|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2004 : 10:23:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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?
The very nature of a miracle is that it suspend any number of natural laws. Thus the energy of the angular momentum of earth goes into the being that is God. The same goes for all objects on the surface of the Earth too, otherwise everything will fall or break. For a period the energy is conserved within God, until he restores it to whatever objects there were. Of course, I cannot validate this hypothesis, but how can you expect me to? All it requires is faith.
|
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. |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 21:02:43 [Permalink]
|
Sorry about being gone for so long, my dayshifts tend to coincide with the library's open hours.
I would also like to say that I did indeed get ahead of myself by trying to use the Bible to explain why miracles haven't been documented under controlled conditions, because we have not yet agreed to the Bible's authenticity.
Dave:
I would have to say that, given your definition of reasonable, it is reasonable to not believe what the Bible says about miracles. Haveing said that, I disagree with your definition of reasonable. quote:
reasonable-meaning that a person would not have to be insane
I feel that this definition is too broad. At the moment I'm still thinking of a good definition for reason, so I'll get back to you on that. The difference between things like 'flat Earth' and 'miracle' is this: if the Bible literally stated that the Earth was flat, then either the Earth was miraculously made into a ball, or the Bible is wrong. Now, there is no reason to believe that the Earth miraculously turned into a ball. The Bible never said that it did, there's no precedent for such a thing happening. There is reason to believe that the Bible is full of it. Many other religions have been found to be full of it, therefore there is a precedent for the Bible being full of it. There are reasons to disbelieve the Bible, there is no reason to believe that the Earth was flat and later turned into a ball. That's pretty close to a definition of reasonable, but I'll be more specific when I come back.
lovekraft0: As to miracles and science: there is massive belief of miracles, and there are many claims of miracles, but they are not common. Therefore, even from a secular viewpoint, I would grant the possibility that miracles occur and that 'natural laws' only cease existing when a miracle occurs. From a secular viewpoint, I would also grant the possibility that miracles are one big scam. And yes, if we have different assumptions we'll never get anywhere. Therefore I would like to state now that I assume that the possibility of miracles exists.
jmcginn: You're right in not accepting specific accounts of miracles without evidence. I'm not sure if I previously stated that you should, but I know state that I simply ask you (all) to assume the possibility of miracles, even if only for this thread.
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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2004 : 23:07:36 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
There is reason to believe that the Bible is full of it. Many other religions have been found to be full of it, therefore there is a precedent for the Bible being full of it. There are reasons to disbelieve the Bible, there is no reason to believe that the Earth was flat and later turned into a ball. That's pretty close to a definition of reasonable, but I'll be more specific when I come back.
I'm not sure how that differs from what I suggested. In fact, I'd suggest now that my definition is more charitable, since if unreasonable equals insane, and reasonable is everything else, it covers much ground. Perhaps that's what you meant by "too broad?"
You also wrote:quote:
jmcginn: You're right in not accepting specific accounts of miracles without evidence. I'm not sure if I previously stated that you should, but I know state that I simply ask you (all) to assume the possibility of miracles, even if only for this thread.
As I've been trying to point out, if we assume the possibility of miracles, there is no reason to not assume the possibility that everything that we perceive as "the world" is acutally "implanted" in our minds by God (or the Matrix, or whatever), leading us back to questions one and two in this thread.
Actually, if we assume the mere possibility of miracles, without assuming that any have occured yet, we might be "safe" in our assumptions. After all, simply agreeing that the Sun might not come up tomorrow doesn't make a bit of difference to any of us, until the time that we get 24 hours of darkness, and China gets fried (yeah, I'm Ameri-centric). Only then will all the "rules" change. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2004 : 08:31:29 [Permalink]
|
Hippy,
I already assume the possibilities of miracles as I know that I cannot prove a negative. Thus I am left only with that as a logical choice. Saying miracles are impossible when I know I can't prove a negative would be illogical.
However there is a big difference between possible, likely, and definitely. I assume the possibility of miracles in the same way I assume the possibility of leprechauns living in the woods. Both are possible, but neither are likely and neither have been shown to be definite.
Another example. Are the miracles of the Bible (or any mythology for that matter) true? I can't say they definitely are not as there is not enough evidence to even make a preliminary examination of them. However I do see them as very unlikely based on several grounds.
1. No clearly documented miracles happen today of a similar nature despite extensive searching for them.
2. All mythologies claim similar miracles.
So again I am left with my quandary as to why I should accept (or even give a more likely possibility to) the miracles of the Biblical mythology and not those of Hindu, Islam, Norse, Greek, Native American, etc. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2004 : 14:07:39 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Having dealt with many different religous views all throughout my life, I can personally say that you don't have to be insane to be unreasonable. I have held unreasonable views before, but I wasn't insane. In my personal experience, the reason why I had continued to hold to unreasonable views is that I didn't like the alternative, so I either lied to myself or kept myself in ignorance. That doesn't make you insane, unless you also want to adopt a much broader definition of insane. Anyway my proposed definition of reasonable is:
"Having a reason(noun), able to reason(verb), and not having a conclusive reason(noun) against it."
jmcginn:
But wouldn't you agree that there seems to be more support for miraculous healing than for leprechauns in the woods? Anyway, after a quick websearch, here is the most well-documented case of miraculous healing that I've found:
http://www.secretsyoushouldknow.com/miracle.htm
As to mythologies; I've looked at a few, and from what I've seen the Bible is much more believeable than others. It's been awhile since I read them, so I won't be able to give you many specifics yet. But for one example: the Egyptians. The Bible shows the beginning as one conscious being, and this being is existence. This being can do whatever it wants simply by wanting it. The Egyptian one has Ra masturabating into his mouth, and I am not joking. The Egyptian one sounds like it is written by someone trying to describe the supernatural in natural terms. The very fact that the Bible is monotheistic sets it apart from most other religions. Specifically as to why one should consider Biblical miracles to be more likely than other miracles: because there are people who still claim that they got healed by Christians. Now, there are probably people that claimed that they got healed through Buddhism or Islam, but nobody claims that they got healed through Thor, or Zeus, or Ra. My point is, there are some faiths which have more credibility than others, and Christianity is one of them.
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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2004 : 14:23:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
But wouldn't you agree that there seems to be more support for miraculous healing than for leprechauns in the woods? Anyway, after a quick websearch, here is the most well-documented case of miraculous healing that I've found:
http://www.secretsyoushouldknow.com/miracle.htm
Hippy
Hippy, go back to the site and scroll down to the bottom of the page and read this:
"Secrets You Should Know. This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. "
Who supplied you the link?
|
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 02/13/2004 14:25:11 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2004 : 15:47:27 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
quote:
But wouldn't you agree that there seems to be more support for miraculous healing than for leprechauns in the woods? Anyway, after a quick websearch, here is the most well-documented case of miraculous healing that I've found:
Support in what way? Do you mean more people claim that these miracles happen or believe in them than they do leprechauns? Sorry, but I require valid evidence not claims or popularity polls. And when it comes to miraculous healings and leprechauns then we appear to have a tie.
The site you sent is not only is for entertainment, but it also accepts posts from anyone. If this is the best documented case of a miraculous healing that you have found so far then I think we have a problem.
quote:
If you have any miraculous stories, you can submit them here for inclusion on this site.
Finally the example you give on this site, is not a documented case, but a story. How do I know Mr. Fagan even existed? How do I know that he really had this medical condition? Where is the birth certificate? Where are the medical records? This is not a documented case, this is a story.
quote:
As to mythologies;…
Obviously hippy4christ you do, but I can't help it that you give special status to your mythology and are less demanding for evidence of it. I find your mythology just as unbelievable as the Egyptian one you describe. Whether its your God creating man out dirt and woman out of man's rib or Ra masturbating into his mouth they are both quite unbelievable stories with no valid evidence to support them.
quote:
The very fact that the Bible is monotheistic sets it apart from most other religions.
And this makes the Bible more valid in what way? If there are deities how do we know how many there are?
quote:
Specifically as to why one should consider Biblical miracles to be more likely than other miracles: because there are people who still claim that they got healed by Christians. Now, there are probably people that claimed that they got healed through Buddhism or Islam, but nobody claims that they got healed through Thor, or Zeus, or Ra
Surely you are not saying people in the past did not claim that their deities performed miracles are you? People who were believers of these deities and even those few modern believers still claim miracles were/are performed by them. Why should I give special status to claims from one over the other when all I see are claims unsupported by any valid evidence.
Also what about the claims made by all the practitioners of all of the indigenous religions/mythologies? They claim everything from their deity controlling the weather to killing their tribal enemies. They still make these claims, why should I not also believe them?
The fact that people made claims of divine miracles in the past and attributed to them these deities you would have me dismiss as fictitious only works against your argument You want me to give more credence to the miracles of the Christ |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2004 : 19:32:24 [Permalink]
|
Well, whoever wrote the Secrets You Should Know (SYSK) piece seems to have missed Glasgow's Miracle Man at 76, obviously written in 1990, which talks about Fagan surviving a third cancer episode (cancers 2 and 3 were both treated surgically, successfully). A better-edited version of that story can be found here.
The only other web page I can find describing Fagan, his cancer, and the saint involved is a small mention in Paddy's Diary, which adds nothing.
So, while "verified," the SYSK write-up leaves much to be desired. Here is the crux of the problem:quote:
Both the panel and Capoaccia considered that the tumour simply 'died', so-called spontaneous remission. They concluded this was unlikely, as spontaneous remissions almost never occur at the 11th hour or occur on such an advanced and aggressive cancer. John Fagan was resubjected to more exhaustive tests at different hospitals and institutions. The results corroborated what the panel had already conclude, that there was no satisfactory explanation for his recovery. Dr Capocaccia reported back to the Vatican that the healing was indeed miraculous.
Now, here we have a group of doctors, saying spontaneous remission is "unlikely," that it "almost never" happens. They then make an incredibly huge leap from there, all the way to "it must be a miracle."
The simple fact is that "almost never" doesn't mean "never," and it certainly doesn't mean "not without the help of a dead martyr." And with billions of people living on the planet, "almost never" often means "happens more often than you might guess."
And Dr. Gerard Crean's "Abcess Theory" is simply dismissed. The author of the SYSK article claims it was dismissed "with good reason," but the only reason given is based upon incredulity, a sorry foundation for any solid argument.
What this all boils down to is a simple logical fallacy on the part of the Catholic Church: "medical science can't explain what happened, therefore Fagan's recovery must be due to the saintly intervention of John Ogilvie." Such a conclusion is based upon an irrational belief that since several mundane explanations are unacceptable (for whatever reason), a supernatural explanation suddenly becomes not only acceptable, but required.
Now, getting back to reasonability and insanity, if I were to say to you, "medical science cannot offer a biochemical explanation for why my favorite color is blue, therefore it must be because of the invisible goblins that live inside my eyes," would you consider me sane? Perhaps just "deluded," to be kind?
No matter your answer, the question here is: what is the fundamental difference between my "reasoning" about my favorite color, and the Church's "reasoning" about Fagan's cancer? The only difference I can see is one of popularity - my invisible eye goblins are nowhere near as popular as God - but what is considered to be "real" is not based upon a popularity contest. If things were otherwise, the IRS would have simply vanished long ago.
There are many "truths" which are hugely unpopular. I'm sure you can think of lots of examples. Deceiving oneself by denying truth that you don't like can be a symptom of insanity. Jonestown and Heaven's Gate come to mind as examples of truths ("the leaders of the groups are whack-jobs") which were denied by many who wound up paying the ultimate price for that denial.
Is there a fundamental difference between their beliefs and yours, Hippy, or is it only a matter of degree? |
- 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 - 02/14/2004 : 16:01:38 [Permalink]
|
Okay, here's my conundrum: I believe that miracles are intended to be undocumentable. However, that's my belief, so it doesn't really mean anything to you. This whole segment of the thread got started back when Dave asked me if I thought that the Bible talking about miracles is reasonable grounds for its dismissal. So since I don't even believe that a documentable miracle has occured, I'm going to stop discussing the validity of miracles on a scientific basis.
Mab: I intentionally said "after a quick websearch" to let all of you know that I'm not really putting all that much into this story, I'm just giving it as an example.
jmcginn: Okay, how about this: all of the mythologies I know of teach that the Earth is flat, and since the Bible doesn't, how about we at least exclude those that do. Oh, I've been forgetting one of my doctrines. I believe (so this doesn't mean all that much to you) that anyone with a good heart, good intentions, and faith, can recieve healing.
Dave: I will amend my definition of reasonable in point: instead of "not having a conclusive reason against it" I'll say "not having evidence against it." According to my definition of reasonable, goblins living behind your eyes is unreasonable and Fagan's cancer being miraculously healed is reasonable, but not fact. Here's why:
1. There is no reason to believe that goblins live behind your eyes.
There is are reasons to believe that Fagan was miraculously healed. a) the majority of a medical board concluded that there was no medical explanation for his recovery, b) past claims have been made that miraculous healing occurs. I know that these are not conclusive reasons, but they are reasons.
2. You are able to reason whether or not goblins live behind your eyes, i.e., having someone examine your eyes, but we've already determined that there is no reason for goblins to live behind your eyes.
You are able to reason whether or not Fagan's cancer was healed. You can go and check medical records, the doctor's findings, etc.
3. While there is as of yet no evidence that goblins don't live behind your eyes, there is the evidence that goblins have never been found to live behind anyone else's eyes.
While there is are reasons to believe that Fagan wasn't miraculously healed, there is no evidence that he wasn't.
Now, I am not saying that Fagan was miraculously healed, I'm saying that it is a reasonable explanation.
I will say that the separation between being unreasonable and being insane is only a matter of degree, but there is a difference. Specifically, about Jonestown and Heaven's Gate: while I've only heard about that, it sounds like there is a fundamental difference between them and me, and that is that they accepted what someone else told them as truth without examining it. I don't know if this is the case, but that's what it sounds like. And I don't ask you to accept miracles as truth, but as possibilities, more possible than the sun not coming up tommorrow.
Have you heard about the megacryometeors? There are several recorded cases of giant chunks of ice falling out of a clear sky, one of them weighed in at about 400 pounds. Scientists as of yet have no viable explanation. The Bible talks about hailstones the size of talents(not quite 400 pounds) falling in the end days. That's not a conclusive reason to believe the Bible, but it is a reason.
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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 06:16:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Mab: I intentionally said "after a quick websearch" to let all of you know that I'm not really putting all that much into this story, I'm just giving it as an example.
Hippy
That was my point... A quick search, no investigation of intent of the authors, wishful thinking, and this was the result.
In search for a documented case of miracle you ended up with a text written for entertainment. It took me less than a minute to find the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.
The parallells I see is that you are able to accept your religion on the same basis. You have found a religion that gives you quick and easy answers for simple questions, and obfuscated answers for the tricky ones.
By accepting the fairytales that is written in the Bible, you are denying yourself the opportunity to think for yourself.
The fact that the Bible actually teaches that you should not think for yourself is a rather huge hint that it was intended to subjugate the lesser classes. Remember, most people were illiterate until very recently, and had to rely on the "enlightened" priesthood. An exellent way to control the masses. Now, in the days of literacy, the holy ghost is reinvented by the free protestant churches like the Baptist Church or the Pentacostals, in order to (again) elevate the priesthood.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 06:31:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I believe (so this doesn't mean all that much to you) that anyone with a good heart, good intentions, and faith, can receive healing.
So anyone that doesn't get healed is lacking one or more of the above?
The other option is that you might qualify, but then, God arbitrarily decides who gets healed.
Both options stink in my opinion.
quote:
Have you heard about the megacryometeors? There are several recorded cases of giant chunks of ice falling out of a clear sky, one of them weighed in at about 400 pounds. Scientists as of yet have no viable explanation. The Bible talks about hailstones the size of talents(not quite 400 pounds) falling in the end days. That's not a conclusive reason to believe the Bible, but it is a reason.
I don't know the size of Talents (why don't you enlighten us?) but some friends of mine experienced a rather bad hail-storm. Two days after (mid-summer) the ground was still white in the shadows north of their house. They got windows and roof-panes smashed by hails as large as golf-balls. That was ~10 years ago, and the world has yet to end.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 13:42:22 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by lovekraft0
Without documentation, it's simply folklore
Not to the people who are healed, love. I was healed of a pilonidal cyst when I was 19 years old. The cyst was diagnosed and lanced when I was in the Air Force. The doc said within a year it would swell again and require a painful operation w/ two weeks hospital recovery. It did begin to swell again in about 10 months. Within that time I had been told about and experienced the presence of Jesus Christ. I prayed a simple prayer requesting healing of the cyst. It went away, never to return. That was in winter of 1971-72. If you care to read about most people's experience with this disease see: http://www.pilonidal.org/Forum/ (you can search for my thread - doomar) I also have a friend who had a serious curvature of spine who was healed by God. Pretty hard to miss the difference. Truth is, most people could care less what scientists or skeptics believe or not or what they think is evidence. They are just glad to be healed and get on with living. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/15/2004 18:28:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 18:56:58 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Dave: I will amend my definition of reasonable in point: instead of "not having a conclusive reason against it" I'll say "not having evidence against it." According to my definition of reasonable, goblins living behind your eyes is unreasonable and Fagan's cancer being miraculously healed is reasonable, but not fact.
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the part where I specified that they were invisible goblins. No amount of eye exams can demonstrate that I do not have invisible goblins living in my eyes.quote:
There is are reasons to believe that Fagan was miraculously healed. a) the majority of a medical board concluded that there was no medical explanation for his recovery,
As I pointed out, several times I believe, "no medical explanation" does not equal "miracle." Otherwise, scientists would have been required to think, prior to understanding how aspirin works, that it was possibly somehow Divine in nature. There are many things for which you have no explanation (how a TV works, for example? Go ahead, pick your own), but for which you are not assuming the work of God.quote:
b) past claims have been made that miraculous healing occurs.
Previous claims are simply that: claims. They are not evidence or "reasons" until they can be documented as factual.quote:
I know that these are not conclusive reasons, but they are reasons.
No, actually they are excuses for why you believe the way you do.quote:
You are able to reason whether or not Fagan's cancer was healed. You can go and check medical records, the doctor's findings, etc.
Oh, whether or not Fagan's illness was healed is not in question here. What is questionable is whether or not any healing was due to the intervention of a saint.quote:
While there is as of yet no evidence that goblins don't live behind your eyes, there is the evidence that goblins have never been found to live behind anyone else's eyes.
In this case, absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence. It is, after all, my eyes that we are discussing, and not anyone else's.quote:
While there is are reasons to believe that Fagan wasn't miraculously healed, there is no evidence that he wasn't.
There's also no evidence that Satan did not write the Bible as a cruel joke, and considering the fact that organized religion has perpetrated much evil, it could be reasonable to think that he did. I don't think your definition of reasonable is working well here.quote:
Now, I am not saying that Fagan was miraculously healed, I'm saying that it is a reasonable explanation.
And I and many others consider it to be an extraordinary explanation, which requires much more than an appeal to ignorance ("medical science can't explain it") to even become reasonable.quote:
Specifically, about Jonestown and Heaven's Gate: while I've only heard about that, it sounds like there is a fundamental difference between them and me, and that is that they accepted what someone else told them as truth without examining it. I don't know if this is the case, but that's what it sounds like.
That is an assumption on your part which may or may not be warranted. What about the Inquisitions, instead? Waco? Salem witch trials? Crusades? Name any horror done in the name of God (or Gods), as there are plenty of them. Are they all due to a lack of critical examination of things people are told?quote:
And I don't ask you to accept miracles as truth, but as possibilities, more possible than the sun not coming up tommorrow.
Since God stopping the Earth for a day would mean that the Sun would fail to rise somewhere on the globe, I cannot help but consider the two ideas equivalent, and thus one is no more or less likely than the other.quote:
Have you heard about the megacryometeors? There are several recorded cases of giant chunks of ice falling out of a clear sky, one of them weighed in at about 400 pounds. Scientists as of yet have no viable explanation. The Bible talks about hailstones the size of talents(not quite 400 pounds) falling in the end days. That's not a conclusive reason to believe the Bible, but it is a reason.
Not at all. Unexplained falls of ice have nothing to do with prophesized plagues sent by God:And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great. I will agree wholeheartedly that it is possible for God to create hail out of a clear blue sky, along with lightning, earthquakes, and all the rest (if, of course, God exists). But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to think that every speck of ice (no matter how big or small) which comes out of nowhere is due to Divine will.
No matter how you slice it, Hippy, "unexplained" does not equal "maybe God did it," especially since "maybe God did it" is a possible explanation for everything, even those things we think we have working natural explanations for already. Elec |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 21:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Dear Hippy,
I've enjoyed reading your conversation and arguments. I've heard most of the others arguments before, but not yours. It is exceptional to find someone seemingly willing to seek for the truth, unafraid of what they may find. Are you unafraid? Skeptics come in all flavors, it seems. The difference may be that some are caught up in skepticism like a terminal attitude, without hope, while others harbor hope while sifting through the jagged edges of pieces of "evidence" and "information". Some put all the existing pieces in a pile and begin to assemble them, as if no other pieces will be found. They force together many of the pieces of the puzzle, thinking that it must go that way, not realizing that they are missing most of the pieces. Their puzzle has 25 pieces, but the complete puzzle has thousands. They are hopelessly caught in rearranging the pieces, trying to make them interlock with each other when they don't, convinced they have all they need. In our pride, we amaze ourselves with all our tidbits of knowledge, when we only have a few pieces to a giant puzzle that is almost beyond our comprehension. One main difference between Creationist viewpoint and Evolutionist viewpoint is faith, or trust. A Creationist trusts in a divine power, with greater knowledge and understanding and ability; trusts that even without all the answers, it is so. I'm not sure exactly what an evolutionist trusts in. Maybe they can tell me. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2004 : 22:02:09 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
I've enjoyed reading your conversation and arguments. I've heard most of the others arguments before, but not yours. It is exceptional to find someone seemingly willing to seek for the truth, unafraid of what they may find. Are you unafraid?
Hippy is, assuredly, different from most other Creationists I've come across, and he gets high marks from me for showing a willingness to listen to viewpoints unlike his own. However, I must say that I've asked Hippy if he's considered what might happen if his faith were to be successfully challenged here, and got no reply. He may have just missed the question, though, so it doesn't necessarily reflect on his fears or lack thereof.quote:
Skeptics come in all flavors, it seems. The difference may be that some are caught up in skepticism like a terminal attitude, without hope, while others harbor hope while sifting through the jagged edges of pieces of "evidence" and "information".
When you say "hope," you appear to be using a rather unique definition of the word. I'd like to find out how you define it. I'll skip ahead until you do.quote:
One main difference between Creationist viewpoint and Evolutionist viewpoint is faith, or trust. A Creationist trusts in a divine power, with greater knowledge and understanding and ability; trusts that even without all the answers, it is so.
Well, you (since I wouldn't paint other Creationists with this brush) appear to trust in God so much you refuse to trust in your fellow man at all. This appears (to me, at least) to fly in the face of Jesus' Commandment to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Aside from that, you have been informed that many evolutionists do have trust in a Divine power, so again, it is not the theory of evolution which excludes faith and/or trust. This false dichotomy you present - that a person must either believe in evolution or in God, but not both - is old and tiresome.quote:
I'm not sure exactly what an evolutionist trusts in. Maybe they can tell me.
I've tried to tell you, several times. As of this writing, you've appeared to either ignore or dismiss the answers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
