| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
seventhsojourn 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
 Posted: December 08 2010 at 08:18 |
I'm not saying that every statement is a provocation, but what exactly do Northeast Indianan Wild Unicorns and invisible pet dragons have to do with Christianity? (Rhetorical question, obviously.)
@Textbook: Yes that's a fair point about the authority of the Church, but I wouldn't expect a skeptic to accept the pope's authority any more than I would expect a Protestant, Muslim, Jew etc to do so. When all possible explanations of an event have proven inadequate the Church may assume that a miracle took place. Compare this with the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation, and that because there is no scientific evidence for God then God doesn't exist.
When Ivan was talking about the panel of Consulta Medica doctors, Mike said: That's ridiculous, they are clearly biased - normal scientists would determine that there are no apparent reasons. And even then, who says that the ''available CT scans'' etc are authentic? Doctors aren't detectives. Well, neither are doctors/scientists infallible, and that includes ''normal scientists''. What is a ''normal scientist''? How does Mike know whether the Consulta Medica are clearly biased? And how does Mike know what the ''normal scientists'' would determine? How do I know whether men walked on the moon and whether the evidence is authentic?
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 08:22 |
|
^ isn't bring up conspiracy theories kind of shooting yourself in the foot?
|
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 08:44 |
|
How so?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:29 |
What I can't understand is why if somebody quotes a Doctor and a panel of medical doctors it's wrong but if Mike quotes a clown it's OK?
Maybe it's only correct if you quote scientists who agree with your position.
Anyway, it's interesting how when there's no argument, people start to insult.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:36 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Again you loose your temper Mike?
You are the one who quoted this guy and you call me an idiot?
Iván
|
I think he's smarter than you when it comes to religion. 
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 09:51 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
When Ivan was talking about the panel of Consulta Medica doctors, Mike said: That's ridiculous, they are clearly biased - normal scientists would determine that there are no apparent reasons. And even then, who says that the ''available CT scans'' etc are authentic? Doctors aren't detectives. Well, neither are doctors/scientists infallible, and that includes ''normal scientists''. What is a ''normal scientist''? How does Mike know whether the Consulta Medica are clearly biased? And how does Mike know what the ''normal scientists'' would determine? How do I know whether men walked on the moon and whether the evidence is authentic? |
This kind of reasoning leads you down the slippery slope towards post-modernism ("we can't really know anything - so all opinions are equally valid").
"Do you personally believe in miracles?
Yes, there are some medical events that are not explainable... If you do not believe in miracles, your life is not as full as it could be." There you see the principle of the argument from ignorance at work - no explanation is found, so we conclude that it must have been a miracle. Never mind if history shows that for many "miracle cures" decades later an explanation was found. Like he says previously: "What about miracles that you determined unexplainable 10 years ago, but are now quite easily explained [because of medical advances]? We believe that any progress of humanity is a present from God. And therefore, if I receive a Nobel prize for discovering the cure for cancer, I thank God for giving me the light and understanding to discover this, but it does not cancel out unexplained cures of cancer." Notice the deeply religious argumentation in the first two highlighted parts, and the inherent logical contradiction in the third highlighted part. Sure, the mere fact that some previous miracles were debunked does not prove that they're *all* invalid. But it does show that that the current process of detecting miracles is flawed (-> argument from ignorance).
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 08 2010 at 10:39
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:12 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
What I can't understand is why if somebody quotes a Doctor and a panel of medical doctors it's wrong but if Mike quotes a clown it's OK?
Maybe it's only correct if you quote scientists who agree with your position.
Anyway, it's interesting how when there's no argument, people start to insult.
Iván |
You can quote scientists - there's nothing wrong with that. When you quote medical doctors commenting on what's a miracle and what isn't, then it gets ridiculous. Sure, I know, they're only determining that no medical cause is found. But that's a non-issue - nobody contests that in the first place. Except for the fact that some claims are bogus - but on the whole, even your most hard nosed atheist will agree that sometimes people who have terminal illnesses get better with no apparent reason - the best doctors that we have can find none. And if some of those happen to have been Catholics, or Catholics were praying for them - then they become candidates for miracle claims. Never mind the Hindus, Muslims etc. who get better. 
And please, the idiot thing was a sarcastic attempt at demonstrating the false dilemma fallacy ... 
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:23 |
Ivan, I posted a few videos the other day of an idiotic candidate here who said she was not witch. Did I do so because she is, for me, an authority?
We all sometimes post videos of people saying things we agree with. That doesn't mean we regard them as authorities. We regard them as people with one (maybe just one) good opinion. Why does it have to be either "authority" or "no authority" in your book? In this cae Mike is so absolutely right. You're seeing everything black or white.
And believe me, I SO dislike the amazing atheist...
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:25 |
I still haven't had a response (other than Stonebeard's) regarding why the Church is supposed to be an authority on miracles....
Or maybe it's this easy: I'll invent a new category, let's say, "TheT-events", and I'll write all there is about the subject. Therefore, I'm an authority. |
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:33 |
The T wrote:
I still haven't had a response (other than Stonebeard's) regarding why the Church is supposed to be an authority on miracles....
Or maybe it's this easy: I'll invent a new category, let's say, "TheT-events", and I'll write all there is about the subject. Therefore, I'm an authority. |
You really need to pay more attention... or maybe my posts have miraculously disappeared! 
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:41 |
Not really, but It's still not good enough for me. I wanted Ivan to explain it anyway since he said the church was an authority in the first place.
We really need The Amazing Catholic or The Amazing Theist... |
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 10:56 |
The Church is an authority because of scripture. Scripture is authoritative because the Church says so.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 11:02 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The Church is an authority because of scripture. Scripture is authoritative because the Church says so. |
We need a third party to define what an authority is once and for all... is beyond our grasp.
Let's create a god.
|
|
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 11:10 |
Textbook already highlighted the circular nature of this argument.... and I guess we all might agree that Protestants don't accept the authority of the pope, but they still can believe in miracles.
Just because you can explain something, doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it. Christians in general believe that God works through natural things.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:08 |
The T wrote:
Ivan, I posted a few videos the other day of an idiotic candidate here who said she was not witch. Did I do so because she is, for me, an authority?
No T, if I'm not wrong you quoted her to make mockery, and we all laughed because the situation is absurd
We all sometimes post videos of people saying things we agree with. That doesn't mean we regard them as authorities. We regard them as people with one (maybe just one) good opinion. Why does it have to be either "authority" or "no authority" in your book? In this cae Mike is so absolutely right. You're seeing everything black or white.
If I consistently post SEVERAL videos of a guy in a serious discussion, as an example of a correct arguments, and claim how right he/she is, then you are using that person to reaffirm your position, ergo, it's a figure of authority or at least of respect to you.
I wouldn't quote a video of any John Smith, even when he said God exists, because the guy is a nobody without any authority.
And believe me, I SO dislike the amazing atheist...
That's not the point, I dislike Dawkins, but I recognize he's an authority for atheists, the guy is intelligent, I simply like the Amazing Atheist, because each time he talks, he converts a couple persons to religion. 
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:37 |
When I post a video, it's usually because I think that it is interesting with respect to the topic at hand. I also posted a Pat Condell video, and a video by TAA that was critical of Pat Condell.
Please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting me on purpose. If your world view is centered around blindly believing figures of authority - and you being religious hints towards that - then that is sad, but it doesn't have anything to do with me.
Incidentally: I think I've posted a few videos by KingHeathen ... if you watch them to the end, you'll know his motto:
"Don't take my word for it - think for yourself"
I agree 100% - and it is sad that in our conversation I have to spell this out, it should go without saying.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 08 2010 at 12:38
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:47 |
The T wrote:
Not really, but It's still not good enough for me. I wanted Ivan to explain it anyway since he said the church was an authority in the first place.
We really need The Amazing Catholic or The Amazing Theist... |
No we don't need it.
The Church is an authority because they have spent the last centuries studying with a defined method, every event that can be cataloged as a miracle.
They have a process and an office in charge, with a not limited budget, they have talked with all the people involved,. witnesses, scientific experts who are in favour and also those who are against, they have debunked largely more than 95% of the miracles claimed with help of the science.
If that wasn't enough, there's a canonic law (a discipline of laws, recognized even by civil institutions) that defines a process to accept a miracle, we are not talking about a bunch of lunatics who make a guy walk every Sunday, but a process with a lawyer, an DA (until some years ago called The Devil's Advocate), and as many witness and experts (in every field) as they need, this process can take, years, decades or even centuries, in order to achieve a high degree of certitude.
Is this is not an authority...I don't know what is.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:50 |
I know what it is ...
BUNK
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:56 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You can quote scientists - there's nothing wrong with that. When you quote medical doctors commenting on what's a miracle and what isn't, then it gets ridiculous. Sure, I know, they're only determining that no medical cause is found. But that's a non-issue - nobody contests that in the first place.
|
False
You need 5 different diagnosis, 100% coincident
The Holy Office can (an always does) ask for any scientific expert opinion, EVEN FROM ATHEISTS, there's no limit for this.
At the end after 5 diagnosis (mandatory), many more optional, many witness, many expert declarations, a process that can take decades (in the best of cases), THE POPE BY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT declares if we are before a miracle.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:57 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I know what it is ...
BUNK |
Bunk for you.
But is one of the most careful processes in the world.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
