Post Reference 1Nightlion,
Just to reinforce marg’s question: “How do you demonstrate souls and a God objectively?
Nightlion stated:
I can easily demonstrate all my claims objectively. Let’s see you do this in light of marg’s challenge in the above cited post.
Post Reference 2Nightlion stated:
I can easily demonstrate all my claims objectively. Like any sophisticated science, the objectifying is in the pudding. You have to work the science to prove the results. In other words. I would need others interested in proving my objective values to be willing to submit to the discipline required to work the process.....Faith to begin with, and that would only be the beginning. “Easily demonstrate” and “like any sophisticate science” are irreconcilable. An
easy demonstration is hardly
“any sophisticate science.”It is certainly correct that
science requires “work” to establish reliable conclusion. And as that
reliable conclusion is established, it so done with objective observation, skeptical review, and considerable challenge. When that polio vaccine was first announced (which I mentioned in another post), it was viewed with great skepticism. Only with hundreds and thousands of examples in which the vaccine was used was the
proof of its reliability established. The skeptical review was global and universal. It was not done by a few
believers. The “objective” in this case was to discover if there was reliability in the vaccine.
What is the
skeptical review and
what is the wide sample of reviewers in your contention. If “others” are merely “interested in proving” your position (values), that is hardly skeptical review nor is it objective analysis.
What is the “discipline” here? How is the “discipline” measured? Who does the measuring of that “discipline”?
I address your words and your claims here with question. “Faith” is a mercurial term of reference. It means about anything one who uses the term wants it to mean. Hence, “faith” is both
unreliable and irrelevant if we are looking for
objectivity.
Just what do you mean by:
“willing to submit to the discipline required to work the process...... ?Aren’t you really talking about
submitting to a religious dogma prescribed to produce cutter-cookie mindset? You use “faith” as a singular. Other than
belief, what do you mean by the term? If “others” all submit to the same “belief” or
beliefs, you have no “objective values” as you characterize above.
Can you resolve these ambiguities?
Nightlion stated:
Not the faith of countless failed and phony religions. Faith that can bring forth an objective product. How are “failed and phony religions” going to be
objectively determined? You have demonstrated no mechanism by which “faith” in the context of your usage can “bring forth an objective product.”
That is essential if you intend to make any case here.
Nightlion stated:
Do you think it unfair that I require a competence equal to the merits of the discovery, even that of a living and true God? (Understanding that this question was for marg) How do you propose to
measure “competence”? What’s the criteria for it?
The latter appears a sound bite. What’s the difference between a “living and true God” and a
dead and true God?
How do you distinguish between a “living” and
false God?
What’s the
criteria for
God? How is that criteria assessed and by whom is it assessed?
I do not think you have the slightest idea how to address questions such as these, Nightlion. If you do, please articulate in unambiguous detail.
Nightlion stated:
Should it be allowed for gawkers and deniers to observe and validate objective results absent of the earnest of the applied science of spiritual discovery? You advocate
exclusion. The pejorative, slanted language “gawkers and deniers” is also ambiguous. In your discussion with me, you don’t even allow straight forward questions. At least you don’t respond to them.
Are questions acceptable? It appears they are not. So just what people will you include to “…validate objective results…”?
If they must all be
believers in the faith at the start, they are hardly
objective in any sense. They are
yes, yes, Amen people who question nothing. It seems phony to suggest an idea of “objective results” in your context above while denying
objective questions relevant to the
claims made.
Nightlion stated:
If my religion was cranking out saint after saint after saint, the validity of my religion would skyrocket. I admit the weakness of religion in general is also this lack of product. Actually, the version of
Christianity, Roman Catholicism, which has many
saints, has the largest claim to membership of any Christian denomination. It is
the world’s largest Christian church. We have the American Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Orthodox Church, the Vatican Archives which remain a closely guarded secret of
the Vatican. In fact, there is likely no figure available to be found that tallies the
strength financially of this religious denomination.
Of course, what you mean by “weakness of religion” is left to the guesswork of a reader here. But one could hardly characterize the Roman Catholic Church globally as
weak. Your “religion” is 2,000 years behind the curve in the evolution of “cranking out saint after saint after saint” as you put it.
Nightlion stated:
I admit the weakness of religion in general is also this lack of product. Interesting phraseology! “The weakness of religion…” as if there were
one. There are multiple
weaknesses of religion.
A great weakness of religion is the fact that the various religious groups
compete for power and control. In that competition, they have
doctrinal disagreements which make them all subject to skepticism. Than cannot
ALL be right. Since nearly all have evolved over some time with various interpretations and splinter groups, it’s an unlikely conclusion that any is
right or
correct or
reliable.
Historically, a principle weakness is that members of certain religious groups have gone about to kill members of
other religious groups in an effort to be dominate. That competition, perhaps diminished from more primitive religious times, is still very much in play. People
convert from one religious group to another for a variety of reasons.
Nightlion stated:
All you got to objectify my claims right now is me. I have not lived forty years of a spiritually productive life with nothing to show for it. You do not understand (as demonstrated by this statement) the meaning of
objectivity. As an individual you, alone, are subjective and reflect subjective perception about most anything we could consider. Each of us alone is subjective in our perceptions as well as our knowledge compared with the collective knowledge possessed by the comprehensive academic
world view of all the information accumulated. Much of it is recorded in more recent time and since the invention of the printing press which allows for accurate replication of volumes
(Gutenberg 1440 AD).
Prior to the improvements of that earliest printing press, everything written was copied
by hand one character at a time. The reliability of that no matter how well attempted, never had the accuracy of mass printing which we have today. So
subjectivity was inherent in the copying of everything that was transferred in that way.
As for “forty years,” well
Human Evolution which predates the evolution of cultures with language dates back some time. From this link: “The term ‘human’ in the context of human evolution refers to the genus
Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus
Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.”
As for a time frame of reference, you might scroll down from
Homo sapiens at this website to get a greater handle on the timeline for the evolution of our species. The evolution of communication devices including but not limited to language came along in the relatively recent past as you see the length of time for Homo sapiens in the chart below.
The data is generally information consensus which no religion appears to addresses adequately.
JAK