|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2004 : 05:13:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dr:
I disagree with your definition of truth. What you're describing is people's views of truth. At the JFK assassination, many people had different ideas about what happened, which shots came from where. But if you believe in an objective universe, you would have to agree that the shooting happened a particular way. It is true that JFK was shot; the manner in which he was shot is up to interpretation. In that way, I say that science is used to obtain truth.
It is true that JFK was shot. The event left a lot of evidence, and since that happened a lot of people has been trying to interpret the evidence. But we cannot agree on what is the truth. No interpretation will ever be completely true in the sense of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God.
You are right, there is an objective truth somewhere, but what we perceive as the truth is not necessarily the truth. That was the point I was trying to make.
Let's take an example of Newtonian physics:
It is considered true that if you have a stationary stone with the mass of 1kg, and applies a force of 10 Newton on it for one second, it will accelerate 1 m/s. From stationary to the speed of 1 m/s.
If the same stone is traveling at the speed of 100 m/s and apply a force of 10 Newton in the same direction it is traveling for one second, its speed is increased to 101 m/s.
We consider this to be true. But it really isn't. It's an approximation of the truth. There is something else that interferes with the truth, and with the law of physics that Isaac Newton stipulated. When traveling at the speed of 100 m/s this interference is very small. The final speed will be only ~100,99999999999944 m/s.
The interference I'm talking about is of course Einstein's relativity.
That relativity is always present, and is part of the truth of the existence of the stone. But in normal cases there is no point in including relativistic effects in our calculations. When we throw the stone, we are simply ignoring parts of the truth.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the stone is traveling at 101 m/s because we do not demand such a high accuracy in our calculations.
Yet, if we include Einstein's formula, we cannot be entirely sure that we have the whole truth. There might be something else that interferes with our calculation of relativity. Presently, we are trying to figure out if there is. That is the goal of science.
We may come close to the truth, but we must accept the possibility that we may never get there.
When you drop a 1kg stone from the height of 2 meters in Huston, Texas, it will not hit the ground with the same speed as when I do the same thing in the city of Kiruna, Sweden. (the major difference will be due to other than relativistic effects)
If you say that both will hit the ground with the same speed, you will not be telling the truth.
Fundies(tm) claim that the Bible is absolute truth. I stand by my statement that will never know absolute truth.
quote:
The only assumptions I know of that are required for logic is that you exist and that the universe has Laws of Nature. I believe that those are the same assumptions that science operates under. What other assumptions to you say that logic operates on?
A logical construct does not have to rely on the axiom that universe had laws of Nature.
I suppose that you can view logic as set of mathematical formulas.
In my daily work I deal with electronic logical circuits. In the schematics that describe the logical circuits there is no reference to the physical makeup of the transistors on the circuit-board. The schematics say that a "1" signal is 3,3volts but what "3,3volt" really is is not important. It's only there for reference to another signal state. The logical construct on my schematics describes AND-gates, NAND-gates, NOR-gates, D-latches. They are logical constructs that rely on the axioms that is Boolean Algebra. When these circuits are transferred to the circuit board I will rely on the laws of Nature, but as long as they are only printed on a piece of paper, they do not depend on the laws of Nature.
quote:
Yes, 'proof' is another thing which we must define. I propose that the definition of 'proof' to be used in this thread is "evidence which establishes a truth beyond all reasonable doubt." 'Truth' in that statement is used as I stated earlier; speaking of which, do you agree with my stated definition of 'truth', and if not, what changes would you make, and why?
As long as we separate "personal view of what is truth" from "Objective truth that is not clouded by personal preferences", and disregard the former. A compelling load of evidence well have to suffice for establishing a truth, just as long as it is understood that it will only be an approximation of the "absolute objective truth".
It is true that JFK is dead. Evidence tells us there was that there was a shooter. That is also true, because logic dictates that if someone was shot, then there had to be a shooter. If there was one or several candidates for each and every shot that was fired has not been conclusively established.
At least not to my knowledge. I have to rely on you to tell me which of the events have enough compelling evidence to be regarded as true. This makes me uncomfortable, because I know that you will not judge the evidence the same way I will. I'd rather rely on a forensic scientist, because I know that he has been trained to be as objective as possible.
quote:
If there's only one explanation, is it fact? No. But if there are two viable explanations, neither are fact. I would even go so far as to say that the better explanation should be held as the one to be believed, but it should not be considered fact.
That sounds fair enough.quote:
As to scientific dating vs. theological dating: radiometric dating methods assume that radioactive material was evenly spread out through the pool of matter that the solar system originated from.
That assumption does not hold true for carbon dating.
Influx of radiation into the atmosphere creates a small amount of carbon-14. Experiments have confirmed this to be true.
Carbon-14 decays at a certain rate. This rate has been very accurately measured. Logic dictates that this rate of decay has been constant for at least as long as the sun has been shining upon the Earth. The logic is founded on the assumption that the same law of nature that regulates the decay of the carbon-14 nucleus governs the hydrogen nucleus. Experiments have shown that laws that applies carbon-14 also applies to all instances of radioactive cobalt, potassium, gold, uranium, plutonium and too many more to be listed here.
The only assumption that I know of that would compromise the validity of carbon dating |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/31/2004 05:36:41 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 05:21:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dr:
Please refer to me as Mabuse, or Mab for short.
Dr. is the title of the fictional character Mabuse from which I have taken my nick.
While I have studied some Astronomy, and Astro-biology at the university, I'm by no means a doctor of any kind.
Unless I'm playing doctor/patient with my girlfriend, but that's a completely different subject... Anatomy   |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/31/2004 05:37:47 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 15:59:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I would first have to determine the validity of the evidence upon which the possibility of the Bible being fiction is. I agree that it is possible that the Bible is mostly fiction, but I'm still examining the evidence.
If I ever implied that if there was only one explanation that it must be fact I know retract that statement in favor of my present one.
I fully agree with you last two statements.
Mabuse:
I saw that episode of Oprah too, it was one of the rare times that I didn't immediately change the channel. Anyway, I would not trust my own eyewitness testimony in such a situation, but I would be more likely to trust what I myself observe if I know that I've had enough time thouroughly observe. For instance, if the mock thief had sat down and had a conversation of me, I would be rather confident of what he looked and sounded like; although he could have been wearing a realistic mask of somebody else's face, like in Mission:Impossible.
Yes, I would agree that most of our truth is approximated, and I would also agree with your statement, slightly modified:we'll never absolutely know absolute truth. If Jesus takes us to heaven and shows us absolute truth, I'd believe with all my heart that it was absolute truth, but I guess I'd never absolutely know.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2004 : 00:49:01 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
I would first have to determine the validity of the evidence upon which the possibility of the Bible being fiction is. I agree that it is possible that the Bible is mostly fiction, but I'm still examining the evidence.
If I ever implied that if there was only one explanation that it must be fact I know retract that statement in favor of my present one.
I think I need to rephrase my question, since it was somewhat ambiguous:
Is it reasonable to think that the Bible's statements about what God (or Jesus) did or said in order to prove themselves to be Divine are fiction? In other words, given that our only source for what may or may not have happened is a book which has been edited at least once since it was written by people other than the main actors in the story, is it insane to think that accounts of raising the dead or even turning water into wine are fabricated?
And I mean right now, prior to any further examination of whatever evidence you may find. (Though your answer to this question in the future is in no way limited by how you answer today.)
Here is why I ask this in such a way:
If it is reasonable to think that the Bible may not represent the "truth," then it is unreasonable to consider the Bible to offer anything close to an equally-likely explanation of the history of the Earth and universe as science provides for us, since the experiments which scientists do to determine the "truth" can be recreated by anyone, of any religious belief, so long as the methods used are reasonable.
In still other words, it is probable that religious exemptions from scientific testing (such as, "the Lord works in mysterious ways") will invalidate scientific testing of religious questions in the first place. If so, that would put us back to square one: I will not agree that it is possible to view a universe which is allegedly ruled by a God who can do what He will when He will as being "real" to any individual observer.
If I happen to see things in a scientific way, and you do not, you must do nothing more than say, "it is God's will" to fully eliminate any possibility that we are discussing the same universe.
This is a fundamental obstacle which must be overcome before further discourse on this subject can be productive.
You also wrote:quote:
I fully agree with you last two statements.
Unfortunately, my statements were actually implied questions to you:
1) What are your criteria for determining the viability of an explanation of an observed phenomenon?
2) What are your criteria for determining which of two (or more) proposed explanations for observed phenomena is "better"? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2004 : 15:30:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Good questions. To your first paragraph: 1) The earliest writings of the New Testament that we physically have date to the Second Century, so it is possible that it was written by the students of the apostles themselves. Given that it is a recorded fact that a huge amount of people were martyred before giving up their faith, I think that they had some powerful influence upon them, either overwhelming truth or brainwashing propaganda. 2) People who follow the teachings of these writings often recieve the promises of these writings. Peace activists such as Ghandi and MLK Jr. have used the methods taught and they worked. And, there are present-day accounts of miracles happening. I myself have never observed an undeniable, visible, miraculous healing; for instance, a broken bone that is poking through the skin instantly being restored to a completely healed state. However, the Pentacostal church is (or was) full of such accounts. And I can say that a good friend of mine has witnessed many healings, the most obvious would be an obviously broken bone (not poking through the skin) healed on the way to the hospital. Others that he will tell of include a snake bite, where the leg was swollen and puffing up, suddenly it deflated, and the guy was fine. Boiling water poured on his arm, his skin one big blister. Back to normal in about fifteen minutes. Even in my own family, most of us never get sick more than two or three times a year, and I have never gotten chicken pox. The Bible makes these promises, and it delivers, so I think that right off the bat lends to its validity. And I will continue to discuss its validity from a historical, scientific, and textual basis; but I'm low on time right now and have to go.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2004 : 17:33:19 [Permalink]
|
Miraculous healing....
Having been the recipent of broken bones and several venomous snakebites, and knowing what it's like and how long it takes to heal, I'd have to see some pretty rigorous documentation in support.
I've often read of these occurences, but never in any sort of scientific literature. Mostly these stories were in newspapers, weekly and daily, and on the odd TV show -- hardly peer reviewed, nor even well fact-checked accounts. the media being what it is, can't be trusted to provide accuratcy about this sort of thing.
You see, if miraculous healing were to actually happen, the scientific community would be very interested. If true, medical knowledge in trauma treatment might advance drasticly. Hey, it might help me personally, as I am sensitive to equine serum and antivenin puts me into shock. I fear it even more than the venom.
But at the moment, I don't see it happening.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
lovekraft0
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2004 : 19:28:18 [Permalink]
|
Hippy
I like the fact that you are open to debate, but your logic is at best hard to follow:
quote:
Given that it is a recorded fact that a huge amount of people were martyred before giving up their faith, I think that they had some powerful influence upon them, either overwhelming truth or brainwashing propaganda.
Martyrdom is no indication of a vaild belief system - think Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
quote:
Peace activists such as Ghandi and MLK Jr. have used the methods taught and they worked.
Both were martyred in political struggles - I don't see the connection.
quote:
And, there are present-day accounts of miracles happening. I myself have never observed an undeniable, visible, miraculous healing; for instance, a broken bone that is poking through the skin instantly being restored to a completely healed state. However, the Pentacostal church is (or was) full of such accounts.
Without documentation, it's simply folklore.
quote:
And I can say that a good friend of mine has witnessed many healings, the most obvious would be an obviously broken bone (not poking through the skin) healed on the way to the hospital. Others that he will tell of include a snake bite, where the leg was swollen and puffing up, suddenly it deflated, and the guy was fine. Boiling water poured on his arm, his skin one big blister. Back to normal in about fifteen minutes.
I can't speak for your friend, but I do know that humans are by nature rather easily misled. We seldom scrutinize anything that confirms our own beliefs.
quote:
Even in my own family, most of us never get sick more than two or three times a year, and I have never gotten chicken pox.
I'm glad to hear that most of your family enjoys good health - so do many Taoists, Hindus, atheists and even Satanists - again no obvious connection.
quote:
The Bible makes these promises, and it delivers, so I think that right off the bat lends to its validity.
I fail to see that any of what you've said here tends to support the validity of the Bible - only a believer would make that connection, and a believer has no need to validate that in which he already has faith.
William |
...extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2004 : 19:41:07 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Good questions.
Thank you.quote:
To your first paragraph: 1) The earliest writings of the New Testament that we physically have date to the Second Century, so it is possible that it was written by the students of the apostles themselves. Given that it is a recorded fact that a huge amount of people were martyred before giving up their faith, I think that they had some powerful influence upon them, either overwhelming truth or brainwashing propaganda.
Actually, I'd need to know what "a huge number" is, and how it related to the total Christian population, before agreeing that such a statement is, indeed, fact. Beyond that, people do some very crazy things when faith is on the line. I'm reading a book right now about faith healing, and there apparently have been plenty of people who've said they've been healed, but hadn't been, either because they got "caught up in the moment," or because they didn't want to hurt the preacher's feelings.quote:
2) People who follow the teachings of these writings often recieve the promises of these writings. Peace activists such as Ghandi and MLK Jr. have used the methods taught and they worked.
That the Bible offers tools for social change such as passive resistance is not surprising. The authors, after all, were attempting to change society. Plus, I very much doubt that such tools originated with the New Testament.quote:
And, there are present-day accounts of miracles happening. I myself have never observed an undeniable, visible, miraculous healing; for instance, a broken bone that is poking through the skin instantly being restored to a completely healed state. However, the Pentacostal church is (or was) full of such accounts. And I can say that a good friend of mine has witnessed many healings, the most obvious would be an obviously broken bone (not poking through the skin) healed on the way to the hospital. Others that he will tell of include a snake bite, where the leg was swollen and puffing up, suddenly it deflated, and the guy was fine. Boiling water poured on his arm, his skin one big blister. Back to normal in about fifteen minutes.
There is a million dollars sitting and waiting for anyone who can demonstrate such miraculous healings in a controlled setting. It'd go a long way towards charitable causes, but has yet to be collected. Perhaps you should tell your friend about it.
In all seriousness, I cannot accept tales such as your friend offers without documentation that they actually occured in the manner and times described.quote:
Even in my own family, most of us never get sick more than two or three times a year, and I have never gotten chicken pox.
Um, I get sick maybe once a year, on average, so I think you are being shortchanged in that regard. As for chicken pox, it's not impossible to avoid it (but it'll suck pretty bad if you get it as an adult).quote:
The Bible makes these promises, and it delivers, so I think that right off the bat lends to its validity.
Unfortunately, you haven't really demonstrated anything out of the ordinary, or unique to the Bible. Millions have died for "causes" of various sorts (both good and bad); peace activism of one form or another has been around a very long time; tales of miraculous healings have been around even longer (within many different religions, and without), and your family appears to get sick more often than mine. These promises (and more) have been made by lots of different people and books, and they've all "delivered."quote:
And I will continue to discuss its validity from a historical, scientific, and textual basis; but I'm low on time right now and have to go.
S'okay, take your time.
Oh, and a big "welcome!" to William while I'm here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 07:40:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Even in my own family, most of us never get sick more than two or three times a year, and I have never gotten chicken pox.
Um, I get sick maybe once a year, on average, so I think you are being shortchanged in that regard. As for chicken pox, it's not impossible to avoid it (but it'll suck pretty bad if you get it as an adult).
In the last ten years my girlfriend has stayed home from work
twice. Once for a broken collar bone and once for a pulled out tooth. While I get knocked flat out by the flu every other year or so, she gets a dripping nose a few days, but just shrugs it off. She's past thirty and has yet to get chickenpox.
But then, she's so strong willed, if she set her mind to it, I bet she'd fight it off within a day.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 08:50:35 [Permalink]
|
I too, would like to welcome William.
William, I see you're from 'Bama. I spent a lot of time in the Lookout Mountain area checking out timber rattlesnake hibernacula. I hope to go back to visit Valley Head, one day. This was before the area became a tourist orgasm.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 12:58:42 [Permalink]
|
Hello all:
Before I continue, I would like to say that I have to somewhat disagree with scientific principle. One of science's dogmas is that the natural laws don't change and have never changed. I believe that miracles do happen, miracles being things which are physically impossible. Not to say that the natural laws don't exist, or that they're changed randomly. That is, I believe that natural laws are only changed on purpose, and not on a widescale basis. Therefore, much of science is still valid to me.
lovekraft0:
I know martyrdom doesn't validate belief, that's why I said it was either truth or propaganda. And also, my entire previous post was not to prove Christianity, merely to give an example of its power. And I know things promised by the Bible are not limited to believers of the Bible.
filthy:
Actually, I rather doubt that the scientific community would be interested in faith healing at all. They're subject to the same desire to be right that everyone else is. And as soon as I know of a scientist in high places who is actually open to the idea of miracles, I'll start talking to him/her. But anyway, I'm not saying that miracles prove the Bible, but (if they exist) they are proof of the supernatural.
Dave:
Yes, fake healings, the opposite of faith healings. The Enemy's worst lies are told with truth mixed in. And I doubt if that million dollar reward will ever be collected, because a believer who has enough spiritual power to heal will not care about money. And besides, the Lord does not use miracles to establish His authenticity, He uses them to help people. In the Gospels, Jesus would heal people all the time, but when asked specifically for a sign He wouldn't give one. While peace activism has been around, it never had the effect that Ghandi and MLK gave it.
Now, about the Bible's scientific standpoint, let me say again that one of the first things that you have to accept about the Bible is that it teaches that miracles happen. So anything that happens in the Bible that is physically impossible is a miracle(if the Bible is true.) So saying "the Earth couldn't suddenly stop in order to have the sun and moon stand still" doesn't mean anything to me. Now, if there was something mentioned in the Bible like "the world is flat" or "the Earth is the center of the universe", and it looks like it was supposed to be taken literally, then I would have to disbelieve that part because science has established to my satisfaction that the Earth is a ball. Science has not established that Joshua's prayer wasn't miraculously answered.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
lovekraft0
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 13:48:08 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Dave, Filthy, it's good to be among rational people - not much of that happening in my neck of the woods.
Hippy, your logic still confounds me - let me see if i can explain my confusion.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
That is, I believe that natural laws are only changed on purpose, and not on a widescale basis. Therefore, much of science is still valid to me.
But wouldn't that make natural laws more like suggestions? That in itself would invalidate science as we know it, wouldn't it?
quote:
lovekraft0:
I know martyrdom doesn't validate belief, that's why I said it was either truth or propaganda. And also, my entire previous post was not to prove Christianity, merely to give an example of its power.
Many things, like drug addiction and sexual obsession, cause people to engage in fatal self-destructive behavior.
quote:
And as soon as I know of a scientist in high places who is actually open to the idea of miracles, I'll start talking to him/her.
His name is James Randi, and he's offering a large sum for a real miracle.
quote:
And I doubt if that million dollar reward will ever be collected, because a believer who has enough spiritual power to heal will not care about money. And besides, the Lord does not use miracles to establish His authenticity, He uses them to help people.
Sorry, that won't fly - if Jesus hadn't performed his miracles in public to "establish His authenticity", we wouldn't be having this conversation.
quote:
While peace activism has been around, it never had the effect that Ghandi and MLK gave it.
OK, Martin Luther King I understand, but Gandhi emphatically did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. He was a monotheist, but he was certainly no Christian.
quote:
Now, about the Bible's scientific standpoint, let me say again that one of the first things that you have to accept about the Bible is that it teaches that miracles happen. So anything that happens in the Bible that is physically impossible is a miracle(if the Bible is true.)
But we're back to what you personally believe again. Reread Dave's post:
quote:
If it is reasonable to think that the Bible may not represent the "truth," then it is unreasonable to consider the Bible to offer anything close to an equally-likely explanation of the history of the Earth and universe as science provides for us, since the experiments which scientists do to determine the "truth" can be recreated by anyone, of any religious belief, so long as the methods used are reasonable.
In still other words, it is probable that religious exemptions from scientific testing (such as, "the Lord works in mysterious ways") will invalidate scientific testing of religious questions in the first place. If so, that would put us back to square one: I will not agree that it is possible to view a universe which is allegedly ruled by a God who can do what He will when He will as being "real" to any individual observer.
There can be no debate without a common set of assumptions. You have to approach science from a scientific point of view - if not, it becomes rubbish (like most post-modern sociology).Science is about prediction and replication of results. All viewpoints are not equally valid. Science is in flux, changing to accomodate new information. The rules don't change, but the sum of knowledge does. If you are unable to approach this exchange from that point of view, we are having two different conversations.
|
...extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence... |
| Edited by - lovekraft0 on 02/04/2004 13:53:01 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 16:04:25 [Permalink]
|
hippy4Christ,
quote:
Before I continue, I would like to say that I have to somewhat disagree with scientific principle. One of science's dogmas is that the natural laws don't change and have never changed.
First I think you are confusing naturalistic explanations with "natural laws".
Second scientists rely on naturalistic explanations for the things they study because they are better than the alternatives. There is no dogmatic golden rule handed out to scientists that they must swear too saying "use only naturalistic explanations". In fact only until recently supernatural explanations of things were the norm in many areas of science. In fact the golden years of that period was called the Dark Ages for a very specific reason.
Why did scientists abandon these supernatural explanations? Simply put, because the naturalistic explanations turned out to be more productive. They produced real results and were testable and verifiable. Things that supernatural explanations were not.
For instance blame disease on demons and perform exorcisms. No benefits for the poor "patient". Turn to a naturalistic explanation of germs and how to treat them. Benefit for the "patient" in mammoth proportions.
How did all the species arise? Supernatural explanation equates to biological sciences that were pointless and without rhyme nor reason and no real benefits or understandings. Naturalistic explanation suddenly focuses biology into a science where everything starts to make sense and sudden benefits are realized including better understandings of natural histories that we are still just scratching the surface of.
So hippy4Christ the reason you don't see scientists going around trying to use supernatural explanations is because those explanations lost. They lost bad. As my physical ANTH professor likes to say, "that dog don't hunt." If a scientist wants to produce quantifiable results then naturalistic explanations are the way to go. If they want to pursue supernatural explanations they are more then welcome too, but then suddenly the results all dry up.
quote:
I believe that miracles do happen, miracles being things which are physically impossible.
Ok if I were to believe miracles do happen, how would I decide which ones are real and which ones are not? Astrology? Faith Healing? Raising the Dead? Talking to the Dead? Out of Body Experiences? Mind Reading? Telekinesis? Divine Intervention (from any Deity)? Flying? Walking on Water? Magic Spells? The list goes on and on.
How do I decide which are true and which are not? How does anyone decide? I have looked and I will continue to look, but so far I have not found one instance with good and valid evidence. How do I choose between a laundry list of miracles to believe in some and not others when there appears to be no difference in the evidence between them? Do I just choose the ones that make me happy and fit my world view? Do I accept them all and become a lunatic? Or do I simply reject them all until one comes about with credible evidence?
What is the benefit I get for accepting such things (or anything for that matter) without evidence? I can see none and instead I see quite a disadvantage instead. I will not allow my intuition to be my guide in determining what is true and false. Throughout history people have been misled by this. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 18:15:55 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Now, about the Bible's scientific standpoint, let me say again that one of the first things that you have to accept about the Bible is that it teaches that miracles happen. So anything that happens in the Bible that is physically impossible is a miracle(if the Bible is true.) So saying "the Earth couldn't suddenly stop in order to have the sun and moon stand still" doesn't mean anything to me. Now, if there was something mentioned in the Bible like "the world is flat" or "the Earth is the center of the universe", and it looks like it was supposed to be taken literally, then I would have to disbelieve that part because science has established to my satisfaction that the Earth is a ball. Science has not established that Joshua's prayer wasn't miraculously answered.
Unfortunately, you're jumping ahead in this discussion.
We are at the point, right now, where you need to tell me if it is, indeed, reasonable for a person to think that the miracles and other such things mentioned in the Bible are not true, in some way or another.
What you've written above is a discussion to perhaps be had after we find out if we can come to an agreement on the suitability of the Bible as evidence of anything of importance to the question of the origins of the universe.
Bits and pieces of the Bible are undoubtedly correct (such as there being a place alled 'Egypt'), but the bits and pieces we can now confirm are of no use to us in discussing whether the universe began through Divine Creation or not. Things are this way because other bits and pieces of the Bible are unconfirmed, and/or apparently false, and/or metaphoric. Any given piece of information which cannot be confirmed (that the Earth stopped, for example) cannot, therefore, be automatically assumed to be true.
So again, is it reasonable - meaning that a person would not have to be insane - to not believe what the Bible says regarding miracles?
By the way, if what physics tells us about conservation of energy and angular momentum is correct, then if the Earth were stopped suddenly (in less than a day), it would heat up to such an extent that it would turn entirely molten, and the oceans would have boiled away. Clearly, if this did happen, the Bible does not record it, nor does it record all of humanity dying at that time (as it does with the Flood). Why this is either more or less of a difficulty than the idea that the Sun revolves around a flat Earth, I do not know. Would you care to explain? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 18:58:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
filthy:
Actually, I rather doubt that the scientific community would be interested in faith healing at all. They're subject to the same desire to be right that everyone else is. And as soon as I know of a scientist in high places who is actually open to the idea of miracles, I'll start talking to him/her. But anyway, I'm not saying that miracles prove the Bible, but (if they exist) they are proof of the supernatural.
I must disagree. the scientific community would be fascinated by a genuine, miraculous healing.
You see, when all the hyperbole runs out, all science is about, in any of it's myrid fields, is asking questions and verifying the answers. Come up with a verifiable miracle, and over-educated people in lab coats will soon be beating your door down. Scientists do indeed, want to know the exact facts of the matter, something that many if not most creationists seem to have difficulty understanding; even to the point of accusing perfectly honorable people of professional dishonesty.
I will agree that a verifiable miracle would open the door to some serious, professional research into the supernatural. Whether or not it would have religious overtones would have to be brought forth during the research.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
