VincentRJ

As I've mentioned before, science can only investigate what can be detected. If a berieved woman claims she is seeing her deceased husband at the dining table, then other people at the dining table can determine whether or not the deceased husband exists in reality, by applying the most basic methods of sight and waving their hand through the claimed location of the deceased person. It is reasonable to speculate that the woman is hallucinating, but suppose she is lying. Science doesn't have sufficiently sophisticated technology to detect a picture of the deceased husband in the woman's mind, but the technology is sufficiently developed to detect her degree of berievement. This is not a shackling of science by a materialistic paradigm. Science recognises the enormous complexities of the variations within each individual. We are all different, to some degree. Even identical twins are not really identical. A very carefully researched drug used to treat a particular ailment, can be very effective on some people, and perhaps most people, but not all people. Some people, because of their genetic conditions, life-style, and diet, might respond negatively to the same drug. Likewise, the individual experience of a particular Guru, resulting from certain practices, might be similar to the experiences of other people employing the same practices, but not similar to everyone's experience employing those practices, because of the differences in each person's background, genetic condition, past experiences, previous lifestyle, previous medical conditions, and so on.

Because such a belief system can also have harmful effects, known as the Nocebo effect, which is the opposite of Placebo. When two different religious groups engage in war, it's at least partly because each group has a Nocebo effect on the other group. Why? Tough nut to crack in a singular objective world. Might it have anything to do with that other world? You know, that subjective one? The one that you ignore? Question: What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? I don't know why you think that scientific enquiry ignores the subjective world. The subjective world and the objective world are inseperable. This is why it is impossible to be 100% objective and unbiased, because everything we experience or think about is fundamentally related to, and influenced by, our basic characteristics as a Homo Sapien species. Every experience, smell, taste, feeling, sight, hearing and thought process, is an interpretation in the human mind. Some interpretaions are considered to be correct, when they work consistently, and many are considered incorrect because they don't work consistently. The so-called spiritualists, often claim that science in general focuses on the material world, and ignores the non-material world. This is obviously not correct, because the Electromagnetic Spectrum, is non-material, that is, it has no mass. The Photon has no mass, yet everyone with eyesight experiences the effects of this non-material, massless energy, which science has been investigating for centuries. Of course, science cannot investigate things which it cannot detect, but it can examine the processes that take place in the mind using techniques such as 'Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)', and Electroencephalography, or EEG. Such proceses are limited, but will presumably improve in the future.

The placebo effect has been scientifically confirmed. It is estimated that about 30% of the efficacy of all pharmacological drugs is due to the placebo effect, that is, the belief of the patient that the drug will be effective. There have been experiments with two groups of people suffering the same problem. One group is given nothing, and the other group is given a placebo. The group given the placebo shows some improvement in their condition, whereas the other group shows no improvement. In light of this, I now have to admit that I shouldn't be making fun of the 'placebo' stories in the Bible. They are not literally true, but a belief in them might have an advantageous effect in curing some problem, if the belief is strong enough.

My google search also revealed many religious references like the one you quoted, but I'm reluctant to propagate nonsense. My belief is in the true 'methodology of science'. This methodology, as I understand it, requires at least some degree of skepticism on all theories, so that any flaws in a theory can be investigated, using a method of enquiry and investigation which is as objective and as unbiased as possible. Unfortunately, being biased and acting in accordance with an established, politicised, agenda, is normal human behaviour.

Sorry! I was being sarcastic. A Google search revealed the following: "Exceptional purity from pristine wilderness artesian water with a balance of minerals filtered through the best system that exists. Uncontaminated Nature." https://gtglivingwater.com.au/

Water which is full of life, such as bacteria and microscopic organisms.

Isn't the reason obvious? It would be difficult to create a religion based upon the founder being a 'bastard'. Therefore, the story of a 'virgin birth' was essential.

I did a search on the internet to find any studies on this issue, and found quite a few that support the claim that papaya leaf has anti-cancer properties. Here's just a couple, for those who are interested. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734615/ "Carica papaya leaf decoction, an Australian Aboriginal remedy, has been reported widely for its healing capabilities against cancer, with numerous anecdotal reports. Recently, scientific studies have demonstrated the inhibitory activity of this decoction on the proliferation of both haematopoietic cell lines and solid tumour cell lines. The decoction was prepared by brewing Carica papaya leaves with water in a glass beaker or wooden vessel for a period of time (varying from 5 minutes to 12 hours in various reports). The heating process to prepare the decoction can potentially affect temperature-sensitive compounds, leading to possible changes in bioactivity. In our study, in comparison with the decoction, the leaf juice not only exhibited a stronger cytotoxic effect on SCC25 cancer cells, but also produced a clear significant selective effect when tested on non-cancerous HaCaT cells in parallel with cancer cells." https://ufhealth.org/news/2010/uf-researchers-find-cancer-fighting-properties-papaya-tea "University of Florida researcher Nam Dang, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues in Japan have documented papaya's dramatic anticancer effect against a broad range of lab-grown tumors, including cancers of the cervix, breast, liver, lung and pancreas. The researchers used an extract made from dried papaya leaves, and the anticancer effects were stronger when cells received larger doses of the tea."

Yes. I do kmow the difference between climate and weather, but unfortunately the Main Stream Media appears not to, hence my sarcasm. Have you not noticed that every time there is an extreme weather event, the masss media tends to describe it as another example of climate change? They even sometime describe the cause of the extreme weather event being climate change, apparently not understanding that 'climate change' is a result, not a cause. What's also amazing is that they seem to think that the worst flood or storm in a hundred years is another example of 'anthropogenic climate change', when basic logic should enable them to understand that an equally severe, or even more severe event 100 years ago, before CO2 emissions began rising, would suggest that such a current, extreme weather event could be within the range of normal and natural climate.

Another example of the disastrous effects of global warming.

"You expose the most fundamental problem with believing in an after life. I hope there is and logically I know there is, but what if there isn't? Not having visited the after life I can't KNOW." Logically, you know there is an after life, but not having visited the after life, you can't know?? I'd like to know what logical process you are using to arrive at the conclusion there is 'logically' an after life. Perhaps the problem is the definition of the term 'after life'. Are you referring to a permanent soul, identity, or self, that is independent of the physical body? If so, what do you imagine happens to this 'soul', after the body has died? Logically, there has to be an 'after life' in the sense that all life produces offspring, when alive, but also when dead. When the physical body, of all life-forms, dies, it provides food for other living organisms. This is a continual, recycling process which is essential for all life to continue. In this sense, no 'after life' means no life at all.

Well, I'm pleased that at least someone finds it interesting. A relevant point here is that there are usually many sides to any issue, some of which have positive attributes, and some of which have negative attributes. If one wishes to be objective and impartial, one should consider all attributes and related consequences. And that principle should also apply to religious beliefs.

How much of the Brazilian Rainforest survives? A search on the internet reveals that 'In just 50 years, almost 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed.' The Brazilian Rainforest is about 60% of the Amazon. A study from NASA that I mentioned in a previous post, has observed that during a shorter period of just 35 years the increase in leaves on plants and trees is equivalent to an area which is two times the area of the continental United States. The Amazon Rainforest is 6.7 million km². 20% of 6.7 million is 1.34 million km2. Twice the area of the continental US is 16.16 million km². Therefore, increased CO2 emissions, during the past 35 years, which are mainly due to human activities, have resulted in an increased greening of the the planet equivalent to 12 times the area which has been lost in the Amazon during the past 50 years. Here's the link again to the NASA article. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=Karl B.,Hille&text=From a quarter to half,Climate Change on April 25 "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

Wow! This cybertruck is amazing. It looks like an alien from outer space. Here's an Australia site that provides the specs and details. https://www.tesla.com/en_au/cybertruck

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. First, I have never written that I think it is okay for humans to wreak destruction on the planet. The word 'wreak' relates to large amounts of destruction, usually resulting from anger, rage, revenge, hatred, and so on. The point I'm trying to get across is that the amount damage that has been caused to this planet, throughout its history, from natural events, has been far, far greater than any damage caused by humans. The most obvious example is that extinction event which wiped out the dinosaurs around 66 million years ago, possibly caused by a single asteroid hitting the planet. It is estimated that the damage resulted in the extinction of at least 75% of all species on the planet. How does that compare with the damage resulting from WW2, or the damage resulting from human-produced plastic waste in the oceans? I'm not claiming that it is okay for humans to pollute the environent. I'm just presenting an objective, unbiased perspective to get things in proportion. Also, I'm not aware of any other species on our planet that is so concerned about the wellfare of the planet and the survival of other species, as certain humans are. When the whales became close to extinction due to over-hunting, most countries created a ban on whale hunting, and the whale populations are now thriving. (Although off-shore windmills do appear to be a continuing problem that harm the whales. ) Can you think of any other carnivorous species on the planet which would stop eating another species because the numbers were diminishing? Whilst it's true that human activity, over the centuries, has resulted in the extinction of a number of species, due to over-hunting, landscape changes, and the introduction of invasive species such as cats and rabbits in Australia, for example, most of such extinctions are not directly caused by humans, but by the natural invasive species gobbling up the other natural species which have not had sufficient time to evolve protective strategies. You might claim that it is not natural for us to cut down forests for timber resources and to create agricultural land for food, but the fact is, all forms of life have to compete and gather resources to survive and flourish. This is a natural process. However, some creatures are better than others, at certain tasks. For example, humans are very good at recycling huge quantities of coal and oil that are buried deep in the ground. When we burn these fossil fuels, we recycle the Carbon Dioxide which was sequestered millions of years ago when forests thrived because of very high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The following study provides some amazing information. (My apologies to any 'climate alarmists" who might suffer extreme anxiety when reading this. ) "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States." https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=Karl B.,Hille&text=From a quarter to half,Climate Change on April 25

Is there an excuse for the world-wide devastation from frequent Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions, Hurricanes, Cyclones, Tornadoes, Forest fires from lightning strikes, massive flooding, massive pandemics which periodically kill millions of people and hundreds of millions of other animals which we may not be aware of? When damage and loss of life results from the above-mentioned events, we tend to focus only on the effects on humans and their habitats. However, the damage is far more extensive. Sometimes endangered species might become extinct, and certain pathogens might cause enormous numbers of deaths of certain species that are below our radar, and many areas which are not inhabited by humans will experience severe damage. The total of all this damage, caused by natural factors, might be thousands of times greater than the amount of damage caused by humans, who are a natural product of natural evolutionary processes.

"LOL. One man with a chainsaw can destroy more trees than natural causes, and one man driving a bulldozer can do more damage than a million years of weather." You're beginning to sound like a 'Climate Change Alarmist'. In a location with unusually benign weather for a certain period, it's true that one man with a chainsaw could destroy more trees than from natural causes in that area during that period. However, in another area, in dry conditions with windy and hot weather, a simple lightning strike could result in more loss of trees in just a few days than a man with a chainsaw could destroy in a whole lifetime. Likewise, far less than a million years of changes in weather resulted in North Africa becoming the Sahara Desert. A mere 10,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert, was a flourishing grassland with lots of wildlife. Nobody with a bulldozer could make such a change. "Humans evolved from a lower species, and used their brains to become monsters. If we can't treasure the planet, the source of our life, we do not deserve to inhabit it." There's nothing that the worst of humans do that is not already being done as a matter of course in nature. For example, a certain species of female spider will eat the male alive, after copulation, to provide food for its offspring. Even Jack the Ripper didn't eat the women he killed, although he did mutilate some of the corpses If you were a cow, would you rather be dragged down and torn apart by a Lion, or would you rather be successfully stunned by a bolt gun, so you are unconscious before being torn apart in the slaughterhouse?

Humans are natural beings. We evolved from ape-like creatures and developed a capacity for abstract thought and complex language, which gives us some advantage over other species, but we still have difficulty combatting invisibly tiny creatures, such as viruses and bacteria, which can cause more damage than a world war. More people died as a result of the 'Spanish Flu', during and after WW1, than were killed in combat during the war. As countries become wealthier, their populations tend to decline. I doubt we will ever reach 16 billion, but even 16 billion humans would weigh far less than the total mass of earth worms in the ground. Let's get things in perspective.

C'mon now! The damage done to the planet through natural processes, has far exceeded the damage done by humans during our entire history, including all the wars, atomic bomb explosions, nuclear accidents, toxic waste and general pollution. Consider all the damage done by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tectonic plate movement, asteroid strikes, lightning strikes combined with wind and dry weather which have burnt much larger areas of forests in the past, without the presence of human intervention, and natural viruses and bacteria causing widespread pandemics, and so on. Whilst you've probably heard of the 5 mass extictions that are claimed to have occurred during the past 500 million years, degrees of extinction rates are a continuous process of natural evolution. The following article provides some details. "There’s a natural background rate to the timing and frequency of extinctions: 10% of species are lost every million years, 30% every 10 million years, and 65% every 100 million years. It would be wrong to assume that species going extinct is out of line with what we would expect. Evolution occurs through the balance of extinction – the end of species – and speciation – the creation of new ones." https://ourworldindata.org/mass-extinctions#:~:text=There have been five mass,history - Our World in Data

Very amusing, Sunmaster. Did you draw this? It's quite a bit different from the Michael Angelo painting in the Sistine chapel.

The tax money should be spent on preventing the flood damage occurring, by building more dams and creating better drainage systems. We have the knowledge and technology to do that. But instead, there is this absurd political idea, supported by scientisits on the gravy train, that we can prevent the flood damge occurring by spending trillions of dollars, world-wide, on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. 🤣

"The funds should be allocated to a dedicated account aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to changing climate conditions, supporting both production sectors and the public." Adapting to changing climate conditions is very sensible, but spending resources on reducing emissions of CO2, which is a clear, odourless gas, essential for all life, is very foolish. That money should be spent on reducing the real pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, mercury, and in particular the particulate matter from the burning of crop residue and forests that occur every year in Thailand.

"ICE buyers have cool and smart transport..." Wow! So you're not aware that ICE vehicles generate a lot of heat? 🤣

For those who are in denial about the advantages of the electric vehicle, following is an informative article about the benefits. "According to the Department of Energy (DOE), in an EV, about 59-62 percent of the electrical energy from the grid goes to turning the wheels, whereas gas combustion vehicles only convert about 17-21 percent of energy from burning fuel into moving the car. This means that an electric vehicle is roughly three times as efficient as an ICE vehicle. Needing less energy to power your car also helps bring down the cost." https://www.nrdc.org/bio/madhur-boloor/electric-vehicle-basics#:~:text=This means that an electric,helps bring down the cost

Those record temperatures were in cities, urban areas, and close to airports, where the Urban Heat Island (UHI} effect causes higher temperatures that sometimes break previous records in the same location when there was less development, that is, less concrete structures, pavements, and black asphalt roads absorbing lots of heat. Likewise, measuring the severity of extreme weather events by estimating the cost of the damage to human infrastructure and homes, is nonsense. As the population expands, more houses tend to be built in flood plains. A current riverine flood might be the same height is was 50 years ago, yet there are probably 4 times more houses built in the vicinity of the previous floods, resulting in a record cost of damages. Nevertheless, pretending that reducing human CO2 emissions can make the climate benign, which it never was, is a great religious/political idea to motivate the development of new and better sources of energy. Not only is CO2 essential for all life, affordable and reliable supplies of energy are essential for modern civilizations to flourish. The development of the electric vehicle is a poitive outcome of this 'climate alarmism' propaganda.