the existence of god is a scientific fact

[loverofhumanity]

That is not a proper test. And please, I am not the coward here.

Besides, what makes you think that I can't write a holy book? The problem is that you would simply deny it. That is why your test is unreasonable.

Your test cannot rely on the actions of others. So one more time, what reasonable test would show you to be wrong.

Ok so you create a Holy Book which we name the cause and then we wait and see its effect upon humanity. Very simple and straight forward. A book at least the size of say any one of the Gospel writers. Then it gets announced and we wait and monitor the effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you implying..???
a petri dish is required

so much for the work of Albert

all he had was a brain

Ok so you create a Holy Book which we name the cause and then we wait and see its effect upon humanity. Very simple and straight forward. A book at least the size of say any one of the Gospel writers. Then it gets announced and we wait and monitor the effect.

There is no need. I am not the one making the unscientific claim. Your test failed. I explained to you why and I know how the religious react when shown to be wrong so writing such a book would be rather pointless.

Your test cannot rely upon the actions or inactions of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so much for the branch you sit on

keep pumping that saw

You made a foolish and ignorant statement. I requested that you support it. That you can't implies that you are probably wrong.

I can show you that "cause and effect" is not part of the scientific method. I sincerely doubt if you can support your claim with valid sources.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is no need. I am not the one making the unscientific claim. Your test failed. I explained to you why and I know how the religious react when shown to be wrong so writing such a book would be rather pointless.

Your test cannot rely upon the actions or inactions of others.

Flip flop!

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is no need. I am not the one making the unscientific claim. Your test failed. I explained to you why and I know how the religious react when shown to be wrong so writing such a book would be rather pointless.

Your test cannot rely upon the actions or inactions of others.

I thought we could have an intelligent discussion about cause and effect. The Prophets were a Cause and had an astronomical effect on the societies in which They appeared. Muhammad established a nation from savage tribes, King Ashoka known as a merciless warlord became one of the most benevolent and compassionate kings to walk the earth after being transformed by the Buddha. This is cause and effect at its very finest.

I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Flip flop!

Please, just because you failed is no reason to get personal. I know how and when the religious are dishonest and you have only confirmed that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought we could have an intelligent discussion about cause and effect. The Prophets were a Cause and had an astronomical effect on the societies in which They appeared. Muhammad established a nation from savage tribes, King Ashoka known as a merciless warlord became one of the most benevolent and compassionate kings to walk the earth after being transformed by the Buddha. This is cause and effect at its very finest.

I’ll leave it at that.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation you must acknowledge your errors when they are pointed out to you. If you do not understand you should ask questions.

We can get into the prophets later.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please, just because you failed is no reason to get personal. I know how and when the religious are dishonest and you have only confirmed that.

It’s about the ‘cause and effect’ of the Great Educators that’s all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s about the ‘cause and effect’ of the Great Educators that’s all.

I don't think that you understand cause and effect. Do you understand yet how your beliefs are not scientific? We can go over the scientific method.

Do you see the step "construct a hypothesis"?

Scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable. That means there is a reasonable test that can falsify it. And anyone testing your hypothesis should be able to do the same test and come up with the same results. Your test failed. It was nonsensical to say the least.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you want to have an intelligent conversation you must acknowledge your errors when they are pointed out to you. If you do not understand you should ask questions.

We can get into the prophets later.

Ok banter and rhetoric aside, I do respect your views. Diversity of thought is a good thing which I fully support. I was once myself an atheist. You’re not a coward that was just banter. So I’m sorry if I offended you..

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't think that you understand cause and effect. Do you understand yet how your beliefs are not scientific? We can go over the scientific method.

Do you see the step "construct a hypothesis"?

Scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable. That means there is a reasonable test that can falsify it. And anyone testing your hypothesis should be able to do the same test and come up with the same results. Your test failed. It was nonsensical to say the least.

I have already gone through these procedures and found my conclusion to be correct. The problem lies with which research material one uses that can affect the overall result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok banter and rhetoric aside, I do respect your views. Diversity of thought is a good thing which I fully support. I was once myself an atheist. You’re not a coward that was just banter. So I’m sorry if I offended you..

Apology accepted. People may have many different reasons for a particular religious belief, but no religious beliefs are based upon science that I know of, and that includes Baha'i. It may be less superstitious than most, though I have seen variation in what Baha'i's believe. It is fine to have a religious belief, but to claim that it is scientific only makes one's beliefs look silly.

I would concentrate more on the pluses of one's religion than trying to prove it scientifically. One has to be willing to risk that one is wrong if one applies the scientific method.

The prophets may have only been more socially aware than others of their time. What do you think that the prophets were?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already gone through these procedures and found my conclusion to be correct. The problem lies with which research material one uses that can affect the overall result.

No, your test failed. You need to find a proper test if you want to claim that your beliefs are scientific. You need to be bold enough to risk your beliefs. Your "test" was no test at all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't think that you understand cause and effect. Do you understand yet how your beliefs are not scientific? We can go over the scientific method.

Do you see the step "construct a hypothesis"?

Scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable. That means there is a reasonable test that can falsify it. And anyone testing your hypothesis should be able to do the same test and come up with the same results. Your test failed. It was nonsensical to say the least.

Who set these standards and are they perfect or infallible? The standard by which we measure things should be error free otherwise our conclusions will lead to errors.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Apology accepted. People may have many different reasons for a particular religious belief, but no religious beliefs are based upon science that I know of, and that includes Baha'i. It may be less superstitious than most, though I have seen variation in what Baha'i's believe. It is fine to have a religious belief, but to claim that it is scientific only makes one's beliefs look silly.

I would concentrate more on the pluses of one's religion than trying to prove it scientifically. One has to be willing to risk that one is wrong if one applies the scientific method.

The prophets may have only been more socially aware than others of their time. What do you think that the prophets were?

Our religion teaches that any religion which does not agree with science is no religion. Science is part of our religion not separate from it. These are some quotes from our writings.

Material science is the investigation of natural phenomena; divine science is the discovery and realization of spiritual verities.

Science is the first emanation from God toward man.

any religion contrary to science is not the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who set these standards and are they perfect or infallible? The standard by which we measure things should be error free otherwise our conclusions will lead to errors.

There are variations of the scientific method. That is only a very simplified chart. And it is impossible to be error free. What makes the scientific method superior five with based beliefs is that it has a built in method of removing errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our religion teaches that any religion which does not agree with science is no religion. Science is part of our religion not separate from it. These are some quotes from our writings.

Material science is the investigation of natural phenomena; divine science is the discovery and realization of spiritual verities.

Science is the first emanation from God toward man.

any religion contrary to science is not the truth.

And yet I am fairly sure not all Bahai follow that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, his comment was enough for me to open my mind to the possibility that ID might be more than just creationist baloney.

Really?
What about the overwhelmingly more scientists and phd's who think ID is just bullocks from front to back?

What was so special about that one guy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IJosephson is quite right that mainstream science is biased against paranormal research which makes funding such projects difficult.

It's also quite biased against funding research into Stork Theory, Intelligent Falling, Bigfoot, alien abduction, etc.
For obvious (and good) reasons.

 

[exchemist]

That's what I thought also, but I changed my mind because I respect Brain Josephson's expert opinion. If he's 80% sure, then I'm sure it's not baloney.
I've never heard his opinion on cold fusion but his "flakiness' has more to do with his position that mainstream science is biased against paranormal research. I'm of the same opinion. Because of one experience with each, I know that telepathy and precognition exist. So, you can call him flaky and ignore his opinions but I know as fact that Josephson is right on the paranormal bias so I respect his opinions..

Fair enough. I quite like the idea that people such as Josephson occasionally lend support to ideas that are widely ridiculed. It helps to keep science honest. But I'm sure he's barking up the wrong tree with ID.