designing a convincing prayer experiment

Stephen writes: I assume you are talking about Kekule but just as an fyi, in was NOT an insurmountable problem and their were other scientists hot on the trail for the stucture of the benzene ring. In fact, four years before Kekule's proposal their was an Austrian Chemist-physicist Johann Loschmidt who drew a ring structure for benzene.(edit: Since Chemistry is one of my passions I thought I might add a little more. Perhaps unecessary though highly interesting) In fact Kekule was not entirely correct in his drawing of the benzene ring. He did not account for resonance stabilization and that there are actually TWO kekule forms that are appropriate. Differing in the distribution of their electrons in the p-orbitals but not their atoms.Saying that such and such a problem is insoluble gives little credit to the creativity of human beings. It's a little like saying "Goddidit and lets be done with it". Where is the value in that?[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 01-28-2004]

quote:

---

but because they choose not to believe.

---

Tell me how it is that you can simply choose what you believe in.If you were raised your entire life eating apples. Everyone in your life told you that you were eating apples. You believed this to be true that these were apples, because that is how you were raised. However, your whole life you were actually eating oranges and everyone was playing a nasty trick on you. Well one day, I told you that you were eating an orange not an apple. Would you believe it was an orange? Your mind will tell you "NO. this is an apple! This guy is a nut case!" You can not CHOOSE to believe in something! Your mind makes this up for you!Time and Time again I hear this "You have to choose to believe." Tell me, do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? If not, how come and is it by choice?

Re: Message #60Stephen: "I'm helping others walk the trail that has got me in such (interesting) trouble. And, every post, every reply, I learn something."Do I detect a taint of the old suffering servant syndrome here, Stephen? Are we gonna have to watch while you bear your cross, trudging along in Bro. Buz's well worn path?Please tell me it's not so, and you're gonna nip it in the bud. I pray you do.Peace.

You're confusing the source of inspiration with evidence. A scientist was able to interpret his data because of a dream, but we don't accept benzene rings because of the dream, but because of the evidence. For the Bible to be scientific it must be falsifiable. Are you willing to leave the Bible open to disproof?--Percy

Abshalom,You wonder, Well, you don't have to watch. The problem is, these sorts of things are predicted from Orthodox Theology, and failure for them to occur refutes the idea that there are demons. That is, if I meddle with Satan's stuff (most of you, by OT), I must "fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Yeshua." "Be persecuted for righteousness sake." etc. It's a disciple's job to suffer with his master. It's how you get treasure in heaven, "like the prophets who went before you."Of course, I'm supposed to be leaping for joy in the midst of it all, usually the case. "Sacrifice of praise." The "for" in leaping for joy, means "to get." not "because of." How do I effectively communicate that to you?But, I am having fun! Sparring intellectually is great training. I get to read the passages in John where Yeshua argues with the Pharisees, and say to my Lord, "Yeah, that's how they attacked me, too! They never change, do they!"I appreciate, by the way, you get the twinkle in your eye across in these posts. Pray I can do that!Stephen

P.We are actually in agreement in principle, just mis-understanding one another. We agree that subjective stuff is never evidence for a theory. We agree that it may help us interpret objective data that can be evidence for a theory. I thought that that's what I've been saying all along. It certainly is what I wanted to communicate. Maybe demons have been confusing the transmission.Of course the Bible is falsifiable. It says so about itself, Malachi 3:8-12. And actually, in lots of other places, where it says that if you seek the Lord with all your might, you will find Him. Unless you are looking for Him to try to kill Him or put Him down. Not that studies trying to falsify the Bible will be any less controversial than other studies, or take less long to be integrated into the ongoing paradigms.That's why I'm more interested in methodology and outside referees to debates. People who are not willing to submit to data ("Well, that data is flawed." or referees "He's blind!") just don't get to play the game. They are disqualified on technical fouls.Stephen

Dblevins,An excellent correction, which I fully acknowledge. Change "insoluable" to "intractable." In any case, the dream helped Kekule form an hypothesis that the data fully supported.You also ask, None that I can see. I do like, "Goddidit, and I'm impressed. Now, God, how did you do that?" He has never answered me directly on that, taking the question much like my Dad did when I would ask him where he hid the easter eggs. He taught me how to search, and let me know he was having a good time watching me figure it all out. Trying to read his mind.Stephen

quote:

---

That is, if I meddle with Satan's stuff (most of you, by OT), I must "fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Yeshua." "Be persecuted for righteousness sake." etc. It's a disciple's job to suffer with his master. It's how you get treasure in heaven, "like the prophets who went before you."

---

Just like evolutionists suffer the wrath of fundamentalist christians? So then we must be righteous because we suffer persecution?Also, I really don't think that anyone, creo or evo, is really "suffering" because of comments here on EvC. Perhaps intellectual sparring is the correct verbage, but I don't see anyone in chains. At least not yet, MUUUHAHAHAHAHA (evil evolutionist laugh).

Maybe it has. Your theory is that demons exist. When asked for evidence supporting your theory, you provided only subjective evidence in the form of annecdotal stories, one personal and the rest from the Bible. If this is an example of your approach to developing theory, then it is severely flawed because of it's reliance upon subjective experience. Well, the actual issue is whether the Bible can be considered a scientific resource, which means that not only must it be falsifiable, but its experiments must be replicable. In other words, we must be able to repeat the experiments that produced the evidence of demons in the Bible. You're going to have to expound on this a lot more, because the Bible is full of anecdotal stories, not descriptions of experiments.You *do* realize, I hope, that many stories in the Bible have already been falsified, for example chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, and the Noachic flood, at least in any global sense.--Percy

Evolutioner,You ask, Here is how I do it. First, I set out my choices. In the present forum, it is to be a creationist, an evolutionist, or a truthist. Associated with each choice are a set of rules that one must abide by. It's like choosing to play bridge or poker. Both creationists and evolutionist play a game with the rule that any data that contradict their point of view must be explained away. Philosophically, this is always possible, so the game can be played. The goal of the game is to cleverly preserve contemporary paradigms.Truthists play by a set or rules that allow, and ultimately force, a change of paradigm. Their rules, including protocols called the scientific method, force them to continually look for and set up experiments or observations that produce data which, if found, force a revision of their thinking, or beliefs. Another rule with truthists is, "anything is possible, and nothing is certain." So, be ready to believe any idea that comes up, or not believe in any idea that is currently popular. They see the point in love believes all things.So, you see, I can choose to believe in evolution, in which case I develope my skills at ad hoc dismissals of data that supports the idea that a Creator created everything (Bible Code data, prayer studies, and so on).Or, I can choose to believe in creation, and work at finding flaws in evolutionary arguments and data and workers.Or, I can choose to believe in truth, and work at finding ideas that successfully predict the outcome of experiments and studies. In this latter case, I may end up believing in either evolution or creation or, as is usually the case, some mix of the two. Since love believes all things, I cannot be a truthist if I choose to not believe in anything.Practically, we "talk ourselves into" whatever choice we make. The psychologists helping people change have found that the tongue tells the brain how to function or be, more than the brain tells the tongue what to say. You will find that saying out loud, "I choose...." where you insert what you do choose amoung the choices set before you, has incredible power in making your mind change. "I choose life." is a good beginning, if you can separate the meaning from the anti-abortion agenda. An awful lot of people are self-destructive, choosing death, and a belief system that they know will kill them, or at least take them out of the life-game. Nobody chooses to be a truthist unless they want to live abundantly and free, because that's what the truth gets you.Stephen

quote:

---

I may end up believing in either evolution or creation

---

You are coming to a conclusion based on everything you have read. The reason you believe is not based by choice, but rather a reaction you have based on your life experiences and choices. You can be brainwashed into believing anything. It doesn't mean that you chose to believe. You can TRY and talk yourself into believing in something, and yes, I agree that you can influence your beliefs to some extent, but it doesn't mean you can simply choose what you believe in.In my case, I would love to believe in certain things, but my mind tells me this CAN'T be possible. Hence, I don't believe.Beliefs are feelings, and your are not in FULL control of your feelings. I have always been told to love GOD. So do I just choose to love him? I can say "I love God"...But that doesn't mean I love him. Do you choose who you love?If a person you love suddenly died, can you choose how to feel?

L.You comment, The set of "all those who desire to walk righteously in Christ Yeshua" is entirely within the set of those who are persecuted, but the set of the persecuted contains others as well. To be declared righteous you have to "know God" (i.e. hear His voice) and keep His commandments.Evo's suffer at the hands of creo's, and vice versa, because Jehovah chooses to see His enemies fighting and gnawing at each other.S.

P.You curiously say, again, ignoring my repeated statements that prayer studies that use anti-demonic prayers, such as are prayed by Christians praying the Lord's prayer, as well as Bible Code studies, Theomatics, and studies by those testing the orthodox theology hypothesis on NDEs, all confirm the idea that demons exist, because the existence of demons is a major part of the OT hypothesis. Because of this confirmation, they are evidence for the existence of demons, and make that idea more plausible.All of which confirms one of Yeshua's predictions about certain people, that "hearing, they do not hear, and seeing, they do not see." Frankly, your responses to me, as a fellow member of the species Homo sapiens, are remarkable evidence that demons exist. It is most implausible that I could put something before any simply natural human's eyes so many times and yet they persist in denying that it is there. Unless some mental pathogen simply erases it, snatches it away, before they, you, can let it register.A true scientist would do the experiment I suggested, to replicate the prayer studies, praying agnostically, experimentally, for Jehovah to get the devil out of the picture, to see if they could actually hang on to the ideas being set before them.As to the falsification of the Bible, it declares of itself that the "tests" you refer to prove nothing. An alternative hypothesis about the Bible, that it is literally true in every statement has been disproven, but the Bible declares of itself that that is not true. "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter." Prophecy is "dark sayings." As written, every test of the scriptures that I know of have been confirmed when tested.Note that, if a thief comes into your house, and asks you if you have any gold stashed anywhere, you are apt to lie and say no, with a completely clear conscience. Since everyone who does not tithe is, according to God, a thief, He has no responsibility to tell or reveal the truth to them. Hence, He insists that your first effort to experimentally confirm Him and His scriptures begins with this experiment. Saves Him the trouble of having to deal with those who don't really want to know.S.

Evolutioner,You say, But other people's minds tell them it must be true. So, you have to choose whose mind to believe. Even more, it is widely believed that there is a Person, Jehovah, with a mind that is never wrong, unlike the human minds all around or in us. Jehovah's mind, according to scripture, a widely and wildly popular reference, is available to anyone who wants to seek Him out and ask Him anything. So, there's an even more interesting, potentially useful, choice. Seek out Jehovah, get His mind, and believe that over what your own mind says.My choice to be a truthist was a choice to change my own mind as much as possible. First, chose life. Then truth. Then love.So, when you ask, The answer is yes. I once let "cupid" control my love-life, but learned that I could control my feelings completely by making certain choices. I don't say, "I love God." though, because too often, that's not true. I say, "I choose to love God. Therefore, I ask God, or any greater power actually, that is all about love and truth, to give me what I choose, to make me love Him/You." When I am agnostic, often my condition, that's all I can do, until the prayer is answered.This also works very well for loving people. My first marriage was ending is a loveless condition, when I was advised that love by choice could be restored. I followed the, for me agnostic, prayer instructions, got cupid out of the picture (he was making me love worthless women), and watched in amazement as I "fell" back in love with my wife, and her with me. Got another 7 good years out of that marriage! As much as could be gotten, given the choices my wife was making.There's a book out, called "Love is a choice." Profitable reading. Making choices, exercising the will until it is strong, learning how to use the theories of evolution and creation, to take baby steps to create whatever beliefs, love, feelings, powers you might choose to have, ah now, that's abundant life!Stephen

Hi Stephen,This is also a reply to your Message 153 in the History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology thread. I'm trying to centralize discussion on this topic into a fewer number of threads, perhaps eventually just one.So, quoting from that other message: And yet a mere 6 hours earlier in your above post you wrote: One may express the same thought with many different words, and you and I have said the same thing. You're quibbling about non-existent word distinctions to deflect attention from the inherent contradictions in your position. Since you prefer the term "confirmed", I can accurately say you believe the hypothesis that demons exist has been confirmed by prayer studies and the Bible. There is nothing scientific about this position, and it doesn't follow HD.Your arguments tend to have at least one flaw. Here I enumerate your arguments and identify the flaws:

1. Confirmed prayer studies imply demons
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been established for demons as the instruments of the positive results, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid deductive connection.
   ​
2. The prayer studies used anti-demonic prayers.
   ​
   Flaw: Error of fact. None of the prayer studies cited here have described what prayers were used.
   ​
3. The Lord's prayer is an anti-demonic prayer.
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been established for the effectiveness of different prayers for various purposes, including getting rid of demons, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
4. Demons exist.
   ​
   Flaw: Circular reasoning. Many of your claims, like those above, assume the existence of demons before you've produced any evidence supporting their existence.
   ​
5. Bible code studies confirm the validity of the Bible.
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection between word patterns in texts and the text's validity has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
6. Bible code studies are valid.
   ​
   Flaw: Error of fact. Bible code studies have been demonstrated to be worthless. There are many debunking sites on the web (eg, Bible Codes Refutation).
   ​
7. NDEs (Near Death Experiences) confirm the validity of the Bible
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
8. NDEs have been subjected to studies testing the "orthodox theology hypothesis" (a term apparently of your own invention - a Google search brings up only a single result, a post by you here at EvC Forum)
   ​
   Flaw: Error of fact. No scientifically valid studies of this nature have been conducted.
   ​
9. Theomatics confirms the validity of the Bible.
   ​
   Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
   ​
10. The Bible confirms itself (specifically, you say, "As to the falsification of the Bible, it declares of itself that the 'tests' you refer to prove nothing.")
    ​
    Flaw: Circular reasoning. The Bible's declarations about its own qualities, such as that it contains the Word of God, are not valid evidence that it actually possesses those qualities. You need independent and scientifically valid confirmation.
    ​
11. The Bible is never wrong because it says it can be wrong (specifically, you say, "An alternative hypothesis about the Bible, that it is literally true in every statement has been disproven, but the Bible declares of itself that that is not true. 'It's the glory of God to conceal a matter.' Prophecy is 'dark sayings.' As written, every test of the scriptures that I know of have been confirmed when tested."
    ​
    Flaw: Non sequitur. You're in essence saying that the Bible is right even when it's wrong.
    ​
12. There is a scientific controversy concerning demons (switching now to Message 153 in the History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology thread).
    ​
    Flaw: Error of fact. There is no evidence of this controversy in any scientific literature.
    ​
13. Scientists have been wrong in the past, and this is evidence that they are wrong about demons.
    ​
    Flaw: Error of fact *and* leap of logic. First, scientists have taken no position on the existence or non-existence of demons because there is no evidence for the phenomena. Second, even if scientists *had* taken a position that there is no such thing as demons, the likelihood that they are wrong is a function of the evidence and not of past episodes of scientific error.

You're inability to make correct statements or reason logically is why we know you're no scientist. While demons may be the cause of your disability, there is no evidence of demons, and it's much more likely that you're just another impassioned Christian blinded by overzealous faith.--Percy