To Malachi:
"Lol! If you are worried about meeting the devil, why would you study demonology? Meditation involves paying attention to reality and avoiding concious thought. It is perhaps the most challenging task in the sphere of human existence but the rewards are great. I wont say anything more because I dont want to turn people off to meditation based on their opinion of me. Lol."
The study of demons, if done based on the Church's store of revealed knowledge or propositions, is probably not too dangerous since it is really just a type of supernatural theology.
As for the dangers of certain types of meditation: I'm just saying that certain types are more dangerous than other things, not that they're the most dangerous. But (if you believe in its existence; indeed the existence of demons/angels cannot be proved) the devil is more powerful than a lion, and I wouldn't keep silent if I thought someone was going into the lion cage, much less then if they were going to go up against something much stronger.
"There is, of course, a true doctrine about demons or evil spirits, namely, that portion of Catholic theology which treats of the creation and fall of the rebel angels, and of the various ways in which these fallen spirits are permitted to tempt and afflict the children of men."
-Catholic Encyclopedia
so defined as a doctrine or science of demons, Catholics clearly think there is a good demonology.
I seldom participate on forums any more, even though it is an excellent exercise for us old (I'm 76) duffers. This is a fun topic because, as Gero indicated, folks can become emotionally zapped with "G-d" topics. Particularly if you're inclined to want to "out liberty" your libertarian collegues. Many carry on our shoulders attitudes of, "...don't tell ME what to do!" (while at the same time implying, "...please -- tell me what to do!")
So here's my observation: I can speak only for myself, but many of you probably fall into this category also. I have been jaded -- sullied, perhaps -- with the arrogance of intellectuality serving as a topping for healthy doses of superstition and religiosity from childhood. The product of this is shown by the difficulty in answering questions objectively in the G-d realm. Yet my experience as an educator has taught me the simplest of students bestowed upon me the greatest bredth and depth of knowledge -- particularily on topics such as this -- than I could ever have gleaned in those institutions of higher (ha ha) "learning".
You are spiritual.
I know -- that sounds religious, but get your hand away from your billfold pocket. I have no "religion" to sell you. Economically, of all the products and/or services marketed to the masses over history, religion (superstition) ranks right under government (protection rackets) as the all time greatest in value (I should say "economic cost" -- to say nothing of the billions of lives sacrificed). And they've walked with an incestuous hand-in-glove from the very beginning.
I can reach out and touch your face, but I cannot touch your smile. I can assess the results of your work, but I cannot detect your feelings or your thoughts or the calculations that resulted therein. Your thoughts, your demeanor, your experiences, strengths and hopes -- those are spiritual. Untouchable, if that makes you more comfortable. I'm aware of how religious sounding stuff rankles the highly sophisticated intelligence.
Looking at the macrocosm, I have no idea what keeps the earth in perfect orbit and distanced from the sun, a relatively small star so I'm told. And I cannot fathom the distance between planets or stars or any other dimension in any plane of what we call "the universe". Or whether or not there are other planets not unlike this earth somewhere "out there" that might support life as we know it. Or if there might be life as we DON'T know it -- for instance capable of withstanding temps of say 10,000 degrees "F" (or minus the same). Because I only know what is "scientifically" measurable and feasible within the atmosphere of this tiny speck in space, now inhabited by some 7 billion human beings, and what is tolerable for us.
In the microcosm, the nucleus of the atom is considered the smallest particle of matter (I think); and I understand the atom replicates precicely the performance of the universe as "we" know it -- almost exactly. The laws that affect one apparently affect the other. A mystery to me, I'll tell you.
Creation without a Creator? I won't argue with you.
Sustanence without a Sustainer? You say.
Law without a Lawgiver? We're talking natural law here -- not man made law.
Design without a Designer? Not practical, but you may have a design of your own.
Life without a Lifegiver? Stretches the imagination.
In this season of man's attempts at rulership I am often challenged as to my refusal to "vote". Last time I voted was 1964, for Barry Goldwater. So I receive the flak of many reasons I "should" vote. I simply say (with a straight face if at all possible), "...my President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis! I'm supporting the Incumbant this year...!"
I smile as they edge away from me, assuming I'm a sacriligious (from state point of view) but religious nut.
Any more questions about G-d on this page? Sam.
. . .
Malachi: "And that most certainly does tell you something about Catholics."
"And that most certainly does tell you something about Catholics."
we're not satanists.
It's not like I said that it is a science from demons, it's a science of demons.
“Why not?”
If you clicked the link I provided, you could have read that, “Allegedly, this special method of "photographing" objects is a gateway to the paranormal world of auras. Actually, what is recorded is due to quite natural phenomena such as pressure, electrical grounding, humidity and temperature. Changes in moisture (which may reflect changes in emotions), barometric pressure, and voltage, among other things, will produce different 'auras'.”
“so, what exactly do you want me to prove to you?”
That the spiritual does exist, but by my views, that may be definitionally impossible or I could be wrong.
“Translation: it could be (insert unproven theory here).”
Synaesthesia does exist. Maybe it does not explain every aura. Maybe there is another natural explanation. Over the internet, I cannot take someone claiming to see an aura for medical testing to see if there is a natural explanation. At least, synaesthesia has been shown to exist whereas god has not.
“If I did provide evidence of souls departing the corpus at physical death, you already said you would be "not impressed" and define them as UFOs.”
I seem to have a higher standard of evidence for belief than you do, so I doubt that you will be able to persuade me. Still, I enjoyed our discussion.
“What would "evidence for God" look like, in your opinion?”
My thinking on this question is evolving, but here is what I have come up with.
Report excerpt on military psychological operations: “What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990? According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air. But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources . . . The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."”
Technology has improved since that Washington Post story was published in 1999. Holograms of increasingly large sizes can be created. The point is that something that appears out of this world, beyond explanation, clear cut proof of something, may be something else.
One atheist said “Many of the evidences proposed rely for their power on their unexplainability by natural mechanisms. There isn't much power there: the vast majority of the phenomena that exist are not completely explained by science. For instance, I don't understand every detail of Hox gene regulation (no one does), and I don't understand all of the nuclear reactions going on inside a star (maybe someone does), and pointing at an elegantly patterned embryo or at our Sun will get me to happily admit my ignorance, but my ignorance is not evidence for a god. Often when people try to convince me that I'm wrong on this, they add increasingly elaborate, detailed intricacies to an invented scenario, piling up improbabilities until they've got an event so wildly unlikely to be as close to impossible as possible, and then, aha, I'm expected to admit that if that happened, I'd have to be convinced that the extremely unlikely explanation of a deity must be the best explanation. But I'm not arguing from probabilities at all; personally, I'm ridiculously improbable, being the product of random recombinations of complex strands of DNA and a personal history full of accidents and coincidence, but I'm not god, nor do I think any other peculiar set of accidents amount to a god.”
However, a different skeptic said, “Suppose that you, P.Z., were present at the following events, and they were also witnessed by lots of other skeptical eyewitnesses and, importantly, documented on film: A bright light appears in the heavens and, supported by wingéd angels, a being clad in white robe and sandals descends onto the UMM quad from the sky, accompanied by a pack of apostles with the same names given in the Bible. Loud heavenly music is heard everywhere, with the blaring of trumps. The being, who describes himself as Jesus, puts his hand atop your head, P.Z., and suddenly your arms are turned into tentacles. As you flail about with your new appendages, Jesus asks, “Now do you believe in me?” Another touch on the head and the tentacles disappear and your arms return. Jesus and his pack then repair to the Mayo clinic and, also on film, heal a bunch of amputees (who remain permanently arméd and leggéd after Jesus’s departure). After a while Jesus and his minions, supported by angels, ascend back into the sky with another chorus of music. The heavens swiftly darken, there is thunder, and a single lightning bolt strikes P.Z.’s front yard. Then, just as suddenly, the heavens clear. Now you can say that this is just a big magic stunt, but there’s a lot of documentation—all those healed amputees, for instance. Even using Hume’s criterion, isn’t it more parsimonious to say that there’s a God (and a Christian one, given the presence of Jesus!) rather than to assert that it was all an elaborate, hard-to-fathom magic trick or the concatenation of many enigmatic natural forces? And your evidence-based conversion to God need not be permanent, either. Since scientific truth is provisional, why not this “scientific” truth about God as well? Why not say that, until we find evidence that what just happened was a natural phenomenon, or a gigantic ruse, we provisionally accept the presence of a God?”
An event like that would strongly incline me to belief, of course I would do some investigation before immediately believing.
However, what if one could go back in time and show people living in the 10th century iPods, modern computers, perform elaborate magic tricks, and do other things that those people did not understand. One could claim to be divine and be believed because what they are seeing cannot be explained with the current level of knowledge.
An atheist said, “Arthur C Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” What he did not say is that such technology actually is magic. What Clarke said has great power, as it implies that we are almost certainly unable to recognise magic, as we have no understanding of the limits of technology. And now we start to see the problem: with such ignorance, what evidence could there be that we are seeing the supernatural and not the unknown natural?”
The line between natural and supernatural are not clear, but if I saw that person partially turn into an octopus, I would strongly be inclined to belief.
“It doesnt require vast bodies of evidence to posit a theory, otherwise science could not advance.”
Vast is not defined and different science subfields have different types of evidence. Are ten fossils for a geologist equal to ten chemical tests for a chemist? I don’t know, but I think the point is there has to be more than a shred of evidence.
“think again. The existence of the Israeli state is just one of the successful predictions I have.”
BBC: War broke out in 1948 when Britain withdrew, the Jews declared the state of Israel and troops from neighbouring Arab nations moved in. After eight months of fighting an armistice line was agreed, establishing the West Bank and Gaza Strip as distinct geographical units.
If you predicted the founding of Israel, then you have to be at least 64 years old (2012 – 1948 = 64). An uncommon age for a mises forum user, but even if you are at least 64 years old, the founding of “the State of Israel in 1948 was preceded by more than 50 years of efforts to establish a sovereign state as a homeland for Jews. These efforts were initiated by Theodore Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, and were given added impetus by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which asserted the British Government's support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.” An atheist could have predicted the formation of Israel based on events as they occurred over time.
“You cant even explain existence.”
I can’t explain everything, but as my theory definition mentioned heliocentric theory, cell theory, and the theory of plate tectonics, much of earth has been explained. Not everything, but it’s more than god-did-it-mysteriously.
“because we havent moved past the stage of definitions.”
I have repeatedly defined spiritual and responded to your inquiry about what do I think is intangible. I also said, “I think you were right about redefining new stuff as natural and not spiritual. If you see something that you call a spirit, I may just call it an unidentified flying object.” We seem to have different definitions.
“I referred you to source material that you apparently havent bothered to read”
I didn’t find a free online copy of No One Here Gets Out Alive. Based on the evidence you use to justify your views, I doubt the sources used in Jim Morrison’s biography will persuade me.
“and I need a definition for "synaesthesia" before I can see if it allows for explanation and prediction of auras.”
Type it into google. You’ll find a Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
“when the big bang started with a singularity, and I posit a Being that can contain all of existence in His mind, I dont see how you can act like there is no scientific evidence.”
There is evidence for the Big Bang, not a Being that had it in “His mind”.
“I heard that aristotle proved that any spiritual (that is non-physical) thing had no parts.”
An unsupported anecdote does not persuade me.
“demonology is a subset of satanism, not theology . . . And that most certainly does tell you something about Catholics.”
Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience
That does include demons.
Samarami: <nonsensical assertions>
Who says the universe was created? Who says the laws must be given by someone? It's an invention by humans. We have a good word for a man who invents his own law and forces other people to follow them - dictator. So no argument here. God, in a judeo-christian tradition is a dictator, not a "all loving supreme being" which now is being asserted by the very same theists, who saw debunkings of the biblical psychotic God (again, if there is some christian or a jew who believes, that stoning, killing, demanding obedience from people is perfectly normal if it is done by God, then FUCK HIM, I don't want to be around such people. If one believes that the Bible with all attrocities described in it and commited by all loving God can be justified simply by "because he loved the world so much that he killed his own son" is a sign of major delusion)
But it is impossible to debate with a person who believes in new age "woo-woo" (life givers, magic, spirit, creations etc). They live in a different world with different language.
I have nothing against speculating what this "god" could be. But justifying violence (talking about the Bible here specifically)? How libertarian is that? It doesn't matter who commits murder, a man or a God. Murder is murder. You are no libertarian if you read and fully understood the Bible and accept, that what is described about God is justified. You are a phony.
P.S. so again, in general for all believers, better stop using all the appeals to the bible, or just don't pretend you are a libertarian.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
with such ignorance, what evidence could there be that we are seeing the supernatural and not the unknown natural?”
Based on the evidence you use to justify your views, I doubt the sources used in Jim Morrison’s biography will persuade me.
MaikU:But justifying violence (talking about the Bible here specifically)? How libertarian is that? It doesn't matter who commits murder, a man or a God. Murder is murder. You are no libertarian if you read and fully understood the Bible and accept, that what is described about God is justified. You are a phony.
“I did see that, but I figured that it would take more than a bare assertion with no support to persuade you of something. I especially wonder why you find boilerplate like that so persuasive.”
I found the explanation persuasive. You didn’t. End of discussion.
“ok, how am I supposed to prove to you that something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, or perceived exists?”
Good question, but I am done with this discussion after this post.
“What is your evidence for the existence of synaesthesia?”
Maybe in the links I provided, but I am not likely to convince you and you’re not likely to convince me. End of discussion.
“I also dont know what you mean by "god." if you like, I can establish the existence of God in a few easy steps.”
I am confident you are trolling me. In an earlier respond to you I said, “God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.” However, you allegedly don’t know what I mean by “god”. I think you’re a troll. End of discussion.
“You think evolution is supernatural?”
No. Changing one’s arm instantly to an octopus and back, as part of the story I cited, is not an example of evolution, but of divine decree. That should be obvious, but you’re probably trolling me. End of discussion.
“that is not the point and you know it.”
You’re psychic now? I won’t bother arguing with you any further.
“"shred" is just as undefined as "vast" and as I have pointed out, evidence is largely a matter of interpretation.”
Ok, but as I initially said vast was undefined. Your idea of sufficient evidence and the theory definition’s idea of sufficient evidence could be the same or not. End of discussion.
“And we are still fuzzy about definitions.”
No, I have repeatedly defined terms and explained how I could definitionally exclude the supernatural. You keep asking the same question as if I will give you a different answer. End of discussion.
“the creation of the state of Israel is just one of the many prophecies in the Bible that has been fulfilled. I personally did not predict it, the theory did.”
So what? A prediction that in unspecific future time a group of religious people will establish a religious state. Don’t see the divine. End of discussion.
“you have not defined spiritual sufficiently, since right now emotions and atomic particles are spirits.”
The dictionary definition I used was deficient, but your unknown spiritual definition classifies “emotions and atomic particles” as spirits. Those are both scientifically proven phenomena. I don’t consider them spiritual by my allegedly deficient definition. End of discussion.
“You said you liked music”
Listening to it, not reading about it. Someone said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. End of discussion.
“I would also like to know how you think that synaesthesia is tangible. Based on the definition you provided.”
Since the researchers cannot directly see, touch, smell, taste, or hear, including with assistance from scientific tools, synaesthesia can be defined as intangible. So can visual and auditory hallucinations. That doesn’t make any of them spiritual. End of discussion.
“The entire universe is evidence for the existence of God.”
The entire universe is evidence for the existence of [select your preferred deity]. End of discussion.
There is little likelihood that Malachi or I will persuade the other, so this discussion is no longer worth pursuing. Plus, since I believe Malachi is trolling me, I have less incentive to participate. I hope onlookers have enjoyed this debate. I don’t think there will be more debate in this thread except over minor points. I am curious if any non-debate viewers have been persuaded by an argument in this thread. If so, I request that they post what they found persuasive and not persuasive and that no one start an argument with a non-debate viewer because if he/she wanted to debate he/she would have posted. I want to know audience reaction without having an audience uninteresting in debating being challenged by those who have debated.
I am done. End of discussion. On to the low content thread for me.
“I heard that aristotle proved that any spiritual (that is non-physical) thing had no parts.” An unsupported anecdote does not persuade me.
Wasn't trying to persuade at all, I was merely pointing out a direction to find your answer.
Assuming you want an argument about the nature of the soul, then read some of aristotle's books in the Organon, or look up Thomas Aquinas's commentaries on the internet.