tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1357217255776512112..comments2024-03-29T01:14:19.030-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Scientism is as Scietism DoesJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16763047191837331252017-05-15T18:46:57.586-07:002017-05-15T18:46:57.586-07:00The consciousness that creates a resurrection is c...The consciousness that creates a resurrection is called imagination.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71716624917702857622017-05-15T13:08:24.639-07:002017-05-15T13:08:24.639-07:00A consciousness (God) made the Resurrection happen...A consciousness (God) made the Resurrection happen. Non-life has no consciousness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73183407423627854072017-05-14T14:56:36.691-07:002017-05-14T14:56:36.691-07:00Resurrection is a GROSS violation of the second la...Resurrection is a GROSS violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Formation of life isn't. And I don't care what your idiot friend Pogge says.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12358649209464737432017-05-14T12:11:07.912-07:002017-05-14T12:11:07.912-07:00Typical Skep answer. He doesn't accept the Res...Typical Skep answer. He doesn't accept the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but he will believe that life can come from non-life. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70745827157460990082017-05-14T10:09:55.474-07:002017-05-14T10:09:55.474-07:00I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis o...<i>I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.</i><br />- Take away the double negative. We do not observe a lawmaker. That's a fact, and it's not begging the question.<br /><br /><i>you can't assert that not seeing a lawmaker is the same as seeing there is none, We don't see air.</i><br />- I don't assert that there is no lawmwker because we don't see it. I assert that there is no observation that supports belief in it. And that is not the case for air. Usually, we don't see it. But there are many other observations that support out belief that it exists. We can feel the wind. We can measure its density. We can can detect it in many ways. There is NO objective observation whatsoever of this lawmaker that your circular reasoning insists must be present.<br /><br /><i>Nope, you that;s BS. there are anomalies</i><br />- Yes, I know. There are healings where a panel of religious doctors working for the church couldn't provide the medical explanation. But that doesn't mean there IS NO medical explanation. (This is your own argument - see previous comment.) But in no case is there ever a situation where there is NO POSSIBLE natural explanation. All your faith supposed healings are just unexplained cases of natural healing, and nothing more.<br /><br /><i>It also opens the door to marginalized observations being accepted since there is no law or structure forbidding such behavior it's purely a mater of what we see we konw we don't see it all.</i><br />- This is where religionists make a leap of faith. Humans have been observing nature for thousands of years. And not once has there ever been a fully documented observation of something that violates the regularity of behavior that we call the laws of physics. Those laws are universal. There IS a structure of physical law, even if we don't have a complete understanding of it. For example, we can guarantee that dead bodies don't ever reverse their decomposition and live again. Why? Because there is a law of thermodynamics that is never violated by anything, and assures it. While it's true that we don't watch every single dead body to make sure that it doesn't come back to life, we don't have to. We know (as well as it is possible to know anything - by induction) that this cannot happen. Period.<br /><br /><i>I felt his presence and seen his work.</i><br />- You felt chemicals in your brain. It's called emotion.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78881455229184915572017-05-13T23:05:59.597-07:002017-05-13T23:05:59.597-07:00I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis o...I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.<br /><br />Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%. <br /><br /><br /><br />Are you joking? The thing we don't observe is this lawmaker, or God or whatever mythical being you think exists because of YOUR circular reasoning. <br /><br /><b>that is not the same as observing there is no law makimng. Obviously there is reason to think there is one since there is a law-like regularity you can't assert that not seeing a lawmaker is the same as seeing there is none, We don't see air.</b><br /><br /><br />What I'm saying is that in 100% of our observations, there is a regularity of nature.<br /><br /><b>Nope, you that;s BS. there are anomalies, especial in terms of healing and miracles,(btw the term anomalies comes fr alpha privative for "not" and Greek word nomos for law so it means not a law).</b><br /><br /> Now that doesn't preclude the philosophical possibility that there could be some as yet unseen thing that violates natural laws, but it does provide justification for inductive conclusions consistent with what we see. <br /><br /><b>It also opens the door to marginalized observations being accepted since there is no law or structure forbidding such behavior it's purely a mater of what we see we konw we don't see it all.</b><br /><br /><br />You, on the other hand, have never seen this lawmaker - you have 0% of all human observations to back up your contention, but you still insist that he must be there, and miracles must exist, because if these fantasies weren't true, it would really upset your apple-cart. And you think that I'm the one who isn't being logical.<br /><br /><b>I felt his presence and seen his work. One should not expect to see God like saying why believe in subatomic particles if you haven ever seen then,we don't have no pictures of them ,we have no pictures of stings but science is willing to accept them purely on the bass i of theory,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48953680095467250012017-05-13T13:13:19.746-07:002017-05-13T13:13:19.746-07:00I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis o...<i>I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.<br /><br />Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%. </i><br /><br /><br /><br />Are you joking? The thing we don't observe is this lawmaker, or God or whatever mythical being you think exists because of YOUR circular reasoning. What I'm saying is that in 100% of our observations, there is a regularity of nature. Now that doesn't preclude the philosophical possibility that there could be some as yet unseen thing that violates natural laws, but it does provide justification for inductive conclusions consistent with what we see. You, on the other hand, have never seen this lawmaker - you have 0% of all human observations to back up your contention, but you still insist that he must be there, and miracles must exist, because if these fantasies weren't true, it would really upset your apple-cart. And you think that I'm the one who isn't being logical.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-91426946627371605672017-05-13T13:10:41.730-07:002017-05-13T13:10:41.730-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2822944097649827402017-05-13T09:08:30.841-07:002017-05-13T09:08:30.841-07:00OK. Let me get this straight. You quote scientists...OK. Let me get this straight. You quote scientists saying that the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. Fine I already knew that, and I don't dispute it. But then (if I follow your line of "reasoning"), you think that because these human formulations of physical laws are not prescriptive (which is to say that man does not tell nature how to behave), then it follows that nature isn't bound by them, and therefore, any behavior is allowed. So miracles can happen. Is that what you are saying?<br /><br /><b>that's like saying isn't it amazing that all these state lines just happen to fall the way the rivers flow? TRY IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! since there is no law-like force that tells nature what to do and since our descriptions of what happens can't be totally actuate the objection to miracles that we never see them has to be flawed,since our observations are not complete maybe we do see them,when we have examples those expels could be true.</b><br /><br />This is stunning. You have apparently no grasp whatsoever of what physical laws are. It is true that we don't tell nature how to behave.<br /><br /><b>Obviously I do since you just agreed that what I say about it is right,what you really mean is, in addition I am taking a step further that takes you down the road that you have not considered and you are disinterested philosophically, That makes you afraid so you cling to the ideology all the more. then you have to evoke the "you don't know anything I'm smarter than you in an attempt to convince yourself you are on the right track.</b><br /><br /> Nevertheless, we observe that nature does behave according to some set of rules that are never violated.<br /><br /><b>Lesson from Popper you can never say "never" because you can't observe it forever.So any assumption of never is always just an assumption; since the argument is that our observations can't be 100% then there is always room for a miracle. Don't try to pretend that you have some kind of mathematical accuracy that proves your judgement of "never." your"never" is not mathematical it's probability and that means always open to difference.</b><br /><br /><br /> This has nothing to do with whether there is a law-giver. It's just how nature works.<br /><br /><b>I am not makimng a law giver argument,I am just setting the context, that was explaining the context of the quotes.</b><br /><br /><br /> It's what we observe. <br /><br /><b>I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.</b><br /><br />And it is the fact that we observe these regularities of behavior that we can conclude that there are no miracles.<br /><br /><b>you only conclude that on the basis of the circular reasoning that allows you to ignore the previous examples of miracles.</b><br /><br /> A miracle would, by definition, be something contrary to the way nature works.<br /><br /><b>Don't you know what descriptive means? IF DESCRIPTION IS NOT 100% you can't say never.</b><br /><br /><br /> But nature doesn't do that - it works the way it works. And the way nature works is what we call the laws of physics. There are no miracles. Period.<br /><br /><b>Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%. </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66779249964876305722017-05-13T08:27:35.074-07:002017-05-13T08:27:35.074-07:00OK. Let me get this straight. You quote scientis...OK. Let me get this straight. You quote scientists saying that the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. Fine I already knew that, and I don't dispute it. But then (if I follow your line of "reasoning"), you think that because these human formulations of physical laws are not prescriptive (which is to say that man does not tell nature how to behave), then it follows that nature isn't bound by them, and therefore, any behavior is allowed. So miracles can happen. Is that what you are saying?<br /><br />This is stunning. You have apparently no grasp whatsoever of what physical laws are. It is true that we don't tell nature how to behave. Nevertheless, we observe that nature does behave according to some set of rules that are never violated. This has nothing to do with whether there is a law-giver. It's just how nature works. It's what we observe. And it is the fact that we observe these regularities of behavior that we can conclude that there are no miracles. A miracle would, by definition, be something contrary to the way nature works. But nature doesn't do that - it works the way it works. And the way nature works is what we call the laws of physics. There are no miracles. Period.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-47304903180003168582017-05-12T22:05:51.314-07:002017-05-12T22:05:51.314-07:00m-skeptical said...
you are getting worse, now you...m-skeptical said...<br />you are getting worse, now you do';t even read my posts,I just expanded that why should I do it again,you have failed to consider the issue you did not respond you lose, just go back to my previous post and read what you should have,<br /><br />- OK. Let me rephrase. Your statements about whether the laws of physics are descriptive or prescriptive was part of a discussion of science has value in determining the laws of man. My point is still valid. It is a completely irrelevant point. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. And you can provide all the quotes you want about whether physical laws are descriptive. Yes, we KNOW they are. But that does nothing to address how that affects morality or questions of human law. It is completely non-sequitur.<br /><br /><b>I quoted two atheists two both answered an argumnet law implies a law giver their answer is they are not real laws. That is still their answer it stands under any context they are not really laws. So that still is their answer, transplant it to a new context, talking about how merely descriptive laws opens reality up to possibilities of miracles, that's the bit you have not answered yet. </b><br /><br />what bull shit you don't evenunder the basic concepts I'm working with<br /><br /><br />- Please enlighten me. What basic concept is that? You seem to be saying that a more complete understanding of science (such as your own) allows for miracles and all kinds of bullshit like dead guys getting up and walking. I always thought that was a strictly religionist notion.<br /><br /><b>if you are not going to read my answer there's no point in pretending to converse. I just explained what you just ask so look immediacy above, nothing to do with pissoir understanding it's just the fact that merely descriptive laws allow for describing because no one has contemplate perspective,</b><br /><br /><br /> I am not aware of this new "science" that you allude to. But then again I only studied "normal" science. I didn't take "History of Ideas" at a bible college like you did.<br /><br /><b>not very well apparently, How do you complaisance the fact that I quoted two major physicists agreeing with me about descriptive laws?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42885336185363649752017-05-12T17:55:56.887-07:002017-05-12T17:55:56.887-07:00you are getting worse, now you do';t even read...<i>you are getting worse, now you do';t even read my posts,I just expanded that why should I do it again,you have failed to consider the issue you did not respond you lose, just go back to my previous post and read what you should have,</i><br />- OK. Let me rephrase. Your statements about whether the laws of physics are descriptive or prescriptive was part of a discussion of science has value in determining the laws of man. My point is still valid. It is a completely irrelevant point. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. And you can provide all the quotes you want about whether physical laws are descriptive. Yes, we KNOW they are. But that does nothing to address how that affects morality or questions of human law. It is completely non-sequitur.<br /><br /><i>what bull shit you don't evenunder the basic concepts I'm working with</i><br />- Please enlighten me. What basic concept is that? You seem to be saying that a more complete understanding of science (such as your own) allows for miracles and all kinds of bullshit like dead guys getting up and walking. I always thought that was a strictly religionist notion. I am not aware of this new "science" that you allude to. But then again I only studied "normal" science. I didn't take "History of Ideas" at a bible college like you did.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13673278252329650952017-05-12T16:13:15.444-07:002017-05-12T16:13:15.444-07:00im-skeptical said...
Logically you have not addres...im-skeptical said...<br />Logically you have not addressed the issue I raised about descriptive, you are totally off the beam.I said nothing about morality,it was a totally epistemic point.<br /><br />- The issue I raised is that you don't know what you're talking about. Please explain how a recognition that the laws of nature are descriptive has some effect on morality. <br /><br /><b>you are getting worse, now you do';t even read my posts,I just expanded that why should I do it again,you have failed to consider the issue you did not respond you lose, just go back to my previous post and read what you should have,</b><br /><br />The descriptive nature of physical "law" opens the door to the possibility of contradicting previously held ideas about universe behavior.<br /><br />- You seem to be hung up on the word "law". The scientific perspective has always been that we can always learn new things about reality, and we revise our formulation of physical laws accordingly. The religionist perspective is that we know the ultimate reality, and it is not subject to question or revision.<br /><br /><b>what bull shit you don't evenunder the basic concepts I'm working with,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43538696827771723872017-05-12T16:03:37.541-07:002017-05-12T16:03:37.541-07:00Gary said...
Joe. I do not question your intellige...Gary said...<br />Joe. I do not question your intelligence. But I do question your ability to distinguish objective truth from subjective delusion.<br /><br /><b>all you have backing you view except opinion. I have 200 peer reviewed studies, which one is objective? </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72180330316394196692017-05-12T15:29:23.029-07:002017-05-12T15:29:23.029-07:00Joe. I do not question your intelligence. But I ...Joe. I do not question your intelligence. But I do question your ability to distinguish objective truth from subjective delusion.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30839690082252587722017-05-12T15:04:55.055-07:002017-05-12T15:04:55.055-07:00Logically you have not addressed the issue I raise...<i>Logically you have not addressed the issue I raised about descriptive, you are totally off the beam.I said nothing about morality,it was a totally epistemic point.</i><br />- The issue I raised is that you don't know what you're talking about. Please explain how a recognition that the laws of nature are descriptive has some effect on morality. <br /><br /><i>The descriptive nature of physical "law" opens the door to the possibility of contradicting previously held ideas about universe behavior.</i><br />- You seem to be hung up on the word "law". The scientific perspective has always been that we can always learn new things about reality, and we revise our formulation of physical laws accordingly. The religionist perspective is that we know the ultimate reality, and it is not subject to question or revision.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-76753156993964638302017-05-12T14:27:55.591-07:002017-05-12T14:27:55.591-07:00Gary said...
Behind the smoke screen of your very ...Gary said...<br />Behind the smoke screen of your very sophisticated sounding theo-babble is the core of your belief: a ghost lives inside your body, giving you instructions on how to live, protecting you from evil. The only way to break through the carefully constructed defenses of this delusion is to bluntly tell you the truth: Your ghost does not exist.<br /><br /><b>Gary it is always a mistake to assume your enemy conforms to stereotypes. That is laziness, you don't take the time to learn my true opinions. It also adds up to disrespect, you think no Christian can very intelligent so you assume all christian ideas are stereotypical.<br /><br />Modern thought abhors ghost in the machine (GITM), Modern liberal theology is obsessed with being modern therefore, modern liberal theology avoids GITM. I went to major liberal seminary. <br /><br />In accord with German idealism of late 19th century i se spikrit as mknd,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-38911300264029429852017-05-12T14:09:03.402-07:002017-05-12T14:09:03.402-07:00you are really out of it. I can quote any number o...you are really out of it. I can quote any number of scientists saying laws of phyiscs are not prescriptive but descriptive, that's a common place<br /><br />Joe, this just illustrates your lack of understanding. Yes, you the laws of physics are descriptive, and everybody who knows anything at all about science knows that. But you seem to believe that this is something that only the insiders (like yourself) are aware of, and that we dumb atheists had no idea of it. And this is because you yourself had no idea of it until you took a course in "History of Ideas", <br /><br /><b>you don't know anything about the subject matter of the courses I took, so what if I did learn it in history of ideas I did learn it,that;s what school is for, But I said it because of the way Gary was talking.<br /><br />while we are on the subject your glossing over the fact that you essentially admitted I'm right.</b><br /><br /><br />which is what makes you the world's biggest expert in science, and makes you think you can go around lecturing all of us on science as if you actually understood it. <br /><br /><b>you are so hung up over expertise, that must be because you worship science so nonworking about science is the way to chive status in atheist social groups,</b><br /><br /><br />But you are a dilettante. The descriptive nature of physical laws has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with morality or its relationship with science. You are only showing that you have no clue what you are talking about.<br /><br /><b>you have much lower level of learning than I do. I am far better educated and read than you, science is not even that import in terms of erudition.<br /><br />Logically you have not addressed the issue I raised about descriptive, you are totally off the beam.I said nothing about morality,it was a totally epistemic point.<br /><br />The descriptive nature of physical "law" opens the door to the possibility of contradicting previously held ideas about universe behavior.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-15794587410218223652017-05-12T09:32:29.376-07:002017-05-12T09:32:29.376-07:00you are really out of it. I can quote any number o...<i>you are really out of it. I can quote any number of scientists saying laws of phyiscs are not prescriptive but descriptive, that's a common place</i><br /><br />Joe, this just illustrates your lack of understanding. Yes, you the laws of physics are descriptive, and everybody who knows anything at all about science knows that. But you seem to believe that this is something that only the insiders (like yourself) are aware of, and that we dumb atheists had no idea of it. And this is because you yourself had no idea of it until you took a course in "History of Ideas", which is what makes you the world's biggest expert in science, and makes you think you can go around lecturing all of us on science as if you actually understood it. But you are a dilettante. The descriptive nature of physical laws has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with morality or its relationship with science. You are only showing that you have no clue what you are talking about.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-29663121770501208052017-05-12T09:16:11.799-07:002017-05-12T09:16:11.799-07:00If one reads enough scholarship, from both conserv...If one reads enough scholarship, from both conservatives, moderates, and liberals, one can see the most probable cause of the Resurrection belief: Simon Peter had a grief/guilt hallucination in which Jesus appeared to him, forgave him for his denial of him, and commanded him to preach the resurrection to the world. Peter convinced an ecstatic/hysterical group of disciples to believe his experience was reality, and voila...the Resurrection belief was born. Soon, everyone and his brother (literally) was "seeing" Jesus.<br /><br />It's as simple as that. No need for complicated theology or sophisticated philosophical theories.<br /><br />Peter thought he saw something. Soon, a lot of believers thought they saw something. But thinking you saw something does not mean you really did. If a thousand people today claimed that a dead corpse walked out of its tomb, ate lunch with its former friends, and then flew off into the night sky, no educated Christian would believe this ridiculous tale. Christians believe the Jesus tale only because it is the accepted fable of their culture.<br /><br />The Jesus resurrection tale is an ancient ghost tale. It didn't happen. Educated people need to stop believing it did.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90742472555318935392017-05-12T08:36:17.305-07:002017-05-12T08:36:17.305-07:00Behind the smoke screen of your very sophisticated...Behind the smoke screen of your very sophisticated sounding theo-babble is the core of your belief: a ghost lives inside your body, giving you instructions on how to live, protecting you from evil. The only way to break through the carefully constructed defenses of this delusion is to bluntly tell you the truth: Your ghost does not exist.<br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69215722722199540952017-05-12T07:05:52.419-07:002017-05-12T07:05:52.419-07:00Gary why do you think using ghost as a pejorative ...Gary why do you think using ghost as a pejorative proves something? there is no reason to think of Jesus in those terms, you are chaining the concept from resurrection to ghost and somehow attaching shame to it,what do you think that get;s you?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4644906092672916832017-05-12T07:02:48.387-07:002017-05-12T07:02:48.387-07:00Skep you don't get anythingSkep you don't get anythingJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36247352479878555602017-05-12T07:02:04.084-07:002017-05-12T07:02:04.084-07:00"Scientific method does not determinism laws ..."Scientific method does not determinism laws for society,nor can it, scientific method can never say "should." It can't tell us what we should do."<br /><br />Nonsense. We convict people based on evidence evaluated by the scientific method (DNA testing, etc.) not by "praying about it".<br /><br /><b>you are really out of it. I can quote any number of scientists saying laws of phyiscs are not prescriptive but descriptive, that's a common place,</b><br /><br />A Canadian Physicist, Byron Jennings, expresses it like this: “It is worth commenting that laws of nature and laws of man are completely different beasts and it is unfortunate that they are given the same name. The so called laws of nature are descriptive. They describe regularities that have been observed in nature. They have no prescriptive value. In contrast, the laws of man are prescriptive, not descriptive.” i<br /><br />Byron Jennings, “The Role of Authority in Science and Law,” Quantum Diaries: Thoughts on Work and Life From Particle Physicists From Around The World. (Feb.3,2012) Online resource URL: <br /> http://www.quantumdiaries.org/tag/descriptive-law/ Accessed 8/31/15<br /><br />Santo D’Agostino tells us, “...[T]he laws of science are not like the laws in our legal systems. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.”i<br /><br />anto 'D Agostino, “Does Nature Obey The Laws of Physics?,” QED Insight, (March 9,2011). Online resource, URL: https://qedinsight.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/does-nature-obey-the-laws-of-physics/ accessed 8/26/15.<br /><br />Ghosts are not real, Joe. I don't care how many thousands of people claim they saw the ghost; I don't care how elaborate the details of the alleged behavior and actions of the ghost; it is still a ghost story and ghosts DO NOT EXIST.<br /><br /><b>Jesus was hot a ghost, He came back to life and that is factually true people have, that is not unknown my farther was clinically dead for 11 minutes then came back., Moreover you don[t know Therese no ghosts you ae asserting it with no evidence because you have faith in an ideology,<br /><br />what we have here is a clash of religions,your religion tells you not to believe in ghosts, you are not doing science you are doing the religion of atheism,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-32639085678744546392017-05-11T21:39:18.243-07:002017-05-11T21:39:18.243-07:00"Scientific method does not determinism laws ..."Scientific method does not determinism laws for society,nor can it, scientific method can never say "should." It can't tell us what we should do."<br /><br />Nonsense. We convict people based on evidence evaluated by the scientific method (DNA testing, etc.) not by "praying about it".<br /><br />Ghosts are not real, Joe. I don't care how many thousands of people claim they saw the ghost; I don't care how elaborate the details of the alleged behavior and actions of the ghost; it is still a ghost story and ghosts DO NOT EXIST. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.com