Scientific Reasons for God

Sarkus

Ghost,

you quote from a book that undoubtedly has some historical benefit.
But where is the evidence?
You have postulated that God must exist through nothing more than incredulity that he doesn't (a logical fallacy that has been pointed out to you again and again). If only it was that easy - 'cos I can't believe I don't have $millions$

I was an agnostic physics major in college arguing against the existence of God in philosophy class, in the 1970s. But someone talked to me about God and I decided to use the scientific method of experimentation to determine if God exists. So I did an experiment to test for the existence of God. Part of the evidence I got, from my experiment, was the Lord Jesus Christ appearing to me and paraphrasing something from the New Testament, as it applied in my case. Based on the evidence from my experiment, I became a born again fundamentalist Christian and a bible believer, like Isaac Newton was.
I have the experiment I did and its outcome recorded in my files, if you want I could email it to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wesmorris
You're either kidding, stupid, dishonest or naive. Note that the probability of something happening in the past is 100%, so calculations regarding the remote chances of the development of life are moot. Perhaps it's indicative of lacking physics. Of course the first place despots arrive when failing to accept that certain knowledge is beyond our grasp is god. LOL. "God did it!"

There is only two possibilities:
The universe developed by random chance or
The universe was deliberately designed.

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

Apparently you don't understand the probabilities involved, so I will repost part of it:










"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry if I sounded crass before, but I've plenty of education in statistics. Much more than most for certain.

Having thought about it so much for a few years, I came to understand its application quite well. It's a tool for prediction based on functions and assumptions. Note prediction. In this case, to calculate the probability of life forming in the universe... it must be presumed that the current accepted model of physics is complete and accurate. It must in fact presume we comprehend what gives cause to life in a manner we can capture in our probabilistic expression.

Regardless, one can draw a number of conclusions from the results of the calculations you offer. One way to interpret "damn near impossible" as a result, is "we got lucky". Another might be to consider the validity of your assumption that the model in use captured all the pertinent conditions/functions required to give us a result that's reflective of reality. Given the fact we exist, it seems apparent the model is missing something at best.

Further, that we exist shows clearly that the probability that we might is 100%. The experiment is not repeatable. So attempts to calculate probability are exactly irrelevant, even without consideration as to the validity of the model. It can't be done again, so the probability of it happening simply doesn't matter. When we do consider the validity of the model and look at the results of our calculations, we must re-examine the model. So basically, these calculations tell us we're wrong or that they're pointless to perform.

If there were a body of evidence in support of a 'unified theory of everything' and an army of rational scientists in agreement of its accuracy, the argument might bear more weight... but there isn't - yet.

Did you hear that the voyagers are off course? I think the model has a way to go and this calculation at this time is exactly moot.

Regardless, this is no proof of god, unless of course you already believe in god in which case of course it proves god because you already believe it.

In that case, you're in the sanctity of circular logic, sheilded from the sway of logical reasoning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems to me that there is some sort of life forceish kind of thing that infuences the behavior of matter in the universe... whatever it is that makes the difference between random molecules and life. Science at this time can't really explain the difference. When and if they can, perhaps the model should be updated and the calculations performed again.

It seems to me the probability of life forming in the universe must be 100%. So our model should reproduce this result. Certainly the catch all "god did it" explains it away, but at the high price of accepting a useless model. "god did it" doesn't teach me anything but what I must have already presumed to reach that conclusion. What's the point? I'm here, I might as well try to learn something. I don't consider dogmatic recursion very educational.

 

This is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. There are more than two possibilities. For instance:

There might be many (or an infinite number of) Universes.
There might be an underlying, eternal, law or principle that explains the Universe.
The Universe might be an unintentional side-effect of some unknown.
The Universe might be eternal.
The Universe might be a finite pattern of order within an infinite realm of chaos.

All the Hoyle arguments boil down to straw-man fallacies. They are calculations of complex components arising by pure chance. This is invalid for several reasons: 1. The laws of chemistry do not allow for pure chance. Molecules form and interact according to certain rules and restrictions. 2. Abiogenesis and Evolution do not hypothesize that life or the complex components we find in life today arose spontaneously, wholly formed, but from a series of simpler components. 3. Evolution is not random. Once we allow for even the simplest and most basic form of "life" all subsequent increase of complexity is easily explained.

An analogy would be to physically examine a human being and deciding that it is impossible for a human to have built a car. A human body cannot melt, forge, or cut metal. A human body cannot distil gasoline from oil or make glass from sand. Therefore it is impossible that a human could make a car. What this conclusion overlooks, however, are the intermediary steps involved in making a car. A human body can make tools that make it possible to forge metal, make tires and glass. Similarly, Hoyle's argument neglects the intermediary steps that make it possible for the complex components of life to arise naturally.

~Raithere

 

Boy
"Well father it seems that we lack the intelligence required to convince people of our beliefs through logic."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Priest
"Then, my son, you shall go blindly and convince them by force and appeals to their emotional weaknesses and wishful thinking. It doesn't matter who, just blindly convince as many of them as you can."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And by the way, the bible is no longer considered evidence of truth or facts. It was written by human beings thousands of years ago and has since been through a number of translations through different languages.
Not only is it false, and has been socially irrelevent for hundreds of years, but it is spiritually no longer necessary.

Even the most famous christians fail to abide by its word.
George W bush. Turn the other cheek? Have mercy / forgiveness?
don't think so.


This facts are party responsible for the inevitable demise of christianity in our world, which has already begun.
This makes christian believers very upset, but they are stubborn and unable to adapt, so they continue what they've always done, forcing their beliefs on others.

 

Here are some versus from the bible that demonstrate its ridiculously obsolete nature:

Book of Deuteronomy 21

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


Deuteronomy 22

10 " You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 " You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, [such as] wool and linen mixed together. 12 " You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover [yourself.]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Gospel According To Matthew
-- 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Goodness ghost must you keep amking the same mistake, evolution is not a completely random process.

Think of it this way, throw 10 6 sided dice, you are trying to get to 10 6's. You are suggesting that evolution needs to roll 10 6's in 1 go. Untrue, evolution is multiple rolls and keeps any sixes it rolls. You work out the math.

Both methods for rolling 10 6's are driven by a random process, but the keep sixes method has selection for the advantageous trait. Do you understand why your statistics are wrong?

 

Highly commendable.
Please can you give details to all of this "experiment".
If it holds up to scrutiny then you will have done what no-one else has ever done before - come up with a scientific method of testing for the untestable.

Ah - a repeatable and recordable/observable piece of evidence?
Otherwise any scientist could claim proof (and has often done so) when only they arrived at the results.

Please post it here, as I'm sure everyone would want to see exactly what you did - not to ridicule it but to assess it from a scientific point of view.
I for one would like to repeat the experiment and discover the very first scientific evidence for God.



Okay - to play with probability for a while...
Everyone will agree that there are an infinite number of things that we can think of as existing (e.g. a creature with one leg, with two legs, with three legs etc).
An infinite number.
When we have evidence of that thing existing, the probability that it exists is 1/1 = 1. i.e. 100%.
The chance of any of them existing, without any actual evidence of their existence, is thus 1/infinity.
And as we all know, 1/infinity is zero. 0%. Nil. Nada. Diddly-squat.
God is certainly included in the things that people can think of as existing.
Thus God has a 1/infinity chance of existing.
i.e. God has a zero chance of existing.
i.e. God does not exist.

Enjoy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you need proof that 1/infinity is zero then please look it up on the internet.
Or ask me and I'll show you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sarkus
Please post it here, as I'm sure everyone would want to see exactly what you did - not to ridicule it but to assess it from a scientific point of view.
I for one would like to repeat the experiment and discover the very first scientific evidence for God.
Ok, but if you want to repeat this, use the scientific control suggested. It is important for this experiment. God judges the heart and He will know if you are not genuine. I use this to try to save people from hell, so I will not delete the prosletyzing parts of it.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Physics. I did a scientific experiment
to test for the
existence of God. I simply looked up to the ceiling and asked God to
give me
evidence that He really existed so that I would know and not just
believe. I did this
several times over a period of weeks or months. I assumed that if He
really did
exist, He would do this because He loved me and didn't want me to go
to hell. I
did this as a serious experiment; it's either true or it isn't. I was
an agnostic
science student at the time. Later I got involved in
parapsychology and found out that there really are people that can
heal by the
laying on of hands as Jesus did and they are being studied by
scientists. The Aura energy field around a healer's body can transmit
healing energy to the body
of the patient; this can be filmed by a technique called Kirlian
photography.
http://www.synergy-co.com/kirlian1-6.html
So the healing miracles of Jesus could be true. Later I studied UFOs
and a UFO
researcher pointed out that there are flying objects in the Bible that
are associated
with angels that look like the UFOs that people are taking photgraphs
of today.
So, Bible stories of angels could be true too. I got a book on the
occult. It said
that certain sensitive people and psychics can see into the spirit
world; they can
see little glimpses of spiritual beings that look like points of light
in the air. I
started reading the New testament to see what it said. Around this
time I started
hearing evil and threatening thoughts coming into my mind as if from
somewhere
else, they weren't my thoughts. I also started seeing little colored
flashes of light
in the air around the time I heard these evil thoughts; they were like
visions, not
really in the physical world. I decided that this was evidence that
demons exist
and they were attacking me with evil thoughts trying to stop me from
becoming a
christian; I saw glimpses into the spirit world during these attacks
that looked like
little colored points of light in the air, like the occult book said.
Then one night
when I was asleep, I saw a night vision of Jesus talking to me; it
seemed like He
was really there, it was not a dream. I had an
overwhelming feeling during this vision like I knew that He had all
the power in the
universe; like anything He commands to happen will happen. I heard His
voice
paraphrasing something written in the Bible.
He called me by my name
and said, you must die before you enter society. Unless the seed die,
the tree cannot bear good fruit. All trees that do not bear fruit,
will be cut down. He was paraphrasing this scripture in the New
Testament:
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit.
This scripture goes along with these that follow it.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth
his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am,
there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my
Father honour.
The interpretation is that when a man comes to Jesus for salvation, to
be saved from hell, that man must allow his old way of living to die,
and he must take on a new life of serving Jesus, so that he can bear
good fruit for the Kingdom of God.
Immediately after that I woke up. I asked God to give me proof; He
gave me
proof. I have been a fundamentalist christian ever since. If you
really want proof,
ask for it seriously, like I did. Have the idea in your mind that if
God really does prove Himself, then you will serve Him. This is an
experimental control for this experiment, and it's important.
In the New Testament Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father but
by Me. The only way to get to God is through Jesus Christ, all other
ways are
false. It is not enough just to know that God exists, you can only get
to heaven
through christianity all other religions lead to hell. When Jesus spoke
I heard one word after another like normal speech, but when I thought
about it, all of the words seemed to have happened at the same time.
It was like time did not make any sense. His voice was like that of
any normal man, not to deep, and not too high in pitch. The words
seemed to fill my entire being as if they were put into me with real
power.
This happened to me in 1975. Jesus was coming to me in a darkened room
so I did not get a completely clear look at him. At the time, I
thought he looked similar to Max Von Sidow in the movie THE GREATEST
STORY EVER TOLD, except His hair was all the way down to His
shoulders; longer than in the movie. I did notice darkness around His
chin as if He had a short beard. His face is different from Max Von
Sydow's but there are similarities. He seems to look younger than
that, and more cheerful.
When He said the words, "will be cut down", the tone of His voice
changed as if He did not want to frighten me. After the words were
finished, He put His hand on my back and smiled at me and disappeared.

You need to consider what type of a test I was doing. I was probing
for an answer to a question that is not bound to the physical world.
True reality as we observe it is composed of the physical world, which
is easily tested by physics and chemistry, and it is also composed of
the mental dimension, which does really exist, but not in the physical
world. [Your thoughts and desires and will do really exist, but not in
the physical world. They are connected to the physical world by your
physical body.] If God does exist, as He is described, then He is like
a universal mind or consciousness, that created everything and is in
control of everything. To test for a universal mind, I needed to do an
unusual experiment. The reason that I decided that these points of
light were evidence of demons is because of this:
The occult book that dealt with demons and spirits said that glimpses
into the Spirit world looked like points of light in the air.
And also, I would hear evil voices in my mind, threatening me and
saying the kind of things that demons would say [threats, insults
against me and God, etc...], and I heard these thoughts as if they
were coming from the points of light. As if the points of light were
appearing, saying these things to me telepathically, so that I heard
them in my mind, and then disappearing.
This was surely a phenomenon that looked to me like attacks by evil
spirits or demons. After I became a Christian I prayed to Jesus Christ
to ask Him to protect me from the attacks of demons, and the problem
went away. According to the Bible, the Devil and his demons are
controlling everyone that is not a real Christian, to a greater or
lesser degree. (Some people are completely demon possessed.) When you
try to become a Christian, you are breaking free from the demon's
control and that is when you will notice them trying to fight against
you. If Satan already has you moving in the wrong direction, he does
not need to fight you; he has already got you. Try to become a real
Christian, and try to break free from the Devil's control, then he
will start to fight against you to try to prevent you from becoming a
Christian and getting right with God. This is what the evidence
suggests that I was experiencing when I started to become a Christian,
in 1975.
Also, these points of light that I was seeing, looked like little
visions, not like a real physical phenomenon that happens in the
physical world. Therefore, I did not consider that a physical form of
energy was of any importance here. Physical energy of the sort that
physics studies, might not have been involved.
Remember, the mental dimension is real and does exist, but not in the
physical world, just like your thoughts and desires exist, but not in
the physical world. Your mind is connected to the physical world
through your physical body, so there is a definite connection between
these two different dimensions. Both dimensions really exist.
I had to do an unusual type of experiment because of the unususal
nature of what I was testing for: - The Existence of God.

Experimental controls associated with my experiment:
Believe that if God really exists then He does care about you and He
does not want you to go to hell. Believe that He would prove Himself
to you to prevent you from going to Hell, if He really does exist.
Ask God to prove to you that He exists, several times over a period of
weeks or months. Have the idea that if He really does prove Himself, then
you will serve Him, - which means read the New Testament and try to obey it.
Have patience to wait for the proof.
I was involved in Science and that is the kind of proof that God gave
me. If you are involved in something else God will probably prove
Himself to you in a way that you can best understand. He meets you
where you are at.


Jesus Christ said:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.

Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the many false religions of
the World.
False religions lead to hell. The New Testament, of the Christian
Bible, is the real way that leads to heaven and to God. (The King
James version is the most accurate.)
You can read the New Testament for free online at this website:
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/search.html
You can listen to the New Testament being read by someone else, for
free online at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html Start with Matthew
and go all the way through to Revelation.
It is good to ask God to teach you what the New Testament really means
before you read it or listen to it.

Caution: Devils really exist and they have telepathic contact to the minds of men. How much control Satan and his devils have over your thinking right now will affect the experiment to some extent. If you manage to become a really saved Christian, God's Holy Spirit will be sent to you, to break you free from the devil's deceptions.

Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

 

presterjohn
Think of it this way, throw 10 6 sided dice, you are trying to get to 10 6's. You are suggesting that evolution needs to roll 10 6's in 1 go. Untrue, evolution is multiple rolls and keeps any sixes it rolls. You work out the math.
Both methods for rolling 10 6's are driven by a random process, but the keep sixes method has selection for the advantageous trait. Do you understand why your statistics are wrong?

Someone did work out the math. Starting from random chemicals reacting, even if evolution keeps its sixes, the building blocks of life are so complex the probability of that happening by chance is so small you might as well discard it as a possible theory.

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

What is the probablility that if I continue to post those quotes over and over again, some of you will finally understand what they really mean?
[Note: Small probability for those fundamentally in denial with minds closed like steel traps.] - no reference to you people,- I hope!!!!!

 

presterjohn

Think of it this way, throw 10 6 sided dice, you are trying to get to 10 6's. You are suggesting that evolution needs to roll 10 6's in 1 go. Untrue, evolution is multiple rolls and keeps any sixes it rolls. You work out the math.

This idea of yours that evolution will keep any 6's it rolls is not true. Just as situations that cause evolution to go one way exist, situations to cause it to go back the other way exist to. Especially for molecular and cellular evolution. If you are saying that random shufflings of atoms could build up a chromosome, random shufflings can also tear it down. So evolution does not necessarily keep any 6's it rolls like you say. [One Chromosome has so much genetic imformation that it could fill a small library of books. The probability that a small library of books could be printed up by chance hittings on a type writer is so small you might as well consider it impossible. That is the kind of probability you are dealing with, with living cells. - Also, should you manage to do a page or two, if by chance you start making mistakes, that must be thrown away so you start over. -- so it would not keep it's 6's in the way you meant with your dice.]

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

 

Did you even read Raithere's post?

 

Care to provide one of these studies? Every study that I'm aware of states quite the reverse.

No, it can't. Kirlian Photography is an image of the reaction caused by applying an electric field to an object on a photographic plate. It has nothing to do with an object's "energy".

http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html

So you're using one unfounded and unproven hypothesis to justify another based upon "appearance". How is that science?

You read a book that said certain special people could see point of lights in the air. Lo and behold you start seeing lights... and hearing things too. May I offer the explanation that you seem very open to suggestion? So far every thing you come across you believe. When do we get to your critical analysis of this "data"?

No. This is indeed a dream. When you're asleep but seeing and experiencing things as if you were awake, it's called a dream.

"Dreaming is the subjective experience of imaginary images, sounds/voices, thoughts or sensations during sleep, usually involuntarily" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream

Apparently you haven't the faintest clue of what an experimental control is.

"Integrity may be augmented by the introduction of a control. Two virtually identical experiments are run, in only one of which the factor being tested is varied. This serves to further isolate any causal phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiment

No. You were not doing a 'test', at least not in any scientific sense of the word. Like any True Believer you were looking for anything to confirm your preconceptions and interpreted everything you experienced as 'proof' of that preconception. I see no evidence of skepticism or analysis. No matter how far removed from Biblical lore these things were you interpreted them as supportive of it.

This, most certainly, is not science.

~Raithere

 

It seems that we have another Leo on our boards!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So Ghost have you sat down at the psychiatrists lately? I think that they have cures for dillusions now a days.

Godless.

 

shrinks have "CURES" for visions and 'unacceptable' behaviours?
No, they are rather the new priests of mechanistic science which claims that all there is is matter and when matter -'complex matter'--'produces' consciousness which is 'not-right' and nt in subservience with how things 'REALLy are' as is dictated by 'mechnaistic scientific knowledge' then is MUST be 'disease'....so they then make pills etc that ARE't a CURE but rther fuck up natrual bodymind processes

 

Some people I know (not on sciforums) could use anti-psychotic medication, this person could not possibly get more fucked up than he is naturally, and the pills really help him sleep and calm down, instead of (it actually happened) running through the streets with a towel on his head and shouting about non-sensical bullshit. His behavior was not only deemed unacceptable by his friends, but was also obviously totally unacceptable to himself. Mental illness is often intensly troubling to the person affected.

It's good to be skeptical, Duendy, but mental illness is no joke invented by quack doctors. You are right in that there is no cure, but the worst effects can be mitigated through chemistry.

 

I saw jesus today. he gabe me an icecream. then he said what if yorda died?

 

Actually, psychology makes no such materialistic claims. While I definitely find it to be a soft science its medical recommendations are evidence based despite the fact that they are quite vague as to the actual mechanisms employed.

Some people's natural "bodymind" processes are fucked up to begin with... what then?

~Raithere

 

But have you made sure I heard you?

Have you made sure I understood what you are preaching?

No.

You speak, but you do not listen.