Posts by OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

That's actually been my point the entire time. If our entire understanding of reality is based on perceptions, what possible basis could someone have for claiming my unfalsifiable perceptions are delusional?

That was a good point about the subtractive observation being not discernibly better or worse than direct observation. I agree, but I don't think that in any way bolsters an argument for disbelief in God or a spirit realm. I think it has the opposite effect.

So I don't have a strong reason to give greater value to the perceptions of a mystic vs the instruments trained on his/her brain by doctors studying that experience.

There are no instruments that can record the human experience. Therefore, doctors (scientists) can't study the experience, they can only study the effects of the experience on the brain.

This is another indication there is some difficulty being able to distinguish what we can do from what we can't do.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Oh, and rem, this part was definitely not in fun or part of a word game:

It is when you infer to others that I am or may be deluded that you then have a responsibity to either retract, or falsify my belief, as a function of proving your claim.

Inference of delusion is an ad hominem attack unless you can falsify my belief. In my opinion, it is dismissive and extremely disrespectful language, not befitting the bulk of my posts in this thread. If you want to play word games, I am an adequate sparring partner, but mostly I would like some mutual respect clearly evidenced.

OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

I was under the impression that words are important in that this is the means by which we convey ideas. I also believe that our use of them reinforces or modifies our perceptions of the world around us, perforce making our choice of words important as well.

Am I deluded?

Let's test my theory: If I wrote a paper on the subject of seven, and undered every God monkey where it sat. Could clacking foam physically want ham with fickle bastings?

Did you understand what I just wrote?

OldSoul

P.S. Lighten up, you'll live longer.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

rem:

The distinction is not really necessary in everyday language, though. For instance, I reserve the right to regard someone who believes they have an invisible pink unicorn in their head as deluded.

I wonder if you see the contradiction in what you write:

If you regard a person as deluded when you cannot falsify their belief, your belief that they are deluded is automatically falsified by the definition of the word "delusion." Doesn't that make you deluded?

Either way, I have no control over how you regard me, however deluded you allow your perceptions to be. It is when you infer to others that I am or may be deluded that you then have a responsibity to either retract, or falsify my belief, as a function of proving your claim.

Have fun trying.

Regards,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Cygnus: People that do and "can" perceive alternate realities and senses that most people can't are............... different.

And happily so, in my case. I only want accorded to myself the respect and dignity I accord the scientific community. I don't think that is too much to ask. The two minds are not diametrically opposed to each other, however much some with a scientific bent may believe.

Just because I believe God did certain things does not mean I am lacking in curiosity about how it was done. I am avidly interested in pursuing scientific inquiry, and have been for as long as I can remember. I attribute a cause, does that rob me of curiosity? To date, I must admit, for discovery of physical reality the Scientific Method is the best method I know of. And I REALLY enjoy discovery.

TS said earlier something to the effect that science encourages discovery more than theism. I completely disagree. I think such a view eliminates much of what we know of history. Just because the Europeans (dark ages, middle ages) were relatively late starters down a path of discovery doesn't mean the history of the great Arab cultures should be ignored. The attributed causes may be different but the desire to know comes built in .

Odd isn't it? We are the only species that have a curiosity this well developed, it should have gotten us killed long ago. We must have something cats don't.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

22

They are giving my kids notebooks for the special assembly. Why?

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

now if they were only giving them to my children, i would raise cain, because it is an obvious attempt to imply that they have to provide what i am not.

it is also an influence ploy, in that by giving them a gift, it obligates them to use the gift.. but they gave them to all the kids and everyone at the book study.

the sweet part was that i actually showed up.

OldSoul

Give your kids a PDA. Or a portable Playstation. See which gets used at the SAD.

OldSoul

63

Can any JW answer OldSoul's 4 questions about JW teachings scripturally?

by kwintestal in

i am waiting for any jehovah's witness to offer support in scripture of these four articles of faith: .

(1) the faithful and discreet slave is a class of people, .

(2) that the holy spirit directs organizations in addition to individuals, .

OldSoul

??? @ outoftheorg.

I really don't know what you are talking about. I am still nominally one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have Scriptures to support these beliefs. I started questioning which beliefs I had actual Scriptural support for when I found out about their 10-year Association to the UN/DPI.

I am just trying to see if anyone in cyberspace can come up with Scriptures that a BOE and two COs could not come up with, in addition to several other elders.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Caedes,

Mutual pleasure, I assure.

Caedes: Last century your question could have been "what is electricity?"

Um, actually this one is still valid. Again, we know it effects but we don't know what it is. And right now the question is very fitting of quantum entanglements.

See, that is why I stress the danger in thinking we know what something is just because we have a name for it. You have proably not considered what electricity is since grade school, because EVERYONE knows. And still, the only way to describe electricity is to describe its effects.

I have no problem with Science trying to interpret what it finds in physical reality, I just wish they would stop pretending they know more than they do. Just because I have a name I call fire, that doesn't mean I know what it is.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

LittleToe: You're argument is neglecting the "invisible" affect of radiant heat (eg. from the sun) affecting atmospheric conditions.

Oh. I didn't say photons? I thought I said photons. Oh well, edit that to include photons as the major cause of wind. Well, that and refritos. And baked beans.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

rem:

Again, perceptions that are not provable is not the definition of delusion. You see, delusion is a word in the English language. In that language, it has a meaning. It means "falsifiable belief," which is, as you can probably comprehend, much different from "undemonstrable belief." Now, unless you are trying to intimate that you can demonstrate the non-existence of God and a spirit realm, I suggest you find a word that means what you want to communicate.

As it stands, I do not believe you are capable of falsifying my belief, although I invite you to try. Unless you are, I suggest you stop lowering yourself to improper use of the language. You may find your opinions discredited by overuse of inflammatory and, most damningly, incorrect ad hominem.

OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

We don't just know of the existence of gasses by their effects. There is the periodic table that predicted the existence of many of them prior to discovery, and predicted some of their properties. It isn't the same as a wholly subtractive exercise when you are identifying a gas.

Wind doesn't exist except in the same way that gravity exists.

Respectfully,
OldSoul