing God out of the circle, and teaching christian children that only in the circle is truth, no.]

Great, if any science did that, you'd have a case. It doesn't. Next?

I don't have a narrow interpretation, I just believe it.

Yes, you do.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Part 2 of 2

The narrow interpretation comes in believing in the PO and nothing else.

Since no christians - or theists - do that, then once again, you have no case.

It is pretty cheap trying the old devide and conquer routine on christians worldwide. ]

It's you who are dividing christians worldwide, telling those who don't agree with you how flawed their religious faith is.

n.1.Theconditionofbeingignorant; thelackofknowledgeingeneral, orinrelationtoaparticularsubject; thestateofbeinguneducatedoruninformed."

Being ignorant of physics I am not, being ignorant of the laws of the spiritual-they are.]

Ignorant of science in general you are, the laws of the spiritual you have not even demonstrated exist.

[They are observed everyday in so many ways. Not by you, apparently.]

Good dodge.

[Give love, and you will receive love.

That is supposed to be a repeatable, verifiable test? How ridiculous. I know someone who gave love and didn't receive it back. There, your silly claim falsified. Next?

As far as you touching or observing spirits themselves, or heaven in a lab, thats not how laws of the spirit work. That is PO stuff. Never the twain shall meet.

Come off it. You're the one who claimed there were repeatable tests of the spiritual. Show them.

You probably wouldn't believe it if some told you of ghosts they saw, or healings, or demons, or the ressurection of Christ. This is far beyond your powers of observation. If you saw God, you'd die. So I see Him in bible prophesy, like a perfect symphony, right on cue. I see Him in miracles I read down through the ages. I see Him in changed lives-the best test tubes there are! I see Him in His creation. I see Him in a mother's love. I see Him in physics, and math, and history, and music, and almost everything. I see Him in lessons learned. No, I've not really seen too much of Him in a lab.]

More prevarication to get out of showing the repeatable tests you claimed exist.

[ Whatever they think, or not, they know it exists. As for fine tuning, as to which is which, thats another battle. If you say it does not exist, you stand against us all-as well as God]

Good thing science doesn't say it does not exist, then.

[No, they say a lifeform appeared on earth. Most also say there was the big bang. Don't try to hand me that line it's just you think I don't understand. I've been told many times these things-go ahead, stick your neck out, I think others will do the work there for me, if you doubt it]

No idea what this is about.

Why not admit your beliefs in the PO?

I'm happy to admit my belief in the PO. So what? That's my position, not science's.

What else do you hold sacred? God? The devil? Go ahead, let us know.

I don't hold anything scared.

I am interested in the spiritual universe because of God, and because it pertains to what happened in history. It allows children faith in a real live God, and a flood, and heaven, etc. No, it's not some guru like metaphysical multicultural anyspirit goes thing. I want the kids not to be robbed of faith, and lied to.

Great. Then let the religious institutions teach them about faith, and science will teach them about science.

Based on the part of science taken too far, and gone amuck, mere physical only.

Science studies the physical only. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's what science is.

I can't let some people's hatred of God, masked under a veil of so called science of Po to bully bible believers, and innocent children]

And you don't have to. That's what religious institutions are for - to teach religious beliefs. Science teaches science.

Yes, but adding the spiritual causes of why and how He did it this way expands knowledge, a seemingly foreign concept to you

It may well expand knowledge, as I have repeatedly said. It doesn't expand science, or economics, or geography, because god is no part of those subjects.

[No, it just forces you to understand there was more to it all along

It may do so. It still wouldn't expand science. You just don't get it. All that we learn or know about the spiritual isn't science. It may well be knowledge, it may well be invaluable; it's just not science.

We know for a certainty that it did, and PO reasoning to the contrary doesn't cut it any more

No, you believe it happened for religious reasons. Science tells us it did not, and you cannot provide any evidence that it did (hint: a holy text saying it did is not evidence).

The best PO science can demonstrate is of little concequence concerning the flood.

The best science can demonstrate is of great consequence to those of us who live in the real world, who don't live in your particular box.

God claims it, actually, I just agree

Nope. A particular religious text in which you believe claims it, and you echo those claims. That is a far cry from 'god claims it'.

No, the limitations of PO science only think anything outside the box is impossible.

Oops, false again.

Because with only the physical it is impossible. It is their religious belief that that is all there is that tries to explain away the reality of complete science, and the merge, and spiritual aspects.

And once again back to the dictionary to learn what 'religious' means. And while you're there, learn what 'honesty' means, because you keep making dishonest claims that science proclaims the material is all that is. That is a blatant lie.

Only in the handicapped fashion you perceive it to be. The spiritual is an intricate part of the universe, and cannot be ignored, and proper results attained!

The spiritual may well be an intricate part of the universe; maybe it can't be ignored; maybe proper results can be obtained. It's still not science.

 

[dad]

Part 2 of 2



Since no christians - or theists - do that, then once again, you have no case.
[Oh, some nomies in effect do that, think that the physical only is all that matters in science. ]


It's you who are dividing christians worldwide, telling those who don't agree with you how flawed their religious faith is.
[I think they are devided on what to take as real from the bible, and science, don't blame me for that. I am trying to make a bridge between faith and science, and exclude no one from passing over it, on the contrary! A bridge over the troubled water of modern Po science to real God included science]



Ignorant of science in general you are, the laws of the spiritual you have not even demonstrated exist. [Your accusations, however rabid, are devoid of substance. I am aware of Po science and embrace it to as large an extent as possible, without ignoring the spiritual aspects. You do nor embrace however, on the other hand spiritual science, only the physical, therefore it is truly you who are ignorant, and willingly so]


Good dodge. [Why, do you observe them?]



That is supposed to be a repeatable, verifiable test? How ridiculous. I know someone who gave love and didn't receive it back. There, your silly claim falsified. Next?
[I don't mean every girl you bomb out with type thing. I mean real love. Love never gives up, and is unselfish. Love never fails. Without God, our love is like a little spark. With Him, it's like lightning. Sometimes you may not get love returned from the person you gave it, at least right away, but if you spread enough around, it will come back to you. I'm not talking about one selfish little time, but as we go through life. Physical only man, without the spirit of Love inside of him (God-Jesus) does not have much love to give away, and therefore could not expect much back. Solution: Ask Him in]



Come off it. You're the one who claimed there were repeatable tests of the spiritual. Show them.
[The proofs of the spiritual are repeated every day all over the world, don't feel bad He doesn't work all that much in science departments of the physical only. Signs and wonders Jesus did, and the early christians did, and many since. Have you sought out any, or do you really care? Healing services, and prayers all over the world have wonderful results. I already mentioned one lady who was involved in thousands of these things. including lame, deaf, and blind healings]



More prevarication to get out of showing the repeatable tests you claimed exist.
["
Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. " So if we ask Him in, a law is that we will know. If we don't, we won't. This is repeatable all over the world in any country, and testable, because the test is, if we try it, we will know. It doesn't matter what people say, if they pretend, and say it doesn't work, all they prove, is that they never really tried. In this case the trying is doing His will. If we ask Jesus into our hearts, He says He will come in. Doesn't matter if we go to a lab and stick electrodes up our wazoo, and it shows no difference! Doesn't matter that we feel no different, in many cases, it is a law of the spirit, that He will come in! You cannot measure the spiritual with the mere physical. Imagine how hard it would be to measure the spiritual added to the physical, a thousand years after the physical was left on it's own!]


Good thing science doesn't say it does not exist, then. [yes, good thing, or it would look awful silly, since it can't even find it!]



No idea what this is about.
[Ok, real slow, then. Evolution claims that a lifeform appeared here on earth. From this, all men, and beast, and birds, and fish, etc are said to have evolved. Likewise, in the early big bang stages, the universe was said to be real real small. Get it?]



I'm happy to admit my belief in the PO. So what? That's my position, not science's.[Glad you are happy with it]



I don't hold anything scared. (sacred)
[Ok. fair enough]



Great. Then let the religious institutions teach them about faith, and science will teach them about science.
[Po science cannot teach dating or light speed, or orgins based on the belief in only the physical, and be correct. Therefore the study of the spiritual is essential as a part of science]



Science studies the physical only. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's what science is.
[No, thats what PO science is, that is only a small part of it]



And you don't have to. That's what religious institutions are for - to teach religious beliefs. Science teaches science.
[And the spiritual is an important part of the universe]



It may well expand knowledge, as I have repeatedly said. It doesn't expand science, or economics, or geography, because god is no part of those subjects. [This is where we disagree, He is a huge part if understood]



It may do so. It still wouldn't expand science. You just don't get it. All that we learn or know about the spiritual isn't science. It may well be knowledge, it may well be invaluable; it's just not science. [Yes it is, and a vital part in understanding the God in whom many trust, and his word, and creation, and world, and universe, and past, and future!]



No, you believe it happened for religious reasons. [No, so called science rejects it for religious reasons, and adheres to a belief in onlyphysical.] Science tells us it did not, and you cannot provide any evidence that it did (hint: a holy text saying it did is not evidence).

[There is much evidence, in the population spread, languages, population numbers, fossils, and the bible. Now an adherance to onlyphysical is not evidence thats all there ever will be, or was. It is not reason to doubt the holy bible either. It is merely a belief system that has been foisted on men for awhile, and which many are now in revolt against]

The best science can demonstrate is of great consequence to those of us who live in the real world, who don't live in your particular box.
[In other words, the real world of the box of physical only. This is all you consider the real world, and those who do not agree with this belief you think you can freely insult]



Nope. A particular religious text in which you believe claims it, and you echo those claims. That is a far cry from 'god claims it'.
[No, the bible is not a far cry from God claiming it, is is the cry of God claiming it]


And once again back to the dictionary to learn what 'religious' means. And while you're there, learn what 'honesty' means, because you keep making dishonest claims that science proclaims the material is all that is. That is a blatant lie.
[Hmm, I have seen such claims on this thread. That science is the physical only, of course. You know as well as I that the Po based science claims the sun will burn out, based on how it presently works. Dating, radioactive decay, and so many things, based on the PO, and in effect claiming there was no spiritual factor, or creator, and that the bible timeframes are wrong! Claiming man evolved from some little lifeform. This is claiming the physical is all that there is in the real world, or ever was. How dare you say I am a blatant liar! Personal attacks aren't really called for here]



The spiritual may well be an intricate part of the universe; maybe it can't be ignored; maybe proper results can be obtained. It's still not science.
[So we should not study a known part of the universe, that can't be ignored, and from which proper results can be obtained, and that had immeasurable effect when combined with the physical, of great concequence to children, and bible believers, and the creation/evolution debate? because it just isn't "science"! Wow. Nice position.

.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Dad,

I'm going to ignore your repeated attempts to redefine science to suit yourself for this post, and concentrate on one particular aspect of your posts.

You have stated:

"As far as the spiritual, I think it's testable, and repeatable, and such. Works every time, the laws of the spirit."

"God's good spiritual laws work on cue. 'love begets love' 'you reap what you sow' 'give, and it shall be given' 'seek, and ye shall find' 'in the day you call upon me with your whole heart, I will answer' 'the nation that will not obey shall be turned into hell' etc"

"Give love, and you will receive love. Works every time."

"I don't mean every girl you bomb out with type thing. I mean real love. Love never gives up, and is unselfish. Love never fails. Without God, our love is like a little spark. With Him, it's like lightning. Sometimes you may not get love returned from the person you gave it, at least right away, but if you spread enough around, it will come back to you. I'm not talking about one selfish little time, but as we go through life. Physical only man, without the spirit of Love inside of him (God-Jesus) does not have much love to give away, and therefore could not expect much back. Solution: Ask Him in"

"So if we ask Him in, a law is that we will know. If we don't, we won't. This is repeatable all over the world in any country, and testable, because the test is, if we try it, we will know. It doesn't matter what people say, if they pretend, and say it doesn't work, all they prove, is that they never really tried. "

So here's your chance. Please outline a simple plan for testing this spiritual that you claim exists. Note that:

- all tests must be repeatable in principle by anyone.
- each test should include a detailed procedure (ie., what must be done) and an analysis of what both success and failure demonstrates.
- tests which have as a result explanation something along the lines of "and if it fails, that's because the tester didn't try hard enough" or similar are invalid, since they render the test's failure completely useless.

You claim that the spiritual is testable and repeatable; demonstrate it.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

To be fair, the box refers really to the entire physical universe, and the billions of galaxies. Pretty big box, I'd say. The physical shall pass away, and cannot last forever, even physical science knows this. The majority of the world think and know there is more, also a spiritual universe. That is why those whose studies are strictly about our physical universe miss most of the picture, and are limited, and you might say, 'in box' only.
This, I believe is also why the questions of the flood have seemed impossible, in only physical-they are.

You see to an extent I agree with you, I think there is more than just the physical universe (obviously, since I am a Christian). That's just it though, I believe that, I don’t have any real evidence for it beyond an instinctive feeling that could be self delusion for all I know.

Where I just can’t agree with you is on the subject of the global flood. There is no evidence for one, and a lot of evidence against. Now I know that you argue that is “in the box thinking” but you see the flood would have been a physical event, and i can’t get my head around the idea of a God that sets up the laws of physics then breaks them all the time. Why set them up if you then have to break them to do what you want to do?

Do you see where I am coming from? The flood would be a physical event so if id did not leave physical evidence, if the evidence we have contradicts it and if the laws of physics had to be altered to allow it then God is either incompetent or dishonest and i just don’t believe he is either of those things.

Ghost

 

[dad]

Dad,

I'm going to ignore your repeated attempts to redefine science to suit yourself for this post, and concentrate on one particular aspect of your posts.

You have stated:

"As far as the spiritual, I think it's testable, and repeatable, and such. Works every time, the laws of the spirit."

"God's good spiritual laws work on cue. 'love begets love' 'you reap what you sow' 'give, and it shall be given' 'seek, and ye shall find' 'in the day you call upon me with your whole heart, I will answer' 'the nation that will not obey shall be turned into hell' etc"

"Give love, and you will receive love. Works every time."

"I don't mean every girl you bomb out with type thing. I mean real love. Love never gives up, and is unselfish. Love never fails. Without God, our love is like a little spark. With Him, it's like lightning. Sometimes you may not get love returned from the person you gave it, at least right away, but if you spread enough around, it will come back to you. I'm not talking about one selfish little time, but as we go through life. Physical only man, without the spirit of Love inside of him (God-Jesus) does not have much love to give away, and therefore could not expect much back. Solution: Ask Him in"

"So if we ask Him in, a law is that we will know. If we don't, we won't. This is repeatable all over the world in any country, and testable, because the test is, if we try it, we will know. It doesn't matter what people say, if they pretend, and say it doesn't work, all they prove, is that they never really tried. "

So here's your chance. Please outline a simple plan for testing this spiritual that you claim exists. Note that:

- all tests must be repeatable in principle by anyone.
- each test should include a detailed procedure (ie., what must be done) and an analysis of what both success and failure demonstrates.
- tests which have as a result explanation something along the lines of "and if it fails, that's because the tester didn't try hard enough" or similar are invalid, since they render the test's failure completely useless.

You claim that the spiritual is testable and repeatable; demonstrate it.

"- all tests must be repeatable in principle by anyone."
++ Sincerely ask Jesus to forgive you, and come into your heart, and take you to heaven when you die, and help you share His love. This is repeatable, and can be done by anyone, even if they can't talk, they can think it.
"- each test should include a detailed procedure (ie., what must be done) "
++I just gave it, but in case the prayer guidelines were not detailed enough, here is one that can be repeated. (Only the one time is needed)
""DEAR JESUS, THANK YOU FOR DYING FOR ME! PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR ALL MY SINS, AND COME IN TO MY HEART NOW. TAKE ME TO HEAVEN WHEN I DIE, AND HELP ME TO SHARE YOUR LOVE WITH OTHERS. IN JESUS' NAME, I PRAY, AMEN"!

- tests which have as a result explanation something along the lines of "and if it fails, that's because the tester didn't try hard enough" or similar are invalid, since they render the test's failure completely useless.
++ Result explanation- He promised He would come in, and when someone sincerely prays a little prayer like this one, I believe He does. This is known as being born again. God can then begin to open our eyes, like a newborn baby seeing the world for the first time. If the baby wasn't first born (of the spirit, in this case ) it couldn't start to see the new world around it, and learn about it over time. Pretty simple, and foolproof. Doesn't matter if some feel nothing, as is the case for many, it is not feelings that saved us. A baby needs nourishment, and our spiritual food is God's word. A baby needs others to help care for it. This is why other believers are quite important.
If we wanted to learn more about the coming merged world of the spirit, and heaven, the bible tells us plenty, like exact dimensions, materials, and such of heaven, or the golden city. It tells us of some of the plants, and animals, and powers we will have. It tells us of earth changes (eternal, and no more seas, new heavens revealed, etc) It tells us about angels, and how the devil will then be out of the picture for man, as well as no more disease, and all tears wiped away. The bible talks of departed men coming back to earth at times, as spirits, and talking to men. It talks of Jesus' new body after ressurection, and some of it's characteristics (we shall be like Him). It talks about things as I have mentioned as well, like God planting a garden, and man and beast eating the fruit and grasses, and herbs only a few days later. It really is a science in itself, and has great impact on our past and future physical bodies, and physical only universe. It also is required to understand our present Po universe, and how it came to be, and where it's going.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

"- all tests must be repeatable in principle by anyone."
++ Sincerely ask Jesus to forgive you, and come into your heart, and take you to heaven when you die, and help you share His love. This is repeatable, and can be done by anyone, even if they can't talk, they can think it.
"- each test should include a detailed procedure (ie., what must be done) "
++I just gave it, but in case the prayer guidelines were not detailed enough, here is one that can be repeated. (Only the one time is needed)
""DEAR JESUS, THANK YOU FOR DYING FOR ME! PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR ALL MY SINS, AND COME IN TO MY HEART NOW. TAKE ME TO HEAVEN WHEN I DIE, AND HELP ME TO SHARE YOUR LOVE WITH OTHERS. IN JESUS' NAME, I PRAY, AMEN"!

- tests which have as a result explanation something along the lines of "and if it fails, that's because the tester didn't try hard enough" or similar are invalid, since they render the test's failure completely useless.
++ Result explanation- He promised He would come in, and when someone sincerely prays a little prayer like this one, I believe He does. This is known as being born again. God can then begin to open our eyes, like a newborn baby seeing the world for the first time. If the baby wasn't first born (of the spirit, in this case ) it couldn't start to see the new world around it, and learn about it over time. Pretty simple, and foolproof. Doesn't matter if some feel nothing, as is the case for many, it is not feelings that saved us. A baby needs nourishment, and our spiritual food is God's word. A baby needs others to help care for it. This is why other believers are quite important.
If we wanted to learn more about the coming merged world of the spirit, and heaven, the bible tells us plenty, like exact dimensions, materials, and such of heaven, or the golden city. It tells us of some of the plants, and animals, and powers we will have. It tells us of earth changes (eternal, and no more seas, new heavens revealed, etc) It tells us about angels, and how the devil will then be out of the picture for man, as well as no more disease, and all tears wiped away. The bible talks of departed men coming back to earth at times, as spirits, and talking to men. It talks of Jesus' new body after ressurection, and some of it's characteristics (we shall be like Him). It talks about things as I have mentioned as well, like God planting a garden, and man and beast eating the fruit and grasses, and herbs only a few days later. It really is a science in itself, and has great impact on our past and future physical bodies, and physical only universe. It also is required to understand our present Po universe, and how it came to be, and where it's going.

Okay, thanks. That's ONE test, and it tests whether or not Jesus exists as god. But it's hopelessly flawed, because obviously if someone does it and get zero result, you're just going to say they weren't sincere. Sorry, but that's not a valid test. Got anything else?

 

[dad]

Okay, thanks. That's ONE test, and it tests whether or not Jesus exists as god. But it's hopelessly flawed, because obviously if someone does it and get zero result, you're just going to say they weren't sincere. Sorry, but that's not a valid test. Got anything else?

It is impossible not to get results. It is more certain than the law of gravity. But some may not realize that something happened, but, like a woman who gets pregnant one night, eventually she will notice something. If one somehow has to wait to the other side, well, nevertheless, they will see the results then.
How about this one. Look at 5 billion test tubes in a big lab (people on the lab of the world). Lets say that the ones affected in some way by the spiritual turn blue. I look at the test tubes, and I see billions of them that have turned blue! Why? Because something real is at work there. Wait a minute, I see some hundreds of millions that didn't take, and as yet, no color! Does this mean all the billions of blue ones are an invalid result? No. It just means that all have not changed color yet, some more still will, we know over time. Some will not, in this class.
How about the thousands of cases of healings with Aimee Semple Mcpherson? Perhaps some of them were, like the above experiment, not true blue, but what about the ones that were!? Repeatable? It still goes on in many places. Verifiable, some doctors, and many witnesses, to some of these things.
What about the ressurection? Lots of eyewitnesses there, and, all the miracles recorded in the bible? Why not accept is as documented evidence? Can you prove why I should not do so? No, you cannot.
What about medicine men? Lots of tales about those, and the occult? Think it is all hokey? What about esp? A world of accounts about that. 'I just knew my father had died that hour'- or 'I had a premonition to stay off the ship'- or, 'my dead mother's voice called me over to where the hole in the ice was' (like houdini) etc? What about some phycic predictions? Many are wrong, but what about the bang on ones, like Jeanne Dixon's JFK stuff?
Just because it does not repeat well in a lab on cue, means little. Maybe the spirits don't want to be known?
What about ghosts? Is every single one ever a hoax, or due to mental problems? Very repeatable, people see them all the time all over the world.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It is impossible not to get results. It is more certain than the law of gravity. But some may not realize that something happened, but, like a woman who gets pregnant one night, eventually she will notice something. If one somehow has to wait to the other side, well, nevertheless, they will see the results then.
How about this one. Look at 5 billion test tubes in a big lab (people on the lab of the world). Lets say that the ones affected in some way by the spiritual turn blue. I look at the test tubes, and I see billions of them that have turned blue! Why? Because something real is at work there. Wait a minute, I see some hundreds of millions that didn't take, and as yet, no color! Does this mean all the billions of blue ones are an invalid result? No. It just means that all have not changed color yet, some more still will, we know over time. Some will not, in this class.
How about the thousands of cases of healings with Aimee Semple Mcpherson? Perhaps some of them were, like the above experiment, not true blue, but what about the ones that were!? Repeatable? It still goes on in many places. Verifiable, some doctors, and many witnesses, to some of these things.
What about the ressurection? Lots of eyewitnesses there, and, all the miracles recorded in the bible? Why not accept is as documented evidence? Can you prove why I should not do so? No, you cannot.
What about medicine men? Lots of tales about those, and the occult? Think it is all hokey? What about esp? A world of accounts about that. 'I just knew my father had died that hour'- or 'I had a premonition to stay off the ship'- or, 'my dead mother's voice called me over to where the hole in the ice was' (like houdini) etc? What about some phycic predictions? Many are wrong, but what about the bang on ones, like Jeanne Dixon's JFK stuff?
Just because it does not repeat well in a lab on cue, means little. Maybe the spirits don't want to be known?
What about ghosts? Is every single one ever a hoax, or due to mental problems? Very repeatable, people see them all the time all over the world.

You're getting off the track. Firstly, stop complaining that these things aren't testable. It was YOUR claim that they are - a claim you've yet to support. Now you claim that with your 'Jesus' test, it's impossible NOT to get results...but you mightn't realise that you've got results. Surely you see that for the purposes of the test, this is indistinguishable from not getting results at all?

Don't bring up anecdotal stories about ghosts, or laughable 'prophets' like Dixon...stick to your claim of repeatable tests.

 

[aeroz19]

Who knows, we should ask the guy who put it in quotes.

I think I have made it pretty clear that I believe that the physical only based science is quite limited, when compared to the big picture where the spirit is added as well. Hence, the comparison to a 'box'. We have the spiritual, we have the physical, and we have had, and will again have, the merged reality of both of them combined. We might say, Spirysics, physics, and mergisics! Ghosts and angels (just ask around how many people believe in these things) are spiritual, therefore operate under spirysics, or spiritual laws.

Ok, now, I'd like you to propose a spirysics method (in place of the scientific method) to test hypotheses about the supernatural.

 

[dad]

Ok, now, I'd like you to propose a spirysics method (in place of the scientific method) to test hypotheses about the supernatural.

Show me which hypothesis about the supernatural.