|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 372 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 100 of 372:
| 
Jun 6 20:54 UTC 2002 |
"Miracle" is a term that appears in fiction. I know what it means there.
In the real world it has no application.
I COULD say md started it.... 8^}
You can read about scientific experiments and their results and conclusions,
and then observe what is done with this knowledge, and you KNOW that
cell phones and landings of robotic vehicles on Mars are not miracles.
Even without confirming scientific discoveries along the way there are
many ways to check there validity. The best way is the arrogance of
scientists, which will not allow them to believe another scientist until
it is proven to them too. This is what makes science self correcting,
because there are no powers suppressing dissent and plenty of dissenters.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 101 of 372:
|
Jun 6 20:59 UTC 2002 |
That is not ture, Rane. Most people accept things that scientists say (even
other scientists) without checking up on it. A lot of it depends on the way
it is brought up. What would most scientists say if I told them that I
witnessed a virgin birth? laugh at my naivetee and gulliblity probably. On
the other hand, if I used the term "parthenogenesis", they would probably
accept it, and not check either way. At any rate, any one individual fact that
is uncovered through the sceintific method isnt as suspect to me as the
theories and interpretations that flow from them. I dont think it would be
unthinkable to have two schientific theories that were at odds with each other
yet explained a certain set of phenomena equally well.
|
eskarina
|
|
response 102 of 372:
|
Jun 6 21:00 UTC 2002 |
So you can argue with me about what is and what isn't a miracle... and then
you tell me they don't exist anyhow. So therefore nothing is a miracle,
especially nothing that has happened.
I concur with the juvenile comments.
|
oval
|
|
response 103 of 372:
|
Jun 6 21:06 UTC 2002 |
mine?
|
mary
|
|
response 104 of 372:
|
Jun 6 21:12 UTC 2002 |
Why do people pray?
|
oval
|
|
response 105 of 372:
|
Jun 6 21:13 UTC 2002 |
'cause they want to get their way.
control freaks.
|
bru
|
|
response 106 of 372:
|
Jun 7 00:32 UTC 2002 |
Okay, lets go way back, back to the big bang. The universe consists of
nothing. There is nothing. Then the nothing goes "BOOM" and the universe
is formed. Or in other words...
God said, "Let there be light." and there was light.
How did the person who wrote that know about the big bang? Did Moses reason
it out, or did God tell him?
I know, I know! Very simplistic.
Look. Things happen that we cannot explain, not even with science. At least
not yet. So we attribute it to God. Does God want us to know of his
existence? Is he hiding? Why doesn't he stand out here on my lawn and talk
to me?
Perhaps he wants us to believe, to have faith. He doesn't want us to be
locked into the "here is the proof" scenario. Here I stand as proof.
Faith works for us on many things, not just a belief in God.
|
oval
|
|
response 107 of 372:
|
Jun 7 00:36 UTC 2002 |
...whatever makes it easier for you to get out of bed everyday ..
|
russ
|
|
response 108 of 372:
|
Jun 7 04:23 UTC 2002 |
Re #87: Actually, anyone familiar with the weaponry would *expect*
David to kill Goliath. A warrior laden with armor and a heavy bronze
sword can't move very fast; someone dressed as a runner could easily
stay out of sword range, making them effectively invulnerable. The
sling has a vastly greater range than the sword (greater than most
bows, even) and the impact of a stone is deadly. So's the accuracy of
a skilled peltast; I recall reading about Spartan children being trained
with the sling by having to hit their dinner's loaf of bread with a stone
before being allowed to eat it. Loaf, head, close enough in size.
I suppose the miracle would be if Goliath killed David despite the
amazingly bad strategic decision his side made.
I came across a great little passage in a book review tonight, which
I'd like to share with everyone still reading this:
``There are too many fascinating byroads in the evolutionary epic for any
single tome, no matter how huge, to contain them all. One worth noting
is the peculiar publication by the Rev. Philip Gosse, a fanatical Plymouth
Brother and a first-class amateur naturalist. In what he fondly trusted
would resolve the clash between what his naturalist's eyes read in the
rocks and his literalist faith read in the Bible, he issued his *Omphalos*
(Greek for "Navel") in which he tackled the vexed question of whether God
had created Adam with a navel. Gosse's conclusion was that he had, to make
it look as if Adam had been attached to his mother's placenta, even though
he had no mother. Similarly, everything God created was made to look at
the instant it appeared as if it existed all along.
``To the unfortunate man's dismay, *Omphalos* drew derision from all sides.
The Anglican clergyman Charles Kingsley, whose support Gosse sought, responded
that he "could not give up the painful and slow conclusion of five and twenty
years' study of geology, and believe that God has written on the rocks one
enormous and superfluous lie." Incredibly, creationists advance Gosse's
absurd conclusion to this day!''
Indeed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 109 of 372:
|
Jun 7 05:17 UTC 2002 |
Re #101: you would change your mind if you investigated even one scientific
discipline, or even controversy, so that you were familiar with the data
and the arguments over those data and the backgrounds and personalities
of those involved in that discipline/controversy. What you say shows an
ultimately superficial familiarity. There are plenty of observations
that are interpreted differently by different "schools" - but at the same
time there have in the past been many such controversies that have since
been resolved with one view being accepted and the other rejected, because
of new observation and interpretations.
No one today in science argues over things as dumb as human "virgin birth"
vs parthogenesis. Such superficial questions have long ago been swept
aside and buried.
|
md
|
|
response 110 of 372:
|
Jun 7 11:29 UTC 2002 |
Tell us, what's "parthogenesis," Mr. Science Man?
|
jep
|
|
response 111 of 372:
|
Jun 7 14:14 UTC 2002 |
re #109: I've read that most scientists say they believe in God. There
is nothing approaching a consensus in the scientific community that
there's no such thing as God.
Personally I think the idea of God is unlikely. It seems to me the
concept of a single perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God who created
the world and people and everything else was built up during the era of
the Catholic Church's theocracy from 400-1400 AD (or therabouts). The
Old Testament doesn't have such a deity. There were other gods, the
Jewish God made mistakes, etc. If God is what modern Christians say,
then He shouldn't be so malleable.
But I don't *know*. Neither does anyone else, other than through
arbitrarily ruling out some facts and viewpoints and then treating the
rest as conclusive. Anything can be "proved" that way. Anything at
all. If you just refuse to look at the fact that your ideology is
based on refusing to deal with a lot of unprovable elements, you can be
convinced of absolute truth. It's zealotry, whether it's theism or
atheism. You convince yourself, but you have to isolate yourself from
a lot in order to do so.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 112 of 372:
|
Jun 7 15:45 UTC 2002 |
So, where did the idea of a "god" come from and on what bases? What do
you have to isolate yourself from to conclude that there are no
valid bases? Hardly anyone today worships the Egyptian sun god Aten,
and yet once millions did. I see nothing different about the current
god preferences. They are fads.
|
md
|
|
response 113 of 372:
|
Jun 7 15:59 UTC 2002 |
Re 112: As I said, this is highschool atheism. The "bases" Rane is
demanding obviously aren't available to him personally, and I doubt if
anyone else's experences will satisfy him.
|
brighn
|
|
response 114 of 372:
|
Jun 7 16:06 UTC 2002 |
Oh, sorry, Theists aren't "ignorant," they're "dumb." How dare I put such
judgmental, condescending words in Rane's mouth as "ignorant," when he's being
so much fairer and polite in his word choice.
Heh.
#107 is the root of all belief, including Rane's. I nominate Oval to Goddess
of the Universe.
|
brighn
|
|
response 115 of 372:
|
Jun 7 16:12 UTC 2002 |
#112> One milisecond before the Big Bang. What exists? Russell recounts the
famous "turtles all the way down" line (the world is on the back of a
turtle... what's the turtle standing on? another turtle. what's THAT turtle
standing on?), but really, just about *any* account of the universe, theist
or atheist, results in turtles all the way down, it's just an issue of what
sort of turtles you're willing to accept.
Frankly, answering the question "What exists outside the unvierse?" with
"Nothing does," stems from the same arrogance as heliocentric and terracentric
attitudes, it just comes with a longer scientific pedigree. The answer to the
question, "What exists outside the universe?" is clearly, "We don't know, and
can't know with our current information and techniques." The answer to, "What
existed in the millisecond before the Big Bang?" is clearly, "We don't know,
and can't know with our current information and techniques."
Yes, God is implausible. The statement "God is implausible" is a statement
that an Agnostic can make, not one an Atheist can make. The Atheist statement
is, "God does not exist." Science has *no way* to prove that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 372:
|
Jun 7 16:22 UTC 2002 |
But its an ad-hoc hypothesis. You can say the same things about invisible
and undetectable angels dancing on pinheads. There are an unlimited
number of such ad-hoc hypotheses about other unknown things. Do you say
they are all equally plausible because they are untestable?
I've never heard of a scientific hypothesis that "nothing" exists "outisde"
the universe or prior to the "big bang". Where did that idea come from?
Is that your ad-hoc hypthesis? I suspect that it is actually on that
can be tested. There already exist alternative hyptheses about what does
exist outside our universe (and before the Big Bang), which if explored
further will likely result in a test.
|
eskarina
|
|
response 117 of 372:
|
Jun 7 16:59 UTC 2002 |
I find it interesting that jep declares the idea of God unlikely, but refutes
it only because he cannot believe in the sort of God that the "Christian God"
is. Did you forget that brighn was in on this, and probably doesn't believe
in such a God either?
John, is it that you don't believe in a God, or you don't believe in teh
specific God mentioned?
|
jep
|
|
response 118 of 372:
|
Jun 7 17:39 UTC 2002 |
re #112: If you start with the assumption that the gods were/are
fictional myths, then of course proving that they're all myths is
inevitable. I don't see how you can be so certain.
I'm a pretty rigid thinker, too. Maybe I see a lot of that part of
myself in your unswayable position.
re #117: Most of my culture believes in God as I described. That's the
only concept of God I am much concerned with. I don't believe in that
God, but am not certain I'm right. I also don't believe in any other
gods, but I am not certain I'm right about those either.
|
brighn
|
|
response 119 of 372:
|
Jun 7 17:52 UTC 2002 |
#116> You're creating a non-argument. I"ve already said, repeatedly, that God
is implausible within scientific theory. Asking me about whether other
theories are "equally plausible" does not forward the debate. I've heard the
theory that nothing existed before the Big Bang from scientists several times,
although I don't have sources... this may be a shock, Rane, but just because
you haven't heard it doesn't mean a scientist of value has never said it.
Of course, we're forgetting the Big Bong theory: God was shit-faced stoned
one day, and created the universe on a lark. The evidence for this is the name
of our galaxy, which He named while He had the munchies.
#117> What was I "in on"? I'm having a conversation, I'm not conspiring with
anyone. I do believe the God of the Holy Bible exists, although I don't think
He created the universe and all the things in it. I think that was a big fat
lie so He could get some followers who felt justified in killing everyone who
didn't believe the lie.
|
md
|
|
response 120 of 372:
|
Jun 7 18:03 UTC 2002 |
[119, first sentence of last paragraph is a little too defensive. "In
on" meant "party to this discussion," "present in the room," 'sall.]
|
rcurl
|
|
response 121 of 372:
|
Jun 7 19:51 UTC 2002 |
Re #118: my position is perfectly swayable - with concrete evidence
accept by a community of reliable scientific observers.
Re #119: you will have to cite who said there is/was nothing outside
our universe/beforeBB. I cannot imagine any modern scientist struggling
with this issue making that claim, since Goth has already shown that
parallel universes are consistent with what we know of quantum and
cosmological matters, and he has not been shown to be incorrect (although
other scientists may prefer an alternative hypothesis, they haven't
been shown to be correct either).
Also, why doesn't it forward the debate to show that the god hypothesis is
just another ad-hoc hypothesis that is claimed to be untestable, like
those alleged angels? The argument shows that the god hypothesis has no
more substantiation than innumerable other ridiculous hypotheses. There
are no bases for choosing the one you "prefer" out of the bundle as
being true.
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 372:
|
Jun 7 20:08 UTC 2002 |
#121, last para> Your comments were, and continue to be, directed to me. It
doesn't forward the debate with me because I have not argued your point.
"Ridiculous," by the way, is obviously linguistically related to "ridicule":
Keep that in mind the next time you claim you don't mock theist beliefs.
#121, penult para> I've already said I don't have citations handy. Feel free
to dismiss my position.
#120> "party to" is also usually inserted into conspiratorial accusations.
Also, I didn't think you posted #117; allow posters to provide their own
glosses, please.
|
md
|
|
response 123 of 372:
|
Jun 7 20:10 UTC 2002 |
121: Yes, people who believe in God are accepting a "ridiculous"
hypothesis. We love our grown-up scientific terms, don't we? But,
but, Mr. Science Man, you never told us what "parthogenesis" means.
|
brighn
|
|
response 124 of 372:
|
Jun 7 21:00 UTC 2002 |
(I think it's a misspelling for "parthenogenesis." From "parthenos" virgin
and "genesis" origin. Since parthenogenesis does occur in lower life forms,
I'm not sure why "virgin birth" is a "dumb" concept, but I'll leave it to Rane
to explain, since he knows so much.)
|