₦airaland Forum

batu,

It's quite clear that you haven't read my arguments, otherwise you wouldn't repeat the same shallow arguments that have been refuted time after time again.

1. Your logic is circular. You are assuming the consequent. you cannot use the Bible to establish it's validity.
2. Your prime mover argument doesn't even begin to explain anything, as you would still need to explain your prime mover. Applying Occam's razer would lead us to get rid of the unnecessary entity in your explanatory framework, namely God.
3. Even assuming your prime mover argument were valid - which it isn't - then that still would not be evidence for your God, Zeus could claim that position with equal confidence

dblock:
I'll go ahead and argue for the existence of God and thus that Christianity is pragmatic.

Findings to suggest the existence of God;

*The following findings question scientifically theories*


[li]Cosmological, Teleological and Ontological arguments are incomplete and are unexplained without an entity such as God[/li]
[li]Anthropic Arguments explain our existence but again is incomplete if a Deity such as God isn't interleaved into the equation[/li]

[li]Moral Arguments argue that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
[/li] (Thus implying that an orderly civilization is orderly for it's own sake if God didn't exist)

Could you present something with substance as well? These are merely assertions without anything to back them up.

dblock:
God has intervened in history on numerous occasions, but God has never intervened unless it's part of the Grand Plan which is described in Great detail in the Bible.

The Bible points out that people like you(Nferyn) will argue against Christianity and lead people astray

Incredible claims to make. I'm impressed to find out that I have such powers

dblock:
*It also foretells the destruction of civilization gradually

This little pale blue dot has never been more civilised in it's entire history. The moral progress we've made in the last century alone is an incredible accomplishment.

dblock:
*It foretells Natural disasters occurring

Indeed and I foretell that someone will be born in the next minute or so

dblock:
*Incurable diseases

Are these your irrefutable prophecies?

dblock:
You cannot disprove the existence of God for all that yo have pointed out were foretold in the Bible
You ask for evidence akin to scientifically evidence.

Shouldn't be too difficult for God to accomplish, alas He stays mute. I wonder why

dblock:
The only things that you will find are those that happened historically in the time of Christ and before and spiritual intervention.

There is hardly any evidence of Christ ever having lived at all, let alone of his ministry. Doesn't say he didn't exist, though, but it makes one wonder.

dblock:
Your story of the puddle explains in favour of atheism and science why we are not necessarily here for a purpose but does not take note that; If the puddle(Us) existed for no reason it would mean that the Universe existed for no reason, the variables existed for no reason and everything before esidted for no reason and thus it is more questionable than the existence of Santa Claus

The little story wasn't intended to be in favor of atheism, only to show the baselessness of the arguments in favor of God based on the anthropic principle. It's not because something doesn't have any ultimate purpose that it all of a sudden becomes baseless. You have to explain that one to me.

dblock:
Here is a little story to make it easier to understand

If it is said that a Broom exists for no reason and that the wood that created the broom created it by a random equation

Then how could the wood also be created for no reason if it was used for the creation of the broom

It's not that it is hard to grasp, but rather that it is nonsensical.

dblock:
This^^^^ might be a little hard to grasp so I'll rephrase. The Big Bang is an accident as explained by science, but an accident occurs for no reason and it's re precautions were created for no reason but occurred because of the accident and nothing more. If we are created for no reason it would have to mean that the variables that created us were also created for no reason

Your terminology is a bit sloppy, but in essence, yes, there is no ultimate reason why we are here. Inferring reason, or more precisely intent, is a anthropomorphic approach to the physical reality. There is usually only agency in biological entities that have a certain level of awareness.

dblock:
but if the variables were created for no reason and the subatomic particles that may have created the variables were also created for no initial reason then it would mean that the whole equation was nothing more than an accident that was also created for no reason and so on. This is sending signals to me that scientificla theories are only in the middle of a Book and that SCIENCE HAS PROVIDED ANY THEORY OF ANY SORT FOR PAGE 1. What came first?, nothing, what created nothing

You have to (try to) understand that:
1. time is relative (don't think of it as a purely linear phenomenon independent from other factors)
2. time came only into existence during the Big Bang, asking what came before the Big bang is like asking what to find north of the North Pole.

dblock:
Another Accident

If you can only comprehend it in these terms (which are pretty poor analogies), then yes.

dblock:
I'll rather devote
my life to worshiping Santa Claus than to half explained questionable theories

And I rather not waste my limited time worshiping anything at all. Life is a precious gift that's better not wasted on something idiotic like worshiping some imaginary being.

sage:
Nferyn

Many prophesies in the bible were foretold and written way b/4 it happened and it fulfilled.

This aint no joke. It screams inspiration.

Il come back and post some for you.

Please do

sage:
In the meantime get as much of accurate dates of the bible as you can. I want you to get to know the dates in which the bible books were written. Do all research neccesary. I don't want you to start arguing dates in a desperate bid to discredit clear prophesies that were fulfilled clearly hundreds of years after they were written.

What's that supposed to mean?

sage:
If you do just that You are in for a surprise and a big one a that

When you have shown with examples that some of these prophecies cannot be explained by other means than divine inspiration, I will do just that. Currently I see no reason to waste my time on an endeavor that might be entirely futile. Convince me that it would be time well spent.

Backslider,

If you can't come up with a proper argument, please don't bother. Thanks for your - misguided - concern anyway.

Regards

spoilt:
@ nferyn

there is a God and the bible is his word to man.
No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but no one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

I could start with ripping apart the creation myth of Genesis and the idiocy of Noah's global flood if you indulge me, but then before I start, I would like to know whether or not you're willing to listen.

But, just in case you're not reading the Bible literally, what do you consider inspiration and truthfulness?

spoilt:
Who but God could produce such a book?

Different authors well versed in the practice of midrash

spoilt:
Hundreds of prophecies of future events were recorded in the Bible -- some of them centuries before fulfillment -- and not one detail of any of them has ever failed!

Midrash anyone?
Maybe you could give a specific example of fulfilled prophecy that isn't so incredibly vague that it could mean anything?

spoilt:
Could man -- especially dozens of men, writing in different countries and different times -- foretell the future so accurately? Never! Only God could do such a tremendous thing.

We first need to establish the value of these prophecies, before we can begin attributing it to God

spoilt:
No one but God could reveal the future in such detail, often hundreds of years before the events occurred. Not only the future of cities, nations, and the world, but also concerning the future birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Please read up on midrash, you'll understand that the prophecies foretold in the Torah concerning Jesus were a very common way of establishing authority within the Jewish community.

spoilt:
The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.

Begging the question, are we not? Foregive me that I won't take your word for it.

Some schizmatic accounts on the nature of Hank and his Ass:
http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cetera/hankisms.html

dblock:
I feel great already knowing that if what you are saying is true, it would mean that we humans and animals alike live in a world that was created by Nobody for no reason but by accident. That every bit of detail on my body was created by accident and was created for no known purpose.

Actually, the creation part is unnecessary. It's begging the question. Creation [/i]is a unnecessary concept when discussing the universe. Moreover, by accident isn't really the term I would use. To quote Richard Dawkins: [i]Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators

dblock:
That the fact that we can breath, and function for as long as 100years was just an accident and each and every part of our body is just randomly created for no reason.
The lithosphere is perfectly situated above Magma and the Hydrosphere perfectly functions along with the Hydrosphere by accident and was randomly created.

Again, created is the wrong word to use, but here, you're assuming that rare event's don't happen. It's not because something has a small chance of occuring that it doesn't happen at all. The chance of you winning the lottery is so small that it doesn't merit consideration, yet several people win the lottery every single week.
Douglas Adams captured this erronous line of reasoning pretty well:
. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

dblock:
Our very existence has no purpose, and our everyday endeavors are furtile for we shall be deceased and the only effect we shall have is that of our memory, destruction or creation and possible intellectual Input.
We are only a part of a Grand accident, and if life was to cease on this planet, there might be nowhere where there is life for a long period of time, unless of course there is another accident.
Your signature states that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the alternatives offered by modern physicists seem somewhat "Bogus to me"

That's a very depressing worldview. Purpose is what you make of it, why would you need any (even imaginary) external justification in the first place? You're an adult, I guess, face reality and stop looking for the cosy comfort if fairy-tales.
As for the alternatives offered by modern physicist, I wouldn't know. I didn't study physics to a sufficient degree to be able to judge these justifications (which justifications of what exactly?)

dblock:
Christianity is a religion not a scientific discovery, Any lack of evidence that it may have act to it's disadvantage but doesn't necessarily disprove anything.

Yet it makes truth-claims all the same. Anyway, you cannot possibly prove a negative, but that doesn't make the position reasonable though.

dblock:
For Christianity became of Age when Christ arrived on earth and Christs's existence could onlypossibly be recorded in books and in stories*(Which They were)*

Recorder long after Jesus' death with a lot of doctoring the texts though. As far as evidence goes, flimsy would be too kind a word.

dblock:
What sort of evidence do yoy require Nferyn?
Maybe some Video footage, in MP4, Mpeg4, MOv, WMA, 3gp, 3gp2 formats? ( don't you think those weren't invented yet)

Now that would be a miracle, wouldn't it? One that could not be explained. Something like that would do the trick.

dblock:
There are significant forces all around that are seperated from scientifical forces because no known explanation can correct them.

A God of the Gaps anyone?

dblock:
Christianity has it's uncertainties, such as the books that were excluded from the bible, the Mary Magdalene conspiracy etc. But to say that the religion is a sham is a different story.

Sham may be an incorrect term, because it implies dishonest intent.

dblock:
I cannot prove that christianity is a true faith,

Isn't that a contradiction in the terms? How can a faith ever be investigated for it's truth value? Once that trut value is established, it's no longer faith.

dblock:
but I can prove that science cannot explain Biology beyond classroom science and that Religion is Paramount

I'll take you up on that challenge. Fire away.

spoilt:
@nferyn
i believe in miracles, i have seen them happen. its okay if you don't believe. you're entiltled actually. but i know when something extra-ordinary happens to me and i can't ascribe it to man.

Ok, and if something that cannot be ascribed to man (in your (and my) limited imagination), it automatically must be ascribed to God? That's no explanation at all.

spoilt:
and oh, as for baal, he was shamed a long time ago.need i repeat the story?

Just a silly joke, but you could just as well ascribe the extra-ordinary to Zeus, Ahura-mazda, Vishnu, Baalt, Thor or any other deity. Without any concrete evidence for their existence, they're equally probable as Jahweh

spoilt:
"Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test" environment

@nferyn
what did you expect? for God to come down in the labs because the scientists wanted him to?

1. Under proper test conditions doesn't only mean lab conditions. There should be a way to isolate influencing factors other than what is being tested for though
2. A proper analysis of data gather from studies on the effectiveness of prayer could also do the trick

3. Currently there is no research (and many experiments have been conducted, some of them very well funded by e.g. the Templeton Foundations) indicating that prayer works, at all. All effects can be attributed to selection bias, placebo effect and sloppy statistical analysis.

4. Actually, as no evidence for the existence of God exists, something like coming to pay us a visit would really do the trick of convincing us skeptics about his existence. Currently, he only reaches the gullible and indoctrinated. I am completely immune for faith (belief without evidence) though.

spoilt:
@dblock
hehehehehe. .
the fact that your 2 eyes snap open from sleep every morning is a miracle in itself. you don't have to see a corpse in the morgue resurrect in order to believe. its all around you in the little things.

Perfect evidence for the power of Baal isn't it?
I guess your evidentiary standards are rather low

The reactions to this little piece of satire are actually far more enlightening than anything Hank, or rather Karl, could have come up with
Hardly anyone who sees the humour in the whole thing.
Seun, beware, you should repent or Hank will come to kick the shit out of you

Instructions: Replace Hank with any appropriate and/or applicable deity, replace Karl with any appropriate and/or applicable prophet and/or replacement deity. Repeat until it sticks

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

shahan:
@nferyn,

As earlier, I'm actually not given to recycled and protracted arguments for the sake of it; but for the present would oblige you this once.

Your reply actually strengthens the point I intended to make.

Not one bit.

When you talk about your personal experience of healing as a manifestation and evidence of the holy spirit, you actually use anecdote and assertion (e.g. that experience is a manifestation of the holy spirit) to make your point. It does absolutely nothing to substantiate the validity of your worldview. Only normalised data, either coming from controlled experiments or from rigorous statistical analysis can do such a thing.

This gentleman does not even know the rubrics of a good argument. Why should experience be ruled out of the question of this debate? Whether controlled or otherwise, I have offered you the same challenge to go out and apply the same rule you devise and obtain the same results. Then, and only then, can you have a genuine basis for a good argument; in which case, it no longer becomes my personal experience - but yours as well.

Do you deny that personal experiences are nothing more than anecdotal evidence for your position? If not, your point is mute. It doesn't matter a bit whether or not I experience it as well, the same rule applies to my experiences and they are equally anecdotal and thus carry insufficient weight.

shahan:
Your attempt to contrain issues of this sort to only normalised data is naive. How many experiences in life have you applied such data to predict 'rigorous statistical analysis' with the same results every single time??

Only normalised data can rise above the subjective status of personal experience

shahan:

In other words, I first need to accept the validity of your holy spirit before we can discuss it's validity or what it actually means? Isn't that a wee bit circular?

No; if at all it may be, then it weighs heavily against your arguments.

How so?

shahan:
You are trying to subject terms associated with spirituality to the constrained vocabulary of naturalism.

In what way is the vocabulary of naturalism constrained?

shahan:
If you cannot accept the definitions used in issues outside naturalism, then you have no justification for rejecting outright what you neither have experienced nor can explicate.

If only such definitions were clarifying the issues at all, but they rather blur them. How could you possibly know that the holy spirit you experience is the same phenomenon as what e.g. your neighbour claims to be the same holy spirit? Outside the confines of methodological naturalism, there is absolutely no way of knowing.
I'm not denying those spiritual experiences per se (in many cases, they can actually even be measured), but rather the explanations that are given to them

shahan:

They map the spiritual experiences they have to the interpretative framework they know: a Christian may call it holy spirit, a Buddhist will call it something else. To validate your interpretation over others, the very validity of your conceptual framework needs to be established first. If not the whole discussion is only semantics

Your semantics is rather circular. Do naturalists not do the very same thing that you fail to appreciate in other worldviews - 'map their experiences to the very interpretative framework they know'?

Methodological naturalism is a framework we all know and live by most of the time. It's that which is shared accross all cultures, continents and regions. The predicatability and lawfulness of most of our experiences attest to that. Formalised methodological naturalism, as expressed in the scientific method, has ellucidated so many phenomena that were in the past ascribed to supernatural agency and brought them firmly into the realm of natural law.
Implying supernatural agency actually shelters those phenomena from explanation. These implications are rather assertions that are not backed up by any evidence, statements of faith.

shahan:
Buddists do not speak of the Holy Spirit by another nomenclature, because it is not in their theology in the frst place. To interject this allusion is not providing an open, honest basis for discussion.

I wasn't referring to theology (a queer concept in the case of buddhism, as they do not believe in a god at all), but to the spiritual experiences, which are very similar in neurological terms and, given the current state of our knowledge of cognitive mechanisms, interact with specific, already existing memeplexes in the brain. You can even induce these experiences by giving specific direct neurological stimuli: e.g. you can make Christians feel [/i]the holy spirit in a strictly pavlovian way.

shahan:

I do find a lot of doctrinary differences between these religions. I don't see any fundamental difference in the spiritual experiences of their practitioners, though.

There are indeed differences in spiritual experiences, as well as doctrinal, philosophical and cultural leanings in all religions. One cannot equate them with a broad stroke of the brush the way many people often do.

I only equated the experiences (similar brain patterns) and ascribed the different interpretations given to them to the specific cultural/religious background of those people.

shahan:

I do not make those kind of claims, so why would I have to show you that I have any healing powers when I explicitely claim not to have these powers

That is why you cannot interpret these expriences with any degree of certainty as merely "anecdotes and assertions".

In the absence of objective evidence, that's all I can do. You are the one making huge leaps of faith here.

shahan:
In this regard, I offered you to take the same "anecotes and assertions" to the field, test them out and report back to the Forum that people got healed in exactly the same way that I calimed in my experience. What you do not have cannot be interpreted merely to interjections.

Once more, I do not deny the experience, but rather the validity of the explantions given to them

shahan:

Me, naive? You clearly ascribe positive events to something that cannot, in principle, be investigated and then you call me naive. The irony Wink

Right, I guess that 'naive' was rather too strong a word - and in good sense I take it back. However, how are you sure that religious experiences cannot, in principle, be investigated?

Not exactly the experiences but rather the interpretations if based on a subjective, self-referential framework.

shahan:
Is it rather not ironic that you can draw this inference already without having first taken the challenges offered to go out and face the reality of the claims?

I don't get your point here. What challenges?

shahan:

Actual knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. Either explicitely or implicitely. There is no other knowledge that can stand any test of intersubjectivity. Claims that cannot be tested are hollow.

You therefore make the rascally claim that science answers every single question of reality in the universe, not so?

I don't. Reality and knowledge are not exactly the same concepts. Objective knowledge is only obtained through the scienctific method (again, implicitely or explicitely)

shahan:
I'll humbly request your answers to this: how has science implicitly or explicitly provided knowledge on [i]paranormal phenomena, the bizaar, and the philosophical?

You need to ellaborate a little more on these points they're such broad statements that they are impossible to answer. Many paranormal phenomena have been investigated through the scientific method. Science has had an enormous impact on philosophy, but these are different areas of discourse. Some fields of philosophy (e.g. metaphysics) are outside the bound of sciences, others (e.g. epistemology) are strongly influenced by the scientific method and others still (e.g. cosmology) are basically taken over by science.

shahan:

To do such a thing I would first need to accept the premisse that demons actually exist, something I don't.

You may not believe that they do exist; but your own disavowal does not negate their existence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We're still waiting for any evidence for the existence of demons.

shahan:

Yes and your experience isn't influenced by your perceptive an interpretative neurological framework? I know mine is, that's why controlled tests and/or statistical analysis are necessary to interprete these kind of experiences.

How many have you actually tested out in the same construct being discussed?

Meaning?

shahan:

No I don't, but you use those reformed criminals as evidence for the power of Christ. I use the equally irrelevant fact that there are proportionally far less atheists in prison to show that your test of that power isn't a test at all

Then you would have to explain the phenomenon of people whose lives have been transformed by coming to a living faith in Jesus Christ. If you are pitting atheism against Christianity on the same pedestal, then you assume that everyone who is not a Christian must be atheist, no? You're making broad references that you cannot sustain in its logical ends.

I'm not pitting atheism against christianity. I'm merely using this statement of fact to show that your reasoning doesn't hold water. The (positive) consequences of a belief have no bearing on the validity of that belief.
If I believe I have a fabulous treasure of gold burried in my garden, that belief may very well make me happy, but that doesn't mean there's any treasure at all.

shahan:

Now that wouyld really be a sad thing. I still hold on to the belief that most Christians are actually moral people, but contrary to what they think, their morality does not originate in their belief. If that were the case, all those non-christians should be on a constant rampage.

Let me assure you, a true Christian derives his morality from the Bible.

But only those verses that still hold true in today's world. I guess few Christians would quote Deuteronomy as the source of their morality, wouldn't they? What exactly is the arbiter in that selection?

shahan:
As for non-christians constantly being on the rampage, it would not take away from the affirmation that Christians values, as far as morality goes, are established in belief.

Maybe solidified would be a better word. Established seems to be wishful thinking on behalf of those Christians.

shahan:
Nonetheless, that is not to suggest that non-Christians do not have values and morals; but it is wrong to suppose that the morality of Christians do not originate in their belief.

What then is the source of these morals if the Christians claim their morals to be based on the Bible?

shahan:

Atheism is actually very simple: it's only and merely a lack of belief in (a) god(s). Only when theists try to frame the debate are they turning it into something else.

Please, let's just be real here. You're recycling this weathered excuse that you left as an unfinished business in your debate to 4get_me's well articulated discourse in this thread: Refuting Monotheism: God Does Not Exist. Atheism proper is NOT a lack of belief in (a) god(s) - it is the active claim that there is NO god(s), usually configured by atheists themselves in the terse quip: "God does NOT exist." Even in that thread, you nferyn, had admitted the same atheistic definition; and your inference here is untennable.

I won't rehash that debate here. It's a common tactic of theists to turn atheism in a positive claim for the non existence of God to shift the burden of proof. Most atheists do not ascribe to that position. I don't remember exactly why I didn't follow up on that debate, but the main thing 4get_me elloquently and courteously did in his last reply was playing a very skillful semantic game. Fact is that all atheists lack a belief in god(s), some positively deny the existence of god(s), others don't. Limiting the atheist position to that of a minority among them is dishonest.

shahan:

For Christians on the other hand, the matter is not that simple, as the bitter doctrinal disputes among the various nominations and sects only amplify. Some here would even go as far as saying that Catholics aren't really Christians, hence the "self-professed" adjective.

Doctrinal or philosophical disputes do not negate any particular worldview - rather, that is what accentuates them; though one never has to celebrate or applauds disputes.

No they don't, but it's still far more difficult to define what a true Christian is than to define what an atheist is.

shahan:
Many people who see themselves as atheists have not always shared the same views on atheistic issues or positions,

That's mainly because atheism isn't a worldview, just as theism isn't a worldview. Christianity and Secular Humanism could be considered worldviews, but not theism or atheism.

shahan:
and you only have to read again how this was pointed out in the link above to 4get_me's discourse.

I am yet to hear the first intra-atheist debate on what true atheism is. It's really a non issue among atheists.

shahan:

The plural of anecdote does not equal data and definitely does not equal evidence. Your point of view cannot objectively be shown to be more valid than that of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, etc.

When you test experience against your supposed "data", then you find that your proposal of a naturalistic perspective is not any more valid than the objectivity you decry in others.

I don't really understand your statement here. Can you rephrase?

shahan:

Only a methodologically naturalistic point of view can cross that divide

I knew you could not resist the urge to preach your own worldview - naturalism.

You misunderstood my point: methodological naturalism (which is not a worldview, contrary to metaphycisal naturalism), is the only method that provides a common language to cross the subjective divides of the different religions.

shahan:
The only problem is that your worldview is still limp in the face of the many questions it has yet to answer.

Which worldview are you talking about?

shahan:
@nferyn,

Obviously not, but anecdote and assertions are no substitute for proper argument

I didn't employ anecdotes and assertions in my post, unless you're deliberately reading them into it. I'm not in the least interested in protracted arguements; and if you care, could you do me the favour of leaving your own small corner of the earth and go into the field of experience to see things for yourself?

Your reply actually strengthens the point I intended to make.
When you talk about your personal [/u]experience of healing as a manifestation and evidence of the holy spirit, you actually use anecdote and assertion (e.g. that experience is a manifestation of the holy spirit) to make your point. It does absolutely nothing to substantiate the validity of your worldview. Only normalised data, either coming from controlled experiments or from rigorous statistical analysis can do such a thing.

shahan:

What exactly is this ephemeral "holy spirit" and what sets the experience of this holy spirit apart from the spiritual experiences of other religious traditions, except for the mapping of these experiences to their specific religious memeplexes?

When you are ready to be open to the meaning of 'spirit', then we can have a discussion.

In other words, I first need to accept the validity of your holy spirit before we can discuss it's validity or what it actually means? Isn't that a wee bit circular?

shahan:
I did not deny the spiritual experiences of other religions; and your allusion to "mapping" is rather naive. Not all religions speak of the Holy Spirit for the simple fact that they do not believe in His power: they do not have to "map" anything to a specific memes.

They map the spiritual experiences they have to the interpretative framework they know: a Christian may call it holy spirit, a Buddhist will call it something else. To validate your interpretation over others, the very validity of your conceptual framework needs to be established first. If not the whole discussion is only semantics

shahan:
I

s there any real fundamental difference between the spiritual experiences of Buddhist monks, Hindu Brahmin priests, Christian mystics or Muslim Sufi's?

If you actually were seeking an honestly intelligent debate, then I would oblige you. Tell me honestly, nferyn, that in all your perusals, you really don't find any real fundamental difference between all those religions??

I do find a lot of doctrinary differences between these religions. I don't see any fundamental difference in the spiritual experiences of their practitioners, though.

shahan:

Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test environment.

Let me challenge you to go out and use the very same "Anecdote and placebo effect" and heal the sick. I am not demanding anything more from you than that you simply provide me one case of healing in which YOU have healed someone by the same rule. What you have not experienced cannot be dismissed with small carpings.

I do not make those kind of claims, so why would I have to show you that I have any healing powers when I explicitely claim not to have these powers

shahan:
You really show how naive you can take issues sometimes. How has it ever been that faith healing and prayer are issues of life that must be subjected to controlled test environment?

Me, naive? You clearly ascribe positive events to something that cannot, in principle, be investigated and then you call me naive. The irony

shahan:
That is a tattered excuse injected through the back door. How many issues of life are actually known to have been subjected to your idea of a controlled test environment?

Actual knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. Either explicitely or implicitely. There is no other knowledge that can stand any test of intersubjectivity. Claims that cannot be tested are hollow.

shahan:
Let me even ask you, nferyn, what experiements have you ever conducted in the real face of demon oppression?

To do such a thing I would first need to accept the premisse that demons actually exist, something I don't.

shahan:
Please don't come back with an excuse - I'd be greatly obliged if you have actually conducted any such and come back reporting your own experiences as I did mine: for my post was not based on what anyone told me, but rather on MY OWN experience.

Yes and your experience isn't influenced by your perceptive an interpretative neurological framework? I know mine is, that's why controlled tests and/or statistical analysis are necessary to interprete these kind of experiences.

shahan:

Funny then that the relative proportion of self-professed Christians in prisons is way higher than that of atheists. Either Christians are less moral or atheists are smarter not to get caught.
The power of (self)delusion
Meaning?

If that is how you test the reality of the power of Christ, then you're in a small world.

No I don't, but you use those reformed criminals as evidence for the power of Christ. I use the equally irrelevant fact that there are proportionally far less atheists in prison to show that [u]your test of that power isn't a test at all

shahan:
I wonder how it is then that I haven't opted to go to prison for becoming a Christian.

Now that wouyld really be a sad thing. I still hold on to the belief that most Christians are actually moral people, but contrary to what they think, their morality does not originate in their belief. If that were the case, all those non-christians should be on a constant rampage.

shahan:
And many thanks for contrasting and qualifying your adjectives - "self-professed Christians", and yet not "self-professed atheists"! Does the power of your adjective apply in your own case?

Atheism is actually very simple: it's only and merely a lack of belief in (a) god(s). Only when theists try to frame the debate are they turning it into something else.
For Christians on the other hand, the matter is not that simple, as the bitter doctrinal disputes among the various nominations and sects only amplify. Some here would even go as far as saying that Catholics aren't really Christians, hence the "self-professed" adjective.

shahan:

@ topic
I don't think that Christianity is a sham in that it would be a deliberate attempt by it's practioners at deception.

Precisely my point, nferyn. . . precisely my point. If I never experienced firsthand in my own life, the very same promises of healing in the Bible in Jesus' Name, then I would indeed have been given to a deliberate attempt at deception - this time, "self-deception"!

The plural of anecdote does not equal data and definitely does not equal evidence. Your point of view cannot objectively be shown to be more valid than that of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, etc. Only a methodologically naturalistic point of view can cross that divide

shahan:

Most Christians are genuine in their beliefs, regardless of how ill informed those beliefs are.

Thanks for the compliments, and you're spot on in that regard.

My pleasure indeed

shahan:
Christianity is NOT a sham. For anyone to suppose it is, simply shows they really do not know Christ in the reality and power of the Holy Ghost.

Obviously not, but anecdote and assertions are no substitute for proper argument

shahan:
I would never have found Jesus Christ in living reality in my life without the power of the Holy Spirit.

What exactly is this ephemeral "holy spirit" and what sets the experience of this holy spirit apart from the spiritual experiences of other religious traditions, except for the mapping of these experiences to their specific religious memeplexes? Is there any real fundamental difference between the spiritual experiences of Buddhist monks, Hindu Brahmin priests, Christian mystics or Muslim Sufi's?

shahan:
I have experienced His healing power in my body; as well as prayed for people and seen them healed in Jesus' Name.

Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test environment.

shahan:
I have seen lives changed, people delivered from demonic oppressions (even oyibo sef dey kolo - for real!); and the testimony of criminals who have been saved and now serving the Lord Jesus by reaching out to other dangerous criminals - would you still suggest the living power of Christ was a sham?

Funny then that the relative proportion of self-professed Christians in prisons is way higher than that of atheists. Either Christians are less moral or atheists are smarter not to get caught.

shahan:
When someone experiences the power of Christ through the ministry of the Holy Ghost, they'll know the difference.

The power of (self)delusion

shahan:
Rom. 8:16 - 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.'

Meaning?

@ topic
I don't think that Christianity is a sham in that it would be a deliberate attempt by it's practioners at deception. Most Christians are genuine in their beliefs, regardless of how ill informed those beliefs are.

trollremix: Football requires VERY different body and skill types. You won't see Soccer players make some of the spectacular catches while flying through the air and somehow keeping their feet inbounds, or require the raw power to shake off immensely strong 250+ pound tacklers.

Football is more of a pure power sport, and it requires more athleticism. Watch the football games, you'll know what I mean. . .

There's more to athleticism than power and speed. Neither American football nor football are endurance sports, try rowing, long distance running and cycling

sage:
@nferyn

U failed to give me any examples of what i asked about. I really thought u had some examples

You really should be a little more patient. I'm not spending all my waking days here on nairaland, you know

Anyway, here are 3 types of examples that can count as falsification of the specific Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Obviously I can easily bring a multitude of evidence that falsifies this specific God, but I'll be very brief for clarity

1. Falsification on logical grounds:
The omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God is self contradictory: omnipotence and omniscience contradict the fact that God, in his holy books, has needs, wants and desires: an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot have needs and wants because reality cannot be anything but the emmanation of God's mere being. As reality is not the emmanation of God's wants (God having negative feelings about his creation: sorrow, sadness, anger, etc), he cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and the problem of evil in the world: with an omnimax God evil cannot exist in this world, because everything God wants, just is. If God doesn't want evil to exist, it wouldn't, as God is omnipotent and omniscient. Evil exists, thus God is either not omnibenevolent or he isn't omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. The classical apologetical anwser to this contradiction is the existence of free will, but that's only a weak defense, as free will logically implies choice, choice implies an indeterminate future, an indeterminate future contradicts God's omniscience. Even if you would assume that intentional evil (as being carried out by independent agents, such as humans) could be explained away by waving the free will card - which it can't on logical grounds - the problem of natural evil (earthquakes, droughts, tsunami's, etc) still remains

2. Falsification on historical grounds:
The exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt to Palestine should have left distinct archaeological evidence on the ground (e.g. the climate in that region does not allow the logistics of such an exodus to take place) as well as records in Egyptian sources (the plagues, all firstborn sons dead etc) which it didn't. This is just an example from the top of my head, I can source it if you would dispute this evidence. Also with a quick search I can bring far more historical sources testifying to the impossibility of what is portryed in the Bible.

3. falsification on scientific grounds:
I will be brief here:
a. Genesis contradicts all astrophysical, geological and biological evidence known to mankind
b. The Noachian Flood and Ark are in clear contradiction to all known geological, physical andbiological evidence. This event is physically impossible to have happened. Moreover, the repeopling of the earth after this deluge would lead to very specific genetical patterns in all human populations, which it doesn't show and would require fertility rates far above what is physiologically possible for women.

trollremix:
Very sly, I see. . . . .eluding my point. Anyway, Evolution is NOT a fact. You are aware that evolution itself consists of severe loopholes. . .correct?

Which loopholes? I'm not eluding anything. You're just coming up with a new thread, presenting the same old tired arguments in which you expose your uttter ignorance on the subject.
Go through these threads:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-37140.0.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.0.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6208.0.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6404.msg198915.html

In these threads, KAG and myself - among others, have made it abundantly clear that your statements are wholly without merit.
So I repeat my question: which loopholes are you talking about and why do you even mention loopholes?

dblock:

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.

And your reasoning differs?

Yes, but I shouldn't have been so condescending of yours. My appologies.

dblock:
Let us not make this a i'm a religious stooge situation, I study science my dad studies science my step mum studies science Gawd Doe, science runs thoriugh my blood.

Then you must be familiar with Occam's Razor.

dblock:
Yes I am indeed creating holes in science, but if I'm am just a feeble minded idiot why don't you prove me wrong by not going in circles and explaining abosolutely and practically nothing.

Ok. What exactly makes God necessary in the origin of the universe? Personal incredulity doesn't count.
What explanative powers does God [/i]have and what makes [i]God [/i]falsifiable? What predictions does the [i]God [/i]hypothesis make and what would be a falsification of the hypothesis?
Labeling [i]"I can't understand how that works/is" [/i]by the catch-all container [i]God explains exactly nothing.

dblock:
I am not saying that christianity is more credible than the Big Bang Theory but i think it is just as credible and i may even be able to prove it to be mor credible . "In the begining was void, " That seems to make more sense than energy fluctuations, awwww that just ahhh awww were in ahhh space started a ahhhhh chain reaction which ahhhh, started a ahhhhh "Big Bang" yeah.

Contrary to the [i]God [/i]hypothesis, the Big Bang theory makes specific predictions and is in principle falsifiable, whether it makes sense to you or not. The limitations of your (and most definitely mine when it comes to cosmology) intellect does not mean that a specific theory is false. Quantum Mechanics is profoundly counter-intuitive, yet all the predictions that follow from that theory are confirmed by experiments to such a degree that it's really scary.

dblock:
Let's make this debate based on reasoning and not on the immunity of scientists saying that science is paramount and Religion is fables.

The moment religion makes specific claims about reality, it is open for falsification and Jahweh, as described in the Bible, has been falsified many times over, not only on an evidentiary basis, but also by basis contradictions in his properties.
When you take a generic deistic or pantheistic god, of course that god cannot be falsified. But then again, that god is totally inconsequential and could just as well not exist.

dblock:
I have given questions that were answered quite well, but don't you see, it's the same thing, it will lead to; nothing but an infinite number of scientifically unanswerable questions.

There are certain questions that cannot be answered by science in principle. Unfortunately for the concerned theists, Jahweh doesn't fit in that gap.

dblock:
Look, I don't know why I exist today and I don't know why there is such a thing as energy, or dark matter or the universe, but what I do know is that things just don't exist for the sake of existence, they had to be created by something or somebody,

You say so, but why is there any necessity here? I think that necessity exists in your head mainly because your conceptual framework is that of a human. There is no logical or ontological necessity though.

dblock:
my argument isn't extremely plaudible, but I believe it makes a lot more sense that what sientists are leading us to believe.

Maybe it does make more sense to you. Have you ever asked yourself why it makes more sense? Could it be that we are neurologically predisposed to see intent and purpose in everything, because that faculty helped us survive in our ancestral environment?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=3833.msg880889#msg880889 date=1171195830]@nferyn,

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.

To a surficial reader, it would look like you had "profound reasoning" - the problem, however, is that yours is as "disguised" as anyone else's that you accuse in just the same manner.[/quote]How so? I didn't put forward any claims and my position is pretty straightforward. Anyway, I was a bit irritated at that time, so I shouldn't have been so harsh.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=3833.msg880889#msg880889 date=1171195830]

1. Your holes (what came before time, aka the first cause) are only necessary in your limited understanding of realty. You may as well ask what's north of the north pole
2. Your (and my) linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself. The wiring of our brain and the senses we have help us to survive in our 'middle ' world. We cannot perceive how the subatomic world functions, nor can we truly understand the meaning of deep time and space, yet we continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework.

Isn't it obvious in your admission here that you simply do not know what you are talking about?[/quote]I don't make any claims that reality should fit my limited understanding.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=3833.msg880889#msg880889 date=1171195830]You admit, at least, that your "linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself", and I'm grateful to read that.[/quote]But once again, I do not make any claims about reality that contradict our (the current state of knowledge) scientific understanding of reality (which is very much counter-intuitive).

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=3833.msg880889#msg880889 date=1171195830]And yet, in being accusative of others about the "God of the Gaps", you have actually manufactured your own "Gaps" in your double admission that "we" (which would include you) "continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework."[/quote]I make no claims here regarding the nature of reality, only point out the obvious, namely that the God of the Gaps [/i]is unnecessary and unparsimonious.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=3833.msg880889#msg880889 date=1171195830]Already, nferyn, following this [i]disguised and overblown idea of yours is simply falsifying the specific nature of your premise - and you have cleverly arrived at "absolutely nothing" in just the same way that you only see about the reasoning of others![/quote]Either your thinking is a few steps ahead of me, you're leaving out some crucial steps in your reasoning or you're picking some rhetorical tricks out your big hat. Anyway, I'm not following.

dblock:
regardless of the order you put the reactions or the theories scientists may come up with, it'll still lead to the same question, what came before that and that's where God comes in. Things do not exist for the sake of existing, everything is created by something and for a reason.

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.
1. Your holes (what came before time, aka the first cause) are only necessary in your limited understanding of realty. You may as well ask what's north of the north pole
2. Your (and my) linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself. The wiring of our brain and the senses we have help us to survive in our 'middle ' world. We cannot perceive how the subatomic world functions, nor can we truly understand the meaning of deep time and space, yet we continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework.
Your God is a God of the Gaps and - if you would follow your reasoning to it's conclusion - it would say absolutely nothing about the nature of your God, but would rather falsify the specific nature of that God as professed in the scriptures of the monotheistic religions (I'm assuming here you're either a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew)

Kashif:
nferyn,

Do you have contacts?

What do you mean by that?

mrpataki:
Exu has even failed to see that Christianity is even more than a religion.

In what sense?

Grouppoint:
@nferyn,
If you agree with me that religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.
Also that it is a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Actually, I don't follow your definition at all. Central to all religions it the belief in (a) supernatural being(s) that interact with the natural world in one way or another. Religions are those practices that focus on that belief and people use that thesis to structure their life (and possibly that of others as well) around that belief. This can result in a specific set of practices and rules of conduct. These cultural practices are usually not only influenced by that belief but have many other sources as well.

By your definition, secular humanism is a religion as well, even though it is anything but a religion

Grouppoint:
Then you should agree that before these moral codes were agreed upon, people would have carried on without an agreed set of laws.

Our moral rules are independent from religon. Religion only justifies and codifies already existing morality. If not, someone that is not religious couldn't possibly be moral, and that is clearly contradicted by the facts. There are for example proporationately far less atheists in prison than theists (I could look up the numbers if you like, but I'm too lazy for the moment ;-)).

Grouppoint:
Hence Exu could not be better than Religion because Exu would have been roaming around aimlessly.

Nonsense, as he and other atheists do [b]not [/b]roam around aimlessly, your assertion is contradicted by the facts

Grouppoint:
All he has done now is borrow what he considers good from religious ethics, and condemn the rest.

Or rather religion has borrowed it's moral codes from 'natural' morality as it was during it's period of formation and didn't evolve along with 'natural' morality, hence the many immoral elements in religious morality.

Grouppoint:
By the way, what is your country? Most of the mordern world constitutions were founded upon the 10 commandments.

Belgium, and no, as far as I know, they are not. Can you bring some evidence for that statement?

Grouppoint:
Nferyn misses the point here.
The definition of right or wrong in modern soceity, anywhere in the world has its roots from a religion.

Why don't you bring some evidence for that claim

Grouppoint:
Your country's constitution probably has its basis from the 10 commandments.

No it doesn't.

Grouppoint:
Hence embracing the ideal portions of the laws, and criticising the less than palatable ones does not make Exu or even nferyn morally above religion.

My ethics will hold out against religious morality any time and do not stem from religion, but rather find their basis in human nature - if you want to discuss this, I'd be happy to oblige.

Grouppoint:
I daresay that without religion, man would still be running around the place, raping, killing, stealing as it was in the cave era.

Assertions without evidence are hollow, my dear.
By the way, how would you know than people were on a raping, killing and stealing spree prior to the advent of religion and, assuming that was the case, how did that then magically change when religion was brought in?

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=33814.msg871831#msg871831 date=1170879968]. . .so far nferyn fails to realise that the fact still remains they were instituted by the same religion(s) exu keeps dissing, irrespective of geographical locations/countries.[/quote]No they weren't. Religion only codified the existing morality from the societies is sprang from. On top of that religious morality didn't (completely) follow the expanding moral circle as we see it today. Slavery is no longer condoned and women are fully equal to men, just to name two modern moral convictions that go against e.g. the high Christian morality.
Repeating the tired old canard that all morality comes from religion does bring it any closer to the truth.

Grouppoint:
Exu does not realise that the laws which govern society, in terms of what is wrong or right, are actually instituted by religion. Therefore Exu has no legs to stand upon, when he goes against religion.

Grouppoint fails to realise that those laws exist independent of religion, as they can be found in similar shapes accross many societies with many different religious points of view. On top of that many of those religious actually go very much against common morality, unless you think that children speaking out against their parents really should be put to death and that giving your daughters to be raped is good moral conduct.

AfricaFace:
@Nferyn,
Thanks so much. i have just downloaded the manual, and it is a very good one,

My pleasure

AfricaFace:
how do i go about the application itself , i mean the Prince2 software, can i get it online too

Prince2 is a methodology, not a software.

As far as (generic) PM software is concerned, I would recommend Artemis, Primavera or Open Plan for very complex non-IT projects in a very mature project organisation and Hydra for IT projects in a matrix organisation.
I also use CA's Clarity and Open Workbench, but that's more geared towards overall service industry automation and the specific PM functionalities are not very well thought out. You'll only benefit from Clarity in very high volume corporate environment.

obrien2k:
Hi Nferyn,

Please could u do me a favour by giving an insight into what one stands to gain byeing apmp or a prince2 professional.

Thanks so much

The same thing as with any degree or certification: it's a formal recognition of the knowledge and experience that person has.
There are many things to consider, such as:
* As many Project Managers work as external consultants (especially the highly paid ones), some kind of formalisation of experience and knowledge is taken into account when bidding on a contract or applying for a job
* For many Project Management job offers, certification is a prerequisite
* I would hire a Prince2 Practitioner or PMP any time over someone that isn't certified (unless of course that person can show a stellar CV with sufficient references of previous successful projects)

Kashif:
bibibabe,

Could you kindly shed more light on prince2? I mean training details please.

Here's the Official Prince2 Manual (You have to be quick if you want to download it (100 downloads or 7 days max @ yousendit)

Kashif:
Is there anybody in the house who knows how one can get started in project management? I mean, how can a computer engineering graduate who is a complete novice in project management, but little on the job experience get started in project management certifications (PMI or something?).

Awaiting your responses please,

If you're working in the IT sector, I recommend you stick to Prince2 as a methodology, as it was specifically developed for IT.
Prince 2 has the advantage of being process based and relatively lightweight compared to PMI (especially if you want to go for PMP certification). Also, the focus on the governance structure and the interative review of the business case makes it very much suited to the fluid field of IT. Passing Prince2 foundation is a breeze and if you still have the habit of studying (fresh out of uni?), practitioner shouldn't be that difficult either.
PMP certification is harder to obtain as you already need to have proven experience in the field of Project Management if you want to pass the certification process. PMI goes into a lot of detail and gives you far more insight into specific techniques, but it can get a little theoretical as well.

I personally stick to Prince2 as a methodology but use PMI material for specifics (e.g. WBS structuring, Risk Management, Planning techniques, etc)

One thing though: never rely on a software to do your project management for you and especially don't rely on MS Project
What you should definitely do is learn to plan using paper techniques such as PERT analysis and only when you really understand how it works, can you move to software to do that for you. Unless you understand the algorithms (which are explained in those paper tecniques) underlying the software, you'll never know what to expect and you won't understand why your plans get all scrambled up the moment the work really starts.