251 replies to this topic

[Darkwind]

That whole idea of mans dominion over nature and animals not having a soul was   the main reason I dumped Christianity.

[third_eye]

Frank Merton, on 14 March 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

The idea that God created mankind separately "in his image" and breathed into him life (later read as giving him a soul) is what leads to this sort of absurdity -- that animals don't have souls and therefore aren't sentient.  Voltair's description of the public vivisection of a dog, the surgeon all the time saying that the animal doesn't feel pain, put this to proper ridicule.

There is a lot of mischief in Genesis, and perhaps this is one of the worst, along with the notion that we were given hegemony over the animals.  Yes, we do have a good deal of hegemony, but we were not given it, we have taken it.

stolen through treacherous means .... more like

[Mr Walker]

Sherapy, on 14 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Yes, we could use the same things to evidence angels if they had a physical reality, but they do not.

Your premise is based on an assumption (that angels have physical reality)-- that is the aspect that is false for me.


I am sorry that you find questioning and exploring your positions( or my positions) as an insult to your intelligence and rationality; this is not my intent. I see this as an opportunity to challenge my perspective, to refine my positions, to keep a growth mindset. In this situation where we have never spoken, I can see how easy it could be to misinterpret my intents. My intents are simply to look at your position and challenge the aspects of your argument that do not seem clear for me and vice versa and I must say you do get me thinking. This is not personal to you in any way. Please be assured there is no malice on my end. If there is anything I can do to frame my posts in a more neutral fashion, please let me know.

No i can understand your pov especially as stated in the first  sentence of this post taht is your belief statement "tha tangels do not have a physicla relaity" From experince i know tha tbelief staement is wrong but it is a rational one Just dont try and tell me that based on your belief i cannot KNOW that angels are real independent and ohysicla entities because you do not have the knowledge or expernce to validate that claim.
It just SEEMS when you speak from your belief position that you are  suggesting tha t i cannot know and thus must be deluded.

[Mr Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 14 March 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

If that is the case, then why can I not scientifically analyse an angel in the same way as I can analyse a chair or a wall or a dog?  I can use scientific techniques to study these things, their composition, anatomy, social organisation.  I can dissect the corpse of a dog or observe it's social interaction in a herd-mentality, I can take a carbon sample from a chair, I can take a scrape of mortar from a brick wall.  If, as you say, angels can "indeed be proven to be real using the same techniques" as we prove these things, then why can't I do it with angels?


If you were to take a plane trip to Sydney, you could visit me at my house, bring a microscope from your school and analyse a tissue sample of me.  You could interview me, examine my family lineage.  We could get an X-ray and I'm sure with Dr Brennan's (Bones) help you could decide that I am a Caucasian male in my early-mid 30's with Hypoplastic Sinuses.  You could conceivably do any other scientific test you wish to perform on me.

This is, of course, entirely hypothetical.  I know you aren't going to come to Sydney to analyse me, anymore than I'm going to go to WA to submit myself to analysis.  But the fact remains that if you were determined, you could do these things.  How can I go and study an angel?  The only way I can do that is to wait and hope that one presents itself to me as it has to you.  I can't find an angel colony to study, I can't go to an angel's house and take a tissue sample.  I can't interview one and ask about its experiences in the heavenly realm.  I can't X-ray one to find out its physiology.  No matter how much I want to do these things, I can only wait and hope I see one.

Surely you can see the difference in objectively proving I exist (or Sherapy, or whoever else you ask this question of) compared to proving an angel exists.  Contrary to assertion, you cannot use the same tools to analyse the existence of an angel as you can to analyse the existence of a person or a chair or a dog.

~ Regards,

You could/can analyse an angel, but first you have to catch it and get its permisson .

You most certainly can (as i do) use scientific method to examine the form and function of physical angels, just as you could a friend or a wife. But my wife wouldnt like you scraping bits off her or dissecting her when she isn't dead.

But, because when in physical manifestation angels are physical/material beings it might be possible to get a skin sample or a swab and do a dna test it would certianly be interesting. Next time i meet one i will ask them. The other possiblity is that they are holographic or transmitted forms of being, which might make it harder. ie they teleport in and out  of existence via a transmat beam.

The point here is that we do not need such samples to confirm existence, only to transfer evidence . so i dont need a skin sample to know my wife is real and i dont know how it could convince you she was real either, unless you watched me take it from her. They might help analyse structure and nature but existence is confirmed by touch sight etc Other wise the samples themsleves are as unreliable as a visual sighting because they also rely on our senses to interpret and validate them

Even going to sydney to meet you would require an element of faith on my part. For example you might subsitute your twin brother for your self or fake an ID, but in part you are correct . And if you were with me when an angel appeared, I kknow from past experience  that  you would hear it see it and be able to touch it and connect with it. As in my going to sydney, the most convincing proofs entail being there at the time.

My question was, how could sherapy prove conclusively to me from where she is, that she exists? It is as hard as me proving from where i am, to her, that an angel i encounter is real.

That is true for an alien being or a ghost,  also. BUT if you or she is with me when i encounter one, you will see, hear, and experience just what I do, and then you can decide for yourself. Angels are not beings, in my experience, that manifest within your mind, but physically, within the environment we all share. Otherwise they could well be products of delusion or hallucination.

Edited by Mr Walker, 15 March 2013 - 07:41 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Mr Walker, on 15 March 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

You could/can analyse an angel, but first you have to catch it and get its permisson .

You most certainly can (as i do) use scientific method to examine the form and function of physical angels, just as you could a friend or a wife. But my wife wouldnt like you scraping bits off her or dissecting her when she isn't dead.

But, because when in physicla manifestation angels are physical/material beings it might be possible to get a skin sample or a swab and do a dna test it would certianly be interesting. Next time i meet one i will ask them. The other possiblity is that they are holographic or transmitted forms of being, which might make it harder. ie they teleport in and out  of existence via a transmat beam.

Even going to sydney to meet you would require an element of faith onmy part. For example you might subsitute your twin brother for your self or fake an ID, but in part you are correct . And if you were with me when an angel appeared, I kknow from past experience  that  you would hear it see it and be able to touch it and connect with it. As in my going to sydney, the most convincing proofs entail being there at the time.

My question was, how could sherapy prove conclusively to me from where she is, that she exists? It is as hard as me proving from where i am, to her, that an angel i encounter is real.

That is true for an alien being or a ghost,  also. BUT if you or she is with me when i encounter one, you will see, hear, and experience just what I do, and then you can decide for yourself. Angels are not beings, in my experience, that manifest within your mind, but physically, within the environment we all share. Otherwise they could well be products of delusion or hallucination.

So personal experience qualifies as objective evidence.  That's new to me.

[Mr Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 15 March 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

So personal experience qualifies as objective evidence.  That's new to me.

Personal experience is the first, and best, and in many cases the only evidence available to an individual, and certainly it can be objective, otherwise none of us could ever be sure of the existence of anything.

Every form of scientific evidence is first; observed, discovered, and recorded, via some individual's personal experience. One person's experience has as much objective validity as one hundred individual person's experiences, because basically our minds and our senses are all the same. (with some notable differences)

Put a  large rock on a path and one person will walk around it. So will the next 100,or 1000, but it only needs  the first one, to confirm its existence. If youTHINK you have placed a rock on the path; in fact you are sure you have, but the first person walks straight through it, then you can ascertain that your rock only had subjective existence in your mind.

Edited by Mr Walker, 15 March 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[Frank Merton]

None of us can be sure of the existence of anything, and personal experience is perhaps one of the worst offenders, since we are so prone to self-delusion.

The way we build up reasonable confidence in things is if we share our experience with others and they confirm what we have experienced.  If I see a ghost and no one else sees anyting, I should doubt my eyes.  If others with me also see it, then we can confirm that something ghostly may be going on, but, of course, since my example here is so outre, we will need to be careful someone is not playing a trick on us or something like that.

Science is like that; well-respected scientists can report an observation and it will be accepted but still quickly checked by others.  The test of liklihood enters here -- the further "out there" an observation is -- the more unlikely it seems or the less it fits with established knowledge -- the more intense will be the scrutiny and the more aggressive will be the questions.  This is all as it should be.

Ah it has decided to rain; how nice.

[Mr Walker]

Frank Merton, on 15 March 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

None of us can be sure of the existence of anything, and personal experience is perhaps one of the worst offenders, since we are so prone to self-delusion.

The way we build up reasonable confidence in things is if we share our experience with others and they confirm what we have experienced.  If I see a ghost and no one else sees anyting, I should doubt my eyes.  If others with me also see it, then we can confirm that something ghostly may be going on, but, of course, since my example here is so outre, we will need to be careful someone is not playing a trick on us or something like that.

Science is like that; well-respected scientists can report an observation and it will be accepted but still quickly checked by others.  The test of liklihood enters here -- the further "out there" an observation is -- the more unlikely it seems or the less it fits with established knowledge -- the more intense will be the scrutiny and the more aggressive will be the questions.  This is all as it should be.

Ah it has decided to rain; how nice.

It must be terrible, and very difficult, to live so uncertain of your own senses and perceptions. Ii have no such doubts and my opinion is confirmed by academic works and by confirmationof tests and experiments onand by myself.

Humans are not "prone" to delusion at all Not every one is an accurate observer. That takes time, discipline, and training.  Humans tend to see and construct patterns and connections which may not exist as part of the way we evolved to see our environment but that identification of actual patterns and connections also serves us well.  Men have much better depth and movement perception. Women have better pattern recognition, abilty to see detail and diffeernce and much better close sight. Far fewer women are colour blind.

But delusion? No that is rare and moslty confined to people witha physical or mental illness or disability. The huge majority of people interconnect entirely accurately with the physical environment around them almost all the time. This is essential for our physicla survival.  It is true that if you can see a ghost and no one else around you can, you need to be careful, but as a colour blind person I can assure you that some people can see things I never wil be able to. And if many people can see a ghost there is no more reason to doubt its existence than if many people can see a cat. This may be that they all see it at the same time, or that many individuals see and experience the same thing over a long period of time in one location even though they do not know that others have encountered it..

  Outre has nothing to do with reality. Rarity, unusuality, etc does not either. If you are alone on a desert island and can see the fish well enough to spear, and the coconuts well enough to knock down and eat; then if you see something else more rare and unusual, like an angel or a ghost, you only need to apply the same reality checkers and logic to it as you do to everything else.
I once saw a 2 metre long goanna in our back yard, where none were suposed to existand none had been seen for a century or more.

Applying reality checkers and logic I alone ws easily able to determined  its reality despite my disbelief. Later i found out that a number of goannas had quietly been released in our location to see if they would breed and spread.  At the time, it was as big an unlikelihood and suprise, as seeing a ghost or an angel in our yard.

It is actually highly unlikely that  if you are interacting perfectly well with normal reality  you will suddenly see something which does not exist. However, hallucination and delusion have physical and psychological causations, and if you had been alone for a long time on that island you might notice that you were losing touch with reality in many ways. I once spent 3 months entirely alone on an island, and it never caused me any problems or difficulties, because I am very self sufficient,  but everyone is different. Some people have difficulty being alone with them selves.

[Frank Merton]

Well as far as I can make out you make no end of assertions that fly in the face of reality, so we are just going to have to disagree.

[Paranoid Android]

Mr Walker, on 15 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Personal experience is the first, and best, and in many cases the only evidence available to an individual, and certainly it can be objective, otherwise none of us could ever be sure of the existence of anything.

Every form of scientific evidence is first; observed, discovered, and recorded, via some individual's personal experience. One person's experience has as much objective validity as one hundred individual person's experiences, because basically our minds and our senses are all the same. (with some notable differences)

Put a  large rock on a path and one person will walk around it. So will the next 100,or 1000, but it only needs  the first one, to confirm its existence. If youTHINK you have placed a rock on the path; in fact you are sure you have, but the first person walks straight through it, then you can ascertain that your rock only had subjective existence in your mind.

I must disagree.  Personal experience is NEVER an applicable evidence in support of objective truth.  Experiences are always filtered through our past.  We may experience "something" (and I have at no time suggested that your experiences are wrong or false/lying) but it is just an experience.  Anecdotal evidence.  Going back a few pages you brought up the concept of a rose and suggested the statement "a rose is a flower" is an objective statement.  I argue, NO, it is not an objective statement.  It is an hypothesis.  "A rose is a flower" is a hypothesis, and using that hypothesis we can then use the available data (the scientific study of roses) to determine that this hypothesis is well-founded.

Anyone can do this study.  ANYONE.  If I wished, I could go to a laboratory, examine a rose using scientific means, and validate the hypothesis that a rose is a flower, on account of it holding the same characteristics as other flora we have observed to be "flowers".  Not everyone can validate the existence of angels.  No matter how much I WANT to do this, I have not the means.  All I have is anecdotal evidence, which is not scientific.

Does this mean angels don't exist?  No, not at all.  I have never argued otherwise.  But because I can't corroborate it using independent sources, all I have is your word.  Angels may be real.  Heck, I believe they ARE real.  But since I cannot independently study an angel in a laboratory it is not objective.

*sigh*  I'm sorry, I bowed out of this debate several pages ago.  I should have stuck to that, because I already know how you will respond (you've responded the same way for as long as I've known you).  It is completely useless in discussing further.  You "know" angels exist.  I don't doubt that.  I accept your experiences.  But I don't accept them as "objective" for the sole reason that I cannot corroborate them.  If you said "I saw a woman walking her dog", I could not accept it as objective evidence either, because all I have is your word.  Sure, we know that dogs exist, and we know that women exist, and we know that women walk dogs (as do men, but that's aside the point for this analogy).  I know all these elements exist, but can I objectively prove that you saw a woman walking a dog?  Only with proof (photographic/video evidence).  Certainly not with your say-so.

With angels, you saw something.  I don't doubt it.  But I can't prove it independently.  Unless I can prove it independently it is not objective.  If you were on a deserted island and experienced a dancing hyena, and then told me about it, I can't objectively prove it.  Even if the island is full of dancing hyena's, all I can surmise is that dancing hyena's exist, and it's possible/probable you therefore saw one.  But I cannot ever objectively prove it unless there is evidence of that, certainly not with your anecdotal evidence.

Do angels exist?  I certainly believe they do!  I haven't experienced one - my father did, but that is a different matter.  I therefore cannot objectively prove my belief.  Even if I had my father's experience, I couldn't objectively prove it.  I could share my experience and say how obvious it was that it happened, but it will never be objective.  Experiences are never objective.  The facts surrounding an experience may be objective, which is something that anyone and everyone should be able to analyse.  The woman walking her dog, for example.  We can never objectively agree that you saw a woman walking her dog.  But we can objectively agree that women exist, and dogs exist, and women walk dogs. Unfortunately for you, we cannot objectively determine that angels exist.

I apologise, I'm ranting here, I really intended this to be only a paragraph or two long.  I'll end my commentary here.  I know you won't agree, but I'm still going to post it.  *I really should have stayed out of it after bowing out a few pages back, lol*

[third_eye]

The 'Reality' or 'our' Reality

'Our' as in mine? or yours ? 'Here' is where I am or is 'that' here where you are now ?

We have common reality and collective reality, if we want to include 'god' or 'gods' it is entirely up to us, I, you, he, she ... anyone

It adds to the pot, that make us all what 'we', all of us, are

Edited by third_eye, 15 March 2013 - 06:28 PM.

[Mr Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 15 March 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I must disagree.  Personal experience is NEVER an applicable evidence in support of objective truth.  Experiences are always filtered through our past.  We may experience "something" (and I have at no time suggested that your experiences are wrong or false/lying) but it is just an experience.  Anecdotal evidence.  Going back a few pages you brought up the concept of a rose and suggested the statement "a rose is a flower" is an objective statement.  I argue, NO, it is not an objective statement.  It is an hypothesis.  "A rose is a flower" is a hypothesis, and using that hypothesis we can then use the available data (the scientific study of roses) to determine that this hypothesis is well-founded.

Anyone can do this study.  ANYONE.  If I wished, I could go to a laboratory, examine a rose using scientific means, and validate the hypothesis that a rose is a flower, on account of it holding the same characteristics as other flora we have observed to be "flowers".  Not everyone can validate the existence of angels.  No matter how much I WANT to do this, I have not the means.  All I have is anecdotal evidence, which is not scientific.

Does this mean angels don't exist?  No, not at all.  I have never argued otherwise.  But because I can't corroborate it using independent sources, all I have is your word.  Angels may be real.  Heck, I believe they ARE real.  But since I cannot independently study an angel in a laboratory it is not objective.

*sigh*  I'm sorry, I bowed out of this debate several pages ago.  I should have stuck to that, because I already know how you will respond (you've responded the same way for as long as I've known you).  It is completely useless in discussing further.  You "know" angels exist.  I don't doubt that.  I accept your experiences.  But I don't accept them as "objective" for the sole reason that I cannot corroborate them.  If you said "I saw a woman walking her dog", I could not accept it as objective evidence either, because all I have is your word.  Sure, we know that dogs exist, and we know that women exist, and we know that women walk dogs (as do men, but that's aside the point for this analogy).  I know all these elements exist, but can I objectively prove that you saw a woman walking a dog?  Only with proof (photographic/video evidence).  Certainly not with your say-so.

With angels, you saw something.  I don't doubt it.  But I can't prove it independently.  Unless I can prove it independently it is not objective.  If you were on a deserted island and experienced a dancing hyena, and then told me about it, I can't objectively prove it.  Even if the island is full of dancing hyena's, all I can surmise is that dancing hyena's exist, and it's possible/probable you therefore saw one.  But I cannot ever objectively prove it unless there is evidence of that, certainly not with your anecdotal evidence.

Do angels exist?  I certainly believe they do!  I haven't experienced one - my father did, but that is a different matter.  I therefore cannot objectively prove my belief.  Even if I had my father's experience, I couldn't objectively prove it.  I could share my experience and say how obvious it was that it happened, but it will never be objective.  Experiences are never objective.  The facts surrounding an experience may be objective, which is something that anyone and everyone should be able to analyse.  The woman walking her dog, for example.  We can never objectively agree that you saw a woman walking her dog.  But we can objectively agree that women exist, and dogs exist, and women walk dogs. Unfortunately for you, we cannot objectively determine that angels exist.

I apologise, I'm ranting here, I really intended this to be only a paragraph or two long.  I'll end my commentary here.  I know you won't agree, but I'm still going to post it.  *I really should have stayed out of it after bowing out a few pages back, lol*

Na! That's ok. I understand and respect your POV.

However it is a philosophical one with which i do not agree.

  Everything that is real and solid has objective existence, based on the definition of objective as pertaining to the qualities of an object. Subjective things are dependent on the percetion and experiences etc, of the subject observing  objective entities. The physical qualities which determine a rose's existence are not determined, or alterable, by subjective opinion . They exist objectively.

However, the perceived qualities of that rose are subjective eg beauty. You cannot objectively measure beauty in a laboratory, or anywhere else, because it has no objective qualities to measure; it exists purely as a subjective construct of the human mind. The rose itself does not. It would still be growing there, with exactly the same objective qualities and properties, if every human being dropped dead. However its subjective qualities, which are held in the mind of a sapient subject, would cease to exist at that moment. NAmes are a liitle more tricky. Is "rose" or "angel" an objective or subjective term I would argue objective It is simply the name humans attach to a object. It is difficult for someone to argue tha t a rose is not a rose, when it clearly is.

Edited by Mr Walker, 15 March 2013 - 10:28 PM.

[Mr Walker]

third_eye, on 15 March 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

The 'Reality' or 'our' Reality

'Our' as in mine? or yours ? 'Here' is where I am or is 'that' here where you are now ?

We have common reality and collective reality, if we want to include 'god' or 'gods' it is entirely up to us, I, you, he, she ... anyone

It adds to the pot, that make us all what 'we', all of us, are

IMO internal realities, while a lot of fun, are not real. Reality is what has physical and objective indpendent existence and would be there if we were not. Ie is entirely extraneous to our mind and senses. So, many people include gods in their reality, via imagination or faith, and that works well for them. I am speaking of entities as physical and objectively existent as you or I, which occupy the common reality of us all, but just in a slightly different state.

[Sherapy]

Mr Walker, on 15 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

No i can understand your pov especially as stated in the first  sentence of this post taht is your belief statement "tha tangels do not have a physicla relaity" From experince i know tha tbelief staement is wrong but it is a rational one Just dont try and tell me that based on your belief i cannot KNOW that angels are real independent and ohysicla entities because you do not have the knowledge or expernce to validate that claim.
It just SEEMS when you speak from your belief position that you are  suggesting tha t i cannot know and thus must be deluded.

MW, I am speaking only of your claim that angels are real objectively and therefore have a physical reality.

This is not possible based on how we assess for certainty in science.

Now adays with what we know about the brain it is taught in High School that perception is not a reliable purveyor of truth.

I think it is very possible to have subjective experiences that include angels and not be delusional. You believe in angels, you had an experience that you have interpreted as an angel.


It's not a big deal MW, and  you are not delusional because you believe in angels, not to me.. People believe all kinds of things, they believe in g-ds, they believe in spirit guides, fairies, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, karma, nirvana, heaven, spirit  prison.etc etc. I say if you want to believe in angels go ahead, good for you.

Edited by Sherapy, 15 March 2013 - 10:31 PM.

[Frank Merton]

I suppose angels could be physical entitities if they are made of some sort of strange stuff will properties unknown to science.  Traditionally we speak of "physical" things and "spiritual" things, and think of the two as qualitatively different.