Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nothing to say eh?
No one says every disease or condition is demon possession. Get serious.
Scripture may be stories to you.
No, it sure isn't. The beliefs origin sciences are based on are other beliefs.But the point is that Scripture is not what science is based upon, nor could science ever work that way.
Easy.How can you literally quote my response to your post and then claim I have nothing to say?
Or you that they were not, so I will believe Jesus, thanks.You can't even show ANY of them are demon possession.
Easy.
Or you that they were not, so I will believe Jesus, thanks.
You still need to provide support for the claim that it's usually a mental issue.
So you are saying that religion is doing a better job of treating mental illness than medicine?
Care to support this claim? I've seen precious little of support from you.
Do you believe in spirits? If so, then no one needs to prove good and bad ones exist. If not, then why would we discuss spirits?As usual, your responses are short on words and shorter on quality.
Is that the best you've got?
"You can't prove they WEREN'T demon possession, so I win by default!"
Do you not see how utterly weak that is?
No .. science is based on objectively tested definitions (operational), the scientific method and objective results. Religions aren't .. that's it .. no more to it than that.dad said:No, it sure isn't. The beliefs origin sciences are based on are other beliefs.SelfSim said:But the point is that Scripture is not what science is based upon, nor could science ever work that way.
You appear to be using an unusually broad definition of 'supernatural'.The belief in supernatural constructs certainly isn't limited to religion and atheists sometimes embrace them too. Science posits the supernatural all the time as well, including extra dimensions, supernatural forms of matter and energy, etc.
Perhaps not.Perhaps it's just a human "desire" to embrace the "unseen' in the lab that causes this.
You do not get to define mental illness.
Mary tested it. You cannot. You test your own life.
Comprehension deficit?
You appear to be using an unusually broad definition of 'supernatural'.
Perhaps not.
As far as I am aware, there is no concept of the unnatural or supernatural in science, only good and bad hypotheses. Hypothetical new forces, fields, or particles are generally consistent with, predicted by, or derived from current successful theories; as hypotheses they are assessed according to common abductive criteria. If you proposed a hypothesis involving spirits or magic or other ideas commonly called 'supernatural', it would rank so low by those criteria that it would simply be rejected as a waste of time.Not really. The only purpose of introducing a hypothetical new form of matter and/or energy into any cosmology model is because no known "natural" form of energy or matter would suffice. It's introducing a "non-natural' element into the model. Why not call it what it is, and call it "supernatural"?
I would be happy if we can understand and explain our universe, period. Nature doesn't care if astronomers are bored.I recall hearing Michelle Thaller (sp?) say in a video that it would be "boring" and disappointing to know all there is to know about cosmology while trying to justify the use of dark energy and dark matter in the BB model. I for one would not be disappointed in the least if it turns out that we can understand and explain our universe from the perspective of laboratory physics.
I'll go with God's definition, thanks.Neither do you.
They tested. We test. You do live in this time period?Right. Which confirms your claims about not testing past Bible events.
Or echoing inner confusion.Just pointing out your contradictions.
That's one of the advantages of science. We can test events long after those events occurred. Based on what you are saying there are no creationists who are forensic scientists, or astronomers, or geologists, or historians, or . . . . It sounds like you are part of a very barren ensemble.They tested. We test. You do live in this time period?
There are no...(insert anyone at all here)..that do forensics on ghosts. They can't even see spirits today.That's one of the advantages of science. We can test events long after those events occurred. Based on what you are saying there are no creationists who are forensic scientists, or astronomers, or geologists, or historians, or . . . . It sounds like you are part of a very barren ensemble.
I don't really feel obligated to do that unless you're trying to claim it's caused by something *other than* a "mental issue". It's certainly a mental choice one makes, and it's not a good one.
No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm just pointing out that religion does have a track record of helping people turn their lives around, and help them deal with depression and such.
Do you believe in spirits? If so, then no one needs to prove good and bad ones exist. If not, then why would we discuss spirits?
The survey also appears to be a classic case of Michael shoot-from-the-hip, 'anything from Google will do' cherry-picking:Kylie said:"...through active participation in congregations..."
So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results. We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.
While “striking”, the link between happiness and religion requires further study – as “the numbers do not prove that going to religious services is directly responsible for improving people’s lives,” according to researchers.
Rather, the opposite could be true – that happier people engage in religious participation because they overall participate more in activities compared to unhappy people – as the surveys showed that many active religious people also reported voluntary involvement in other organisations.
In the case of dark energy explanations, the one considered most probable is Einstein's cosmological constant - it's a gravitational field effect in the Einstein Field Equations, but other solutions and explanations for the phenomenon have been proposed - all 'natural' hypotheses.
I would be happy if we can understand and explain our universe, period. Nature doesn't care if astronomers are bored.
So lemme get this straight.
You can make up any wild claims you want, and you don't have to provide any evidence at all.
But I have to provide evidence for my claims, as well as provide evidence against your claims.
So you want me to do all the work.
Sorry, bucko, the burden of proof is on you. If you are going to make your claims without evidence, then I'm going to dismiss them without evidence.
So what's the point of bringing religion into this then? If it can't do the job as well as medicine, if it is inferior in every way in the treatment of mental illness, what's the point of it?
"...through active participation in congregations..."
So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results. We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.
Don't forget that the idea that 'empty' spacetime contained 'vacuum energy' had been around long before the accelerating expansion was discovered (since the mid-'60s if memory serves), based on the energy of quantum field excitations as 'virtual particles' - remember the Cosmological Constant Problem described by Zel'dovich around 1967, which is still unsolved today? Whether you get there via GR or QM, scalar vacuum energy is not new or unnatural. You can think of it as work done on spacetime as it expands.The problem is that when Einstein added a non-zero constant, it wasn't required to generate acceleration throughout an expansion process, it just needed to prevent the whole thing from imploding. In such a scenario, ordinary forms of matter and energy (like repulsion) could easily suffice. The way that "dark energy" is being used in the LCDM model however, requires dark energy to remain constant over multiple exponential increases in volume, something that no 'natural' form of energy ever does.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?