It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

It really depends upon your faith in proofs.

For instance, optical red shift shows that the universe is expanding and therefore it must have come from a particular point in space at some time in the past. By far the proof of an expanding universe is overwhelming, but...

How do we get the blue outlier galaxies travelling towards us at enormous velocities (blue shift) when the universe has been expanding for 13.4 billion years and the most distant galaxies are supposed to be receding from us (red shifted)? If you do the numbers, it just can't be the case, yet we can observe the blue outliers. For objects with galactic mass it is an impossibility.

Somewhere, at a fundamental level, there is something not right about our ideas of the state of the universe and how we get here. The proof of an expanding universe resides on several theoretical concepts, some of which themselves have no proof (it is generally taken that the expansion of the universe proves these theories that are themselves taken as proof for the expansion of the universe. A "because it is" circular logic which ignores conflicting data).

So really a personal and subjective proof, to me, has a stronger 'feel' of 'proofiness' than an abstracted and theoretical one.

Hence, I hold the 'proofs' of science in slightly lower regard than I do things I have directly experienced. This gives a weight to subjective reality above the apparently objective, 'learned' knowledge (which also takes a type of faith to believe, just as does the supernatural).

To paraphrase CS Lewis, if I can recognise that, within myself, I have desires and strong concepts that nothing in this world can explain or satiate, then, since observed natural processes should propel me towards an efficient resolution, it is a rational conclusion that there is something beyond this natural world and for which I was 'engineered' to fit.

edit on 20/4/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: markosity1973
It's completely subjective.

I'd be a hardcore atheist if it were not for two things

1) Exposure to religious teachings as a child. I''d still be an atheist though if not for

2) Personal experience. I've spoken of it many times he on ATS, but it has lead me to believe there really is another realm out there. And said realm, presented itself in religious terms to me.


Would you be comfortable elaborating on your experiences?


Okay, I am going to be as scientific as is humanly possible for me about this. Please bear with me as I am attempting to put in to very rational terms an experience that was also very emotional for me.

As such, I don't care whether anyone believes what I am about to say or not. I've got nothing personal to gain from telling this story.

First off; I understand the difference between being lucid and being plain crazy. I had a major mental breakdown when I was 17 and have been in the mouth of madness. The subtle difference between being crazy and what I am about to describe is that the crazy comes from inside your own head. None of the 5 senses are properly activated. Whereas the below genuinely seemed from my perspective as the one experiencing it to be external stimuli.

Secondly, what I consider to be believable is something that my 5 usual senses is able to perceive in a state of lucid awareness ie I am awake and I am NOT suffering a bout of mental illness. The story below involves three of my senses, sight, hearing and touch being activated.

I was involved in a religious apparition at Marcellin College in early March 1993 (very beginning of Autumn in NZ)

I saw; A wavy band of colour in a sky where there were no rain clouds. The colour was similar to a rainbow, but this band was not curved in a rainbow manner, more of a straight line that was ruffled like curtains are on a rod.

Later that day;

I head; A female voice speak to me as if it were a normal human being. (I did not see this person, I could just hear them)

combined with

I felt; I was picked up and lifted approx 4 - 5 metres off the ground I could see the crowd and even my own self from a third person perspective. I felt I was picked up held like a mother holds an infant.

These are the bare bones no emotion facts of my experience.

As I said, it is subjective. The thing I saw was seen by many other people. The thing I heard and felt was private ie only I experienced it.

Unfortunately science does not yet have a way to quantify or validate any of what I have just described. All anyone can choose to do is believe it or not. Until it happens to them.


edit on 20-4-2017 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Science and religion are not divided. Science was basically created by Christians.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations.” - Galileo Galilei

List of Christian Scientists:
-Nicolaus Copernicus
-Galileo Galilei
-Robert Boyle
-Isaac Newton
-Johannes Kepler
-André-Marie Ampère
-Michael Faraday
-Lord Kelvin
-Louis Pasteur
-Guglielmo Marconi
-Francis Bacon
...

Also science is not flawless it evolves over time. Things that had to be right, we learned weren't right because someone doubted it and proved it wrong.

Examples:
-Spontaneous Generation
-Transmutation of Species
-Chemistry of Classical Elements
-Flat Earth
-Hollow Earth
...

And as for religious beliefs a Christian is warned that their faith will be tested in this life. So we are always suspicious to anything or anyone that may be leading us the wrong way. Christians are taught that there is life after death and it lasts for eternity and if we do what's required and pass the tests we will be rewarded in the next life if not we will be punished and both last for eternity.

If you can grasp what I'm trying to explain there. That is some hardcore stuff to go against.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yet as much as I agree with your statement in every possible, conceivable way.
We don't fit, there is nothing about this world that makes us happy, for a short time, yes maybe, but long term, it's a wreck.

It's like it was created for us and then something happened and we are now in a hostile environment.
Like something happened and poisoned the harmony that should exist

I am not arguing with you, just extending your concept
Hope it makes sense



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ABissell

Always a timely reminder, anyway it is now
Cheers, I liked it, very helpful



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Great thread and great questions!

What I believe is strongly influenced by my study of language. The way human beings use language to represent nature is fascinating to me. Language in itself and how it lives in our minds and imaginations is also fascinating. What is interesting is most people do not have a distinction between what is real and what only exists in the mind. For example, when I use the word "reality" people think I am talking about reality. But I am not. What I am talking about is a word that represents reality. Reality and the words we use to represent it are very different. For example, a road map represents reality. But when I travel down the road reality has a huge amount of more detail than anything that is represented in the road map. I think most people think their words are an equal representation of reality. Another example is the pretty picture on the menu at a fast food restaurant is very much different the blob you get delivered in your Styrofoam container. It doesn't look like the picture on the menu at all! But people bite down on their burger thinking about the picture the whole time. Our use of language has important limitations that need to be appreciated as we form our world view and belief system.

So with that in mind I will next talk about belief. I think every person has a system of thought in which they determine what is meaningful and what is insane in terms of point of view. Here is what I mean by system of thought. Every system of thought has two types of ideas. The first is a system of thought must have a set of primary axioms that are considered to be true without any proof. Everyone has a set of ideas that are assume to be true without any proof. And second, a system of thought has a number of questions or assertions that can be shown to be true, make sense, or be insane using normal logic techniques taking into account the primary axioms as anchor points of reference.

For example, a system of thought would be as follows. First, assume God exists. Assume God exists without any shred of evidence. Then, from that one axiom, you will have a number of questions and assertions that can be shown to be true or insane from that anchor point. Second, and the axiom that the Bible's version of God is real. Again, from that point of view, a number of truths and assertions can be judged as true or insane.

Another example is with science. Many people believe the word "time" is a lot like the word "God". In order for science to make any sense at all you MUST assume time is real, universal, and exists everywhere equally. Once you assume time is real, then there are a number of ideas that are either true or insane based on this axiom. If you think the idea that time is not real is complete nonsense, then google the following: "time is not real Julian Barbour" Julian Barbour makes a good argument against time being real.

But my point is not about time but the nature of language and having axioms. Every system of thought has a set of axioms. This is where everything breaks down in communication between people. People generally do not share the same set of axioms or are even aware that they have a set of ideas they accept as being true without any proof. It's just the way it is between people. So if my axioms are NOT the same as yours, then things I will say will seem insane to you. And things you say will seem insane to me. And if you can ascertain what someone else's axioms are in a conversation, then if your mind is big enough to pretend they are true, then you can see what the other person considers to be "truth" from their point of view.

So now the question, in my way of thinking, becomes what set of axioms are the "right" set to have? I'm not sure there is a correct set as far as I can tell. I like to figure out what other people consider to be axioms. I'm like a collector of thought systems. I hold sets of axioms to be true like wearing clothing.

Everyone has their own dogma. And my dogma is the only right one! The rest of you are insane!


edit on 20-4-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
My proof. Ok when I was 17 after a very powerful spiritual experience, I was sent to adult prison in Colorado for a 5 year forgery conviction. Whether you believe me or not, I walked out escaping 3 months later after a series of incredible events. He had promised me he would free me. I was the longest escapee for awhile and it was 12 years before I was found. I never hid those years at all.
There were a few other promises He made that came true. Another was that I would find fame playing music which happened. Another promise was 45 years ago that He had a purpose for me at the End. A year ago while watching a basketball game a Pentecost type thing happened to me. Since then, He comes to me at random times filling me with so much Love I can hardly stand it. I weep for joy. It wakes me, hits while I'm driving, at work.. I have to cover my head and pretend to sleep on breaks because I'm weeping for Joy.
I'm not exaggerating when I say I'm living as I imagine Adam lived. I can't find anyone else in this garden but there's my proof.
There's been a lot more actually.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


There are many members here whom seem to accept various fields of science as factual whilst maintaining their religious beliefs.

Yes, that would fit most who are Christians. Why so? Because what you call science is nothing but laws that exist in this creation. You nor any scientific group have invented these laws but instead have simply discovered what God created and through puffed up ego have claimed these laws as your own club of smart people. But with that said, can you create something from nothing? Do you understand that these laws could have changed somewhat with time? Were these laws of which your science uses always the same? You do not know nor do I know.

I believe, through literature, that our earth was a closed environment at one time and became an open environment as we now have. I cannot show this just as you cannot show your science. You can show some of the ingredients that you use to make your products but those ingredients have been placed in this creation regardless of how they were placed here. I believe that my God put them here for us to use while you may believe that it was all an accident. Till the science club can create it's own laws and ingredients it still has to borrow what is now in place and if a man is wise he will wonder how they got here.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Ghost147

Faith doesn't need Proof
The well-known, self-caused mind trick of cogitative dissidence is the scientific explanation.


I would have thought that faith without proof is actually fiction.

Believers struggle with doubt. It is a normal, natural and healthy part of spiritual growth.

When I encounter a doubt, it prompts me to look for resolution. Doubt challenges and educates me. In a way, faith is validated by a body of disproven doubts.

Of my most fundamental beliefs, I have little doubt, not because I avoid thinking about them but because they are proven, in multiple ways, again and again to me. Sure, the proofs are subjective, but ultimately even objective proofs are filtered through subjectivity to become our personal beliefs.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

Unfortunately science does not yet have a way to quantify or validate any of what I have just described. All anyone can choose to do is believe it or not. Until it happens to them.



I was not quite correct in that statement. I now recall that there has been some research into brain activity when these events occur to a person. The brain does indeed change it's activity, moving to the alpha wave state (normally only ever happening during REM sleep - dreaming state)

Science can effectively say that a brain is in a dream sleep state while the person is lucid.


What EEG testing showed was that before the apparition, the brain waves are predominantly beta rhythm interspersed by alpha rhythm (normal conscious attentiveness). At the start of the apparition, the beta rhythm remains for a short time and then is replaced by an almost uninterrupted alpha rhythm. Alpha rhythm is most often observed during relaxation, in a state of expectation, or engaged in meditation. It also usually requires practice to achieve such a diffuse response. Because most of the brain is devoted to visual processing, it is noteworthy that the alpha rhythm over the entire cranium was exhibited while the alleged visionaries had their eyes wide open throughout the apparition. Closed eyes would be expected with alpha rhythm because visual stimulation usually produces interference with alpha rhythm.


The above is from scientific examination on the visionaries of Medjugorje, more can be read below

www.medjugorje.org...


There is also this research below on EEG when a person dies - a clear spike in brain activity is shown just after death.



So, something is indeed happening to people. Science can see changed activity in the brain. From my own personal experience I would postulate that said change in activity manifests in an altered state of awareness.

The part that science can't observe yet is what the subject is seeing. And what these people see is always profound and life changing, often interacting with entities that deliver messages of a personal nature, sometimes to be shared with a wider audience.

I find the fact that these events are not just random hallucinations with little meaning ie seeing a cat floating upside down is an interesting thing to note. Because if it were just a result of our brains producing random images, one would expect said images to be as random and difficult to decipher as a normal dream. But they are not.


edit on 20-4-2017 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

More and more as I get older, its about aesthetics and a lack of reasons for not believing. At this time in my life, I'm convinced that neither science nor logic, strictly practiced and on their own, compel either atheism or theism.

So for me, it's increasingly about beauty and what I see as the necessity of God, for what I perceive as beautiful, to truly be beautiful, coupled with a lack of reasons for not believing.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Ghost147


There are many members here whom seem to accept...



There are many members here whom seem to reject...



There are many members here whom demand proof and evidence, but seem to shy away from providing the same quality of evidence they demand...

Hmmm... Got any proof of these assertions?


This topic has already shown an example per individual mentioned in the OP. Heading to virtually any topic focusing on Evolution will render more results


originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Ghost147
1. Religious Proof

Religious "proof" to me is personal proof. I have absolutely nothing to show to others as proof. But my entire life has been filled with experience after experience that proved to me that there was more to life than what meets the eye; that there was an unseen negative influence that was trying to get me to do certain things; and that there was a positive force that was guiding me in a different direction.

I guess a nonbeliever would say it was a constant series of coincidences, hallucinations, out of body experiences, near death experiences, sleep paralysis experiences, etc. But for everything to consistently line up with the same belief system is beyond mere coincidence, especially when the creatures/things explained spiritual things to me, warned me of certain other experiences I'd later have, and even "proved" themselves to me through different "stunts". I'd been getting mental checkups off & on from 2nd grade through middle school. But not only did they never find anything wrong with me nor prescribe any drugs or mental health "treatments" for me, I was put in the gifted classes & scored a 20 on my ACT in 7th grade.

It wasn't until my Senior year in high school that I accepted that what I was going through matched up w/the things described in the Qur'an. I'd already accepted that a devil figure was real, but I didn't know whether it was ghosts, spirits, or whatever. And I'd accepted that God was real, though I still studied various religions to see what matched up w/my actual experiences. That's why I'd still be a Muslim even if the Qur'an never existed. Because I worship, fear, and respect the powerful positive entity that's been guiding me my entire life while I oppose the negative cowardly entity that's try to misguide me my entire life. Their commonly accepted names don't mean much to me.


Out of curiosity, how do you view others from another religion whom came to the same conclusion you did about Islam? We have a few people who've responded so far that have made the same claim regarding their own religion.


originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Ghost147
ETA: I should probably add that "The Devil/Shaytan" in the Qur'an is not some 30 ft tall, bat winged, goat hooved, super muscular, dragon clawed red beast that can magically show up to destroy the world. He's called the "Sneaking Whisperer", his only "power" is the power speak to our spirits, & he basically convinces people to do bad stuff.


I've read the Qur'an too; quite an interesting take on things


originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Ghost147
2. Accepting & Rejecting Scientific Claims

I accept a lot of aspects of science but completely reject others. The biggest problem I have with many scientific claims honestly comes from the charlatans; meaning that many times, scientific "discoveries" are misrepresented in order to increase funding, fame for the "discoverer", ad revenue for the outlet misrepresenting the study/findings, etc. A lot of times, follow up studies refute the grande claims but those follow up studies don't get the same publicity as the false/misrepresented one. That ruins credibility for me.


I completely agree. The human condition ironically detrimental to humanity.

That's for your response, it's leading me to understand the answer to the question in the OP a bit more.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Ghost147
What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

'Proof' is anything that validates your 'beliefs'.


That's an interesting line. But what confuses me is when one type of 'proof' is demanded from an individual who doesn't use that same type of 'proof' that lead them to believe what they believe in



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Ghost147
So really a personal and subjective proof, to me, has a stronger 'feel' of 'proofiness' than an abstracted and theoretical one.


Wouldn't subjective proof be too vulnerable to external (perhaps even internal) factors, though?

Objectively we can cross-confirm an event, function, reaction, or what have you, but subjectively we could always me susceptible to bias, mental ailment, biological influences, and so forth.


originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Ghost147
Hence, I hold the 'proofs' of science in slightly lower regard than I do things I have directly experienced. This gives a weight to subjective reality above the apparently objective, 'learned' knowledge (which also takes a type of faith to believe, just as does the supernatural).


This is where we seem to differ. The evidence we gather objectively makes suggestions that a particular explanation can be concluded. Although, I don't believe it's possible to be absolutely certain, regardless of how much evidence we gather. But the evidence could be profound enough or numerous enough to render the explanation has highly plausible.

Subjectively it feels as though we have to jump to a conclusion (usually highly influenced by bias).

Here's a personal example: I've had a number of experiences, both individually and with others, that couldn't easily be explained by science, of which most would consider to be paranormal, more specifically involving "ghosts".

In each event the subject ("ghost") related heavily to human behavior and capabilities (breathing for example); and in one case an unusually large "dog".

Although the others that experienced the same event consider what we saw as "Ghosts", I've never conclusively made the conclusion as a Ghost. There was simply too little evidence to say "Yes, it was a dead person's spirit". It could have been something to do with interdimensional beings, it could have been something to do with an alien projection, it could have been some strange time slip, or any other thing we can think of. But because there's no way to actually confirm the conclusion, to me at least, it remains only as something that others would consider a "Ghost".

Now, with the influence of bias, a christian person may believe one of those incidences was the work of a demon, or that it was a human's spirit, or that it was an angel, or anything else that relates to what their belief system tells them. Of course, their conclusion is still baseless, but bias gives rise to their conclusion.


EDIT: Need to head to sleep, I'll have to respond to the other comments later
edit on 20/4/17 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147



Out of curiosity, how do you view others from another religion whom came to the same conclusion you did about Islam? We have a few people who've responded so far that have made the same claim regarding their own religion.

I think we all have our own paths to lead/follow. As long as it's consenting adults & they do no harm to others, it doesn't matter to me what others worship or refuse to worship. Besides there are truths in other sources, just as no single religion or scientific theory explains all of reality. So it makes sense to me why others follow other paths.

A more selfish answer is that I don't really care what happens as long as I make it to Heaven/Jannah. I can't even guarantee my own spiritual destination, so what good does it make for me to chastise others for theirs? I speak up when my duty or compulsions call for it, but other than that, meh.

For all I know, I may be one of only a few "real" souls in this dimension and everyone else could be simulated existences (as in, I'm the player-controlled character in a video game while everyone else is an NPC). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if every universe in the "multiverse" (if it's real) only contained 1 real soul, as if each "verse" was a single player game to see who'd make it to Heaven.



I've read the Qur'an too; quite an interesting take on things

Strictly reading and following the Qur'an also creates a very different way of life than that of numerous Islamic denominations and sects. That's why there's no single form of "Sharia", much less one single set of accepted qualifications to be a Muslim in the first place. But I'll save that for another conversation.



I completely agree. The human condition ironically detrimental to humanity.

That's for your response, it's leading me to understand the answer to the question in the OP a bit more.




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Ghost147
What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

'Proof' is anything that validates your 'beliefs'.


That's an interesting line.

Thank you for the kind word! *__-


But what confuses me is when one type of 'proof' is demanded from an individual who doesn't use that same type of 'proof' that lead them to believe what they believe in

There is something about that sentence that leaves my head spinning after reading it, three times now.
It seems that the only 'problem' is of communication.
Both agreeing on a definition.
I had a great social experiment going on on Yahoo Answers for about 8 years.
I was taking notes.
A result of my experience with the experiment is the definition of 'proof' I offered.
And then when the news article came out about 'proof/facts' and 'beliefs' being pretty much the same thing;
"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."
www.newsweek.com...

I spent lots of time observing the religion forum, and the symptomatology of 'beliefs'.
So often 'proof' is demanded to support a claim, or to convince, even a claim of personal experience/Knowledge.
I have learned sufficiently to inquire, when 'proof/facts' are demanded, what the person would consider to be 'proof'.
We are then, at least, on the same page; I can supply the requested 'proof', with no changing of the goal posts (on his side, a common symptom of a belief). He will then have to accept, or not, but at least we are talking about the same thing.
I'm often amazed that we can communicate at all! *__-



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Ghost147
So really a personal and subjective proof, to me, has a stronger 'feel' of 'proofiness' than an abstracted and theoretical one.
Wouldn't subjective proof be too vulnerable to external (perhaps even internal) factors, though?

Objectively we can cross-confirm an event, function, reaction, or what have you, but subjectively we could always me susceptible to bias, mental ailment, biological influences, and so forth.


Surely the same repeated testing and cross-confirmation can equally apply to subjective experience.

Subjective evidence does not necessarily imply a transience or evidential weakness, it is the observer that is the real difference between the subjective and the objective.

Again, even objective evidence is rendered subjective when we personally evaluate it. It, or its results are observed via our senses and the objective becomes subjective to us.

At least with totally subjective evidence we have assurance about the trustworthiness of the transmission of the observation, a factor absent from most objective 3rd party observations. Consider concerns over scientific fraud as attestation to that.

The effects of bias, mental ailment, biological influences, and so forth are also attributable to data that we may choose to call objective. When we begin to extend the evidentiary chain, as we do in the case of scientific observation and reportage, we actually introduce more points of failure and greater weakness alongside a few external cross checks.



originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Ghost147
Hence, I hold the 'proofs' of science in slightly lower regard than I do things I have directly experienced. This gives a weight to subjective reality above the apparently objective, 'learned' knowledge (which also takes a type of faith to believe, just as does the supernatural).
This is where we seem to differ. The evidence we gather objectively makes suggestions that a particular explanation can be concluded. Although, I don't believe it's possible to be absolutely certain, regardless of how much evidence we gather. But the evidence could be profound enough or numerous enough to render the explanation has highly plausible.


If we really had such doubts about what we directly observe then we could simply and repetitively re-test. There is no constraint that prevents us from doing so.

The fact that most people never doubt their senses in most situations is a reflection of their confidence in subjective observations.

There is also an issue of interpretation of data that is entirely overlooked in many such discussions. The data that one may see as proving out a theory may be misinterpreted.

A case in point was a paper some time ago regarding apparent evolved characteristics in yeasts. The yeasts in the experiment did not express the specific traits that were apparent in later generations. The writers of the paper and some reviewers were of the opinion that the changes had evolved as new traits and therefore indicated mutation and natural selection. Several other reviewers (far fewer in number) noted that those traits were actually expressed normally in other yeasts of the same species and that the the issue may have been one of epigenetic factors being expressed and appearing in the population once selection pressures gave it advantage. Despite the questions raised, the paper was published as it was. In my opinion, the paper would have had more relevance if the traits were not common to the species in nature or the experimenters had done more to eliminate the possibility that the trait was epigenetic. The paper may have, but did not, prove the conclusions drawn by its authors.

The objectivity of data has little effect upon the quality of interpretation drawn from the data.


Subjectively it feels as though we have to jump to a conclusion (usually highly influenced by bias).

Here's a personal example: I've had a number of experiences, both individually and with others, that couldn't easily be explained by science, of which most would consider to be paranormal, more specifically involving "ghosts".

In each event the subject ("ghost") related heavily to human behavior and capabilities (breathing for example); and in one case an unusually large "dog".

Although the others that experienced the same event consider what we saw as "Ghosts", I've never conclusively made the conclusion as a Ghost. There was simply too little evidence to say "Yes, it was a dead person's spirit". It could have been something to do with interdimensional beings, it could have been something to do with an alien projection, it could have been some strange time slip, or any other thing we can think of. But because there's no way to actually confirm the conclusion, to me at least, it remains only as something that others would consider a "Ghost".


It could have been playback of a recording of a previous event by obfuscated means, too.


Now, with the influence of bias, a christian person may believe one of those incidences was the work of a demon, or that it was a human's spirit, or that it was an angel, or anything else that relates to what their belief system tells them. Of course, their conclusion is still baseless, but bias gives rise to their conclusion.


I believe that many 'ghost experiences' are quite likely to be the replay of events in the past. A spiritual interpretation is a misinterpretation of the evidence.

As you are probably aware I am a fairly traditional Christian but I don't exclusively seek a spiritual explanation of things observed in the material world. In the case of ghosts, they seem to be largely unaware of their present surroundings and rarely interact. So suggesting that they are malevolent (devils), or messengers from God (angels) does not fit the observations.

Other Christians may disagree but their beliefs are personal and not the universal "Christian" view.


EDIT: Need to head to sleep, I'll have to respond to the other comments later



Get some shut-eye, it has been a really good and interesting thread so far.



edit on 21/4/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

i believe we innately know truth. curiousity, research, open-mindedness and reflection will piece things together. we may take different paths, but much is metaphorical and ultimately the foundation is similar. i believe subscribing to one philosophy is dangerous in that it be corrupted. if something feels fishy, it most likely is. we're smarter than we give our selves credit for and can discern more than "experts" and "prophets" want you to know.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Yes, I can understand this. It's the same instance of why I believe that Ghosts likely exist.

The issue I have with religious experiences is that they have a tendency to be of the religion the person experiencing it was subjected to at some point in their life.

It would be far more remarkable if the only religious experiences were the result of a single religion and occurring globally. What we do see is religious people having experiences from all sorts of religions, which seems to diminish it's credibility.


Ya know, I just read an article yesterday that I think is poignant to this thought.

It's called Do Miracles Happen in Non-Christian Religions?

At the end, it states:


Skeptics are wrong when they assert that miracles claimed by other world religions nullify the authenticity of Christian miracles. This is a hasty and unreasonable conclusion. Miracle claims exist outside of Christianity, and these claims emphasize the need for careful examination of each claim. Thus, miracle reports should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and should include consideration of their theological, philosophical, and historical merits.

Believers in Jesus Christ can be at ease, since many Christian miracles—including that foundational supernatural event of Christ's resurrection—pass the tests with more ease than those of other world religions. At the same time, they should remember that God may have good reasons for working in the lives of non-Christians. All in all, the case for Christianity remains unshaken, firmly bolstered by its rich history of miracles by and through Jesus Christ. If the miracle is authentic, we should rejoice—God never makes mistakes and always acts toward the true good of mankind according to his will.


Warm wishes on your journey!



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I'll extend the question to include the process of figuring out whether something is true/factual or not.

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (excerpts from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Common Sense—Why So Uncommon?
Must You Believe It?
Some advice from the article in my signature:

Be selective:...
Use discernment: ...Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter.
...
Put information to the test:...
Ask questions:...
Do not just follow the crowd:...

My commentary about knowledge.
My commentary about wisdom, understanding, insight and discernment.
My commentary about truth.
I also made some commentary about the topic of the "understanding heart", but I don't know exactly where I have elaborated on that; might be in the thread about "How to recognize the spirit of God". Here was the gist of it though:

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.
...
The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Pr 17:24; see WISDOM.) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1Ti 6:3-5.

Source: Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

A little extra about "education" that relates to my quotations from Newton:

The imparting or acquisition of knowledge and skill. Education is accomplished through (1) explanation and repetition; (2) discipline, training administered in love (Pr 1:7; Heb 12:5, 6); (3) personal observation (Ps 19:1-3; Ec 1:12-14); (4) reproof and rebuke (Ps 141:5; Pr 9:8; 17:10).

Source: Education: Insight, Volume 1

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.
...
He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.
-- Isaac Newton

edit on 24-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join