Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 103104105106107 174>
Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 02:14
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

What is Thisism? (Aside from a Lennonism)
 
What is "mere mathematical coincidence"?
 
How does that relate to anything I have discussed or raised?
 
Why is any of that "a shame"?
 
Thisism is a pretty modern term I guess to define that all there is in terms existence is this. Granted I am playing on words a bit so spare me some lattitude. I have heard people use this term so I know I am not alone in using this.
M'kay, not as I how interpretted it based on how it was used by Lennon - (thisism, thatism, ism, ism, ism) - ie protesting against the proliferation of "isms" in society with no specific meaning itself (how do you differntiate between thisism and thatism?) since it is not the adherance to the ideology of "this". If it has a modern meaning then it's just another ismism.
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

 
The way I understand your discussions is that nothing proves God exists, therefore let's assume you are correct. Then how would you define the existence of Earth, bees, plankton, water, love, death, Uranus, asteroids, space. Do you think it is all a mathematical occurrence that has resulted in us/it,bees etc being here?
Mathematics is not a "how" it is just a language - it describes things as a way of explaining them, but it does not result in anything. Mathematical coincidence is simply that - coincidence that two unrelated mathematical forumla yield a similar result (not the same result) so can in certain circumstnaces be used as a substitute (eg 22/7 is not pi, but for most things it's a good aproximation). Mathematics is not how or why anything came into existance, it is merely an obsevation that it has - I see no mathematical coincidence in these observations, but if they are it doesn't affect anything or change how those things came into existance. Describing grass as green or verdant are just different descriptions, neither are aproximations and neither change the colour of the grass to the observer.
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

  
Apologies for the word " Shame". That is an old South African expression meaning such a " pity", not mean't to be derogatory, but don't you think it is a shame/pity if all your existence,the solar system, the galaxies, your wife, your kids and loved ones came down to just physics and maths?
No - I find that to be a wonder and thing of total and utter awe-inspiring joy. If it was the result of some creator-god I'd be a lot less impressed. 
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

 
Hope that clarifiesSmile
What?
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 02:24
.
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

  
Apologies for the word " Shame". That is an old South African expression meaning such a " pity", not mean't to be derogatory, but don't you think it is a shame/pity if all your existence,the solar system, the galaxies, your wife, your kids and loved ones came down to just physics and maths?
 
EDIT: Dean's quote, sorry out of context.
No - I find that to be a wonder and thing of total and utter awe-inspiring joy. If it was the result of some creator-god I'd be a lot less impressed. 
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
 
OK, now thats perhaps the best answer I could have wished for. Still I do hope a creator is outthere somewhere, accountable or non accountable.


Edited by Chris S - September 01 2010 at 02:26
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 03:19
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


 
But since you've piqued my curiosity about the alternative explanations you can give for the evidence of Gravity, (since we've done Evolution before),
 

Flat Earthers actually have a fairly consistent alternative theory for gravity, and more interestingly light propagation and refraction.

Now these are obviously false, but the idea that they can get a fairly consistent alternative explanation is interesting. I recommend at least a cursory look at some of their stuff. I'm really heavily into Flat Earth myself, and I spend far too much time reading their literature. 
I can't say that I've looked into it or given it any consideration (so anything I say would be either talking off the top of my head or out of my backside) - I assume they are referring to a flat Earth in 3D Universe rather than a flat Earth in a 2D Flatland, so are not simply transposing 2D physics into a 3D space. In which case they would need different "gravities" for different roles - ie a different gravity for sticking objects to the surface of the Earth to the one that keeps the Moon in orbit to the one that caused the Earth to be flat instead of spherical. It would also be one that varies across the surface of a structure and can be a strong force and a weak force. Interesting...
What?
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 04:54
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
If you ever checked a process of approving a miracle, you would be amazed, it seems as if the Church didn't wanted miracles,
 
Not only they send theor most capable invesigator to discredit the saint or the miracle (with unlimited expenses, but they use scientists, medical doctors physicists, etc, and most of them not even religion.
 
If something is approved afte this trial, it has to be real.
 
Iván,


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807,00.html

"They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block."

What they are essentially approving as miracles are phenomena that there is (currently, or rather: at the time of the examination) no rational explanation for. Sorry, but this is not convincing. Sometimes cancer goes into remission - for no apparent reason. That doesn't mean that the reason was "God", it could also mean that we don't yet know enough about cancer to explain why it went away in that particular case.

This is the good old argument from ignorance. Sure, they filter out many claims that are obviously bogus - but they are not positively confirming miracles.
 
Mike, that article is concerned with miracles in the naming of saints. The procedure for canonization was reformed in 1983 and its body renamed the Congregation for the Causes of Saints by John Paul II in 1988. 
 
The first step is ''Beatification'' where the person is deemed blessed:
- sanctity - based on an historical account of the person's life, where the person has risen to the challenges of their time and shown heroic virtue.
- intercession - not only must there have been a miracle, the person must be deemed to have interceded to bring about the miracle.
- martyrdom - if martyred then there is no need for a miracle.  
- purity of doctrine - the person's writings may be examined and should not show signs of heresy.
 
After beatification, another miracle is required for the final step to sainthood.   
 
No longer a criterion for sainthood is ''incorruptibility'':
 
 
Now I'll grant that there may be other explanations for each of the above, for example the argument against ''great men/women'' that they were merely the product of their social setting, that an illness may be in remission, or the physical vs spiritual causes of incorruptibility (no longer a criterion, remember). However all criteria must be met, and the objections/doubts raised by the devil's advocate must be resolved...   
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 05:14

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


All the art you have mentioned was produced by believers in the gods, not by the gods the people believed in, all it shows is that people believed in gods, not that the gods exist.

Ah, but I think the fact that so many people believed something so strongly is in itself a form of evidence.

Yes, I've already agree that it's evidence that people believed in something, just not that it is evidence for what was being believed. For thousands of years everybody in Egypt believed that Ra was the Sun god - the scale of architecture of ancient Egypt could be seen as a measure of that strength of belief; the monuments of the ancient Britans such as Stonehenge and Avebury are evidence that the whole population of that area believed in something and did so for thousands of years (given the evidence of continuous linear use and development of the monuments). In Central and South American the indigenous religions were capable of motivating entire populations to produce some amazing art and architecture (eg Machu Picchu in Peru and Calixtlahuaca in Mexico). Hinduism is a polytheistic religion that is older than any existing religion and is believed by 1 billion people (I don't need to go into the scale and wealth of art produced by the Hindu's - it is self evident). The weight of all these examples is the same (whole pouplations for a long periods of time) and is not enough to distinguish one from another or to make any claim other than they believed in something that may or may not have existed.

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:


 I never said it would be a good explanation.
If it isn't a good explanation then it isn't an explanation. Wink


Edited by Dean - September 01 2010 at 05:19
What?
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 05:55
TheLlama: Let's say you are falsely accused of a murder, but your prints were on the murder weapon and you owed the victim a large amount of money and you had been near the scene. And let's say you were an ugly looking guy and spoke poorly and were black and did drugs and had a history of violent assault, but you did not commit this murder.
 
Thousands of people glancing over the details of this case over their papers or television or web browsing would come to a very solid and unshakeable belief that you were guilty.
 
You seem to be saying that this constitutes evidence that you are in fact guilty.
 
This is insane.
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 05:56
Dean, It's fascinating to think that we learned to use language in order to communicate, let alone develop complex systems of belief. I know the ''why'' of religion was discussed earlier in the thread, I just think your post above poses more questions about  why, how, who, where, when etc.
 
Something you said a few pages ago about outlawing religions, and how they then pass into mythology. I just wondered how you ''make'' someone stop believing... it ties in with Mike's point that Christianity might easily have faded into obscurity... despite the Roman persecutions, why did Christianity endure? How did Christianity develop from being a minor Jewish sect, despite the persecutions? Mike often points to the promise of an ''afterlife'', but this idea  wasn't exclusive to Christianity, was it? 
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 08:28
Freak events often shape the course of history. Constantine's nominal conversion to Christianity at his deathbed was one of them. He never was a Christian in any way we'd recognize, but adopted his Roman ideas with new symbols.
 
 
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 09:10
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Dean, It's fascinating to think that we learned to use language in order to communicate, let alone develop complex systems of belief. I know the ''why'' of religion was discussed earlier in the thread, I just think your post above poses more questions about  why, how, who, where, when etc.
Sorry Chris, you're gonna have to be more specific - what post and where in that post did I what I say pose these questions?
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

 
Something you said a few pages ago about outlawing religions, and how they then pass into mythology. I just wondered how you ''make'' someone stop believing... it ties in with Mike's point that Christianity might easily have faded into obscurity... despite the Roman persecutions, why did Christianity endure? How did Christianity develop from being a minor Jewish sect, despite the persecutions? Mike often points to the promise of an ''afterlife'', but this idea  wasn't exclusive to Christianity, was it? 
You make people stop believing by offering something more attractive in replacement (and is some cases, more attractive than death by burning). The early christian church did this by adopting the pagan feast-days and merging into the indigenous culture rather than trying to supplant it - this meant that the locals weren't losing anything by adopting the new religion - they could still celebrate Beltaine, Shamhain and Saturnalia and have a big party - it was just called Easter, Harvest Festival and Christmas - and they were given Sunday's off as well - win-win. The other "incentive" that christianity offered that the pagan religions didn't was that they were more "modern" and "progressive" and centered around humanity rather than spirituality and otherworldliness. Essentially, christianity to early medieval people was hip and with-it.
 
To gain insight into how christianity endured the Roman persecutions you have to first ask why the Romans were persecuting them in the first place - this wasn't standard procedure for Roman Empire - they normally assimilated others' religions into their own pantheon of gods, and where they couldn't, such as with the Jewish faith, they granted it special status and allowed them to continue unmolested as long as they paid tax. In the beginning christianity was just a faction of the Jewish religion, they saw it as an internal "problem" of the Jewish nation and of no concern to them. So for the most part they tolerated the early christians (Nero instigated the first round of persecutions but that was because the early christians in Rome were rebellious, not because he disapproved of their religion; Roman persecutions were not continuous and relentless during this period) and continued like that, with only sporadic outbreaks of small-scale localised persecutions, for the next 250 years. This was a crucial time for the new religion as it was when the christianity grew and spread more or less unchecked. It was during this period that christianity separated from the jewish faith and the early church fathers formulated what the religion would actually be and how the church would govern it - they were allowed considerable freedom and latitude within the Roman Empire to do this and it certainly wouldn't have happened under constant persecution.
 
The persecutions of the later period were caused by many reasons - the Romans now saw the the more organised and growing church as a threat - they were seen as sectarian, separatist, secretive, atheistic (a polytheistic view of monotheism), non-materialistic and disloyal - the normal Roman procedure with new religions was assimilation, but the jews and later the chistians were having none of that malarkey. None of these features fitted with the democratic and social nature of Roman life so the christians remained "foreign" outsiders. The church endured because it adapted and what didn't defeat it made it stronger, it had seen that the Romans feared what the church represented and they drew strength from that. Ironically that resulted in producing a religion that became more attractive to an emperor who wanted to control a vast population and the persecutions created martyrs, who became saints, and those saints made the religion appealing to those use to a polytheistic religion.
 
No, the afterlife wasn't exclusive to christianity, and it certainly wasn't central to the jewish faith, but it was (apparently) a key part of many religions. Burial rituals, which are common to most civilisations in one form or another and (if the archaeology is correct) to Neanderthals too, suggest that to many religions and cultures burial is more than just mourning the passing of dead, it is preparing them for life after death and their journey to the ancestors - viking ship burials, Celtic burial mounds, Egyptian tombs, etc. etc. all suggest this is the case. Whether that was central to the religion is another matter - burial tombs survive as evidence because they were designed to - no one gets buried in a tent simply because it won't last and no one wants that. We see the Egyptian religions as being cults of the dead because the tombs are all that survive - the day to day, hedonistic, life is for living stuff is long gone.
What?
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:08
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

TheLlama: Let's say you are falsely accused of a murder, but your prints were on the murder weapon and you owed the victim a large amount of money and you had been near the scene. And let's say you were an ugly looking guy and spoke poorly and were black and did drugs and had a history of violent assault, but you did not commit this murder.
 
Thousands of people glancing over the details of this case over their papers or television or web browsing would come to a very solid and unshakeable belief that you were guilty.
 
You seem to be saying that this constitutes evidence that you are in fact guilty.
 
This is insane.


No it isn't. In the scenario you describe there is a lot of evidence that I am guilty. You're confusing evidence with proof.
If people believe something they have to have a reason for believing it. In this case, part of their reason for believing in my guilt is the fact that my fingerprints were on the murder weapon. They believe based on evidence, so belief itself is by extension a form of evidence. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some of your assumptions though. Wink


Edited by thellama73 - September 01 2010 at 10:11
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:27
^ I agree - it's pretty solid evidence, assuming that "you had been near the scene" is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. You would probably be convicted - which never means that you are proven to be guilty, it simply means that a judge or jury found that your guilt can be seen as a fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:50
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807,00.html

"
They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block."
 
No Mike, the process has been changed in 1983 by John Paul II...A Saint requires miracles, and the process is not simple at all
 
.
Quote This business of proving that a saint was responsible for a miracle is particularly fascinating. The Church adopts a stance of skepticism toward all such claims, and has an entire staff of scientists and doctors who attempt to disprove the miracles—or to find alternative explanations. Most “miracles” are miraculous cures, and in such cases, the Church requires that a board of five doctors unanimously agree that no other explanation exists. Moreover, the cure must be complete and instantaneous; if the illness was cancer, a waiting period of 10 years is required to be sure the disease hasn’t merely gone into remission. Of course, proving that a particular saint was responsible for a miracle (having interceded with God on someone’s behalf) is not such a scientific undertaking. What if, for example, a neighbor prayed to another saint but didn’t tell anyone? What if—heaven forbid—the “miracle” occurred due to perfectly natural causes that simply escaped the scrutiny of the examiners? When all is said and done, no formal process, however detailed and rigorous, can completely eliminate the need for faith
 
Even when there are posibilities of mistake (In normal trials 1,900 persons covicted to death have neem discovered innocent), with not one or two doctors. a panel of 5 DOCTORS or 5 Scientists with unanymous decision must exist.
 
No trial is as strict as this one.
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

What they are essentially approving as miracles are phenomena that there is (currently, or rather: at the time of the examination) no rational explanation for. Sorry, but this is not convincing. Sometimes cancer goes into remission - for no apparent reason. That doesn't mean that the reason was "God", it could also mean that we don't yet know enough about cancer to explain why it went away in that particular case.
 
Yes Mike, you know more than a panel of 5 PROFFESIONAL doctors and/or scientists...Sure Mike

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

This is the good old argument from ignorance. Sure, they filter out many claims that are obviously bogus - but they are not positively confirming miracles.
 
Mike, some questions:
  1. What is your solid argument to discredit proffesional doctors and scientists?
  2. What is your degree?
  3. How many cases have you studied to say withput doubt is bogus?
  4. How much evidence have you had in your hands to claim it's product of ignorance?
  5. Have ayou at least studied a determined process during all it's stages,  to claim it's a product of ignorance?

Mike, talking without knowledge, and making claims that you can't support is not only ignorance, but arrogant ignorance.

Iván
 
            
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:54
Maybe you should stop using the term "Argument From Ignorance," Mike, since no one seems to know what it means and people insist on misinterpreting what you are saying. Wink
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 11:49
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I (...)
 
Mike (...) 

You're seeing ghosts Ivan! LOLClown
 
Don't you believe calling an argument NONSENSE is at least aggressive?
 
Quote

Definition of NONSENSE

1
a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense
(2) : an instance of absurd action
 
That's why I replied Dean's correct post
 
Iván
What Teo is saying is that In the fourth paragraph of your reply you called me Mike. LOL

Blessed by God are those who can READ... WinkTongueLOL
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:26
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Maybe you should stop using the term "Argument From Ignorance," Mike, since no one seems to know what it means and people insist on misinterpreting what you are saying. Wink


You think that if I explained it again people would stop insisting to misinterpret it?Wink
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:31
No.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:35
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
No Mike, the process has been changed in 1983 by John Paul II...A Saint requires miracles, and the process is not simple at all
 
.
Quote This business of proving that a saint was responsible for a miracle is particularly fascinating. The Church adopts a stance of skepticism toward all such claims, and has an entire staff of scientists and doctors who attempt to disprove the miracles—or to find alternative explanations. Most “miracles” are miraculous cures, and in such cases, the Church requires that a board of five doctors unanimously agree that no other explanation exists. Moreover, the cure must be complete and instantaneous; if the illness was cancer, a waiting period of 10 years is required to be sure the disease hasn’t merely gone into remission. Of course, proving that a particular saint was responsible for a miracle (having interceded with God on someone’s behalf) is not such a scientific undertaking. What if, for example, a neighbor prayed to another saint but didn’t tell anyone? What if—heaven forbid—the “miracle” occurred due to perfectly natural causes that simply escaped the scrutiny of the examiners? When all is said and done, no formal process, however detailed and rigorous, can completely eliminate the need for faith
 
Even when there are posibilities of mistake (In normal trials 1,900 persons covicted to death have neem discovered innocent), with not one or two doctors. a panel of 5 DOCTORS or 5 Scientists with unanymous decision must exist.
 
No trial is as strict as this one.



That's all very nice, but it doesn't mean that they proved a miracle. It simply means that they proved that they can't think of an alternative explanation. If they positively assert that there can be no other explanation than "miracle", then they are being dishonest - that would be like when an Atheists was claiming to know for a fact that no Gods exist.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

What they are essentially approving as miracles are phenomena that there is (currently, or rather: at the time of the examination) no rational explanation for. Sorry, but this is not convincing. Sometimes cancer goes into remission - for no apparent reason. That doesn't mean that the reason was "God", it could also mean that we don't yet know enough about cancer to explain why it went away in that particular case.
 
Yes Mike, you know more than a panel of 5 PROFFESIONAL doctors and/or scientists...Sure Mike



I know that they can't possibly prove that there are no alternative explanations.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

This is the good old argument from ignorance. Sure, they filter out many claims that are obviously bogus - but they are not positively confirming miracles.
 
Mike, some questions:
  1. What is your solid argument to discredit proffesional doctors and scientists?
    1. doctors and scientists aren't infallible and 2. like I said above, proving that nobody knows an alternative explanation doesn't mean proving that "God did it".
  2. What is your degree?
    It's a masters degree in computational science. But my argument does not rely on comparing my credentials to those of the doctors and scientists.
  3. How many cases have you studied to say withput doubt is bogus?
    I'm not saying anything "without doubt". Maybe indeed miracles happened - I don't know. All I am saying is that you don't know either. In order to jump from "we can't think of an alternative explanation" to "God did it" you need faith.
  4. How much evidence have you had in your hands to claim it's product of ignorance?
    The argument from ignorance means that you jump from "we don't know" to "it must have been God".
  5. Have ayou at least studied a determined process during all it's stages,  to claim it's a product of ignorance?
    No, but the article that I read and the info you posted both confirm that the process does not positively confirm miracles, it just confirms the absence of alternative explanations on behalf of these doctors and scientists.

Mike, talking without knowledge, and making claims that you can't support is not only ignorance, but arrogant ignorance.

Iván
 


At least this time the Protestants reading this might side with me - or convert to Catholicism because of your convincing argument.Wink
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:36
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

No.


Of course I know that the word "ignorance" will cause a knee-jerk reaction no matter what happens ... I'm like Black Adder in the episode with the actors, where he keeps saying "Macbeth".LOL
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:37
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Freak events often shape the course of history
 


There he goes again with punctuated equilibrium.Wink
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:39
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Freak events often shape the course of history
 


There he goes again with punctuated equilibrium.Wink
 
Yeah it's part of the way I think about the world. Good connection, not sure I made it directly myself.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 103104105106107 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.313 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.