Questions to God. (2 Viewers)

[Isaac]

unny - I thought that to get approval for a new drug we do things like Randomised Clinical Trials - as we don't like to trust hearsay - the effectiveness and efficacy of new drugs are looked at in terms of measurements of physiology

Wrong. Not drugs having to do with how people feel - they're judged by how people feel. From pain to depression to attention deficit, the evidence is nothing more than what people say about how they feel. Your "randomised clinical trials" are based on information about what people said they felt.

 

[Isaac]

I have personally never witnessed any healing but Wes Huff's story is pretty compelling. It's his personal experience and that of the doctors that actually did verify the account. Wes Huff Story

They will go to endless lengths to discredit anything reported, because they can't afford to have any evidence exist - it would shake their paradigm of "it CAN'T be real" which is an answer begging a question

 

[Isaac]

You referred to Sam Wiggleworth where it is claimed to have raised someone (his wife) from the dead ... that is high quality rock-solid evidence - NOT. Were he and any onlookers primed

The sad thing is your blindness to the possibility of a spiritual world will impel you to discredit any numbers of witnesses.
There could be 1000 eyewitnesses to something (and have been), but you will say they are all crazy - which kind of makes this discussion a waste of time.

For the most part, you will not perceive the spiritual world with physical senses - that wouldn't make any sense.
So a lack of physical evidence is to be expected. It would be like trying to solve a math problem with psychology, then claiming math is nuts because none of your psychological solutions work on it

 

[The_Doc_Man]

They will go to endless lengths to discredit anything reported, because they can't afford to have any evidence exist - it would shake their paradigm of "it CAN'T be real" which is an answer begging a question

Au contraire, my friend. It is a matter of faith, but SOME of us put faith in what we can learn by observation because our faith is in our ability to perform experiments or test hypotheses. You have faith because some religiously related event resonates within you and gives you that moment of religious fervor, of something that triggers your emotions, of something you consider profound. We have faith as well, but faith in what we can see repeatedly, faith in tests that we can perform, faith in things that we can analyze through reason.

You should remember the statement, "Only through faith can you come to me."

My question to YOU is, is there only one kind of faith? What is evidence for you doesn't have to be evidence for me. Belief is a funny thing because it is so personal. What triggers belief in you might have absolutely no meaning for me. (We've discussed that many times.)

The question will always be whether you can present evidence - and so far, all of the evidence has been either anecdotal or unsupported. All of the miracles in the Bible were observed by people who didn't understand the idea of corroboration. But here is the kicker...

OK, let's say that at least SOME of these miracles actually happened. Why did the public miracles stop? It has been over 2000 years since we had public miracles. Did God give up on us, decide we were not worthy of seeing Him in action? Are we that bad that we are now to be left with uncorroborated descriptions of things that supposedly happened, things that if they WERE real would give people the chance to have the faith that would come of actually witnessing those events? Remember, Jesus refused to berate "Doubting Thomas." Are you doing what Jesus wouldn't do?

 

[GaP42]

Wrong. Not drugs having to do with how people feel - they're judged by how people feel. From pain to depression to attention deficit, the evidence is nothing more than what people say about how they feel. Your "randomised clinical trials" are based on information about what people said they felt.

I was going to say OMG but that would be wrong - it would seem you are prepared to accept without question hearsay as evidence in establishing the effectiveness and efficacy of a drug in testing - WOW! You do not need RCTs then. Why not skip the whole testing program and just take it by the bottle full. How people feel is reported - yes. An antidepressive drug for example, apart from earlier testing in animal models (rats etc) are checked to see if there are changes in say dopamine levels, and for side effects. Progress to RCTs involves having two cohorts - I hope you know this: the placebo group, and the test group (and must meet criteria that give sufficient numbers that differences in symptoms can be analysed using statistics (parametric analysis) to give a level of confidence about the difference being due to the treatment and not other confounding factors (eg ethnic background, diet, where they live etc) . Both report symptoms, both would be subject to blood test for eg to measure dopamine levels, both report side effects. In a rigorously conducted RCT the experimenters do not know who is in which group, those who analyse the data do not know who was given the drug and who was not - just that the belong to group A or B. So the results are produced : they do not report the individual participant results - they are categorised - from the survey: Please indicate on a scale of 1-10 your level of anxiety in the last 24 hours etc. How would you go about analysis? Of course we ask the question. We accept the response. The analysis is conducted so as to eliminate as best as we can hearsay: was the level of anxiety reported in both groups the same (or within the distribution of the normal range - established previously through standard sampling of a population(s). And then, if the drug was supposed to change the level of dopamine, perhaps we might want to see that in one group but not the other. But you say the evidence is "nothing more than what people say about how they feel" - haha
Are you so naive?

 

[GaP42]

They will go to endless lengths to discredit anything reported, because they can't afford to have any evidence exist - it would shake their paradigm of "it CAN'T be real" which is an answer begging a question

And there are those who will go to endless lengths to blindly believe the most extraordinary claims without evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Become a little sceptical and subject those beliefs to some rational assessment, or admit it is just faith - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GaP42]

Blindness to the possibility of a spiritual world:

I wonder what that means - we can all feel awe-inspired, feel tiny in the majestic panorama of the universe and its wonder, or connected to one another. We are built that way, but to extend it to some fantastic being - with no discernible impact on the reality of living in the physical world - is simply your (collective) imagination.

For the most part, you will not perceive the spiritual world with physical senses - that wouldn't make any sense. So a lack of physical evidence is to be expected.

And so there we have it - lets revert to the dark ages. The untestable: we can just as well believe in ghosts because well ... whereas on the other hand we can use an approach which has led us to developing all the technology and understanding of the world today. There is no evidence - just faith - admit it.

It would be like trying to solve a math problem with psychology, then claiming math is nuts because none of your psychological solutions work on it

And do your methods work? Chose the right tool - or don't be a tool. You do not seem capable of applying the logic of maths and reach wrong-headed conclusions. Your position/ logic "I believe, therefore it must be" rather than the logical "if this then that is a consequence - so test it: do we see that outcome when we do that?" If not - then perhaps the "this" - the presumptive hypothesis is wrong, and needs to be reassessed, or this does result in that - it is "true", and we can make progress.