when we ask for evidence . . . outside the bible.

[kla2]

A point well made in the 'locked' discussion is 'what bible'. Considering the scriptural discoveries made only last century one might reasonably ask or even assume that religion as we know it from history and tradition has been running on half a deck for all of it's existence. No wonder it has such falling credibility in the modern world. But to presume that the direct evidence barrier cannot be overcome, is of course the same presumption that the whole of scholastic theology and religion is founded upon. One can ask what would a religious conception look like that could break that barrier and fit the model of scrutiny we have come to associate with science? In a development that may leave 2000 years of religion staring into the abyss and have secularlists scratching more than their heads, we may be about to find out! For what science and religion thought impossible has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith.

 

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Using both canonical, non canonical texts. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence.

 

Thus 'faith' becomes the path to search and discover a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, an intervention "correcting human nature" by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. However uncomfortable this might be for many, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists and spreading on the web.

 

I can imagine how the religious will respond to this change in the faith paradigm. But how will science confront a religious [moral] ideal, not of human intellectual origin, but that meets all the criteria of their own discipline?

 

Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question?

 

More info at http://www.energon.org.uk,

http://soulgineering...final-freedoms/

[Ophiolite]

Well, I just wasted a minute of my life looking at the first of the two links. Please explain to me where the first literal, testable and fully demonstable test of faith is. Tell me how insipid prose on a tourquoise background constitutes an approach that meets the criteria of science.

 

That may sound hostile, for that is exactly what I presently feel. The opening post was intriguing and I was looking forward to a challenging, intellectual delight; a smogarsbord of science and religion; faith and fact. Instead I get a very large nothing and no incentive to waste time on the second link.

[John Cuthber]

"But how will science confront a religious [moral] ideal, not of human intellectual origin, but that meets all the criteria of their own discipline?"

 

Get back to us if that actually happens.

 

re." History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith. "

Nobody ever questioned the existence of faith, so proving that it exists is a bit silly.

[kla2]

Well, I just wasted a minute of my life looking at the first of the two links. Please explain to me where the first literal, testable and fully demonstable test of faith is. Tell me how insipid prose on a tourquoise background constitutes an approach that meets the criteria of science.

 

That may sound hostile, for that is exactly what I presently feel. The opening post was intriguing and I was looking forward to a challenging, intellectual delight; a smogarsbord of science and religion; faith and fact. Instead I get a very large nothing and no incentive to waste time on the second link.

 

The energon link, whose background colour you seem upset by [quite nice on my Mac] leads to a pdf download of the teaching. In the same way you might read a new scientific research paper, print it out and read it very carefully. It requires serious study. this is no a airport or scan read on screen. The first half, you might call 'a God hypothesis' occupies the first 16 chapters. The second part, details how to confirm the first. But if you don't have more that a 'minute' to inquire, this obviously isn't for you. To quote `Mark Twain, the man who won't read is no better than one who can't read.

 

So be as hostile as you like. I've already tested and confirmed the teaching myself! And it is now only a matter of time before sufficient numbers of others do the same to establish a new reality and fact. "The tragedy for our species will be if existing religion and theology, skepticism and atheism have all so corrupted and discredited the very idea of God, that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real and great this potential is."

[John Cuthber]

I got as far as the first line

"When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God..."

It's self- contradictory and it assumes there's a God so it's begging the question

Epic fail.

I'm not going to wade through 370 pages of dross.

If there's actually any evidence* then let us know. Otherwise you might as well leave now.

 

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

[kla2]

I got as far as the first line

"When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God..."

It's self- contradictory and it assumes there's a God so it's begging the question

Epic fail.

I'm not going to wade through 370 pages of dross.

If there's actually any evidence* then let us know. Otherwise you might as well leave now.

 

*

http://en.wikipedia....ntific_evidence

 

How can you expect a proof of God not to presume there is a God? Even a decent scientist presumes on his results, even if they fail at the experimental stage.

The only epic fail is your own imagination and the intellectual integrity to get past your own prejudices. If allowing prejudice to dictate your answer even before testing it for yourself, is your idea of rationality, that rationality is fatally flawed!

[hypervalent_iodine]

How can you expect a proof of God not to presume there is a God? Even a decent scientist presumes on his results, even if they fail at the experimental stage.

 

No, in fact a decent scientist would not presume to know the results of their experiments ahead of time and instead takes an impartial standpoint and lets the evidence tell the story. Anything less is inherently dishonest and not worth the time of day.

 

The only epic fail is your own imagination and the intellectual integrity to get past your own prejudices. If allowing prejudice to dictate your answer even before testing it for yourself, is your idea of rationality, that rationality is fatally flawed!

 

You don't say.

[immortal]

After skimming through the middle of the book they are talking about the teachings of Gnosticism and the concept of Born Again or Resurrection. So someone need to bring the practical knowledge of how we can born again and achieve revelations and that requires Faith in prior and its the job of theologians to do that.

Edited March 25, 2012 by immortal

[kla2]

No, in fact a decent scientist would not presume to know the results of their experiments ahead of time and instead takes an impartial standpoint and lets the evidence tell the story. Anything less is inherently dishonest and not worth the time of day.

 

 

 

Yes in fact. Hypothesis is presumption, possibility by any other name. And only legitimizes itself when that 'possibility is confirmed by testing for 'expected' results. This new teaching is exactly the same model, offering the same method. Test it for yourself is you have the moral courage to do so. For that is what this teaching commands. The courage to think and act differently.

[John Cuthber]

To be fair, this is not as wrong as it looks.

"How can you expect a proof of God not to presume there is a God?"

In my experience, many so-called proofs of God make this assumption. That's why they are bollocks.

Kla2

Have a look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

and see if you can understand why your so-called proof is a logical fallacy.

 

Though you seem to have overlooked the other fatal flaw: this assertion

"When all things began, the Word already was."

is self contradictory.

If the Word exists then (whether you like it or not) it must have begun "when all things began" otherwise that time is not when " all things began".

At best it's when " all things - apart from the Word- began".

You may have noticed that I included a link to the wiki page about scientific evidence.

I strongly suggest that you read it before you post again.

[kla2]

To be fair, this is not as wrong as it looks.

"How can you expect a proof of God not to presume there is a God?"

In my experience, many so-called proofs of God make this assumption. That's why they are bollocks.

Kla2

Have a look here

http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question

and see if you can understand why your so-called proof is a logical fallacy.

 

 

For a teaching that is prepared to consign the last two thousand years of religious thought in the dustbin, any reference to wikipedia is particularly worthless. This new teaching exists not test your cleverness, but to measure your values and aspirations a human being. Natural reason by itself is not able to subject it to scrutiny, except by testing.

 

You can't have it both ways without hypocrisy. It is one thing to be critical and dismissive of religious claims and ideas that, like all dogma and doctrine, have no means of verification, I am myself, but this teaching offers the precise means [path] to do so. A complete change in the 'faith' paradigm is taking place.

[iNow]

Yes. Like most theists, you seem adept at evading and hand waving. Can you please now at least pretend to answer the actual questions and criticisms presented to you?

[John Cuthber]

For a teaching that is prepared to consign the last two thousand years of religious thought in the dustbin, any reference to wikipedia is particularly worthless. This new teaching exists not test your cleverness, but to measure your values and aspirations a human being. Natural reason by itself is not able to subject it to scrutiny, except by testing.

 

You can't have it both ways without hypocrisy. It is one thing to be critical and dismissive of religious claims and ideas that, like all dogma and doctrine, have no means of verification, I am myself, but this teaching offers the precise means [path] to do so. A complete change in the 'faith' paradigm is taking place.

If you read the wiki article you would realise that it has nothing to do with religion (it's just common sense really)

However, I'm happy to give you a quick example of why begging the question isn't a valid debating technique and why you cannot assume the thing you are trying to prove,

 

I'm going to prove that there is no God.

number one of my assumptions is that there is no God.

Therefore there is no God (see 1 above).

Now Kla2, do you realise that this argument is dross?

Do you understand that any argument that starts from what it's trying to prove is equally dross?

(with the exception of a reductio ad absurdum argument which I suspect you wouldn't understand)

[kla2]

Yes. Like most theists, you seem adept at evading and hand waving. Can you please now at least pretend to answer the actual questions and criticisms presented to you?

 

I'm not evading anything. Just putting down on the record, that assumptions long embedded within cultural history, to which we have all been conditioned whatever side of the debate one might be, are in the process of coming unraveled and fast. I'm not here to teach or evangelize, just pointing to where the answers are. Every question is answered and available to those who will take the opportunity to explore this new material for themselves. If you want to be spoon fed this is not for you. Otherwise you can test the teaching on its own merits. A choice you never had before presents itself. What you do with that choice is your business alone.

[Ophiolite]

The energon link, whose background colour you seem upset by [quite nice on my Mac] leads to a pdf download of the teaching. In the same way you might read a new scientific research paper, print it out and read it very carefully. It requires serious study. this is no a airport or scan read on screen.

If a new scientific research paper fails to lay out its findings in the abstract I am most likely to ignore it. Inability to summarise ones thesis in a few words is sign of a weak intellect and dubious argument. If this concept is as important as you believe it to be then someone had best get to work on presenting it properly. It's not a ruddy mystery story where we have to wait till the end to find out the butler did it.

 

And as to the colour, I have yet to see a scientific paper, or a scholarly theological study delivered on a kindergarten dayglow background. Get some gravitas man.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Ophiolite

[John Cuthber]

"Otherwise you can test the teaching on its own merits"

I did.

It failed.

[Phi for All]

I'm not here to teach or evangelize, just pointing to where the answers are.

Ironic Quote of the Week!

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure if that's as ironic as "I'm not evading anything."

[Schrödinger's hat]

Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question?

 

You can't have it both ways without hypocrisy. It is one thing to be critical and dismissive of religious claims and ideas that, like all dogma and doctrine, have no means of verification, I am myself, but this teaching offers the precise means [path] to do so. A complete change in the 'faith' paradigm is taking place.

 

I read portions of your document. The first ten pages or so, then small samples of each chapter.

At no point did I find anything resembling an argument -- let alone any evidence based claims. All of the parts that were coherent enough to follow were simply blatant assertions, already presuming the existence of god and the truth of various gospels.

The rest was bald assertions and moralizing.

[Phi for All]

Yes in fact. Hypothesis is presumption, possibility by any other name. And only legitimizes itself when that 'possibility is confirmed by testing for 'expected' results. This new teaching is exactly the same model, offering the same method. Test it for yourself is you have the moral courage to do so. For that is what this teaching commands. The courage to think and act differently.

I find this argument extremely hypocritical. You attempt to refute what has been explained to you by misconstruing it completely. You upbraid us for not having moral courage when you yourself haven't bothered to study what you criticize. You encourage us to think and act differently when it's abundantly clear you have no concept of what the norm in science is.

 

I suggest you first look up what evidence means to science. Second, reread what others have written here in your thread, there have been many constructive criticisms. And third, please don't assume that what others have worked their entire lives on is mere assumptions. Established science represents the best explanations for various phenomena a planet full of clever people have found.

[kla2]

Like any revolution of ideas, there will be those who with the creative imagination to explore and test these new ideas for themselves. There will be those who stick their heads in the sands of denial like an ostrich. You might be amused to know that the responses I have experienced here are a mirror image of those I've had at 'religious' forums. They like it even less then you do, so you have lots of company. I have provided a taste of what is coming and inevitable. There is no stopping it now. The facts on the ground have changed. Time is never on the side of ignorance.

 

"The tragedy for our species will be if existing religion and theology, skepticism and atheism have all so corrupted and discredited the very idea of God, that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real and great this potential is. "

[John Cuthber]

"Like any revolution of ideas, there will be those who with the creative imagination to explore and test these new ideas for themselves."

We have and they leave a lot to be desired.

"There will be those who stick their heads in the sands of denial like an ostrich."

Yes, notably you. You keep denying that there is a problem with your idea.

" You might be amused to know that the responses I have experienced here are a mirror image of those I've had at 'religious' forums. They like it even less then you do, so you have lots of company. "

I'm not surprised. I may think that they are misguided, but I accept that they can usually spot blatant illogicallity so it's no wonder they don't accept your "message" either.

 

" I have provided a taste of what is coming and inevitable."

Nope, you have provided nothing but a jumble of words.

"There is no stopping it now."

You have yet to satisfactorily explain what "it" is.

"Time is never on the side of ignorance."

You may be right about that, but the question is which side is ignorant?

 

"The tragedy for our species will be if existing religion and theology, skepticism and atheism have all so corrupted and discredited the very idea of God, that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real and great this potential is. "

No, the real tragedy will be if we are too busy chasing after bronze age myths to set ourselves free and embrace how much better we are than that.

 

Now, I remind you that this is a discussion site so can I ask you to actually answer the questions people have asked- otherwise you will look like a troll.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Like any revolution of ideas, there will be those who with the creative imagination to explore and test these new ideas for themselves. There will be those who stick their heads in the sands of denial like an ostrich.

 

What exactly are you proposing we test? I just saw pages and pages of telling people what to think and how to live their lives.

 

You cannot structure an argument like the following:

 

If you belive A is true and structure your life accordingly, x will happen eventually.

Therefore you must believe A is true.

 

No rationalist is capable of believing A and thus cannot test the first statement (nor should they want to in this case because it involves restructuring their entire life on an unsupported claim).

 

 

You need follow a valid form of argument.

 

A common deductive argument structure is:

 

Premises your audience agrees with, Q, P and R are true.

 

Manipulation of Q,P and R involving the laws of deductive logic.

Therefore A.

 

Scientific reasoning almost exclusively works as follows:

 

Logical structure implying A iff Q.

Quantitative inductive evidence showing Q

Therefore Q.

 

One other common form is:

 

Iff not A then contradiction

Therefore A

 

Edit: John Cuthber, could you please use the forum's quote tags? They make things much easier to read. They look like this:

 [quote name='kla2' timestamp='1332707282' post='667506'] some stuff kla2 said blah blah blah[/quote]

 

If you want to split it up you can insert a end quote followed by a new quote

 [quote name='kla2' timestamp='1332707282' post='667506'] some stuff kla2 said [/quote]some stuff I'm saying in response[quote name='kla2' timestamp='1332707282' post='667506']blah blah blah [/quote] a continued response

 

You can also just use

[quote] and [/quote]

for stuff from elsewhere, or as a convenience when splitting up a long post from one person (instead of including the time stamp and name multiple times).

 

The reply and multiquote buttons will fill this out automatically (you can also hit the edit button to fix recent posts for a short while)

Edited March 25, 2012 by Schrödinger's hat

[Phi for All]

You might be amused to know that the responses I have experienced here are a mirror image of those I've had at 'religious' forums.

I'm amused that you see this as substantiation. Everyone thinks your arguments are mere proselytizing except you.

[imatfaal]

I might have to start believe in divine providence if someone manages to persuade John Cuthber to use quote tags!

 

The King's Horses were morally opposed to using glue. It's no wonder they couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again

 

And I would be opposed to glue if there was even the remotest chance that it was made from my immediate ancestors