Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument. You have been contradicting me all the time, so please tell me why both cases are not exact? In both cases the Church or the Law, has to take a decision without scientific evidence or the certitude of anything, but you can live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence but not with a Church deciding something is a miracle. Iván

I admit that I have stonewalled religion. I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever join an organised religion. Ever.

seventhsojourn wrote: Dean wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument. You have been contradicting me all the time, so please tell me why both cases are not exact? In both cases the Church or the Law, has to take a decision without scientific evidence or the certitude of anything, but you can live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence but not with a Church deciding something is a miracle. Iván I think that's putting words in my mouth - I never said I could live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence, nor would I ever say that. That's not what any of this is about anyway. Sometimes your conclusions are just too bizarre to give credence to anything.   Just because a jury can convict someone on scant evidence and inconclusive scientific results it has absolutely nothing to do with the Church assuming that since science cannot produce an irrefutable explanation for a paranormal event then it must be a miracle. The two are not parallel or similar in any way. Stating that one is analogous of the other is a specious argument - it sounds right but it isn't.       A few pages ago I commented on the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation. However, since science cannot settle all disputes, perhaps miracles, like courts of law, are one of those disputes.

I can't really accept that - using that line of reasoning any question that science has yet to find an answer to would automatically fall under the remit of the Miracle Committee, and that would be a terrible idea. Using that logic we would still be living in the Dark Ages.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask Dean to explain it again, when you know that you'll, as a matter of principle, contradict him anyway?

Textbook wrote: How about you respond to what I said instead of hiding behind your flimsy veneer of smug superiority?   The way you respond to things is worse than no response at all sometimes. The worst thing is not how you disgrace yourself with such regularity but that you seem completely incapable of realising it.

Good to see Ivan finally admit he has no substance and bow out but that leaves us with no defenders of the faith in the thread.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:  You will never admit any argument that challenges your faith. My faith not, but I'm willing to accept facts that can be proven.

seventhsojourn wrote:   A few pages ago I commented on the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation. However, since science cannot settle all disputes, perhaps miracles, like courts of law, are one of those disputes.

You seem to be implying that miracles would be a matter of opinion by saying that perhaps science can not settle the dispute. This is essentially the only place where science does not hold sway. However, miracles can not be a subjective matter.

Science does settle disputes in court of law. A trial happens to be a fairly scientific procedure. You begin with a null hypothesis, and through very specific procedure, introduce evidence to either reject or fail to reject the null. In fact, the more scientific evidence present in a case, the less the need for a jury with nullification issues set aside. The only need for the jury's "opinion" would be the lack of scientific evidence. In trials, we allow the consensus of the jury to replace science because some degree of expediency is required.

We do not face this time constraint in life, nor are we constrained by double jeopardy. There's no reason that a lack of scientific evidence should imply that scientific processes be replaced by opinion. We can continue to develop theory and gather evidence for those cases which our sciences remain unable to analyze at this point.

Paravion wrote:   Mr. Prog Freak wrote: Science is the best tool we have. I'm not saying that because I'm an atheist and happen to "like" science and "dislike" religion - it's because science has a proven track record of success, and religion has a proven track record of failure. If you look back on history, you'll find that on countless issues science has revealed that the initial religious assumption was incorrect. The underlying problem is that religion has zero basis in reality. Take any religious argument you like and trace it back to it's foundation, and you'll find scripture and/or historic miracle claims. For example: The bible is true because of the miracles jesus performed - which we know about through the bible. It's all circular, whereas science is based on the rules of the natural world which we all can examine and validate. It's not "Darwinism", it's "Evolution" - Darwin happened to be the first person to "connect the dots", but doesn't mean we have to take his or anyone else's word for it, we can verify it independently. The bottom line: Science is the best tool we have. Whatever cannot be settled using something like the scientific process, cannot be settled by any other means except by means of faith - which cannot be verified at all and thus does not really settle anything. This conception of religion and science battling about truth in the same field is highly unrealistic. At universities and in academic circles there's no room for religious arguments - I've never seen any religious argument in any paper or textbook in linguistics. Even the highly respected faith-based Summer Institute of Linguistics refrain from that despite all the unexplainable phenomena in the field - like language acquisition - which cannot be accepted as a 'miracle' but as a field of proper scientific investigation, whether you are religious or not. Science and religion don't occupy the same field the way I see and experience it.   I also find assumptions like "a lot of empirical evidence = truth" very simplistic (recall the problem of induction). Truth itself is a highly flexible and complicated notion and is also a subject of investigation.  Truth is undeniably relative to human understanding which - I maintain - is limited.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: So courts of laws operate entirely without evidence? Remember that I'm talking about what happens after it has been established that no scientific explanation exists.