Pilgrim,  Can I draw you attention to the very last paragraph of Barbara Forrest's article:

Science, because of its reliance upon methodological naturalism, lends no support to belief in the supernatural. Consequently, philosophical naturalism, because of its own grounding in methodological naturalism, has no room for it either. While for the supernaturalist, this absence may be the chief complaint against both science and methodological naturalism, for the philosophical naturalist, it is the source of the greatest confidence in both.

I know she may have implied the relationship was the other way round, I think this conclusion tells it all.  I don't like the word "rely" in this context, because it might give the impression that MN is the sole foundational approach of science.

@huxley,

huxley:

Pilgrim, Can I draw you attention to the very last paragraph of Barbara Forrest's article:

Lol, I thought it was coming to a warm close; but I'm glad to consider it - though I saw this last paragraph when making my observations, for which reason I kept noting that my referrals to her were as quoting Kurtz. All the same:

huxley:

Science, because of its reliance upon methodological naturalism, lends no support to belief in the supernatural. Consequently, philosophical naturalism, because of its own grounding in methodological naturalism, has no room for it either. While for the supernaturalist, this absence may be the chief complaint against both science and methodological naturalism, for the philosophical naturalist, it is the source of the greatest confidence in both.

I know she may have implied the relationship was the other way round, I think this conclusion tells it all. I don't like the word "rely" in this context, because it might give the impression that MN is the sole foundational approach of science.

While respecting your view, huxley, I've noted the critique of that assertion - and quite a lot of thinkers see Barbara's statement there as a bit exaggerated. One example to this point:

pilgrim.1:


Many people, including some scientists, misunderstand the foundations of science, believing that science assumes naturalism in some form. As noted above, though, science is based on nature, not on naturalism. To explain this more fully, we must say something about what science is and what it is based on. There is disagreement among philosophers over the exact definition of science, but for our purposes, we needn't go into such depth.
. . .

The assumption of naturalism is another assumption that science gets falsely accused of. Science does not make this assumption. Science does not assume that gods are necessary, but it does not assume they are absent, either. Science does not assume that miracles occurred, but neither does it assume a priori that they never have.
. . .

● All science is based on observations of nature, which leads some scientists to say that science must assume methodological naturalism (e.g. Singham, 2002). But a little investigation shows that even this is an overstatement. The observations that science is based on are natural, but that is simply because the things we call supernatural are not observable, at least not directly.

Supernatural forces can, in theory, have effects that are observable. Science allows for this possibility. In fact, several scientific studies have been done to investigate phenomena that most people would consider supernatural, including the power of prayer (Benor, 1990; Byrd, 1988; Harris et al, 1999; Cha et al, 2001), divination (Randi, 1982; Enright, 1999), prophecy (Witztum et al., 1994; McKay et al., 1999; Perakh, 2000), life after death (Schwartz et al., 2001), ESP (Wiseman et al., 1996), and more. Some organizations actively encourage scientific investigation of the supernatural (JREF, 2002). Science can hardly be called naturalistic when it actively delves into the supernatural.

It is debatable between naturalists what the position and relationship is between MN and science: that is basically because up until now some scientists are not agreed what exactly is the foundation of science.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,
It is debatable between naturalists what the position and relationship is between MN and science: that is basically because up until now some scientists are not agreed what exactly is the foundation of science.

Well said and I can't argue with that and a good point to draw the line. Only wished we had had a separated thread for this very interesting discussion. I must admit, I have really enjoyed it and am glad you were engaged caused it made be revist some stuff I had not looked at in years.

Thanks and Regards.

My very warm regards.

huxley:

Well said and I can't argue with that and a good point to draw the line. Only wished we had had a separated thread for this very interesting discussion. I must admit, I have really enjoyed it and am glad you were engaged caused it made be revist some stuff I had not looked at in years.

Thanks and Regards.

Phew! Now can we get back to Christians and demons. Thanks

Well guys, here are some vids of acclaimed exorcisms – casting out demonic spirits from those alleged to have been possessed. Although some of us may have come across some of these vids before, there are a few striking things that seem to be recurrent decimals in reported cases and observed demonic-possessions. It is not in my place to dismiss them out of hand as simply cases of psychosis – there are features and occurences in some of these cases which could not be explained merely on the basis of a medical condition. Whatever one may draw from these reports, it is up to the individual to not take diabolical events for granted. The basic question now is not so much if these phenomena exist; but rather, if they do not exist, then what is responsible for the inexplicable aspects that could not be explained away (like supernatural strength in the victim, and the observation of invisible forces clearly demonstrated)?

As I often say, I do not have all the answers nor do I make special claims to defend anything. What I do know anyhow, is that there certainly are orphic realities in our world which defy ordinary explanations. You observe and draw your own conclusions: but don’t play with fire.

1. Exorcism: The Power of Faith

Highlights:

■    uncontrolled screaming
■    scatological yelling
■    loud and angry obscenities
■    animal-like groaning
■    strange voices and unusual strange strength manifested in the victim.

A woman witnesses firsthand the diabolical operations of “something invisible. . so heinous and so disgusting” on someone she loves – her own mother. It started with strange banging noises in their home, which moved on to a mysterious overturning of their furniture; and eventually to attacks on the mother – from an invisible force.

‘It would rip her hair out, and there would plenty of witnesses. . an invisible force.’

Did she have actual physical marks on her body?

‘Absolutely.’

And they couldn’t have been self-inflicted?

‘No. . . She would end up with white or blue marks in the most bizarre places that she couldn’t have been able to do by herself.’

How do you know that it is not somebody with a psychological problem?

‘Medically, physically, everything had been ruled out.’

(You could click on the image below, or click on the links below to go to the sites directly.)

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdi1b3E6qoM&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Vid above posted on YouTube and sourced from ABCNews

pilgrim.1:

1. Exorcism: The Power of Faith

Highlights:

■    uncontrolled screaming
■    scatological yelling
■    loud and angry obscenities
■    animal-like groaning
■    strange voices and unusual strange strength manifested in the victim.

What do you think might be the connection with Tourette's syndrome if there is any connection at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jBFbCCleY&feature=related

Compulsive actions that are beyond conscious control often have a psychiatric explanation.

In psychiatry we recognise a loop that explains human behaviours. First comes an URGE which gives you a feeling of dissatisfaction. This is followed by an ACTION whose purpose is to satisfy the Urge. The finally when the action is completed and the Urge is satisfied we have a feeling of SATIATION. Then at a later date another urge arises and the process starts again.
So we have the loop of URGE-ACTION-SATIATION-URGE . . . .
In the nervous system where this loop occurs the process can be damaged due to neurological dysfunction so we have compulsive disorders. Some people eat (action) but don't get the feeling of satisfaction after eating so they don't stop eating.
Other people don't eat because they are not aware that their body needs nourishment etc.

Does this not provide an explanation for uncontrolled compulsive behaviour.

2) And as regards the scatology there are very many interesting observations. This shows that there is indeed a cultural element to these disorders. Why is it that Satan never possesses people from religious backgrounds that do not recognise Satan. There is demon possession in every culture in this world but Buddhist only get possessed by Buddhist demons, Christians get possessed by Satan, Orisha worshippers get possessed by Yoruba spirits. Why is that the case? Why is it the case that Satan never ever possessed an ancient greek victim, only Kory, and Dionysus etc possessed them.

We know that in every culture there is a value system and that there are things that are considered unsavoury in that culture. In western society terms like 'Nigger', 'Shit', 'Bleep' are considered unsavoury. Could we say that Tourettes and other such compulsive disorders influence us by interacting with the value systems programmed into our neurology such that what ever it is that we find of low value, and unsavoury, we find ourselves compelled to utter. If in a certain society evil is personified by a entity called Satan then the sufferer will feel compelled to say 'I am Satan'. I don't think it is possible to separate cultural circumstance from the utterances of possessed people. As it is impossible to separate it from from the utterances of Tourette syndrome suffers.

3) There is a discipline called NeuroLinguistic Programming, or NLP for short. One of it's premises is that there is a connection between emotional states of mind and certain linguistic terms. I totally agree with this premise. When dealing with someone it is important to listen carefully to their vocabulary and note the connotations they give each word they use. Words have both denotations and connotations. The denotation is the dictionary definition of the word. The connotations are the extraneous associations that comes with word.
For example say I'm the boss of a guy that I need to motivate. If I say to him that if he doesn't pull himself together then I will be 'forced to let him go', I might find that he is still not motivated. He knows what I mean by 'forced to let him go' but yet it doesn't make a deep emotional connection with him. If however I said," pull yourself together or you're FIRED". He might suddenly pull his socks up. Not because I've said anything different. But the word Fired might strike a deeper emotional chord with him. It might carry emotional connotations of shame, worthlessness, low social standing. That word 'Fired' has an emotional connection that will motivate him more than 'let him go' even though they mean the same thing.

Just as words can help to access emotional states so vice versa do emotional states express themselves through the use of certain words. It's like being in love with a woman and you feel the urge to say to her 'I love you', but you resist it because you know that if you were to say so she would run a million miles away from you. Having to hold those words back feels oppressive.
similarly when you're angry your vocabulary changes accordingly. Certain words are associated with and convey certain emotional states. If there is a neurological disorder that causes emotional states that have no bearing on the actual circumstances of a person then that person can be seen to yell angry obscenities for no apparent reason.

4) Unusual strength can also be explained neurochemically. I've witnessed someone high on LSD get into a fight in the middle of Leicester square in london. He'd gotten into the fight with a police man and soon there were about 30 to 40 police men trying to restrain him. This was on new years eve. The fight lasted about 20 minutes in my recollection although I wasn't actually timing it. Do you know those cartoons like tom and jerry where there is a fight and all you see is a ball of dust with arms and legs sticking out. That was what it was like. There was this swirling 'ball of dust' composed of police men sweeping across leicester square and every 4 to 5 seconds a police man would fly out of the ball at an incredible trajectory like the ball was spitting out police men at all angles. Eventually they pinned the guy down but it took a long time.

It is not only people on drugs that have been capable of this super human strength. Buddhist monks that study Shaolin Kung Fu have demonstrated time and time again that they are capable of feat of strength that are beyond the normal. They have a methodology for developing this ability that has nothing to do with demon possession.

I think that in actually fact the strength we exhibit is influenced by our state of mind as much as by the amount of calories etc that we have available. That is why confidence and hope is such an important factor in success in life. If a man is deflated he will not be very strong but if something occurs that gives him hope, who knows where the new burst of energy comes from, but all of a suddenly he is up and running again.

These are just a few thoughts.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

What do you think might be the connection with Tourette's syndrome if there is any connection at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jBFbCCleY&feature=related

Compulsive actions that are beyond conscious control often have a psychiatric explanation.

Have you considered one thing that has not been explained by psychiatry? That is, the witness to events caused by invisible forces? This is not a matter of what the victim does to himself or herself - there are usually witnesses who see things happen which no one would presume to be explanable as caused by the victim themselves.

If any one gets an opportunity, they should listen to Professor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran explain how our brain plays tricks and havoc to us.

Some of his lectures are here

There is no brain trick that explains why several witnesses see the same effect of invisible forces attacking people.

Lol, just an email after the above posts:

                      Pilly, have you actually checked out what that guy huxley
                      was directing you to? Are you even acquainted with
                      Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran? Just my observation though,
                      but it seems you dimissed huxley even before acquainting
                      yourself with Ramachandran. I think you should give it a try:
                      it won't hurt you ego.

                      V.J.


Okay, just so nobody misunderstands me, I'm actually acquainted with Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and I think I earlier mentioned a reference to him sometime ago ('ever dreamed of Mr. Vilayanur in San Diego').  I'm quite familiar with some of his works, have perused and enjoyed them, and have some other vids of his lectures in my fav folder. So, no - I wasn't dismissing huxley's offer at all.

Infact, I should go one step further and make a recommendation in addition to what huxley has offered - there's a fantastic website where readers could enjoy the various thoughts of thinkers around the world, whether arts, music, culture, technology, philosophy, entertainment, education, religion, etc. That website is TED.com - Ideas Worth Spreading - there you will find Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's talk on his study of the brain, 'A journey to the center of your mind' (divided into subsets - "capgrass syndrome, phantom limbs, sythesis" - TED.com.

Beyond that, browse or navigate the site and you will find so much to fascinate your mind.

Enjoy.

pilgrim.1:

There is no brain trick that explains why several witnesses see the same effect of invisible forces attacking people.

Pilgrim, how are ya?

I thought this was an interesting way to phrase this statement. Allow me to probe a little bit into this, if you may.

I am really interested in three entities here - the witnesses, the invisible forces, and the effects of these forces.

The witnesses. What did they see? Did they see the forces or the effects of the forces? If they saw the effects of the invisible forces, how could they have known that these tangible effects were caused by invisible force.

Supposing the victim was suffering from some neurological condition that caused involuntary muscle spasms, fits, etc. How would this be distinguishable from the effects of "invisible forces"?

Are the witnesses discerning enough to make reliable "diagnosis" of the victims plight?

Invisible forces. What do you mean by forces here? If you meant it in the scientific/engineering sense (such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc), then most such forces are invisible anyway, but the cause of the force may not be. If you meant it in the spiritual or metaphorical sense, I thought these are usually invisible anyway.

The effects. What really were these effects? Would they be things like fits, muscle spasms, uncontrollable use of invectives, etc, etc? Are any of these known to be caused only by "invisible forces"? Could all or some of these be explained by well known naturalistic means?

Hi huxley,

Many thanks for those salient questions, and I shall try to be as objective as possible, and refrain from imposing or pointing to my own subjective experiences (though I have witnessed some of these phenomena). Where applicable, I might make references to them, if they would help.

However, I'm doing okay, and trust the same for you, yes?

huxley:

I am really interested in three entities here - the witnesses, the invisible forces, and the effects of these forces.

The witnesses. What did they see? Did they see the forces or the effects of the forces? If they saw the effects of the invisible forces, how could they have known that these tangible effects were caused by invisible force.

Supposing the victim was suffering from some neurological condition that caused involuntary muscle spasms, fits, etc. How would this be distinguishable from the effects of "invisible forces"?

Are the witnesses discerning enough to make reliable "diagnosis" of the victims plight?

Okay, let's take them in two parts:

- the qualifications of the witnesses

- the pointers of what they saw

If I kep my answers within the context of the scenario posted in the vid above, I would say that there are two groups of credible witnesses in that event. First, there were the relatives of the victim, especially the woman's daughter, Mitchell - and the question is, what would they gain anyway if they alleged false information against their own family member? The second, is the professionally trained personnel who dealt with the paranormal. In this case, the question was directly asked if it were not possible that the victim was suffering from just a psychosis - and both medically and physically, such an inference was ruled out only after thorough investigations were conducted on those premise.

The second issue now is what did they see? How would we know about the effects of invisible forces responsible for these attacks? Let's note a few things they stated:

(a) these force(s) would rip out hair from the scalp - they saw it happen:

This is not about the victim ripping hair out of her scalp, as distinct from what
she could do to herself under such conditions. If she was doing these things
by herself, no big deal - they would know and be able to say that was what
she was doing to herself.

(b) appearances of marks which could not be explained as self-inflicted:

One who was trained would be able to tell if she could do such a thing to or of
herself; however, we could see indeed that after checking the case, such ideas
or suggestions that she did so herself was ruled out.

Now, from what I have seen in display, I can't explain what force was responsible for the case where the victim was dragged backwards across the floor before our very eyes. Okay, I know this sounds spooky and hard to be believed - but there are cases where this has happened; plus, objects in the house moving without reference to anyone touching them (the over-turning of the furniture in the home which were not attributed to any person among them?). I take these as mild reports: in more serious cases that I have witnessed, I had to leave run from the scene: how do you explain a phenomena where someone's neck begins to crackle as she wreathed in excruciating pain and was being dragged across the floor? This dragging happened in such a way that she could not have done it on her own - her hands were stretched out as if longing to grab hold of something in front of her or longing for help, and then both her legs immediately left the floor and were suspended a bit off the ground as she was pulled in the opposite direction? How does one explain such incidents?

huxley:

Invisible forces. What do you mean by forces here? If you meant it in the scientific/engineering sense (such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc), then most such forces are invisible anyway, but the cause of the force may not be. If you meant it in the spiritual or metaphorical sense, I thought these are usually invisible anyway.

Lol, no - I do not mean it in the scientific/engineering sense such as we know it. In some instances, they may seem to operate in similar ways; but by force, I mean a being that is present in that environment but not visible to anyone's eyes. All one sees it that some effects are taking place where no one sees the actual 'force' or 'being' effecting it. Sometimes, though, these forces or beings are only a little apparent or visible for a brief moment and then they melt into thin air.

Does that mean that it is brain tricks that are supposing we had seen something that is just not existing? I doubt so. Lol, think about it this way: would 9 people have their brains playing tired psychotic tricks on them at the same time if they all saw someone being dragged across the floor with legs a little off the floor in the opposite direction against her will? We have heard of objects thrown and being upturned violently without anyone having touched them - could that be a trick of the brain?

There are indeed forces/beings that are invible to our eyes - that they are not visible does not mean that they are non-existent. As an example, think about the UFOs posted earlier at one time where the objects appear and disappear without a trace - and they were captured on the cameras of space scientists! I don't think anyone would be arguing that such appearing and disappearing forces/beings/objects are merely mental tricks of brain-fatigue/ These things are indeed real, though not always visible to our eyes.

huxley:

The effects. What really were these effects? Would they be things like fits, muscle spasms, uncontrollable use of invectives, etc, etc? Are any of these known to be caused only by "invisible forces"? Could all or some of these be explained by well known naturalistic means?

I submit that some of these effects could be explained naturally - insome cases, these forces take over and control their victims in such a way as to force them to do extra-ordinary things. In such instances, these things are done by the victims themselves, especially when they injure themselves.

However, how does one explain situations where some of these effects are not caused by the victims themselves? Granted, this does not happen in every single case, for these forces/beings act in dynamic ways. But how does someone interprete a situation where someone finds marks and injuries on their bodies that they did not self-inflict?

If I allude to another witnessed incident, I have seen where a roommate of mine woke up with long, dark-red lines all over her body like they were scratched on her by long female nails. There was nothing seemingly wrong with her, no illness, nor was she thought to have been possessed - but those marks just appeared on her body. After she had sought medical help (not even that she felt ill), there were no medications prescribed other than ointments which she was advised to use several times during the day and before she went to bed. Of course, by this time I had become very worried indeed; but my amazement was rather that she had not even used the ointment when those marks had all disappeared! How would I know? We both went together to the pharmacist, and she had asked me to help give a thorough embalming afterwards. I saw the marks, and the commotion was even greated when it was learnt that they had all disappeared. I will not go beyond what I knew had happened, though up until now I don't know if another girl in our room was responsible for it - since she had threatened the victim of "opko" (some incantations) the previous night on . . . a missing underwear! By then I had not known Christ, so I ducked for my life.

Anyway, even leaving that subjective experience, I'm sure that a few other reports point to the effects of invisible forces which are inexplicable on natural terms.

Cheers.

By the way, what do you make of this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-178839.128.html#msg3035262 ??

pilgrim.1:

By the way, what do you make of this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-178839.128.html#msg3035262 ??

I don't usually put too much credence on hearsay. And that skepticism extends to things that I see on camera and youtube and stuff like that. I'll be more impressed by an argument built from something that I've experienced myself.

What are the defining characteristics of Spirit? What are the defining characteristics of Nature?

I think that naturalist have too vague a definition of what is natural. As things stand whatever they experience can be called natural because there is no fixed definition. They've reserved themselves with the right to shift the goalpost as they wish. I've even heard someone state that everything is natural including spirits. Well that just makes everything vague. I believe that when christ made a distinction between spirit and flesh he had a clear notion of what he was talking about.

Pastor AIO:

I don't usually put too much credence on hearsay. And that skepticism extends to things that I see on camera and youtube and stuff like that.

I don't put much credence on hearsays and camera manipulation either. But all things given, even when these events are presented for close examination, one cannot dismiss them out of hand. As in this one: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-178839.160.html#msg3044152

What is it about demons that allows them to be captured on film while they cannot be seen by the naked eye?

Again I wonder, What is a spirit? And what are the qualities exhibited by spirit?

Pastor AIO:

What is it about demons that allows them to be captured on film while they cannot be seen by the naked eye?

Well, we cannot say exactly what the nature of demons are in all things, nor do we understand everything about their manifestations. However, although I have not seen one myself, there are a few people I know who have seen them manifest visibly - either face to face, or in a mirror reflecting them.

Pastor AIO:

Again I wonder, What is a spirit? And what are the qualities exhibited by spirit?

There are different spirits; when we use the term, it is not restricted to just the human spirit, or even demonic spirits. I've tried to explain some of these qualities earlier.

What do these terms mean? When something is defined as ethereal, we are pointing to its nature as being characterized by insubstantiality - that is, it is not defined in terms of physical qualities or solid substance. A similar idea is expressed by its being "incorporeal", which is to say that it is a reality which is not composed of matter as we know it.

It is on these two premises that a spirit can easily permeate matter and not be subject to laws of physical quantities. While matter may be restricted in some sense as not being able to permeate and imbue solid substances, the case is different with spirits in their ethereal and incorporeal nature. For this reason, spirits can and do premeate solid bodies - thus possession.

As said, since spirits are characterized by insubstantiality, we do not quantify them by the way one would as in the case of a physical matter. As such, a body could be possessed by one spirit, or several spirits at the same time. It is not the size of the body that determines how many spirits could possess a body, for a spirit is not subject to physical properties.

f you define a demon as a "volition", you have seen none. People only observe the results of human volitions, not the volitions themselves, because volitions are abstract. A spirit is not abstract because it is a being that is ethereal and incorporeal, yet possessing a definite form. However, a demon also is a type of spirit which can exercise a volition on its own -

Pilgrim.1, you have said the above. However I'm none the wiser and I'll tell you why. If I were to ask you, "What is light"?, and you were to respond that 'light is what is not Dark' you would have told me nothing. I could pursue my enquiry further and ask, 'but what is dark?', to which you would probably respond that dark is what is not light. And still, I would remain none the wiser.
You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT. You need to provide actual qualities that it exhibits. Or at least it's tendencies. What does spirit do that Matter does not do. As it happens there isn't a fixed definition of physical properties in metaphysics. That is why there are so many different types of naturalism.

So perhaps you can tell us what you mean by physical properties. For instance, would having a physical location in time and space be a physical property. Must an object have mass before it can be considered physical. What about massless particles in physics?

Basically, I need something more substantial that what you have posted above.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Pilgrim.1, you have said the above. However I'm none the wiser and I'll tell you why. If I were to ask you, "What is light"?, and you were to respond that 'light is what is not Dark' you would have told me nothing. I could pursue my enquiry further and ask, 'but what is dark?', to which you would probably respond that dark is what is not light. And still, I would remain none the wiser.

If you had taken the time to read carefully through what I offered, the analogy you used there is way off what you would have read.

Pastor AIO:

You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT. You need to provide actual qualities that it exhibits. Or at least it's tendencies. What does spirit do that Matter does not do. As it happens there isn't a fixed definition of physical properties in metaphysics. That is why there are so many different types of naturalism.

I have not defined 'spirit' by its opposite, nor by what it is not; and it is a false assumption many people make in stating that something cannot be defined by what it is not! Descriptive indices actually are used to define entities that are real in our world, so where do you get the idea that one could not do so?

An example? Dark matter is said to be an entity that is present in our world; but ask a scientist who speaks of the term and he would tell you at least a couple of things which include something that it is NOT:

- "non luminous matter presumed to exist in space"
- "a substance that scientists think exists out in space,
but for which they have no direct proof"

What those sources say includes what dark matter is NOT - ie, it is NOT luminous. But let me quote yet other sources to be more direct -


■ [url=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dark%20matter]WordNet[/url] dictionary says the following:
'dark matter ((cosmology) a hypothetical form of matter that is believed
to make up 90 percent of the universe; it is invisible (does not absorb
or emit light) and does not collide with atomic particles but exerts
gravitational force)"

■ Wikitionary puts it this way:
'(astronomy) particles of matter that cannot be detected by
their radiation but whose presence is inferred from
gravitational effects'

■ Wikipedia has it as:
'In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter
that does not interact with the electromagnetic force,
but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on
visible matter.'

■ Dialogue for Kids (D4K) says:
'nonluminous (not emitting light or visible) material that
cannot be seen in the sky.
Dark matter is one of the most mysterious things in the universe.
Scientists think that dark matter occurs everywhere but
they don't yet know exactly what it is made of.'

You see, Pastor AIO, these days when people use these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah et al, we allow them get away with such vague terms - even in the corridors of "science". Nobody rejects these theories from scientists espousing the idea of an entity whose nature they do not know, and in which reality they only infer as being hypothetical, yet undeniable as a reality that is invisible!

On the other hand, if one were to describe spiritual realities using terms as "invisible", and say they (often) "cannot be seen", which are "incorporeal" in nature, and are "not composed of matter as we know it", immediately we have you and our dear friends arrogating some super authority to yourselves by saying "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT." Where you get such an idea that realities cannot be defined in that manner is beyond me!

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

So perhaps you can tell us what you mean by physical properties. For instance, would having a physical location in time and space be a physical property. Must an object have mass before it can be considered physical. What about massless particles in physics?

I don't think we need to be unnecessarily tedious with this subject. If scientists know of realities whcih they only hypothesize, cannot speak directly of their nature, and whose behaviours are not specifically identified, why then should the reality known as "spirit" become seriously a problem?

Meanwhile, I don't think my entries alluded to an idea that an entity ought to have mass before it could be recognized as a reality. Again, I have not tried to define a "spirit" with physical indices! If anything, what we know as the quality of a spirit being "incorporeal" nevertheless is summised as a reality whose nature is such as that it is "not composed of matter as we know it". These phenomena may be hard to digest, but they do not negate the fact of their existence.

Pastor AIO:

Basically, I need something more substantial that what you have posted above.

I shall try to post more later on, especially if you could highlight a few things besides what I have posted that may not have satisfied your quest.

Shalom.

pilgrim.1:

@Pastor AIO,

If you had taken the time to read carefully through what I offered, the analogy you used there is way off what you would have read.

I have not defined 'spirit' by its opposite, nor by what it is not; and it is a false assumption many people make in stating that something cannot be defined by what it is not! Descriptive indices actually are used to define entities that are real in our world, so where do you get the idea that one could not do so?

An example? Dark matter is said to be an entity that is present in our world; but ask a scientist who speaks of the term and he would tell you at least a couple of things which include something that it is NOT:

- "non luminous matter presumed to exist in space"
- "a substance that scientists think exists out in space,
but for which they have no direct proof"

What those sources say includes what dark matter is NOT - ie, it is NOT luminous. But let me quote yet other sources to be more direct -


■ [url=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dark%20matter]WordNet[/url] dictionary says the following:
'dark matter ((cosmology) a hypothetical form of matter that is believed
to make up 90 percent of the universe; it is invisible (does not absorb
or emit light) and does not collide with atomic particles but exerts
gravitational force)"

■ Wikitionary puts it this way:
'(astronomy) particles of matter that cannot be detected by
their radiation but whose presence is inferred from
gravitational effects'

■ Wikipedia has it as:
'In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter
that does not interact with the electromagnetic force,
but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on
visible matter.'

■ Dialogue for Kids (D4K) says:
'nonluminous (not emitting light or visible) material that
cannot be seen in the sky.
Dark matter is one of the most mysterious things in the universe.
Scientists think that dark matter occurs everywhere but
they don't yet know exactly what it is made of.'

You see, Pastor AIO, these days when people use these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah et al, we allow them get away with such vague terms - even in the corridors of "science". Nobody rejects these theories from scientists espousing the idea of an entity whose nature they do not know, and in which reality they only infer as being hypothetical, yet undeniable as a reality that is invisible!

On the other hand, if one were to describe spiritual realities using terms as "invisible", and say they (often) "cannot be seen", which are "incorporeal" in nature, and are "not composed of matter as we know it", immediately we have you and our dear friends arrogating some super authority to yourselves by saying "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT." Where you get such an idea that realities cannot be defined in that manner is beyond me!

I ought to make myself clearer. By defining two opposite things by themselves you tell me nothing. Saying Light is the opposite of dark is okay if I know what dark is independently of light. But When my definition of dark is simply the opposite of light then I am defining both terms by themselves and that tells me nothing.

Put another way, I'm going to make up a phenomenon called ignositis. What is that? Ignositis is the opposite of Depakisis. But what is Depakisis? Depakisis is the opposite of Ignositis. Now tell me, What have you learned? Apart from two nonsensical terms. Opposites (thesis/anti-thesis. Oh lawd, I tremble when I use those terms. I feel the need to add with haste that I'm not being Hegelian when I say that) are too intimately intertwined to give information about each other. When defining heads, rather than say it is that which is not tails, it is better to explain the whole concept of a coin and then state that heads is but one side of a coin. Do you get me?

I have not defined 'spirit' by its opposite, nor by what it is not; and it is a false assumption many people make in stating that something cannot be defined by what it is not!

Oh? So what is this?

What do these terms mean? When something is defined as ethereal, we are pointing to its nature as being characterized by insubstantiality - that is, it is not defined in terms of physical qualities or solid substance. A similar idea is expressed by its being "incorporeal", which is to say that[b] it is a reality which is not composed of matter[/b] as we know it.

it is a false assumption many people make in stating that something cannot be defined by what it is not! Descriptive indices actually are used to define entities that are real in our world, so where do you get the idea that one could not do so?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your yoruba here. What does descriptive indices defining reality have to do with defining something by what it is not?

An example? Dark matter is said to be an entity that is present in our world; but ask a scientist who speaks of the term and he would tell you at least a couple of things which include something that it is NOT:

- "non luminous matter presumed to exist in space"
- "a substance that scientists think exists out in space,
but for which they have no direct proof"

Excuse me, but modern science is not religion. Scientists do not claim to have the truth revealed to them from above but are happy to confess that they are speculating and making conjectures. This difference in claims gives Scientists a lot more leyway to make mistakes and speculate. They then go out to seek proofs of their hypothesis, but even if they found proofs, those proofs can still be overturned in light of further evidence at a later date, and if they don't find proofs that is no big deal either cos they've already admitted that it was only an hypothesis.

You degrade religion by setting it side by side with science for comparison. Leave that to the atheists.

While I think it's a diversion away from the main point, I want to indulge this issue of dark matter. okay? What is a fact is that there are many area of space where matter and light behave as if they are being drawn by a strong gravitational field. What is causing this behaviour? Is there a source of this gravitational field? Since the only thing that we know that exerts gravitational pull is Matter it makes sense to presume that there is a lot of matter in these regions of space. However, we do not see any matter there. That is why scientists have come up with the idea of Dark Matter, matter which cannot be seen. It is a hypothesis and given the boundaries which science has set for itself, it is allowed to make such hypothesis. God didn't tell them that there is Dark Matter. They are guessing, we know that, they know that, everybody knows that and it is absolutely no big deal. Dark matter does not have a definition. We don't even know if it exists. Something that might not exist doesn't have a definition. All we know is strange phenomena in Space.

You see, Pastor AIO, these days when people use these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah et al, we allow them get away with such vague terms - even in the corridors of "science". Nobody rejects these theories from scientists espousing the idea of an entity whose nature they do not know, and in which reality they only infer as being hypothetical, yet undeniable as a reality that is invisible!

No one rejects them because they are well within the parameters that science has set for itself.

On the other hand, if one were to describe spiritual realities using terms as "invisible", and say they (often) "cannot be seen", which are "incorporeal" in nature, and are "not composed of matter as we know it", immediately we have you and our dear friends arrogating some super authority to yourselves by saying "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT." Where you get such an idea that realities cannot be defined in that manner is beyond me!

I'll repeat, Dark matter is not a reality. It is an hypothesis used to explain a phenomenon in space. That phenomenon has positive attributes that define it, ie it emits a gravitational pull, yet contrary to matter that also emits gravity, we cannot see it so we call it Dark Matter. It might not even be matter at all, but for now we are calling it dark matter.

You on the other hand have failed, quite abjectly come to think of it, to provide any positive attributes to Spirit. You have only said what it is not. At least Dark matter emits gravity, what does your Spirit do?

Where you get such an idea that realities cannot be defined in that manner is beyond me!

I get the idea from the fact that such definition tell me nothing. And not only me, they tell nobody nothing (yes, I can mangle the english language too). And it seems, dear pilgrim.1 that your definition has told you nothing either.

pilgrim.1:

@Pastor AIO,

I don't think we need to be unnecessarily tedious with this subject.

Oh, I do think we need to be fastidious with this subject, if not tedious. Anyway, as I can tell from your dialogues with Huxley, Tedium is not somthing that you shy away from.

pilgrim.1:

If scientists know of realities whcih they only hypothesize, cannot speak directly of their nature, and whose behaviours are not specifically identified, why then should the reality known as "spirit" become seriously a problem?

I believe I've already addressed this issue. But to summarize, the answer is because Science sets itself different parameters from religion.

Meanwhile, I don't think my entries alluded to an idea that[b] an entity ought to have mass before it could be recognized as a[/b] reality. Again, I have not tried to define a "spirit" with physical indices! If anything, what we know as the quality of a spirit being "incorporeal" nevertheless is summised as a reality whose nature is such as that it is "not composed of matter as we know it". These phenomena may be hard to digest, but they do not negate the fact of their existence.

I never said that you said that an entity had to have mass before it could be recognized as a reality. And, actually you have tried to define spirit with physical indices, but negatively. Saying, spirit is not this and spirit is not that, blah blah blah. And as for that idea of spirit not being 'composed of matter as we know it', talk about giving yourself room to maneuver!!! Hey, Dark matter is not matter as we know it either, maybe you could come up with a theory of Spirit being Dark matter. LOL!

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

I ought to make myself clearer. By defining two opposite things by themselves you tell me nothing. Saying Light is the opposite of dark is okay if I know what dark is independently of light. But When my definition of dark is simply the opposite of light then I am defining both terms by themselves and that tells me nothing.

Put another way, I'm going to make up a phenomenon called ignositis. What is that? Ignositis is the opposite of Depakisis. But what is Depakisis? Depakisis is the opposite of Ignositis. Now tell me, What have you learned? Apart from two nonsensical terms. Opposites (thesis/anti-thesis. Oh lawd, I tremble when I use those terms. I feel the need to add with haste that I'm not being Hegelian when I say that) are too intimately intertwined to give information about each other. When defining heads, rather than say it is that which is not tails, it is better to explain the whole concept of a coin and then state that heads is but one side of a coin. Do you get me? Oh? So what is this?

Of course, it is a way of deliberately assuming that one cannot see what is stated that makes you assume no substance in what I shared. Put another way, what you are hoping to highlight is the vacant and simplistic assumption that I might have defined "spirit" by saying it is "not human", and then when (if) you had asked what is "human", I might have said it is "spirit".

You see, this simplistic cacophony was what made me highlight the point that, unless you deliberately are given to miss the gist here, then certainly it should not have been difficult to see. For which reason I used the example of dark matter to show you that it is a false assumption to state that definitions cannot be made using what a that entity does not entail! That is a fallacy, my dear, and no matter how you hoot against it, it is still a fallacy. Meanwhile, if one should be honest, the simplistic way you assumed I had explained "spirit' is far different from what I had posted.

Pastor AIO:

I'm sorry, I don't understand your yoruba here. What does descriptive indices defining reality have to do with defining something by what it is not?

One can define an entity in relation to what it is not. You are forcing yourself to be bogged down with the fallacious idea that such descriptives cannot be used, but dear AIO you are very, very wrong! Dark matter is a reality that most scientists speak about, and they have described it with terms which is not what it is - it is not visible, and cannot be detected by radiation, but can be inferred by their gravtitational effects on other entities. These are not difficult issues to understand - as they are descriptive terms of the nature of dark matter as regards how its behaves and how it does not.

What your problem here is only highlights the fact that you're looking for something and yet unable to specifically highlight what exactly you're looking for. This is the kind of vacant "questions" that I only tease around and wait for the enquirer to get a grip of himself, because all the while such a person may not realize how they are using their own fallacies to reject other descriptive entities. That is why you are assuming that an entity cannot be defined by what it is not - and there are a plethora of other examples which have been defined by what they are NOT, contrary to your assertion that such a thing cannot be done! That is why you had also assume the simplistic way you described what I posted about 'spirit' , as if that was how I described it.

Pastor AIO:

Excuse me, but modern science is not religion.

Did I say they were the same anywhere? Could I make a very simple appeal when discussing an issue? Please, could we just learn to refrain from assuming what nobody is saying and then springing up from such fausse patte?

Pastor AIO:

Scientists do not claim to have the truth revealed to them from above but are happy to confess that they are speculating and making conjectures.

Rubbish! You are sounding so dogmatic as if you have bought into this hubris! So many, many natural scientists are quite often dogmatic and are too secure in their assumptions and presumptions to state theories as FACT! They do not call them "speculation" or "conjectures"! This "happy to confess" harrumph is why other scientists have sadly noted that science itself is not understood for what it truly is - because so many "scientists" are abusing its significance by speaking fom both sides of their mouths! It is really sad to note that people would be going about with the kind of statement in your quote, and that is one reason why many people get so confused by this dogmatic idea whereas we know for a fact that many scientists are too assertively certain of their postulations!

Pastor AIO:

This difference in claims gives Scientists a lot more leyway to make mistakes and speculate.

oh, really? Is that what science is all about? Hmm, I wonder if we're about to be bogged down by another endless discussion on the philosophy of science.

Pastor AIO:

They then go out to seek proofs of their hypothesis, but even if they found proofs, those proofs can still be overturned in light of further evidence at a later date, and if they don't find proofs that is no big deal either because they've already admitted that it was only an hypothesis.

Listen to yourself! Even if they find "proofs", the same "proofs" can still be "overturned". . . please visit Dawkins et al and try to convince them that Evolution has no "proofs", and even if they had "proofs", such "proofs" could quite possibly be "overturned". Simply put, Pastor AIO, this is just teasers - you're only assuming abstract thoughts and not what is on ground. These fellows will not be so condescending as you are trying to make them sound, for they are very well known to be so dogmatically assertive! This idea that "it is no big deal" if they don't find "proof" is a blithe. If they don't find "proofs", then what the baloney would make them be so assertive in the first place?

What is happening here is that you're seemingly operating from a loose end on this enquiry and using that presumption to knot issues further for yourself. Two things, please: (a) yes, many, many natural scientists are indeed dogmatic, and they do not condescend to your idea above; and (b) yes indeed, entities can be [and have been] defined with terms descriptive of what they are not.

To fail to see these two important things is (probably) the reason why you may be reading issues wrongly and arrogating a finalist tone that "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT"! Please understand that such a finalist tone is simply erratic.

Pastor AIO:

You degrade religion by setting it side by side with science for comparison. Leave that to the atheists.

I'm sorry, pilgrim.1 is not guilty as charged. Let me acquit myself:

I have not degraded religion by using examples in science to explain supernatural phenomena. By using those examples, I have not sought to degrade religion, nor have I juxtaposed (or set "side by side" science and religion. Even science does not shy away from using religious terms in describing purely natural (please note, not "naturalistic", but 'natural') phenomena in philosophy of science.

Secondly, atheism is not synonymous with science. Asking that I leave this "comparison" to the atheist is quite wrong, your lordship AIO. What we should understand is that most honest skeptics and atheists are, in IMHO, asking questions that are sensible, intelligent and thoughtful, even in this regard. The only thing is that quite often the questions seem to be pointing to one thing: can these phenomena be understood in naturalistic terms rather than supernatural terms? I think this is a very important point that so many people miss. I'm not afraid to engage any atheist any day - and the first thing I always want to find out is if such an enquirer is an honest one of not. If he is honest enough to understand what we propose to engage to discuss, then the first premise to note is that: (a) atheism is NOT science; and (b) religion is NOT science either.

These two (science and religion) ask different questions and seek to address those questions differently. The problem for many is that they are trying to use a purely naturalistic worldview to overwhelm the supernatural! I have said to many of my atheist friends off this forum that both atheists and theists do science, and science is not to be worshipped or held as superior over what it cannot adjudicate in the supernatural. Quite often, these fellows sadly hoot so much about science as if it is to be misconstrued for atheism (such as Dawkins supposes); but they seldom (if ever) come to the realization that atheism is not science at all!

Now, if we remind oursleves of the idea you posted above about "proofs", what can the atheist say? That is purely atheistic language, your highness AIO! It says before the public face that it is not assertive, and all they do is merely "speculation" and "conjecture" - sir, that is what they say publicly to private friends! However, a little prodding will reveal how dogmatic these people tend to be - for not only are they assertive, but your honour, you should also get them arrested and tried on your court for trying to pass their conjectures as FACTS in the public arena to public friends! Often have we hear them say: "if we do not find proofs, so what's the big deal?" But if we call their attention to the theories they pass off as facts, then they either shout us down scornfully and ask that we never assume they ever said anything about HYPOTHETICAL matter or presumptive theories! It seems that other thinkers can be shouted down these days for calling their bluff, but we often are sequestered when we speak about supernatural entities!

Pastor AIO:

While I think it's a diversion away from the main point, I want to indulge this issue of dark matter. okay? What is a fact is that there are many area of space where matter and light behave as if they are being drawn by a strong gravitational field. What is causing this behaviour? Is there a source of this gravitational field? Since the only thing that we know that exerts gravitational pull is Matter it makes sense to presume that there is a lot of matter in these regions of space. However, we do not see any matter there. That is why scientists have come up with the idea of Dark Matter, matter which cannot be seen. It is a hypothesis and given the boundaries which science has set for itself, it is allowed to make such hypothesis. God didn't tell them that there is Dark Matter. They are guessing, we know that, they know that, everybody knows that and it is absolutely no big deal. Dark matter does not have a definition. We don't even know if it exists. Something that might not exist doesn't have a definition. All we know is strange phenomena in Space.

No one rejects them because they are well within the parameters that science has set for itself.

Your super-highness AIO, my lawyer is not present here, sir. But could I make some observations?

First of all, since my lawyer is not present and you cannot see him, does that prove he does not exist? Does that also prove that he cannot be defined - both by what he is and what he is NOT? More to the case, sir, does that mean that he cannot be contacted in some other way? But again, since God did not tell you that pilgrim.1 has a lawyer, does that negate the fact that she actually does? if you want to find out, please just find my trouble and leave me your address - without gravitational force, you will be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt afterwards!

Lol, okay, here's a smile: 

You see, Pastor AIO, these logical synthesis in yours simply does not hold. Phew - broaden your horizon, bother. . . there are a plethora of entities discovered by science which God did not tell scientists anything about! Yet, most of those entities behave exactly as you complained against:

       - they are invisible

       - they may not be defined specifically in some ways

       - they behave in some ways to display some gravitational properties

       - their detection are not the result of guesswork, sir.

Matter - all known matter plus those whose nature are imperceptible - behave dynamically, and we cannot assume that they should all behave exactly in some parameters. That is why new discoveries are being made, which have not been the result of guesswork (for hypothesis is not to be reduced to such simplistic ideas as "guess work". Science doesn't have to wait for anyone to tell it anything - so I don't think that it is a valid reaction to state that God did not tell scientists "this, that, those, or the others". Quite the opposite, scientists are many times honest to admit that there are entities and phenomena that science may never be able to explain, given that their natures are quite distinct from what science is able to investigate!

Pastor AIO:

I'll repeat, Dark matter is not a reality. It is an hypothesis used to explain a phenomenon in space. That phenomenon has positive attributes that define it, ie it emits a gravitational pull, yet contrary to matter that also emits gravity, we cannot see it so we call it Dark Matter. It might not even be matter at all, but for now we are calling it dark matter.

Sir, dark matter is matter - it does not have to be seen in order for it to be called "matter". It behaves like matter, and not "contrary to matter". If you want some other very informed work on this, I'm available for a discussion of the same. Just that it is held as a hypothetical entity does not mean it is non-existent; something which is in existence but which scientists know it there but cannot specifically identify does not necessarily therefore mean it is not a reality.

Pastor AIO:

You on the other hand have failed, quite abjectly come to think of it, to provide any positive attributes to Spirit. You have only said what it is not. At least Dark matter emits gravity, what does your Spirit do?

See why I said you're being overtly simplistic to have misread my post? Thanks for assuming that I had failed abjectly to say anything positive about what a spirit is. But I did mention positively that a spirit is incorporeal; and what does it do - it permeates solid physical bodies. I did not say that it does not permeate bodies, for that would be a negative attribute, no?

Besides, when I said that a spirit in its essence is "incorporeal" does that necessarily mean that I have stated what a spirit is NOT instead of what it actually is? Did I not explain what that term means, rather than what it is NOT? Did you take time to read what is said or you were deliberately looking for holes to puncture, your highness AIO?

Pastor AIO:

I get the idea from the fact that such definition tell me nothing. And not only me, they tell nobody nothing (yes, I can mangle the english language too). And it seems, dear pilgrim.1 that your definition has told you nothing either.

If you're hoping everybody reads and argues the reductionist way you do, I'm sorry to observe you're quite in a class of your won with no grounds to stand on.

Pastor AIO:

Oh, I do think we need to be fastidious with this subject, if not tedious. Anyway, as I can tell from your dialogues with Huxley, Tedium is not somthing that you shy away from.

I don't shy away from engaging people anyday - if in all honesty they would not be promoting the sort of vacant assertions you have made your world into. If I offered that we should not be tedious on the subject and that is not enough for you, please invite me to your world and let's waste this dogmatism in yours that has repeatedly failed to see simple issues.

Pastor AIO:

I believe I've already addressed this issue. But to summarize, the answer is because Science sets itself different parameters from religion.

Granted - I already recognized that and went one step further to explain their relationship.

Pastor AIO:

I never said that you said that an entity had to have mass before it could be recognized as a reality.

It sounded suggestive in your reply earlier, that's why I queried why you seem to be in the habit of inferring what is not stated in mine.

Pastor AIO:

And, actually you have tried to define spirit with physical indices, but negatively.

Oh, so I did. Sorry. Until you hear me speak in tongues before you delineate the distinctions? Dear sir, I want you to understand that using an example is not the same thing as equating them or comparing them, no?

Pastor AIO:

Saying, spirit is not this and spirit is not that, blah blah blah. And as for that idea of spirit not being 'composed of matter as we know it', talk about giving yourself room to maneuver!!!

I wasn't doing any such. Spirit IS incorporeal is a not stating what it is NOT.

Pastor AIO:

Hey, Dark matter is not matter as we know it either, maybe you could come up with a theory of Spirit being Dark matter. LOL!

I didn't say so, and dark matter IS matter.

Anybody online

Lol, would you be willing to stand in as my invisible lawyer?