The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I've asked you several times to provide "metaphysical evidence" as you claim that's the only kind you can provide. Why are you lying and saying that no one has offered to discuss this?

I'm sure I've asked you what you'd be looking for... EVP's?  Orbs?  confirmed miracles with no physical explanation?  sightings?  experiences? 

jcgadfly wrote:

On the miracle attributed to the founder of Opus Dei...

1. They didn't publish the credentials of the doctor who claimed to receive the miracle.

does that mean there are none?  or possibly that you might need to look beyond the article that might just be presenting the miracle

jcgadfly wrote:

2. They didn't publish who diagnosed the radiodermatitis - did he diagnose himself?

Logically he didn't... though you must assume he did in order for you to debunk right?  might want to look into the process of confirming a miracle.'

jcgadfly wrote:

3. There is no record of a doctor who pronounced the radiodermatitis as cured.

So then you have looked into it and have confirmed that it has never been pronounced cured by a professional doctor?

jcgadfly wrote:

4. The only mentioning of an examination were those performed by a group of people less concerned with "Is it a miracle?" than with "Did Escriva perform this miracle?"

Obviously based on the source and the result for the person performing the miracle, their focus isn't going to at this moment be is it... but in order to confirm who performed it, they'd need to then proceed to confirm whether it was a miracle or not.  You didn't do anything as far as investigate it have you.   yes, this would be your job.  I have presented to you a claimed miracle.  You can question the authenticity all you want, but when you look into the process, those questions have already been asked.  You then would need to cross reference and confirm.  The source is clear and not good enough, so it's your job to then debunk such a claim if skeptical is it not? 

Think before you answer.  You claim I never provided metaphysical evidence... this would be some... even with reference to a source... Usually that's all a rational thinking atheist presents to confirm what they think they know as true.  It is then my job to cross reference and do some homework to debunk their conclusion.  Your turn now.

You've presented it and I've disputed it. Is all you have "Of course they did everything right."?

You used this miracle as a proof - the burden is still on you.

You'd think they'd give something more substantial than this - I thought miracles were big deals.

Shouldn't there be a little more than:

1. Person claims he had disease by self diagnosis.

2. Person claims to be cured of disease after praying to a saint (or a potential saint) again by self diagnosis.

3. Churchmen claim saint or potential saint performed miracle.?

Do the not have a Devil's Advocate for guys they want to fast track to sainthood? Shouldn't they confirm a miracle was performed before ascribing it to Escriva? For all I know, the claimant never actually had the condition.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap, you have been a very

Cap, you have been a very gracious punching bag, as far as your claims, and I am quite sure outside this issue you are a nice guy.

AND if you want to waste your time here banging your head against the wall, we wont stop you.

BUT, the reality is that if you truly believe what you have is valid, this is not a lab, this is a message board. Go work on making a working model that can be tested and falsified, and take it to a neutral setting where ANYONE outside your pet claim can replicate and falsify and verify your findings.

All you are doing here is trying to convince us. So what? We've had Muslims and Jews and even pantheists try to do the same thing you are doing now.

I will hand you the Nobel Prize myself if you can prove what you claim. You wont do that because you know damned well you cant. You cant anymore than a Muslim or Jew or pantheist.

"This is the  shit" is what all claimants of all labels of a non material entity OF ALL labels claim.

SO WHAT!

My purple snarfwidget created the universe and metaphysics justifies it. THERE I just made an equally valid claim to yours. So you should blindly accept it if I refuse to use scientific method to demonstrate that my purple snarfwidget is proven by metaphysics.

You have swallowed a naked assertion and you sell your naked assertion because it sounds good to you. Having the ability to make up elaborate crap and sell elaborate crap does not make the crap valid. Otherwise I could use "metaphysics" to justify my purple snarfwidget.

All you have proven to us is that humans are capable of believing absurd things.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Catholic Church when it

The Catholic Church when it "confirms" miracles, is not using the method of testing and falsification and independent verification. Nor does it employ double blind testing. It is merely a club who uses the false logic that if tons of people like the idea and we all shout it from the rooftops, it must be true.

So your "evidence" that metaphysics proves the Christian god is to use an unscientific club?

Ok, so then since Islam is the biggest religion in the world and we can, in reality, travel to Mecca, that must mean that Allah is the one true god.

And while we are at it, you are taking the word of people who actually value the concept of human cannibalism, even if merely symbolic. You take the word of an asshole who tells the poor in Africa not to use condoms when he is not a medical doctor nor cares about the spread of aids as a result of his bad advice.

Mecca is not a science university nor is the Vatican. They are monuments to comic book fans who falsely believe their comic book heros are real. This is what you back up your "metaphysics with" "The pope says".

I'd like it better if you just stick to "metaphysics". You are dragging an already bad claim even further into the gutter by trying to invoke that clown.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cap,here is a link

cap,

here is a link http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/ to a website where you can read, listen to, or download and listen to, one of my favorite podcasts/discussions on our current understanding of how our brains/minds 'work', where the host does her best to clarify the science, for those outside the disciplines involved.

There are others, of course, but I have found this series extremely informative, even after having followed this field quite a bit over the years.

If this is not quite what you had in mind, I can point to others, but I would appreciate your reaction to this one. It would help me decide what other sources might work better for you.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Yes there

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes there was indeed the idea of studying something in a lab, such as 'God DNA'. But that does not require a microscope, although very fancy electron microscopes have been used in some studies of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the processes of cellular replication can use more ordinary microscopes.

But DNA sequencing does not use microscopes.

And I didn't say you claimed we "could study God under a microscope", of course you did explicitly deny it. But you are the one who implied we were making such a claim, and tried to make it sound even more ridiculous by suggesting that we had the idea of using a microscope to study God.

Assuming that a being that lives outside the physical existence would have DNA which is the basis of physical existence is ridiculous.  So of course I'm going to make it sound as ridiculous as possible.  A lot of times when people are trying to prove something, they don't hear the simple strait forward answer.  I've learned that being on this site.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which does have some relevance to 'virgin birth' claims.

To claim a physical means of a spiritual occurance is not rational understanding how the spiritual interacts.  It has no relevance in 'virgin birth' claims as far as the Bible story is concerned.  We'd again have to assume God was just another physical  person if you're looking for God sperm.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, not so much 'not possible', but totally unnecessary, or even a meaningless idea in itself. It IS a giant presumption that we have to subdivide reality into what is accessible to science and some other realm where magical, transcendental, ideas like 'infinite, all-powerful, conscious beings might plausibly exist yet be not detectable by science, even though science can detect and measure all kinds of things we never even dreamed about before, from quarks to dark matter, from viruses to the subconscious workings of our own mind.

the claim of a metaphysical existence not being necessary is only based on the idea that we can explain claimed metaphysical happenings by other means.  Just because one might have another explanation of how something happened doesn't mean it happened by that other means, but likely through the use of the other means.  Science is dependent on physical results.  There are scientific studies of metaphysical or spiritual happenings.  Whether the masses accept the results are a different story.  The problem with metaphysical results is they're not always consistently repeatable, though they are repeatable.  Consistency depends on the choice of the spiritual.

BobSpence1 wrote:

But of course, your distinction between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical' is a category error.

Science already addresses the 'non-physical', such as the more abstract principles which govern the way complex systems behave, such as the related areas of complexity theory, chaos theory, non-linear systems, and the evolutionary paradigm as a generalization of Darwin's ideas. These are not tied to any specific physical manifestation.

it's a distinction between what people on here are expecting for study and what is being studied.  I agree there are non-physical sciences.  Thanks again for clarifying it.  I have offered every avenue of discussion, including those.  I may not have mentioned them by name, but by opening the floor to anyone to choose any means of discussion is to open the floor to any angle you want to take on the subject. ,... actually, i do remember mentioning some non-physical sciences at one time... quickly they were ignored and the excuse was that I was using them to distract... funny how that works.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is also the study of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, which include efforts to study the fundamentals of what they are, as processes divorced from particular 'physical' examples.

I've mentioned that as well.  all excuses apparently... 

BobSpence1 wrote:

That still doesn't even begin to clarify what you mean by 'the constant'.

something that is guaranteed to never change in the study, as a basis for reasoning and conclusion.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Lesser versions of this have already been attempted, especially focussing around the effects of prayer, which have come up negative, within the bounds of experimental error.

I question those studied mainly be it that prayer is not a constant (in other words, it's not always going to have a result) mainly due to the fact that the prayer in those studies is more literally a request to God to choose to make a result.  The choice factor to me deems that experiment irrational because you cannot conclude either way, a result once will not prove God and lack of result due to choice on God's part cannot disprove God.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

It would really just have to look for departures from statistical pure chance in all kinds of contexts, in some way that could not be explained by as yet undiscovered non-sentient forces.

The only way I can see confirming prayer is to compile historical claims of prayer answers and look at the consistency.  it seems the results are very similar in the way of how they come about and how quickly the results occur depending on the prayer and situation.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Problem is that even if the influence of some consciousness on worldly events could be detected, there is no easy way to prove it was due to anything like 'God'. Intelligent aliens are always going to be more plausible than 'God' as described in scripture. How could we possibly prove this influence was of an 'infinite' being, of infinite power, or even begin to determine the motives of such a being? This dilemma is faced by believers, quite independent of 'science', if they would be honest.

thats the question I've been asking for a very long time on this thread.  No one can answer it.  they're looking for something they know I can't provide them, then concluding that because I can't provide it for them that i must be in the wrong.  

I do question how intelligent aliens would be more plausible than God be it that many of the miracles in question are even beyond our imagination as far as intelligence goes.  

It seems then that it's an obvious conclusion to say that because it's difficult to prove anything was due to a being like God that this God possibility is no longer a possibility.  That is irrational due to the factors that are obvious.  It's like me saying I'm capable of running a 5 minute mile.  You can question that and i can claim it all I want, but unless I choose to do it, you can't prove that I can't do it.  The same with God.  People set up experiments assuming God's going to go along with them without even asking and when he doesn't, they assume automatically that God really isn't there.  That's a delema even believers have been going through when prayers aren't answered.  When God says no, suddenly he doesn't exist.  

sounds like a teens relationship with their parents.

BobSpence1 wrote:

t applies to the traditional theological arguments for God - demonstration of a 'First Cause' says nothing about the nature of that First Cause, now that we know that complexity does not require an even more complex 'cause'.

The problem with the scientific mind is that they see that God only can exist if necessary.. in other words, there's no other way for something to happen unless there's this intelligence.  What they fail to take into consideration is that its possible and rational to think that an intelligent being would design a system with the laws in place in such a way that interactions this intelligence wants to make in that creation would be cooperative with the laws created within the environment.  Thus from an inside perspective, the intelligence behind the creation is not needed and therefore doesn't exist, but an outside perspective would say that it's logical that if this God really is intelligent, the easiest way to affect something in the creation is to cooperate with the laws and restrictions within the creation.  why make the job harder by breaking the rules?  What more catastrophic results could come of breaking such laws?  

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sure, if you want to back up your original claim. It doesn't have to be detailed, but the less detail is available for each case, the more examples are needed to find some consistent trend.

I'll see what I can do.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Christians claim to know God's capabilities, but there is no way they can know that with any confidence. 

any more than any parent can no their childs capabilities or any child can know their parents capabilities.  We know what He's capable of, therefore we do not question Biblical claims.  there are other miracle claims that we do question all the time and also just because it's deemed a miracle and understood to be beyond scientific and physical understanding doesn't mean it was from this God.  One question asked when determining miracles is whether it was consistent with the work of God.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Everything I have read on these, and comments by serious, qualified investigators, like Robert Winston, who is NOT an atheist, seem to show little justification for claiming them as miracles.

What problems do you have with the process itself?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Understanding doesn't "negates the possibility", it reduces the need to posit a 'God' to explain anything, and raises the need to explain how God would fit in to our expanded comprehension of reality.

I've always wondered why scientifically it is understood that God is needed to explain anything?  I don't need to be here to explain anything to you, but I still exist.

BobSpence1 wrote:

So the fact that, over historical time, 50 billion children have died at an early age, even before birth, from natural causes, ie because of the hostile nature of the world that God supposedly created, before they could begin to comprehend belief, is possibly defensible? Or that there is some ultimate good that might follow from children rendered blind by parasites that God created?

Of course there is always the possibility, however remote, that there is some hypothetical 'higher purpose' served by such apparently pointless deaths, but on what basis would you conclude that an infinitely powerful and 'loving' entity could not find some other way of achieving that, and why would he need to cause such suffering in a mortal race to achieve his purpose? And why would his purpose necessarily be morally compelling to us? Why do presume we are more than a tool or a plaything to this hypothetical being? Concocting a story to fool us into doing what he wanted for whatever ulterior motives he might have would be trivial for such a being.

There could be many reasons and many results.  Yes, the higher purpose idea is holding onto the perspective that death is not the end.  In other words, the children who died are doing so much more in death than in life.  Either that or the other Christian mythology approach to this is that before birth they were told what would come of their suffering and they chose to allow this path.  There's no way we can prove or disprove this perspective.  Either way, we can always look at it as, would you have noticed these children now if they didn't die of such a drastic cause but lived a normal life and died of old age?  I'm not sure why, but people take notice more of severe situations rather than insignificant situations.  My take is there's a reason why they were supposed to be noticed.  I dont' know the results from noticing them, but they are remembered.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why would you even entertain such an idea, when there are far simpler, more likely explanations for why everything happens the way we observe?

I know God.  I know it's not that simple.  This should further negate the idea that God is needed to explain, if anything, knowing God makes you aware of how much we still don't know.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You think that facts like that some houses escaped a fire in unusual but not impossible circumstances, among a vast number that suffered the more common and expected fate, given the reality that unusual events will happen naturally at least some of the time, given enough time, justifies such claims in the face of what evidence we do have??

it's based on more than that they just happened.  it's timing and circumstance.  Sure, I could win the lottery tomorrow and I likely would thank God but not necesarily say that God made me win it.   Likely that won't happen, but it happens somewhere all the time.  Those circumstances are rare, but happen and the timing isn't unique, there's a set drawing and a set number range that is drawn, there are X number of tickets sold which makes the possibility of one ticket having the exact numbers a likely possibility.  Nothing significant about the timing or circumstance in this situation assumes there's more to it than natural chance.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if you feel you need a God to explain some mysteries, the idea of a God who is not omni-benevolent, doesn't ultimately care how much suffering he causes, is prepared to put on the occasional stunt like the resurrection, and so on, is a far more plausible and comprehensible interpretation of the Bible and history than yours.

your'e sure he doesn't care.  Are you saying every parent that has allowed their child to hurt themselves in a minor way to learn not to do what they've done in the future is "not caring"?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Completely solves the classic "Problem of Evil" for a start. And doesn't violate logic any more than the conventional interpretation does, arguably less so.

EDIT: Of course. It is blindingly obvious to me that tossing the illogical God concept out makes things even simpler.

simpler sure... but simple doesn't always result in Truth.  It's simple to look out at the horizon on the shore and say "the earth is flat"  It's not true, but that's the simple solution.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cap,So you're back to this

Cap,

So you're back to this non-physical being which manifests frequently in the physical world but is so good at it that he leaves no evidence (physical or non-physical) of his presence?

Or do we have to settle for the face in the grilled cheese sandwich or weeping statue?

I've always found it interesting that proof is demanded for the most mundane claims but it is expected not just to be unnecessary but an impediment when it comes to god claims. Why is that?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap,So you're

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap,

So you're back to this non-physical being which manifests frequently in the physical world but is so good at it that he leaves no evidence (physical or non-physical) of his presence?

Or do we have to settle for the face in the grilled cheese sandwich or weeping statue?

I've always found it interesting that proof is demanded for the most mundane claims but it is expected not just to be unnecessary but an impediment when it comes to god claims. Why is that?

 

I'm going to spoil your fun here. We both know why, and I too am interested in hearing his answer.

But the reality is, which he wont face, is that the sugar pill he has swallowed feels so real, no matter how much we explain that it is merely mental illusion he has inflicted  himself with.

His ego is causing this. It feels so right and real to him that he has to look for ways to justify it and now that he has bought it, to admit he is wrong, he cant handle.

But yea, it is funny how in mundane life, such as a used car, or quality of a house, when we buy those things, we are more likely to investigate the quality. But when it comes to deity claims OF ANY KIND, all the normal skepticism our species employs outside the issue flies out the window.

The same reason he buys his "metaphysical" Christian god, is the same reason Muslims believe in Allah. Even the same reason some morons claim space aliens helped build the pyramids. Once you swallow a claim without investigating it, it can become so deep that it is hard to pull that person out of that delusion.

But yet these same people who make these claims wont buy a used car without a mechanical inspection. They wont buy a house without having it inspected first.

And he fails to see, like all other believers of all religions, that there is a HUGE difference between a claim and the universal standard of scientific method, that allows us to look into deep space and to make computers and medicine.

Sorry if I spoiled it for you. I am still interested in how he wiggles out of your rightful and rational question.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't need to be

Quote:
I don't need to be here to explain anything to you, but I still exist.

And our species doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist. SO WHAT?

Humans were not around 4 billion years ago during the formation of the planet, much less 13 billion years ago at the point of the big bang. And 40 billion years from now we wont exist.

SO WHAT?

I was the lucky sperm/egg that ended up being what you are responding to now. But that doesn't make me special or this planet special. It just means I exist.

When, AND IT WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT, our species goes extinct, all our deity claims and superstitions humans have invented past and present and future, will die with the species, because there wont be any future generations to pass the fairy tales onto. The universe will simply continue without us until it too dies a heat death.

The universe and evolution are the result of conditions, not cognition and there is no deity, not yours or any for that matter, needed to explain why the universe exists or why any life exists.

This is merely you ignoring that all you are doing is merely a long line of anthropomorphism. You want so badly for the universe to have a purpose that you cling to your superstition because reality scares you.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:cap,here is

BobSpence1 wrote:

cap,

here is a link http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/ to a website where you can read, listen to, or download and listen to, one of my favorite podcasts/discussions on our current understanding of how our brains/minds 'work', where the host does her best to clarify the science, for those outside the disciplines involved.

There are others, of course, but I have found this series extremely informative, even after having followed this field quite a bit over the years.

If this is not quite what you had in mind, I can point to others, but I would appreciate your reaction to this one. It would help me decide what other sources might work better for you.

Thank you.  I was really asking in general.  That kind of stuff always interests me.  I will check it out. and let you know


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BOB, I AM

Brian37 wrote:

BOB, I AM GOING TO BITCH SLAP YOU!(Not really, but dude, don't feed is fantasy)LOL

*edit*... blah blah blah...*edit*

I don't mind your good cop motif here, but boy does my lip twitch when you say things like this.

Our goal is to pull him out of fantasy land, not keep him there.

Brian, I find it comical that you can tell me strait that you think you know more than me about science, then turn around and say that what has been presented would "feed my fantasy".  It's very obvious you haven't a grasp of science to save your life.  If you did, you'd see how nothing that he's presented has furthered my belief nor lessened it.  So far we're discussing science in general with a bit of topic detail added in.  he's weeding out any possibility step by step of any misunderstanding I might have on science and comprehension of scientific understanding and process.  If you are correct about your understanding, then Bob is going to be able to slam me down WWE style once he has gone through the weeding process that he's doing now and show me how I've drastically screwed up my perspective.  Your method of swinging at the air in hopes of scaring me into submission will only entertain me and others watching.  I'll still be standing in the end no matter what the truth with your method.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

BOB, I AM GOING TO BITCH SLAP YOU!(Not really, but dude, don't feed is fantasy)LOL

*edit*... blah blah blah...*edit*

I don't mind your good cop motif here, but boy does my lip twitch when you say things like this.

Our goal is to pull him out of fantasy land, not keep him there.

Brian, I find it comical that you can tell me strait that you think you know more than me about science, then turn around and say that what has been presented would "feed my fantasy".  It's very obvious you haven't a grasp of science to save your life.  If you did, you'd see how nothing that he's presented has furthered my belief nor lessened it.  So far we're discussing science in general with a bit of topic detail added in.  he's weeding out any possibility step by step of any misunderstanding I might have on science and comprehension of scientific understanding and process.  If you are correct about your understanding, then Bob is going to be able to slam me down WWE style once he has gone through the weeding process that he's doing now and show me how I've drastically screwed up my perspective.  Your method of swinging at the air in hopes of scaring me into submission will only entertain me and others watching.  I'll still be standing in the end no matter what the truth with your method.  

I find it comical that you cant see the difference between the hammer you use to build the house and confuse the house as being the same as the hammer.

You don't have to know how to build a car engine to drive a car.

What you do is assume that the engine runs on pixie dust merely because you cant build an engine yourself which says to me you don't even know what the hammer is or how to properly use it  to build a house.

A monkey can understand the principles of scientific method(THE HAMMER) even if they cant build the house itself.

You try to use the hammer to build a house made out of pixie dust because you assume the hammer has to have a fictional non material hand to use it.  You even assume the hammer is magical itself.

The house is not magical nor is the hammer. You simply want the hammer to justify your fictional pet god.

How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book? I don't have to know every line in Star Wars, nor do I have to write the movie myself to know it is fiction.

I do know what scientific method constitutes and it does not, nor ever should, constitute making a claim first and asking others to accept their claims first.

What you don't have is the understanding of the hammer and what it is. Instead you look at a utopia house in your head and then try to pick up the hammer to prop up your superstition.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:A fairly good

Zaq wrote:

A fairly good description of scientific evidence is an observation that could have falsified a hypothesis, but did not.

ok

Zaq wrote:

In order to have evidence for your view, you must identify what counts as evidence against your view.  Cap, you have "excused" the deaths of billions of children by referencing the unknown.  Will you similarly excuse unanswered prayers, failed medical treatment, and so on?  Every time you retreat from potential falsification, you inhibit your ability to gain evidence.  Because you are not willing to admit that the deaths of innocent people count as evidence against your god, you cannot count any "miraculous" survival or recoveries as evidence for your god.  If you will not admit that evil counts as evidence against your god, then you cannot use good as eviodence for your god.

Oh boy I hope you stick around.  I like the way you think.  This is something I've been trying to explain to the masses for... well 4 years now.  yet, whenever I challenge people to reference or otherwise further explain evidence against me, they tell me that's my job to figure out.... either that or they think I'm talking about disproving God specifically and say that you can't prove a negative.  

If you have backed up sourced references to specific evidences that you feel is evidence against my view, please do present it.  Nothing specific in your references above was mentioned, only that millions of children died young, likely in a pretty unpleasent way in history.  This is true, but unless you're going to specifically reference to a sample group of those children who have a similar reasoning and/or methodology to how they died, it's going to be hard for me to reference any support for my view.  

the other problem with that specific reference to the children is most who present such a topic are looking for a "justification" of their death moreso than an alternative reasoning to why they died.  It's likely I won't know (nor will anyone else) the ins and outs of how or why they died other than the disease or the person who chose to kill them and no one's going to understand the spiritual implications of such occurance.  Therefore, I would not be able to justify any of it other than with the trust and love I have for the God I know.   If it was a persons actions who killed them, then i can't even justify it through God, that was a persons choice and whatever the motive of that person, i would even say it was uncalled for.  Scientifically speaking, it's the butterfly effect.  I have no idea what changes took place up till now because any one of those particular children lost their lives when they did and how they did and what the alternative would be if they didn't.  

Zaq wrote:

Don't tell us what confirms your beliefs.  Instead, tell us what would, if observed, falsify them.  You can't gain any evidence for your position until you can tell us what would count as evidence against your position.  Before you can support the idea that God exists, you have to determine what observations would indicate that God doesn't exist.

Ah!  You're giving me a dose of my own medicine.  Tastes good!  I love it.

Ok.  Just as it was for me to find God in my studies, I'd need a compilation of many events to show me that what I've found is mistaken.  This is quite the laundry list.  So I'll narrow it down.  

Historically, the stories written in the OT and NT  have a place in history as far as I can tell.  A way to show me they don't is to fill in the timeline that these stories took place in with another story that has better support in history and is more likely to have occurred during the time frame assumed and in the place and people group claimed.  (times are a bit skew and therefore general reference to what likely took place instead would be sufficient with proper support) 

Scientifically, explain how deadly poisons might not hurt someone or a snake bite for that matter and how if antibodies is the answer the antibodies ended up in this person, but not found hereditarily in the rest of their family before and after.     

      how people can actually foresee future events

      how people through prayer see results though they might have natural explanations  (irony or timing can only go so far)

      how completely sane people can claim demonic posession or spiritual influence legitimately without making it up to cover themselves for something done.  (here there are many false claims of posession or spiritual influence and can be associated with mental illness, which is why I specified sane.  There are people deemed sane who claim such things)

 

      discover what really happened before the Big bang.  I feel it's just as far of a stretch to believe that it's a never ending cycle or that everything came from nothing.  

Personally, a psych test explaining why I believe God has spoken to me and why my life changed so drastically once I found God.

Also psych tests on many others who've had more drastic changes due to finding God than I.... e.g.  friend of mine who was a homeless drunk who used to beat people because he enjoyed watching them bleed turned to a very generous person who wouldn't now hurt a fly and has a strong walk in the faith.  

An explanation of how things always seem to fall in place once you put faith in God to take care of a situation.  

This at least could be a start.  I wonder though, because a lot of people come up with simple explanations for some things I mentioned, as to which I'm going to challenge them just as any non believer would challenge me because if they really do hold water, then nothing I say will be able to debunk them. (will you accept that or will you assume I'm trying to look for excuses?)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'll still be standing

Quote:
I'll still be standing in the end no matter what the truth with your method. 

THOR FUCKING DAMN IT CAP!

Scientific method IS NOT something I invented. I agree with it because it is demonstrable and universal unlike Christianity or Islam or Pantheism or "metaphysics"

The combustion engine and air flight and computers were not invented by Thor or Allah or "metaphysics". They were a result of the same principle of testing and falsification and independent verification. Please stop using your computer and responding to me if you really think a non material being was the ultimate "first cause" leading up to this moment.

You think you are so special in your pet claim, but you are NOT! Otherwise if you had something it would be as obvious as the combustion engine and cell phones and entropy and evolution.

"metaphysics" is not a method. It is merely mental masturbation and fantasy otherwise Einstein, Henry Ford, and Bill Gates would have beaten you to the patent office.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:However, if

Brian37 wrote:

However, if such a god were real, he has one sick twisted sense of morality/humor.

29.000 kids in Somalia died from starvation last month under the watch of their alleged deity. And that does not include all the death of every war in human history or the death of every natural disaster in human history. The only way to buy into a cosmic super hero, is to buy into the same book in which this fictional character watches while a flood murders all but one family, and where children of Egypt and Israel get murdered in the book under his watch.

If parents in America provided such a crappy home to their kids CPS would have the parent arrested and charged.

likely as much as you

it's funny your problem with God is something he has left to us to take care of and we're failing... yet it's still Gods fault.  You brought up statistics, so let's talk statistics.  29,000 children died in somolia.  Would you give up 1 meal this year for them?  Statistically if everyone did that, there'd be no starvation around the world.  

People get murdered... that was someones choice.  To prevent their choice to murder would also mean God would prevent your choice to choose not to like him.  Either everyone gets to make their own choices or no one does.  Does that justify it?  of course not... but choices still happen.  

Natural disasters.  You ever watch 1000 ways to die?  Life is a hazard.  My favorite quote is "once you learn how to die, you'll know how to live" (Morrie Schwartz).  You always have a choice and know you're taking a risk even stepping out of bed in the morning.  Death is a consequence of sin and you're upset why?  because you think you're perfect?  How you die or when has nothing to do with sin, it's just how it goes, it might have been your time (whatever that might mean for you) again the butterfly affect, no one can know what would come if someone lived longer than they did or died sooner.  My understanding is that God has it all under control and that when you die, you're not actually dead.  You seem to claim to know more than humanly possible.. you must know that no one dying would make the world a better place, even though with the number living, scientists have said that the world is beyond capacity.    Brian knows otherwise, so science is wrong again because Brian said so.

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Don't expect

Brian37 wrote:

Don't expect him to look in the mirror by being willing to come up with things that falsify his claims. That would constitute objectivity.

...and once again, you look like an idiot.  

Brian37 wrote:

He has bought a ton of elaborate crap and until or unless he sees himself for what he really is, which is a salesman, not a scientist using legit method, like you are challenging him to do here, he will continue to dodge what you are saying here.

because I'm always dodging.  It really is your only justification for your belief isn't it.   The best defense I've gotten from you and those like you is that I'm dodging.  People who like to think on here never claim I'm dodging... funny how that works

Brian37 wrote:

I still think it is important to drill him with "Would you buy another deity claim if someone else was using the same arguments you are using. If not, then why do you think it works with your own claims. And if it is supposed to work, why isn't your claim a universal standard?"

I've given you a good answer you have very effectively dodged.  I answered that strait didn't I.  

Brian37 wrote:

I do agree with you here, but his dodge is rooted in his false belief of "prove it isn't true" which wont allow him to use falsification like you rightfully suggest and legit scientist use.

I'm hoping with everything we have thrown at him over the years that something is cracking him, and or will crack him. I have hope for him.

I would love for him to do what you suggest in this post, but I doubt he is at that point yet.

 

It's the same thing I've been asking of you for years... when will you get to that point?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Good luck, Zaq. It seems cap

Good luck, Zaq. It seems cap likes you for now.

Maybe he'll understand what the rest of us have been saying for the last few years when it comes from you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap, accusing me of not

Cap, accusing me of not knowing what you know is stupid and a false dichotomy.

If a magician saws a woman in half you are the idiot who goes "I don't know how they did it so he must have really done it"

Your problem is that you have allowed yourself, for a variety of natural psychological reasons, allowed yourself to jump the gun and fill in the gaps.

Your acceptance of your pet claim and metaphysics is not a result of any evidence you have anymore than seeing the woman sawed in half makes that possible in reality.

What you are doing to yourself is no different than accepting that the woman was sawed in half. In your case, instead of a "slight of hand" which is what stage magic is. You have merely fallen for a mental version. Richard Dawkins rightfully points this out as being "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight".

It sounds and feels so good to you that you fail to see it is nothing more than a mental placebo.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You're calling

Brian37 wrote:

You're calling me delusional?

yup

Brian37 wrote:

Thanks for the laugh. I'm not the one claiming that there is a thinking entity with no material.

no, but you're the one claiming to be thinking... and you're not

Brian37 wrote:

You're just pissed that no one is buying your pet god. You're in good company, we don''t buy Allah or Vishnu or Thor either.

I'm not pissed and I'm not selling anything.  i came on here asking you to challenge me, instead you take that as me convincing you that I"m right... interesting how that works.

Brian37 wrote:

A scientist CAN take their claims into a neutral setting and DEMONSTRATE to outsiders their claims. Which is why you and I can know what DNA is and what mitosis is and why we can know what entropy is.

You really need to start reading posts.  especially bobs.

Brian37 wrote:

You're just pissed that the bullshit you bought doesn't have those same high universal standards. Don't blame me for the bullshit you bought. Go bitch at the people who sold you this crap.

whos pissed?  other than you because I won't by a religious attempt at getting me to reject God.

Brian37 wrote:

How you can type on a computer and still peddle your superstition after the beating we have given you, knowing that computers are a RESULT of scientific method, is the very definition of DELUSION.

remember what I said about swinging at the air?  Doesn't really count as a beatdown, sorry

Brian37 wrote:

You cant even see that you might as well believe that your computer runs on pixie dust and you might as well be trying to convince us your computer runs on pixie dust. Claiming "metaphysics" has just as much credibility and could justify a giant pixie running the universe, just as well.

 

no... my computer runs on love... (moment of hearts floating in the air and popping)  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Don't expect him to look in the mirror by being willing to come up with things that falsify his claims. That would constitute objectivity.

...and once again, you look like an idiot.  

Brian37 wrote:

He has bought a ton of elaborate crap and until or unless he sees himself for what he really is, which is a salesman, not a scientist using legit method, like you are challenging him to do here, he will continue to dodge what you are saying here.

because I'm always dodging.  It really is your only justification for your belief isn't it.   The best defense I've gotten from you and those like you is that I'm dodging.  People who like to think on here never claim I'm dodging... funny how that works

Brian37 wrote:

I still think it is important to drill him with "Would you buy another deity claim if someone else was using the same arguments you are using. If not, then why do you think it works with your own claims. And if it is supposed to work, why isn't your claim a universal standard?"

I've given you a good answer you have very effectively dodged.  I answered that strait didn't I.  

Brian37 wrote:

I do agree with you here, but his dodge is rooted in his false belief of "prove it isn't true" which wont allow him to use falsification like you rightfully suggest and legit scientist use.

I'm hoping with everything we have thrown at him over the years that something is cracking him, and or will crack him. I have hope for him.

I would love for him to do what you suggest in this post, but I doubt he is at that point yet.

 

It's the same thing I've been asking of you for years... when will you get to that point?

BULLSHIT.

You have no intention of outsiders poking around unless you can set up the stage magic yourself.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You've

jcgadfly wrote:

You've presented it and I've disputed it. Is all you have "Of course they did everything right."?

no, is all you have alternative possibilities without support?

jcgadfly wrote:

You used this miracle as a proof - the burden is still on you.

I gave you a claim and a source... you want to debunk it, debunk the process of the source, otherwise we can assume it's legit.  No burden on me here.  It's not my job to debunk something I believe is true.

jcgadfly wrote:

You'd think they'd give something more substantial than this - I thought miracles were big deals.

they are, you're looking at a presentation of it, not the paperwork behind it.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Shouldn't there be a little more than:

1. Person claims he had disease by self diagnosis.

2. Person claims to be cured of disease after praying to a saint (or a potential saint) again by self diagnosis.

3. Churchmen claim saint or potential saint performed miracle.?

yea there should.. otherwise I wouldn't buy it as legitimate.  Neither should you.  if you want to doubt it, please find me the information on what really happened here.

jcgadfly wrote:

Do the not have a Devil's Advocate for guys they want to fast track to sainthood? Shouldn't they confirm a miracle was performed before ascribing it to Escriva? For all I know, the claimant never actually had the condition.

again, a detail that had been taken into consideration and they know that if it was a miracle that Escriva would get credit, so the burden is to find out if it really was a miracle.  Association usually comes before confirmation.  Everyone's eager to claim they're responsible for a miracle.

you really don't want to do any footwork do ya.  You honestly think discovering God is that easy?  True believers didn't sit back and wait for someone to tell them what to believe contrary to popular belief in the atheist world.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The Catholic

Brian37 wrote:

The Catholic Church when it "confirms" miracles, is not using the method of testing and falsification and independent verification. Nor does it employ double blind testing. It is merely a club who uses the false logic that if tons of people like the idea and we all shout it from the rooftops, it must be true.

I need a reference to this finding.  this is exactly what I'm looking for.  Who discovered this, how did they do it and what kind of proof do they have that this is the case?

jcgadfly wrote:

So your "evidence" that metaphysics proves the Christian god is to use an unscientific club?

that would be your method of showing me God is not real

jcgadfly wrote:

Ok, so then since Islam is the biggest religion in the world and we can, in reality, travel to Mecca, that must mean that Allah is the one true god.

Be it that Allah and the Christian God are the same God, then yea, He must be

jcgadfly wrote:

And while we are at it, you are taking the word of people who actually value the concept of human cannibalism, even if merely symbolic. You take the word of an asshole who tells the poor in Africa not to use condoms when he is not a medical doctor nor cares about the spread of aids as a result of his bad advice.

you can't blame religions on God, God asks for unity, we have caused separatism.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Mecca is not a science university nor is the Vatican. They are monuments to comic book fans who falsely believe their comic book heros are real. This is what you back up your "metaphysics with" "The pope says".

I'd like it better if you just stick to "metaphysics". You are dragging an already bad claim even further into the gutter by trying to invoke that clown.

 

sadly you have nothing to add still


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap,So you're

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap,

So you're back to this non-physical being which manifests frequently in the physical world but is so good at it that he leaves no evidence (physical or non-physical) of his presence?

Or do we have to settle for the face in the grilled cheese sandwich or weeping statue?

I've always found it interesting that proof is demanded for the most mundane claims but it is expected not just to be unnecessary but an impediment when it comes to god claims. Why is that?

 

who said that about proof?

who also said he leaves no evidence? Every time he manifests himself, he leaves evidence whether it be a miracle or a change in someone's heart.  The problem with the evidences is that it seem only with true atheists, that evidence is subjective.  Scientific minds see it otherwise.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Scientific

Brian37 wrote:

Scientific method IS NOT something I invented.

no, but your reasoning for believing what you do is.  I've never questioned the validity of the scientific method and in fact have encouraged its use on here.. it's funny how you're trying to make it look like I'm against it now.

Brian37 wrote:

"metaphysics" is not a method. It is merely mental masturbation and fantasy otherwise Einstein, Henry Ford, and Bill Gates would have beaten you to the patent office.

science is patented huh.

I get it, it's beyond your comprehension, no problem


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, accusing

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, accusing me of not knowing what you know is stupid and a false dichotomy.

Me accusing you of not knowing is based on you trying to pin ideas and concepts on me that have been clarified in this thread to not apply to my belief... and you still did it.  You're not doing so well for yourself here.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BULLSHIT.You

Brian37 wrote:

BULLSHIT.

You have no intention of outsiders poking around unless you can set up the stage magic yourself.

 

wow, you know me so well you must have psychic abilities... something that couldn't possibly exist without a spiritual influence that you keep denying.  Are you really demoting yourself to the point of trying to tell me what intentions I have or don't have?  Do you think you're going to convince me of this?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, accusing me of not knowing what you know is stupid and a false dichotomy.

Me accusing you of not knowing is based on you trying to pin ideas and concepts on me that have been clarified in this thread to not apply to my belief... and you still did it.  You're not doing so well for yourself here.

Oh shit, you got me! You never claimed that a non-material thinking entity exists.

See you at church next Sunday.

I'll admit your god exists as long as you accept that he has the same selective mentality as the owner of the Washington Redskins. Solving problems on the field isn't as important as filling the stands and making money. That will go over your head if you are not an NFL FAN, but Bob, the good cop in this motif, is probably busting a gut right now.

Wanna guess who the bad cop is?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

BULLSHIT.

You have no intention of outsiders poking around unless you can set up the stage magic yourself.

 

wow, you know me so well you must have psychic abilities... something that couldn't possibly exist without a spiritual influence that you keep denying.  Are you really demoting yourself to the point of trying to tell me what intentions I have or don't have?  Do you think you're going to convince me of this?

I'm demoting myself? Why, because I was walking down the Vegas strip and a three card Monty con artist puts up a table and dares me to bet, because I haven't learned the scam, that must make the scam lagit?

You can learn all the elaborate crap you want. You can memorize all the Star Trec episodes and lines you want. You are just pissed that someone not involved with your fictional stamp collecting is pointing out biplanes don't land upside down.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You've presented it and I've disputed it. Is all you have "Of course they did everything right."?

no, is all you have alternative possibilities without support?

jcgadfly wrote:

You used this miracle as a proof - the burden is still on you.

I gave you a claim and a source... you want to debunk it, debunk the process of the source, otherwise we can assume it's legit.  No burden on me here.  It's not my job to debunk something I believe is true.

jcgadfly wrote:

You'd think they'd give something more substantial than this - I thought miracles were big deals.

they are, you're looking at a presentation of it, not the paperwork behind it.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Shouldn't there be a little more than:

1. Person claims he had disease by self diagnosis.

2. Person claims to be cured of disease after praying to a saint (or a potential saint) again by self diagnosis.

3. Churchmen claim saint or potential saint performed miracle.?

yea there should.. otherwise I wouldn't buy it as legitimate.  Neither should you.  if you want to doubt it, please find me the information on what really happened here.

jcgadfly wrote:

Do the not have a Devil's Advocate for guys they want to fast track to sainthood? Shouldn't they confirm a miracle was performed before ascribing it to Escriva? For all I know, the claimant never actually had the condition.

again, a detail that had been taken into consideration and they know that if it was a miracle that Escriva would get credit, so the burden is to find out if it really was a miracle.  Association usually comes before confirmation.  Everyone's eager to claim they're responsible for a miracle.

you really don't want to do any footwork do ya.  You honestly think discovering God is that easy?  True believers didn't sit back and wait for someone to tell them what to believe contrary to popular belief in the atheist world.  

1. I'm matching your unsupported statement with alternatives. I believe my questions are more than sufficient to raise doubt on the claim - screw the source. Just because you believe something is true doesn't make it true. Isn't truth objective anymore (or is that just for the atheists)?

2. Debunk your source? Not my job yet - you haven't given me enough information to do more than I did. I'm not asking you to debunk it - just provide more than "This is a miracle because the church said so" - A medical report would be nice.

3. You say it's a miracle. I haven't seen enough information to show that there was even evidence of an adverse medical condition. You buy it as legitimate based on nothing more than the word of churchmen. I've done my doubting and have shown you why. Ir's your turn to support your position that this is legitimate (preferably with more than "the clergy must be right&quotEye-wink

4. Why should I have to do your footwork for you. You made the claim and I showed where I saw weakness in it. Now you want me to work to strengthen your claim - short answer no, long answer hell no. True believers do exactly what you describe - they sit and take the word of those that tell them what to believe (be it a pastor or the Bible). You have proven it yourself with this miracle example. If they took those details into consideration, those things need to be mentioned (unless they don't want an objective examination). Then again, all they're trying to do is satisfy people like you who already believe.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap,

So you're back to this non-physical being which manifests frequently in the physical world but is so good at it that he leaves no evidence (physical or non-physical) of his presence?

Or do we have to settle for the face in the grilled cheese sandwich or weeping statue?

I've always found it interesting that proof is demanded for the most mundane claims but it is expected not just to be unnecessary but an impediment when it comes to god claims. Why is that?

 

who said that about proof?

who also said he leaves no evidence? Every time he manifests himself, he leaves evidence whether it be a miracle or a change in someone's heart.  The problem with the evidences is that it seem only with true atheists, that evidence is subjective.  Scientific minds see it otherwise.

Oh bull.

Don't compare the warm fuzzies to observable evidence. I don't even see God changing lives. Christians (true or otherwise) are pretty much the same people they've always been. A nice non-believer becomes a nice believer. A dickish non-Christian becomes a dickish Christian. The people who believe they're right no matter what as a believer (like yourself) were likely that bull-headed as a non-Christian. Some of them just cover it better than others.

Christians don't seem to change as much as cover and distract.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The Catholic Church when it "confirms" miracles, is not using the method of testing and falsification and independent verification. Nor does it employ double blind testing. It is merely a club who uses the false logic that if tons of people like the idea and we all shout it from the rooftops, it must be true.

I need a reference to this finding.  this is exactly what I'm looking for.  Who discovered this, how did they do it and what kind of proof do they have that this is the case?

jcgadfly wrote:

So your "evidence" that metaphysics proves the Christian god is to use an unscientific club?

that would be your method of showing me God is not real

jcgadfly wrote:

Ok, so then since Islam is the biggest religion in the world and we can, in reality, travel to Mecca, that must mean that Allah is the one true god.

Be it that Allah and the Christian God are the same God, then yea, He must be

jcgadfly wrote:

And while we are at it, you are taking the word of people who actually value the concept of human cannibalism, even if merely symbolic. You take the word of an asshole who tells the poor in Africa not to use condoms when he is not a medical doctor nor cares about the spread of aids as a result of his bad advice.

you can't blame religions on God, God asks for unity, we have caused separatism.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Mecca is not a science university nor is the Vatican. They are monuments to comic book fans who falsely believe their comic book heros are real. This is what you back up your "metaphysics with" "The pope says".

I'd like it better if you just stick to "metaphysics". You are dragging an already bad claim even further into the gutter by trying to invoke that clown.

 

sadly you have nothing to add still

If Allah and the Christian "God" are the same god, then there is no reason for you not to be a Muslim.

For the same reason when I shop, I see no reason to pay for a name brand, when the generic brand is just as affective and costs less.

Wow Cap, I never wanted to believe that you would resort to a weekend worshiper argument. Please stick to metaphysics, it certainly has as much evidence, but it certainly is more creative than "they are all the same god"

You claim to play chess, but  damn "They are all the same god" is a 101 checkers argument.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes there was indeed the idea of studying something in a lab, such as 'God DNA'. But that does not require a microscope, although very fancy electron microscopes have been used in some studies of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the processes of cellular replication can use more ordinary microscopes.

But DNA sequencing does not use microscopes.

And I didn't say you claimed we "could study God under a microscope", of course you did explicitly deny it. But you are the one who implied we were making such a claim, and tried to make it sound even more ridiculous by suggesting that we had the idea of using a microscope to study God.

Assuming that a being that lives outside the physical existence would have DNA which is the basis of physical existence is ridiculous.  So of course I'm going to make it sound as ridiculous as possible.  A lot of times when people are trying to prove something, they don't hear the simple strait forward answer.  I've learned that being on this site.

Overstating your opponents position into something clearly ridiculous in that way is known as 'straw-manning', and is generally, and rightfully, regarded as a dishonest and fallacious debating tactic, and you do yourself or your case no credit in using it.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which does have some relevance to 'virgin birth' claims.

To claim a physical means of a spiritual occurance is not rational understanding how the spiritual interacts.  It has no relevance in 'virgin birth' claims as far as the Bible story is concerned.  We'd again have to assume God was just another physical  person if you're looking for God sperm.  

But the supposed 'non-physical' intervention produced a very physical effect, so at some point the genetic material that can only come from a sperm for a male child to be born had to come into existence. So it really isn't that unreasonable.

Quite apart from the fact that we have no evidence to confirm she was a virgin, or that the writing even meant any more than 'young woman'.

In any case the idea of virgin births had long become a tradition as the origin of gods and prophets.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, not so much 'not possible', but totally unnecessary, or even a meaningless idea in itself. It IS a giant presumption that we have to subdivide reality into what is accessible to science and some other realm where magical, transcendental, ideas like 'infinite, all-powerful, conscious beings might plausibly exist yet be not detectable by science, even though science can detect and measure all kinds of things we never even dreamed about before, from quarks to dark matter, from viruses to the subconscious workings of our own mind.

the claim of a metaphysical existence not being necessary is only based on the idea that we can explain claimed metaphysical happenings by other means.  Just because one might have another explanation of how something happened doesn't mean it happened by that other means, but likely through the use of the other means.  Science is dependent on physical results.  There are scientific studies of metaphysical or spiritual happenings.  Whether the masses accept the results are a different story.  The problem with metaphysical results is they're not always consistently repeatable, though they are repeatable.  Consistency depends on the choice of the spiritual.

Science is NOT dependent on 'physical results', only results, period. I keep telling you that everything you use as a basis for your conclusions can be scientifically examined, even just the 'testimony' of a bunch of people, and the reported mental experiences of individuals. They do not have to fully repeatable, although of course that helps.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But of course, your distinction between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical' is a category error.

Science already addresses the 'non-physical', such as the more abstract principles which govern the way complex systems behave, such as the related areas of complexity theory, chaos theory, non-linear systems, and the evolutionary paradigm as a generalization of Darwin's ideas. These are not tied to any specific physical manifestation.

it's a distinction between what people on here are expecting for study and what is being studied.  I agree there are non-physical sciences.  Thanks again for clarifying it.  I have offered every avenue of discussion, including those.  I may not have mentioned them by name, but by opening the floor to anyone to choose any means of discussion is to open the floor to any angle you want to take on the subject. ,... actually, i do remember mentioning some non-physical sciences at one time... quickly they were ignored and the excuse was that I was using them to distract... funny how that works.

You've just said earlier many things about science depending on the physical. You are just revealing your confusion on this subject, at least that how it appears to me.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is also the study of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, which include efforts to study the fundamentals of what they are, as processes divorced from particular 'physical' examples.

I've mentioned that as well.  all excuses apparently... 

So why are you dodging the issue - that statement seems like an excuse from YOU, cap.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That still doesn't even begin to clarify what you mean by 'the constant'.

something that is guaranteed to never change in the study, as a basis for reasoning and conclusion.  

But we do NOT need a 'constant' for reasoning and conclusion, apart from the two 'Laws of Logic', just an established framework of already reasonably well-established prior conclusions.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Lesser versions of this have already been attempted, especially focussing around the effects of prayer, which have come up negative, within the bounds of experimental error.

I question those studied mainly be it that prayer is not a constant (in other words, it's not always going to have a result) mainly due to the fact that the prayer in those studies is more literally a request to God to choose to make a result.  The choice factor to me deems that experiment irrational because you cannot conclude either way, a result once will not prove God and lack of result due to choice on God's part cannot disprove God.  

Of course they can't disprove God, but all the studies so far, taken together, show that prayer offers no evidence for God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It would really just have to look for departures from statistical pure chance in all kinds of contexts, in some way that could not be explained by as yet undiscovered non-sentient forces.

The only way I can see confirming prayer is to compile historical claims of prayer answers and look at the consistency.  it seems the results are very similar in the way of how they come about and how quickly the results occur depending on the prayer and situation.

That has been done to a signifcant extant - that is part of what I was referring to.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Problem is that even if the influence of some consciousness on worldly events could be detected, there is no easy way to prove it was due to anything like 'God'. Intelligent aliens are always going to be more plausible than 'God' as described in scripture. How could we possibly prove this influence was of an 'infinite' being, of infinite power, or even begin to determine the motives of such a being? This dilemma is faced by believers, quite independent of 'science', if they would be honest.

thats the question I've been asking for a very long time on this thread.  No one can answer it.  they're looking for something they know I can't provide them, then concluding that because I can't provide it for them that i must be in the wrong.  

I do question how intelligent aliens would be more plausible than God be it that many of the miracles in question are even beyond our imagination as far as intelligence goes.  

Given how many, many things whose physical cause was demonstrably 'beyond the imagination' of people at one time, that is not an argument. There are no 'miracles' that I am aware of that would require the originator to be an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, conscious creator of the Universe, which is why I say advanced aliens are more plausible.

Quote:

It seems then that it's an obvious conclusion to say that because it's difficult to prove anything was due to a being like God that this God possibility is no longer a possibility.  That is irrational due to the factors that are obvious.  It's like me saying I'm capable of running a 5 minute mile.  You can question that and i can claim it all I want, but unless I choose to do it, you can't prove that I can't do it.  The same with God.  People set up experiments assuming God's going to go along with them without even asking and when he doesn't, they assume automatically that God really isn't there.  That's a delema even believers have been going through when prayers aren't answered.  When God says no, suddenly he doesn't exist.  

sounds like a teens relationship with their parents.

You would not be claiming anything beyond what is humanly possible, so your first example is not remotely relevant.

And if by chance a prayer seems to have been answered, it likewise does not prove he does exist.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

t applies to the traditional theological arguments for God - demonstration of a 'First Cause' says nothing about the nature of that First Cause, now that we know that complexity does not require an even more complex 'cause'.

The problem with the scientific mind is that they see that God only can exist if necessary.. in other words, there's no other way for something to happen unless there's this intelligence.  What they fail to take into consideration is that its possible and rational to think that an intelligent being would design a system with the laws in place in such a way that interactions this intelligence wants to make in that creation would be cooperative with the laws created within the environment.  Thus from an inside perspective, the intelligence behind the creation is not needed and therefore doesn't exist, but an outside perspective would say that it's logical that if this God really is intelligent, the easiest way to affect something in the creation is to cooperate with the laws and restrictions within the creation.  why make the job harder by breaking the rules?  What more catastrophic results could come of breaking such laws?  

No you are very wrong again.

Science DOES NOT require something to be 'necessary' to accept it. Merely that it be consistent with existing and currently well-tested theories and be the best available workable explanation we have come up with so far.

But if something is NOT necessary, then it IS irrational to accept it when there are explanatioon around that do not involve giant and unnecessary assumptions about what might exist. Speak to William of Ockham.

Of course such a being could construct a reality that looked just as if it hadn't been designed.

There are an infinite number of such scenarios one could invent that would be undisprovable like this. What is your basis for choosing this one?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sure, if you want to back up your original claim. It doesn't have to be detailed, but the less detail is available for each case, the more examples are needed to find some consistent trend.

I'll see what I can do.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Christians claim to know God's capabilities, but there is no way they can know that with any confidence. 

any more than any parent can no their childs capabilities or any child can know their parents capabilities.  We know what He's capable of, therefore we do not question Biblical claims.  there are other miracle claims that we do question all the time and also just because it's deemed a miracle and understood to be beyond scientific and physical understanding doesn't mean it was from this God.  One question asked when determining miracles is whether it was consistent with the work of God.

You do NOT KNOW God's capabilities. That is based on pure speculation.

An informed parent has an idea of the range of behaviour of children, from observing others, and memories of their own childhood, and so on, so they DO have a basis for what to expect. They can observe the actions of the children as they grow up, so building a pretty solid idea of their capabilities. Children observe their parents, and other adults, so they too can build a reasonable idea of their parents capabailities.

How does any of that any of that apply to an invisible super-being???

Things happen that we cannot explain. Yes. They always have, and always will, altho less so as our understanding grows.

Nothing that has been claimed as a miracle requires a benevolent infinitely powerful being.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Everything I have read on these, and comments by serious, qualified investigators, like Robert Winston, who is NOT an atheist, seem to show little justification for claiming them as miracles.

What problems do you have with the process itself?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Understanding doesn't "negates the possibility", it reduces the need to posit a 'God' to explain anything, and raises the need to explain how God would fit in to our expanded comprehension of reality.

I've always wondered why scientifically it is understood that God is needed to explain anything?  I don't need to be here to explain anything to you, but I still exist.

Stop wondering. It has nothing to do with science. People unfamiliar with science 'need' God to explain just about everything. That is what you should be wondering about.

Scientifically it is understood that God is not needed to explain anything - the reverse of what you said.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So the fact that, over historical time, 50 billion children have died at an early age, even before birth, from natural causes, ie because of the hostile nature of the world that God supposedly created, before they could begin to comprehend belief, is possibly defensible? Or that there is some ultimate good that might follow from children rendered blind by parasites that God created?

Of course there is always the possibility, however remote, that there is some hypothetical 'higher purpose' served by such apparently pointless deaths, but on what basis would you conclude that an infinitely powerful and 'loving' entity could not find some other way of achieving that, and why would he need to cause such suffering in a mortal race to achieve his purpose? And why would his purpose necessarily be morally compelling to us? Why do presume we are more than a tool or a plaything to this hypothetical being? Concocting a story to fool us into doing what he wanted for whatever ulterior motives he might have would be trivial for such a being.

There could be many reasons and many results.  Yes, the higher purpose idea is holding onto the perspective that death is not the end.  In other words, the children who died are doing so much more in death than in life.  Either that or the other Christian mythology approach to this is that before birth they were told what would come of their suffering and they chose to allow this path.  There's no way we can prove or disprove this perspective.  Either way, we can always look at it as, would you have noticed these children now if they didn't die of such a drastic cause but lived a normal life and died of old age?  I'm not sure why, but people take notice more of severe situations rather than insignificant situations.  My take is there's a reason why they were supposed to be noticed.  I dont' know the results from noticing them, but they are remembered.

IOW you can invent a story to explain away anything, if you don't have to prove it at all. They didn't all die of 'drastic' causes, just simple disease, malnourishment, accident. Many of them were not 'noticed' or remembered. Especially all the ones who died before birth, including ones who never got to the stage their mothe rwould have noticed.

We can't 'disprove' your story, but we can point out it makes all kinds of assumptions, about prior existence of souls capable of 'deciding' before we were born, despite no evidence of souls in living people.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why would you even entertain such an idea, when there are far simpler, more likely explanations for why everything happens the way we observe?

I know God.  I know it's not that simple.  This should further negate the idea that God is needed to explain, if anything, knowing God makes you aware of how much we still don't know.

You do not KNOW God, You BELIEVE in God. Important distinction.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You think that facts like that some houses escaped a fire in unusual but not impossible circumstances, among a vast number that suffered the more common and expected fate, given the reality that unusual events will happen naturally at least some of the time, given enough time, justifies such claims in the face of what evidence we do have??

it's based on more than that they just happened.  it's timing and circumstance.  Sure, I could win the lottery tomorrow and I likely would thank God but not necesarily say that God made me win it.   Likely that won't happen, but it happens somewhere all the time.  Those circumstances are rare, but happen and the timing isn't unique, there's a set drawing and a set number range that is drawn, there are X number of tickets sold which makes the possibility of one ticket having the exact numbers a likely possibility.  Nothing significant about the timing or circumstance in this situation assumes there's more to it than natural chance.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if you feel you need a God to explain some mysteries, the idea of a God who is not omni-benevolent, doesn't ultimately care how much suffering he causes, is prepared to put on the occasional stunt like the resurrection, and so on, is a far more plausible and comprehensible interpretation of the Bible and history than yours.

your'e sure he doesn't care.  Are you saying every parent that has allowed their child to hurt themselves in a minor way to learn not to do what they've done in the future is "not caring"?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Completely solves the classic "Problem of Evil" for a start. And doesn't violate logic any more than the conventional interpretation does, arguably less so.

EDIT: Of course. It is blindingly obvious to me that tossing the illogical God concept out makes things even simpler.

simpler sure... but simple doesn't always result in Truth.  It's simple to look out at the horizon on the shore and say "the earth is flat"  It's not true, but that's the simple solution.  

It is not so much what is physically 'simpler', but what idea makes the fewest unsupported assumptions, that doesn't go too far beyond what the evidence suggests.

The fact that the horizon is a long way away merely tells us that the Earth has a large diameter. The fact that we see ships disappearing below the horizon suggests it is not 'flat'.

Just as your report of a life-changing experience when you accepted God needs to be set against the accounts of many here of life-changing experiences when they abandoned God-belief and embraced Reality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:caposkia

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes there was indeed the idea of studying something in a lab, such as 'God DNA'. But that does not require a microscope, although very fancy electron microscopes have been used in some studies of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the processes of cellular replication can use more ordinary microscopes.

But DNA sequencing does not use microscopes.

And I didn't say you claimed we "could study God under a microscope", of course you did explicitly deny it. But you are the one who implied we were making such a claim, and tried to make it sound even more ridiculous by suggesting that we had the idea of using a microscope to study God.

Assuming that a being that lives outside the physical existence would have DNA which is the basis of physical existence is ridiculous.  So of course I'm going to make it sound as ridiculous as possible.  A lot of times when people are trying to prove something, they don't hear the simple strait forward answer.  I've learned that being on this site.

Overstating your opponents position into something clearly ridiculous in that way is known as 'straw-manning', and is generally, and rightfully, regarded as a dishonest and fallacious debating tactic, and you do yourself or your case no credit in using it.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which does have some relevance to 'virgin birth' claims.

To claim a physical means of a spiritual occurance is not rational understanding how the spiritual interacts.  It has no relevance in 'virgin birth' claims as far as the Bible story is concerned.  We'd again have to assume God was just another physical  person if you're looking for God sperm.  

But the supposed 'non-physical' intervention produced a very physical effect, so at some point the genetic material that can only come from a sperm for a male child to be born had to come into existence. So it really isn't that unreasonable.

Quite apart from the fact that we have no evidence to confirm she was a virgin, or that the writing even meant any more than 'young woman'.

In any case the idea of virgin births had long become a tradition as the origin of gods and prophets.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, not so much 'not possible', but totally unnecessary, or even a meaningless idea in itself. It IS a giant presumption that we have to subdivide reality into what is accessible to science and some other realm where magical, transcendental, ideas like 'infinite, all-powerful, conscious beings might plausibly exist yet be not detectable by science, even though science can detect and measure all kinds of things we never even dreamed about before, from quarks to dark matter, from viruses to the subconscious workings of our own mind.

the claim of a metaphysical existence not being necessary is only based on the idea that we can explain claimed metaphysical happenings by other means.  Just because one might have another explanation of how something happened doesn't mean it happened by that other means, but likely through the use of the other means.  Science is dependent on physical results.  There are scientific studies of metaphysical or spiritual happenings.  Whether the masses accept the results are a different story.  The problem with metaphysical results is they're not always consistently repeatable, though they are repeatable.  Consistency depends on the choice of the spiritual.

Science is NOT dependent on 'physical results', only results, period. I keep telling you that everything you use as a basis for your conclusions can be scientifically examined, even just the 'testimony' of a bunch of people, and the reported mental experiences of individuals. They do not have to fully repeatable, although of course that helps.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But of course, your distinction between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical' is a category error.

Science already addresses the 'non-physical', such as the more abstract principles which govern the way complex systems behave, such as the related areas of complexity theory, chaos theory, non-linear systems, and the evolutionary paradigm as a generalization of Darwin's ideas. These are not tied to any specific physical manifestation.

it's a distinction between what people on here are expecting for study and what is being studied.  I agree there are non-physical sciences.  Thanks again for clarifying it.  I have offered every avenue of discussion, including those.  I may not have mentioned them by name, but by opening the floor to anyone to choose any means of discussion is to open the floor to any angle you want to take on the subject. ,... actually, i do remember mentioning some non-physical sciences at one time... quickly they were ignored and the excuse was that I was using them to distract... funny how that works.

You've just said earlier many things about science depending on the physical. You are just revealing your confusion on this subject, at least that how it appears to me.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is also the study of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, which include efforts to study the fundamentals of what they are, as processes divorced from particular 'physical' examples.

I've mentioned that as well.  all excuses apparently... 

So why are you dodging the issue - that statement seems like an excuse from YOU, cap.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That still doesn't even begin to clarify what you mean by 'the constant'.

something that is guaranteed to never change in the study, as a basis for reasoning and conclusion.  

But we do NOT need a 'constant' for reasoning and conclusion, apart from the two 'Laws of Logic', just an established framework of already reasonably well-established prior conclusions.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Lesser versions of this have already been attempted, especially focussing around the effects of prayer, which have come up negative, within the bounds of experimental error.

I question those studied mainly be it that prayer is not a constant (in other words, it's not always going to have a result) mainly due to the fact that the prayer in those studies is more literally a request to God to choose to make a result.  The choice factor to me deems that experiment irrational because you cannot conclude either way, a result once will not prove God and lack of result due to choice on God's part cannot disprove God.  

Of course they can't disprove God, but all the studies so far, taken together, show that prayer offers no evidence for God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It would really just have to look for departures from statistical pure chance in all kinds of contexts, in some way that could not be explained by as yet undiscovered non-sentient forces.

The only way I can see confirming prayer is to compile historical claims of prayer answers and look at the consistency.  it seems the results are very similar in the way of how they come about and how quickly the results occur depending on the prayer and situation.

That has been done to a signifcant extant - that is part of what I was referring to.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Problem is that even if the influence of some consciousness on worldly events could be detected, there is no easy way to prove it was due to anything like 'God'. Intelligent aliens are always going to be more plausible than 'God' as described in scripture. How could we possibly prove this influence was of an 'infinite' being, of infinite power, or even begin to determine the motives of such a being? This dilemma is faced by believers, quite independent of 'science', if they would be honest.

thats the question I've been asking for a very long time on this thread.  No one can answer it.  they're looking for something they know I can't provide them, then concluding that because I can't provide it for them that i must be in the wrong.  

I do question how intelligent aliens would be more plausible than God be it that many of the miracles in question are even beyond our imagination as far as intelligence goes.  

Given how many, many things whose physical cause was demonstrably 'beyond the imagination' of people at one time, that is not an argument. There are no 'miracles' that I am aware of that would require the originator to be an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, conscious creator of the Universe, which is why I say advanced aliens are more plausible.

Quote:

It seems then that it's an obvious conclusion to say that because it's difficult to prove anything was due to a being like God that this God possibility is no longer a possibility.  That is irrational due to the factors that are obvious.  It's like me saying I'm capable of running a 5 minute mile.  You can question that and i can claim it all I want, but unless I choose to do it, you can't prove that I can't do it.  The same with God.  People set up experiments assuming God's going to go along with them without even asking and when he doesn't, they assume automatically that God really isn't there.  That's a delema even believers have been going through when prayers aren't answered.  When God says no, suddenly he doesn't exist.  

sounds like a teens relationship with their parents.

You would not be claiming anything beyond what is humanly possible, so your first example is not remotely relevant.

And if by chance a prayer seems to have been answered, it likewise does not prove he does exist.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

t applies to the traditional theological arguments for God - demonstration of a 'First Cause' says nothing about the nature of that First Cause, now that we know that complexity does not require an even more complex 'cause'.

The problem with the scientific mind is that they see that God only can exist if necessary.. in other words, there's no other way for something to happen unless there's this intelligence.  What they fail to take into consideration is that its possible and rational to think that an intelligent being would design a system with the laws in place in such a way that interactions this intelligence wants to make in that creation would be cooperative with the laws created within the environment.  Thus from an inside perspective, the intelligence behind the creation is not needed and therefore doesn't exist, but an outside perspective would say that it's logical that if this God really is intelligent, the easiest way to affect something in the creation is to cooperate with the laws and restrictions within the creation.  why make the job harder by breaking the rules?  What more catastrophic results could come of breaking such laws?  

No you are very wrong again.

Science DOES NOT require something to be 'necessary' to accept it. Merely that it be consistent with existing and currently well-tested theories and be the best available workable explanation we have come up with so far.

But if something is NOT necessary, then it IS irrational to accept it when there are explanatioon around that do not involve giant and unnecessary assumptions about what might exist. Speak to William of Ockham.

Of course such a being could construct a reality that looked just as if it hadn't been designed.

There are an infinite number of such scenarios one could invent that would be undisprovable like this. What is your basis for choosing this one?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sure, if you want to back up your original claim. It doesn't have to be detailed, but the less detail is available for each case, the more examples are needed to find some consistent trend.

I'll see what I can do.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Christians claim to know God's capabilities, but there is no way they can know that with any confidence. 

any more than any parent can no their childs capabilities or any child can know their parents capabilities.  We know what He's capable of, therefore we do not question Biblical claims.  there are other miracle claims that we do question all the time and also just because it's deemed a miracle and understood to be beyond scientific and physical understanding doesn't mean it was from this God.  One question asked when determining miracles is whether it was consistent with the work of God.

You do NOT KNOW God's capabilities. That is based on pure speculation.

An informed parent has an idea of the range of behaviour of children, from observing others, and memories of their own childhood, and so on, so they DO have a basis for what to expect. They can observe the actions of the children as they grow up, so building a pretty solid idea of their capabilities. Children observe their parents, and other adults, so they too can build a reasonable idea of their parents capabailities.

How does any of that any of that apply to an invisible super-being???

Things happen that we cannot explain. Yes. They always have, and always will, altho less so as our understanding grows.

Nothing that has been claimed as a miracle requires a benevolent infinitely powerful being.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Everything I have read on these, and comments by serious, qualified investigators, like Robert Winston, who is NOT an atheist, seem to show little justification for claiming them as miracles.

What problems do you have with the process itself?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Understanding doesn't "negates the possibility", it reduces the need to posit a 'God' to explain anything, and raises the need to explain how God would fit in to our expanded comprehension of reality.

I've always wondered why scientifically it is understood that God is needed to explain anything?  I don't need to be here to explain anything to you, but I still exist.

Stop wondering. It has nothing to do with science. People unfamiliar with science 'need' God to explain just about everything. That is what you should be wondering about.

Scientifically it is understood that God is not needed to explain anything - the reverse of what you said.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So the fact that, over historical time, 50 billion children have died at an early age, even before birth, from natural causes, ie because of the hostile nature of the world that God supposedly created, before they could begin to comprehend belief, is possibly defensible? Or that there is some ultimate good that might follow from children rendered blind by parasites that God created?

Of course there is always the possibility, however remote, that there is some hypothetical 'higher purpose' served by such apparently pointless deaths, but on what basis would you conclude that an infinitely powerful and 'loving' entity could not find some other way of achieving that, and why would he need to cause such suffering in a mortal race to achieve his purpose? And why would his purpose necessarily be morally compelling to us? Why do presume we are more than a tool or a plaything to this hypothetical being? Concocting a story to fool us into doing what he wanted for whatever ulterior motives he might have would be trivial for such a being.

There could be many reasons and many results.  Yes, the higher purpose idea is holding onto the perspective that death is not the end.  In other words, the children who died are doing so much more in death than in life.  Either that or the other Christian mythology approach to this is that before birth they were told what would come of their suffering and they chose to allow this path.  There's no way we can prove or disprove this perspective.  Either way, we can always look at it as, would you have noticed these children now if they didn't die of such a drastic cause but lived a normal life and died of old age?  I'm not sure why, but people take notice more of severe situations rather than insignificant situations.  My take is there's a reason why they were supposed to be noticed.  I dont' know the results from noticing them, but they are remembered.

IOW you can invent a story to explain away anything, if you don't have to prove it at all. They didn't all die of 'drastic' causes, just simple disease, malnourishment, accident. Many of them were not 'noticed' or remembered. Especially all the ones who died before birth, including ones who never got to the stage their mothe rwould have noticed.

We can't 'disprove' your story, but we can point out it makes all kinds of assumptions, about prior existence of souls capable of 'deciding' before we were born, despite no evidence of souls in living people.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why would you even entertain such an idea, when there are far simpler, more likely explanations for why everything happens the way we observe?

I know God.  I know it's not that simple.  This should further negate the idea that God is needed to explain, if anything, knowing God makes you aware of how much we still don't know.

You do not KNOW God, You BELIEVE in God. Important distinction.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You think that facts like that some houses escaped a fire in unusual but not impossible circumstances, among a vast number that suffered the more common and expected fate, given the reality that unusual events will happen naturally at least some of the time, given enough time, justifies such claims in the face of what evidence we do have??

it's based on more than that they just happened.  it's timing and circumstance.  Sure, I could win the lottery tomorrow and I likely would thank God but not necesarily say that God made me win it.   Likely that won't happen, but it happens somewhere all the time.  Those circumstances are rare, but happen and the timing isn't unique, there's a set drawing and a set number range that is drawn, there are X number of tickets sold which makes the possibility of one ticket having the exact numbers a likely possibility.  Nothing significant about the timing or circumstance in this situation assumes there's more to it than natural chance.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even if you feel you need a God to explain some mysteries, the idea of a God who is not omni-benevolent, doesn't ultimately care how much suffering he causes, is prepared to put on the occasional stunt like the resurrection, and so on, is a far more plausible and comprehensible interpretation of the Bible and history than yours.

your'e sure he doesn't care.  Are you saying every parent that has allowed their child to hurt themselves in a minor way to learn not to do what they've done in the future is "not caring"?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Completely solves the classic "Problem of Evil" for a start. And doesn't violate logic any more than the conventional interpretation does, arguably less so.

EDIT: Of course. It is blindingly obvious to me that tossing the illogical God concept out makes things even simpler.

simpler sure... but simple doesn't always result in Truth.  It's simple to look out at the horizon on the shore and say "the earth is flat"  It's not true, but that's the simple solution.  

It is not so much what is physically 'simpler', but what idea makes the fewest unsupported assumptions, that doesn't go too far beyond what the evidence suggests.

The fact that the horizon is a long way away merely tells us that the Earth has a large diameter. The fact that we see ships disappearing below the horizon suggests it is not 'flat'.

Just as your report of a life-changing experience when you accepted God needs to be set against the accounts of many here of life-changing experiences when they abandoned God-belief and embraced Reality.

Bob, please stop your good cop motif. I am a cunt hair away from calling Internal Affairs on your namby pamby goody two shoes ass. Why do you hate brass knuckles and water boarding so much?

He's claiming a non material thinking entity. You are the Obama of atheists and I am the Dick Cheney of atheists. You are the Martin Luther King of atheists and I am the Malcolm X of atheists. You are too soft on him and I don't like it.

We have him in the interrogation room, you've offered him the smokes and the snacks. It is way past time for this perp to confess. If you cant sweet talk him i am going to beat the shit out of him for the confession.

And after I beat the shit out of him(metaphorically of course) and he still doesn't confess, at least both you the good cop, and me Dirty Harry, still have fodder for the future.

And Cap, please don't even attempt to make my humor out to a real call for violence. I am making a jab at Bob for is patience in attending to your arguments. Nothing more. I am joking about Bob's patience with you. He has far more than I do.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cappy..............I don't

Cappy..............I don't know if you haven't responded because you have a life outside this thread, unlike me, but no matter what, I really do like you. I just cannot stand any claim of any type of non-material being, not just yours. To me this is merely a verbal boxing match.

So take my humor and blasphemy with a grain of salt. This is a good example for ANYONE reading this as to humanity getting along despite disagreements.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but will vehemently defend your right to say it". I believe that was Lord Acton, but I don't remember for sure.

Cap, always keep in mind with me, that you could be claiming ANY non-material being by any label and I will aways get a lip twitch and want to kick the crap out of the claim(not the person).

This world is far too full of real hate to hate someone merely because they hold a claim I hate. ALWAYS keep in mind that it is important to separate the claim from the person, and there is always lots more to any individual than one particular issue.

AND also, if ever think that I am an arrogant prick, rest assured in my real life with my co-workers, family and friends, you think I am giving you a hard time? No, if you saw how much I get teased by Bob and my co-workers, you'd understand, or at least I want you to understand, beyond our beef over the existence of a god, that I am just as human and flawed and just as capable of compassion and a sense of humor even with myself.

I know I have said this in some ways before, but occasionally I think it is important to remind everyone that all of us, both you and I and all 7 billion of us, are still the same species.

We do really value you being here. AND just like you honestly want us to take your position, we are merely being tough on you in the hopes someday you can see where we are coming from. But no matter if that never happens, either way, again, this should serve as an example to both parties that we can get along even with the bluntness and blasphemy.

Now, enough with the Hall Mark love fest, DING DING DING, the next round continues.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. I'm

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I'm matching your unsupported statement with alternatives. I believe my questions are more than sufficient to raise doubt on the claim - screw the source. Just because you believe something is true doesn't make it true. Isn't truth objective anymore (or is that just for the atheists)?

Sure they're sufficient to raise doubts on the claim... until you research the source... to say that my claim is unsupported would mean that i did not give you a source to investigate and debunk... so far you've only come up with alternative ideas... as to which I told you that has been taken care of... If you researched the source, you would find this to be so.  You know who claims it, you know who confirmed it, so what's your basis for claiming it's unsupported?  I want you to empirically debunk the source... use those alternatives and back them up by showing us all exactly how they missed that and where they skipped that step in the confirmation process.  We're all waiting.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Debunk your source? Not my job yet - you haven't given me enough information to do more than I did. I'm not asking you to debunk it - just provide more than "This is a miracle because the church said so" - A medical report would be nice.

The church is the one claiming it to be a work of God, independent sources are claiming it to be not explainable scientifically or medically.  Medical reports are likely privelaged information.  Go ahead and find it..  You're telling me to provide you more information than the source and the vatican... it's like you telling me a Hurricane is going to hit the coast and the source is NOAA and me telling you I'm going to need more than NOAA telling me a hurricane is going to hit despite the fact that they are the experts on the storms and also if I go to their site, I will find maps and computer models supporting their claims.  Same with you... just have to a bit of digging, that's all.  (hint, you may have to try a few google searches to get to the section of their site or a link that talks about their methodology in determining miracles)   Don't hurt yourself.  I'm challenging you to find the information.  To tell me that i'm not giving you enough information is not an excuse anymore.  It's just being lazy.  As I said to others, this could be your chance to prove to millions around the world that this is bogus!  Brian keeps saying he'll give me the Nobel prize when I can prove God to his standards, now's your chance... I'll give it to you.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. You say it's a miracle. I haven't seen enough information to show that there was even evidence of an adverse medical condition. You buy it as legitimate based on nothing more than the word of churchmen. I've done my doubting and have shown you why. Ir's your turn to support your position that this is legitimate (preferably with more than "the clergy must be right&quotEye-wink

doubts of a claim can only go so far... It seems to me that if this wasn't a story based on God, you'd accept it without a doubt... I'm willing to bet the person could tell you themselves and you'd still doubt it.  Medical history in hand or not.  

them:  here's the medical history

You:  forged

Them: uh.. this is directly from the source, look at the water mark..

You: anyone can forge a watermark.  

In other words, you don't want to see it any other way than the way that you can accept in your head.  I get that... most religious people take the same mindset.  

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why should I have to do your footwork for you. You made the claim and I showed where I saw weakness in it. Now you want me to work to strengthen your claim - short answer no, long answer hell no. True believers do exactly what you describe - they sit and take the word of those that tell them what to believe (be it a pastor or the Bible). You have proven it yourself with this miracle example. If they took those details into consideration, those things need to be mentioned (unless they don't want an objective examination). Then again, all they're trying to do is satisfy people like you who already believe.

dude, the footwork is done, you have the claim and the source that did the investigation.  i have tired a few times and have found through google searches sites that detail the process of determining a miracle... I have told you all your alternatives had been taken into consideration, you can confirm that yourself.  You want reference to my claiming the alternatives have been taken into consideration, look at the sources already given.  including googling the process.  

also,, you have yet to take anything I tell you at face value, so why is it so hard for you to accept that I'm making you see it for yourself?  Why have you put up a wall now?  It's interesting you word it as me making you do the work to "strengthen my claim"... if this is true, then you've already admitted to accepting it as valid... otherwise, your "work" would prove my claim false.  Geez, it's like talking to a Jehovah's Witness


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Don't compare

jcgadfly wrote:

Don't compare the warm fuzzies to observable evidence.

I'm talking about observable evidence... you're a perfect example of how subjective evidence is to a non-believer... you used to be smart... I really wish that version of you would come back.

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't even see God changing lives.

I don't see noseeums biting others either... does that mean I'm the only one getting bitten?

jcgadfly wrote:

Christians (true or otherwise) are pretty much the same people they've always been. A nice non-believer becomes a nice believer. A dickish non-Christian becomes a dickish Christian. The people who believe they're right no matter what as a believer (like yourself) were likely that bull-headed as a non-Christian. Some of them just cover it better than others.

Christians don't seem to change as much as cover and distract.

I definitely can't agree with you there... if your claim was true, then I'd be dead, because friend of mine who is a completely different person as a Christian now likely would have killed me by now.  Or been way to Right sided to be my friend.  Good luck supporting that claim too... not that I expect you to, it seems you expect that your word is good enough.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: If Allah and

Brian37 wrote:

 

If Allah and the Christian "God" are the same god, then there is no reason for you not to be a Muslim.

For the same reason when I shop, I see no reason to pay for a name brand, when the generic brand is just as affective and costs less.

Wow Cap, I never wanted to believe that you would resort to a weekend worshiper argument. Please stick to metaphysics, it certainly has as much evidence, but it certainly is more creative than "they are all the same god"

You claim to play chess, but  damn "They are all the same god" is a 101 checkers argument.

 

Damn it brian, you've really got to start doing some homework.  You're more ignorant than I thought... I bet if you even looked at a 1 paragraph summary, you could find out how Allah and the Christian God not only are the same God, but also why they are 2 completely different followings.  From there you could investigate the origins of both be it that they come down to 2 different people.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
(This is a twofer cap)Cap,

(This is a twofer cap)

Cap, if your source did more than re-iterate the claim, you'd have an issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It also doesn't provide other places to look.

I'd keep going but you'd insist that the Vatican just can't have an agenda. Just like they wouldn't cover up clerical pedophilia.

All I have is a claim from you and the Vatican - still need the evidence. You and the Vatican need to do your damn job. I can't look up the evidence for you because I don't know where to start. You seem to know this but want me to look for it for you anyway.

"In other words, you don't want to see it any other way than the way that you can accept in your head." I find it interesting that instead of me seeing it in a way that I can accept it in my head you want me to simply take the word of what is in your head (just like you and the religious do with their pastors).

Remember, I'm a skeptic. I don't accept anything at face value. You're not telling me anything new here. What I'm trying to tell you is that telling me to just accept what you say at face value isn't going to work. You say you don't do that for yourself but you want to deny me that courtesy. If the story had supporting evidence, I'd have no problem accepting it. Instead you gave me a story where all evidence is left out and is just a collection of claims and wonder why I don't accept it.

Now for your "observable evidence" claim in the other post. You "observed" it but somehow just can't tell anyone about it and the results can't be repeated?

I also like the way that you assume that since I claim that I haven't seen God making changes in the same ways that you've seen those changes made that somehow I'm at fault. If you want to accept personal experience and anecdotal testimony for what it is, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, you have jumped to calling this observable "scientific" evidence.

Oh, and you used to not be such a pompous ass. I really wish that version of you would come back as well.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Overstating

BobSpence1 wrote:

Overstating your opponents position into something clearly ridiculous in that way is known as 'straw-manning', and is generally, and rightfully, regarded as a dishonest and fallacious debating tactic, and you do yourself or your case no credit in using it.

well, it really started off with me explaining rationally why it's not logical to ask for such a things as God DNA... the more I heard excuses as to how that means there is no God, the less I treid to explain it and the more I just messed around... A lot of what i do as far as 'straw-manning' has been after a sincere effort to answer the problem directly without progress.   I can see how it can be seen as straw-manning.  If you had been following and awake through the many endless pages, you'd have seen where it started and how I quickly gave up explaining something that to me seems to be very simple and strait fwd... that being that DNA is a physical signature and God is not part of the physical.  That's all there is to it.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

But the supposed 'non-physical' intervention produced a very physical effect, so at some point the genetic material that can only come from a sperm for a male child to be born had to come into existence. So it really isn't that unreasonable.

I see what you're saying, an investigation into spiritual interventions would yield evidences that would show that all spiritual interventions produce a physical result... otherwise, there would be no intervention.  A physical result as far as physical sciences is concerned must be from a physical source, otherwise, there would be no physical result, but taking into consideration there's something beyond the physical, it is logical to see a physical result when non-physical spirits intervene with the physical.  There would have to be some sort of physical signature.  Not to say there couldn't be alternative explanations, but many times there isn't with spiritual interactions.  e.g. a virgin birth... Conspiracy theorists would say there had to be a man that is not mentioned in the story... sure, we can speculate that, but there's nothing anywhere to support it.  When it comes down to the physics, could it be possible that a sperm formed as a result of the Holy Spirit interaction, it seems logically it would make sense, but then again, be it that this intervention happened over 2000 years ago, how would anyone expect to find Godsperm today?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Quite apart from the fact that we have no evidence to confirm she was a virgin, or that the writing even meant any more than 'young woman'.

In any case the idea of virgin births had long become a tradition as the origin of gods and prophets.

be it that the story of a birth coming from a virgin was told throughout OT history, it makes sense that other gods would be associated with such miracles, every other god wanted to be THEE god, but spiritually speaking, it's understood by christians that there is only one Almighty.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is NOT dependent on 'physical results', only results, period. I keep telling you that everything you use as a basis for your conclusions can be scientifically examined, even just the 'testimony' of a bunch of people, and the reported mental experiences of individuals. They do not have to fully repeatable, although of course that helps.

The science being discussed in this thread is what I meant...  It has been literally said that what is needed is "proof that is falsifiable and repeatable"  usually referenced with a physical/tangeable item to be studied.  

I hope others on this thread are reading your statement above... I would agree with you again. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

You've just said earlier many things about science depending on the physical. You are just revealing your confusion on this subject, at least that how it appears to me.

Many things about science do depend on the physical.. many doesn't mean all.  The problem I'm running into here is explaining exactly what you are, that science doesn't always need repeatable results, only a compilation of results and doesn't need to study something you can hold in the palm of your hand... I have noticed despite my efforts to engage some of the named individuals into this particular conversation that all have been conveniently ignoring it.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is also the study of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, which include efforts to study the fundamentals of what they are, as processes divorced from particular 'physical' examples.

caposkia wrote:

I've mentioned that as well.  all excuses apparently... 

So why are you dodging the issue - that statement seems like an excuse from YOU, cap.

what am I dodging?  I'm getting you up to speed on the fact that I've mentioned already what you said above and the response was that all I was doing was coming up with excuses... I'm willing to bet no one here is going to claim you're coming up with excuses right now.  I believe what you've presented is very valid and rational.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

But we do NOT need a 'constant' for reasoning and conclusion, apart from the two 'Laws of Logic', just an established framework of already reasonably well-established prior conclusions.

then maybe it's the "well-established" part that is the bump in the road... for the topic at hand, what would be considered reasonably well-established prior conclusions?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course they can't disprove God, but all the studies so far, taken together, show that prayer offers no evidence for God.

Be it that we can't rely on prayer to always have a result, I wouldn't expect the studies would.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

That has been done to a signifcant extant - that is part of what I was referring to.

do you have a link or a source to the historical study?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Given how many, many things whose physical cause was demonstrably 'beyond the imagination' of people at one time, that is not an argument. There are no 'miracles' that I am aware of that would require the originator to be an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, conscious creator of the Universe, which is why I say advanced aliens are more plausible.

including parting the sea or raising people from the dead, or are you just referring to modern day miracles?   

why would you assume an all powerful all knowing being would use every ounce of their power to perform every miracle they'd use, wouldn't that logically be not a very intelligent approach to intervention?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You would not be claiming anything beyond what is humanly possible, so your first example is not remotely relevant.

And if by chance a prayer seems to have been answered, it likewise does not prove he does exist.

the point remains that it's down to choice, which both God and I have the ability to do.  If I can run a 5 minute mile, and refuse to show you, it's not proof that I can't do it though you'd likely doubt me unless you knew me well and trusted me to be an honest non egocentric person.  That person who knows me that well doesn't need to see me run it to know I can do it, they just know me well enough.  That's the idea with God, those who know him know what he's capable of and don't need a demonstration to be sure of his existence because they know him... The Bible addresses this a few times.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

t applies to the traditional theological arguments for God - demonstration of a 'First Cause' says nothing about the nature of that First Cause, now that we know that complexity does not require an even more complex 'cause'.

The problem with the scientific mind is that they see that God only can exist if necessary.......

No you are very wrong again.

Science DOES NOT require something to be 'necessary' to accept it. Merely that it be consistent with existing and currently well-tested theories and be the best available workable explanation we have come up with so far.

I kept the beginning part of my statement above so that you can see that I never claimed that "science" requires necessity, only that a scientific mind thinks this way.  Usually people better versed in science won't think this way, but the average schmo claiming they base life on scientific claim think this way.  I think you'd agree here.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You do NOT KNOW God's capabilities. That is based on pure speculation.

like I said, as much as you'd speculate your child's abilities, or anyone elses abilities for that matter. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

An informed parent has an idea of the range of behaviour of children, from observing others, and memories of their own childhood, and so on, so they DO have a basis for what to expect. They can observe the actions of the children as they grow up, so building a pretty solid idea of their capabilities. Children observe their parents, and other adults, so they too can build a reasonable idea of their parents capabailities.

How does any of that any of that apply to an invisible super-being???

many believers have observed the actions of God and have observed the actions of God with others.   Granted they can't go by their own memories, but we can still deduce by experience and observation of many others the abilities of God... we can also look at the creation that we live in and realize that typically the creator has complete control and ability over its creation.  Therefore anything within this creation is logically understood to be possible with God.  This is not to say anything period is possible, but everything our minds can wrap around at this point could be if God decided it would be.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Things happen that we cannot explain. Yes. They always have, and always will, altho less so as our understanding grows.

Nothing that has been claimed as a miracle requires a benevolent infinitely powerful being.

Here we go again and this is the reason why i said the scientific mind needs necessity.  You just said "nothing that has been claimed as a miracle REQUIRES a benevolent invinitely powerful being" as if this is reason to believe this being doesn't exist.  It's not.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Stop wondering. It has nothing to do with science. People unfamiliar with science 'need' God to explain just about everything. That is what you should be wondering about.

Scientifically it is understood that God is not needed to explain anything - the reverse of what you said.

I don't need to wonder, I understand why people would put God into a void.  Human beings don't like unknowns and have a need to fill them as quickly as possible.  This seems to coenside with what some of the podcasts could cover... love them btw.  Just listening to the one about choking.  I love the depth they go into.  

actually, it's exactly what I was saying... for me to say that to not know something does not prove God and to know something doesn't negate the possibility.  another way of saying that would be to say that it is understood that god is not needed to explain anything... therefore God does not exist as an answer.  That would be a very strange reasoning for God.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW you can invent a story to explain away anything, if you don't have to prove it at all. They didn't all die of 'drastic' causes, just simple disease, malnourishment, accident. Many of them were not 'noticed' or remembered. Especially all the ones who died before birth, including ones who never got to the stage their mothe rwould have noticed.

We can't 'disprove' your story, but we can point out it makes all kinds of assumptions, about prior existence of souls capable of 'deciding' before we were born, despite no evidence of souls in living people.

this would apply to both sides of the story, so it's a losing conversation on either end unless one could come up with the means of presenting evidence for a soul if in fact souls do exist.  I'm not aware of any method other than EVP's or orbs observed and recorded.  Those may be good enough evidence...I have a feeling you might need more than that.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You do not KNOW God, You BELIEVE in God. Important distinction.

If God is real, how would I not know Him as a follower unless I really wasn't following Him.  If God's not real, I can see how you'd say I only believe in Him and could liken it to a belief in Santa.  In this case here, your statement does not bring progress to the conversation.  I know you categorize God with Santa and the Easter Bunny.  You know I believe his existence to be real, which in turn would allow me to know him.  

I would say that you do not KNOW God and believe he is not real.  You can't KNOW he's not real, only believe he's not.  From that perspective, you'd disagree and I think you'll now see why you can't claim what you did either.  

I can claim to have had conversations with this God you claim I only believe in.  How can I not know Him if I've talked to Him?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not so much what is physically 'simpler', but what idea makes the fewest unsupported assumptions, that doesn't go too far beyond what the evidence suggests.

The fact that the horizon is a long way away merely tells us that the Earth has a large diameter. The fact that we see ships disappearing below the horizon suggests it is not 'flat'.

from what you know now.. my take as a person without any modern day knowledge might say that ship is lost off the side of the Earth never to be seen again... any ship on a one way journey would only further support my conclusion, not that it makes it right, only that conclusion from observation is bias on what you already know about the subject.  You already know the Earth is eliptical, so you can deduce from that that a ship disappearing below the horizon suggests further that the Earth is round... my visual of the Earth being like a map would show me that the ship has slipped off the side.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just as your report of a life-changing experience when you accepted God needs to be set against the accounts of many here of life-changing experiences when they abandoned God-belief and embraced Reality.

right... are you sure those life changing experiences aren't spiritual?  Spiritual doesn't not automatically assume Godly.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And Cap,

Brian37 wrote:

And Cap, please don't even attempt to make my humor out to a real call for violence. I am making a jab at Bob for is patience in attending to your arguments. Nothing more. I am joking about Bob's patience with you. He has far more than I do.

you know me by now and I know you well enough to know your ways.  I know you're joking around and/or being metaphorical.  

You are doing a good job ignoring me calling you out a few times though.  

It's funny you're calling Bob the good cop.  He has many times in the past not been the good cop.  I think he's starting to see I'm not exactly who you want me to be Brian.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Cappy..............I don't know if you haven't responded because you have a life outside this thread, unlike me, but no matter what, I really do like you. I just cannot stand any claim of any type of non-material being, not just yours. To me this is merely a verbal boxing match.

So take my humor and blasphemy with a grain of salt. This is a good example for ANYONE reading this as to humanity getting along despite disagreements.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but will vehemently defend your right to say it". I believe that was Lord Acton, but I don't remember for sure.

Cap, always keep in mind with me, that you could be claiming ANY non-material being by any label and I will aways get a lip twitch and want to kick the crap out of the claim(not the person).

This world is far too full of real hate to hate someone merely because they hold a claim I hate. ALWAYS keep in mind that it is important to separate the claim from the person, and there is always lots more to any individual than one particular issue.

AND also, if ever think that I am an arrogant prick, rest assured in my real life with my co-workers, family and friends, you think I am giving you a hard time? No, if you saw how much I get teased by Bob and my co-workers, you'd understand, or at least I want you to understand, beyond our beef over the existence of a god, that I am just as human and flawed and just as capable of compassion and a sense of humor even with myself.

I know I have said this in some ways before, but occasionally I think it is important to remind everyone that all of us, both you and I and all 7 billion of us, are still the same species.

We do really value you being here. AND just like you honestly want us to take your position, we are merely being tough on you in the hopes someday you can see where we are coming from. But no matter if that never happens, either way, again, this should serve as an example to both parties that we can get along even with the bluntness and blasphemy.

Now, enough with the Hall Mark love fest, DING DING DING, the next round continues.

 

Thanks for the reminders.  I believe you'd be a great person to go have beers with if we ever met.  Our beef here is in my opinion just a debate and we're both giving each other crap on here with no malicious motives.  It's all in good fun with a rather heated topic.  all in all, we're friends outside this forum in any circumstance.  I'd be happy to chill with any of you.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:(This is a

jcgadfly wrote:

(This is a twofer cap)

Cap, if your source did more than re-iterate the claim, you'd have an issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It also doesn't provide other places to look.

all I've asked of you at this point is to look at the process of the source... you don't need to look anywhere else... once you find the process of the source, i want you to critique it... until then, you're speculating without basis and therefore have only a bias 

jcgadfly wrote:

I'd keep going but you'd insist that the Vatican just can't have an agenda. Just like they wouldn't cover up clerical pedophilia.

you're reading further into the claim than suggested... we're talking about miracle claims... our government is not reliable... does that mean literally every process they have is bad?  of course not, but they have room for improvement.  

jcgadfly wrote:

All I have is a claim from you and the Vatican - still need the evidence. You and the Vatican need to do your damn job. I can't look up the evidence for you because I don't know where to start. You seem to know this but want me to look for it for you anyway.

you suggested a perfect place to start, you have the persons name, find the medical records.

jcgadfly wrote:

"In other words, you don't want to see it any other way than the way that you can accept in your head." I find it interesting that instead of me seeing it in a way that I can accept it in my head you want me to simply take the word of what is in your head (just like you and the religious do with their pastors).

"In other words, you don't want to see it any other way than the way that you can accept in your head." I find it interesting that instead of me seeing it in a way that I can accept it in my head you want me to simply take the word of what is in your head (just like you and the atheists do with their friends).

jcgadfly wrote:

Remember, I'm a skeptic. I don't accept anything at face value. You're not telling me anything new here. What I'm trying to tell you is that telling me to just accept what you say at face value isn't going to work. You say you don't do that for yourself but you want to deny me that courtesy. If the story had supporting evidence, I'd have no problem accepting it. Instead you gave me a story where all evidence is left out and is just a collection of claims and wonder why I don't accept it.

it's funny you think I'm asking you accept it... I'm asking you to actually investigate it (a daring claim from me if in fact it is a false claim)  then tell me where you find the process flawed.  All the evidence you need is out there.  The sources and names are clear.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Now for your "observable evidence" claim in the other post. You "observed" it but somehow just can't tell anyone about it and the results can't be repeated?

can't tell anyone about it??? huh????

as far as not being able to repeat, see the discussion with Bob

jcgadfly wrote:

I also like the way that you assume that since I claim that I haven't seen God making changes in the same ways that you've seen those changes made that somehow I'm at fault. If you want to accept personal experience and anecdotal testimony for what it is, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, you have jumped to calling this observable "scientific" evidence.

you see it as blame, I mean it as observance bias.

jcgadfly wrote:

Oh, and you used to not be such a pompous ass. I really wish that version of you would come back as well.

 

start using a rational thought process like you used to and that version of me will come back with you.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Doubt you'll come back cap.

Doubt you'll come back cap. You're enjoying being a condescending twat too much. Is my thought process not rational because you don't like it? You've never actually said...

Still saw no evidence of medical records being broken out - just a cross-examiation of the recipient. Transcripts of that would be nice but they're likely sealed. The requirement of "only by that saint's intercession" kinda rules out the recipient seeing a doctor before, during or after. Unless of course they say "Don't treat me".

Maybe you need to take the cilice from around your neck. Looking forward to another "I'm not religious" spiel from you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap, there are NO accounts

Cap, there are NO accounts in the Bible that would require any INFINITE capabilities.

We could never observe the truly infinite, our finite minds could never 'see', in any sense, demonstration of infinite capacity of any kind.

"Parting of the Red Sea" certainly would NOT require omnipotence, even if it actually happened as reported. There have been many plausible explanations for that passage over the years - if you are a serious student of this topic, you should know that.

The world is overflowing with claims of miraculous or simply unexplained claims, with far more verifiable testimony than contained in the Bible - UFO's, Alien abductions, and others you have referred to. But none of them have stood up to proper testing when that has been possible. Christianity is by no means the only religion with such claims, so they cannot be used to prove one belief-system over another.

I only have to hear a few examples of people who give every indication of believing absolutely and confidently that they have witnessed, experienced some totally paranormal, psychic, miraculous event being systematically confounded by a suitably informed and serious investigator like James Randi or Joe Nickell, to realize just how prone the human mind is to being deceived, or deceiving itself. After a while, the idea that any such testimony can be taken as strong evidence for the paranormal or the supernatural loses any force it might ever have had.

You only have to observe a ship coming into view over the horizon to make the 'edge of the world' scenario unlikely, so assumption of a flat earth is only forgivable for a land-locked tribe with little experience of the wider world. The Greeks 'got it' long before the Bible was written, yet many passages in the Bible only make any kind of sense in the context of a flat Earth, such as going up to a high place to see the extend of the earth.

There is no logical requirement that any being with the powers you imagine could not, and was not, deceiving you, playing with mankind for its own incomprehensible motives, so none of the testimony in the Bible, or your experiences, can be taken as proof of anything about such a being, even if it existed. It is utterly fallacious to take any such imagined being as a guide for morality.

The actual evidence of history is vastly more in the direction of an evil or uncaring or prankster God than an all-loving one.

Of course, all the paradoxes and problems of religious claims, especially the major one, the Problem of Evil, disappear when you only accept as likely that which reality itself seems to point to, not the ravings and fantasies of the writers of scripture, who had no real hint of understanding of the nature of the universe, or even the human mind.

Of course my 'life-changing' experience is 'spiritual', based on, inspired by, and in turn inspiring, the same ultimately emotional high that 'religious' ones are, no super-natural required.

You are the one persisting in inserting the unnecessary and complicating 'God' hypothesis.

Don't be surprised if I stop responding here, at least for a while. It is ultimately frustrating and apparently futile to keep banging my head against the brick wall of your dogged clinging to this nonsense. Doesn't mean I won't come back. I just thought I would give it another try, having come up in the intervening period since I was last on here with a few different approaches to these topics.

I have been thinking on the nature of reality and the way the human mind works for over 50 years now, visited many parts of the world, many cultures, and any lingering shred of appeal or plausibility of the supernatural, the 'metaphysical', has long disappeared under the weight and wonder of actual scientifically and directly revealed reality.

It can be difficult to fully convey just why that life experience has lead to my position of confidence on the total banality and silliness of the whole God idea. But I mention it to make it clear to you that arguing from personal experience to me is utterly pointless, since if you want to throw your experience against mine, I doubt you are even in the race. At the same time, I will not take my personal experience as proof of my position, rather it is the mountain of evidence I have seen and considered over that time.

Much of what I consider evidence is not necessarily convincing in isolation, but when I keep coming across so many indications in so many articles, in so many things I see myself, all pointing in the same general direction, namely to a world far more consistent with that described with ever-increasing accuracy by Science, I find it virtually impossible to see any merit in Religious ideas.

So when you don't find the big arguments for a non-supernatural view convincing, I am at a loss, since the bulk of the other supporting evidence gets down to a large volume of these consistent but less 'slam-dunk' individual elements.

I assume you would see your position in an analogous way, and it would boil down to an endless back and forth about 'interpretation' of each other's bits of 'evidence'.

Which is what happens, and part of the reason this thread has persisted so long...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Diversion tactic.

The rebuttal was directed at your OP.

You're not addressing the rebuking of your OP.

heh... and see what happens when you make an assumption before addressing the issue. 

Ya, I do.

I see you use it as an opportunity to avoid a challenge

caposkia wrote:
So... is this a diversion tactic of your own as well...

You wish.

It's shining a light on your tactics.

caposkia wrote:
 Do you even know what a diversion tactic is or do you just like typing the words in hopes that you might convince someone that I'm trying to divert.

I know exactly what a diversion tactic is. Diverting is habitual with you.

You never responded to that post from Anon directed at you and your OP.

Are you going to respond?

Here it is again:

Anom wrote:

I hate to tell you but your badly misinformed if you think that she is a Christian. You seem to have poor knowledge of what a true Christian is. I read this book sometime back and she cites people who are clearly not Christian. People like Brian Mclaren who disbelieves many fundamental tenets of Christianity. i.e.) that Christianity is equal to other religions.

"I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts"

"The book of Revelation does not actually teach that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, he wrote, but that a new way of living is possible within this universe if humans will follow Jesus' example."

People like Mclaren and Becky believe in a progressive post modern Christianity which all true Christians adamantly oppose.

Please do not equate people in the emergent church movement or prosperity gospels as true Christians because they are the farthest from the truth.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
... or are you just thinking really really hard about what you want to write in the debate thread.

You're projecting. I don't think or evaluate things like you do. I'm not in the same position as you, in our debate.

But, at least you're beginning to put something on the table now, so that we can begin to understand why you think the way you do, as opposed to how I do, which is what I'm most interested in.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Doubt you'll

jcgadfly wrote:

Doubt you'll come back cap. You're enjoying being a condescending twat too much. Is my thought process not rational because you don't like it? You've never actually said...

I would.  you can follow other threads I'm in that actually have a plan and see.  

You know me better than that.  Do you really think I'd say your thought process is not rational because i don't like it??  Knowing your state of mind I can't leave it rhetorical without you assuming I avoided the question so the answer here would be no for your question.  It is legitimately and objectively not rational at this point... you are capable of rational thought, i saw it a while back.  not that I agreed with you any more then.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Still saw no evidence of medical records being broken out - just a cross-examiation of the recipient.

Let's detail their process then be it that you won't look it up yourself.  They do review medical records, it's hard to claim a miracle if the medical records have a legitimate reason why the person got better.  The most important parties in this miracle claim would have access to those records and therefore could easily refute the claim if in fact it was refutable.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Transcripts of that would be nice but they're likely sealed. The requirement of "only by that saint's intercession" kinda rules out the recipient seeing a doctor before, during or after. Unless of course they say "Don't treat me".

why does that rule out them seeing a doctor?  That statement is to lay claim to who the miracle was worked through and not the process of medical followup. A big reason why the Vatican records miracles is to figure out how certain members place in the ranks.  Certain ranks require miracle work to achieve.  Be it that they are such a world renowned religious icon, they are constantly under scrutiny and therefore need to have more support than "we said so" unlike what you'd want to believe. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Maybe you need to take the cilice from around your neck. Looking forward to another "I'm not religious" spiel from you.

You should lay off the sauce.  

I'll meet your need at this time, I'm no more religious than you are.  Eye-wink

pardon me, it's meditation time.    pie jesu domine *THWACK* dona eis requiem *THWACK*


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Doubt you'll come back cap. You're enjoying being a condescending twat too much. Is my thought process not rational because you don't like it? You've never actually said...

I would.  you can follow other threads I'm in that actually have a plan and see.  

You know me better than that.  Do you really think I'd say your thought process is not rational because i don't like it??  Knowing your state of mind I can't leave it rhetorical without you assuming I avoided the question so the answer here would be no for your question.  It is legitimately and objectively not rational at this point... you are capable of rational thought, i saw it a while back.  not that I agreed with you any more then.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Still saw no evidence of medical records being broken out - just a cross-examiation of the recipient.

Let's detail their process then be it that you won't look it up yourself.  They do review medical records, it's hard to claim a miracle if the medical records have a legitimate reason why the person got better.  The most important parties in this miracle claim would have access to those records and therefore could easily refute the claim if in fact it was refutable.  

jcgadfly wrote:

Transcripts of that would be nice but they're likely sealed. The requirement of "only by that saint's intercession" kinda rules out the recipient seeing a doctor before, during or after. Unless of course they say "Don't treat me".

why does that rule out them seeing a doctor?  That statement is to lay claim to who the miracle was worked through and not the process of medical followup. A big reason why the Vatican records miracles is to figure out how certain members place in the ranks.  Certain ranks require miracle work to achieve.  Be it that they are such a world renowned religious icon, they are constantly under scrutiny and therefore need to have more support than "we said so" unlike what you'd want to believe. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Maybe you need to take the cilice from around your neck. Looking forward to another "I'm not religious" spiel from you.

You should lay off the sauce.  

I'll meet your need at this time, I'm no more religious than you are.  Eye-wink

pardon me, it's meditation time.    pie jesu domine *THWACK* dona eis requiem *THWACK*

I can't look anything up based on the nothing that I found (and yes I looked). I still don't know why you're asking me to look up stuff to support your claim. Do you just enjoy shirking the burden of proof?

Why would the need of the miracle being done solely by the intervention of the saint preclude a doctor visit? Think about it - if the doctor attempts treatment and it makes any positive change then there is doubt about the magic being involved. It seems to be far more important for them to make sure of the magic than it is to see if they guy actually got cured (something for which we have only the word of the claimant and the clergy with a vested interest).

If you did the Monty Python meditation you'd still be doing more than the saint has done in this case

You're no more religious than me?  yay! we're both Christians!

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap, there

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap, there are NO accounts in the Bible that would require any INFINITE capabilities.

INFINITE capabilities are not needed for what's written in the Bible.  Only God's capabilities, which as far as we're concerned are infinite, but literally may have a limit beyond creation.  Speculation on either end only.

BobSpence1 wrote:

We could never observe the truly infinite, our finite minds could never 'see', in any sense, demonstration of infinite capacity of any kind.

of course not, the Bible addresses this.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Parting of the Red Sea" certainly would NOT require omnipotence, even if it actually happened as reported. There have been many plausible explanations for that passage over the years - if you are a serious student of this topic, you should know that.

if you've followed my threads, you'd know I've covered that.  I'm impressed you accept that.  The catch is timing, which had to be perfect in the situation, which would make it a miracle.   

BobSpence1 wrote:

The world is overflowing with claims of miraculous or simply unexplained claims, with far more verifiable testimony than contained in the Bible - UFO's, Alien abductions, and others you have referred to. But none of them have stood up to proper testing when that has been possible. Christianity is by no means the only religion with such claims, so they cannot be used to prove one belief-system over another.

I have explained that most world religions have stemmed off of another religion or at least teh education of another religion.  There are a few that can't be traced back to another religion.  one of them is Judaism.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

I only have to hear a few examples of people who give every indication of believing absolutely and confidently that they have witnessed, experienced some totally paranormal, psychic, miraculous event being systematically confounded by a suitably informed and serious investigator like James Randi or Joe Nickell, to realize just how prone the human mind is to being deceived, or deceiving itself. After a while, the idea that any such testimony can be taken as strong evidence for the paranormal or the supernatural loses any force it might ever have had.

Therefore nothing that can't be verified by either explicit video documentation or repetitive experimentation can be accepted.  

The thing is, people can believe anything they want...  does that mean that every claim is false until otherwise proven through the above means?   

BobSpence1 wrote:

You only have to observe a ship coming into view over the horizon to make the 'edge of the world' scenario unlikely, so assumption of a flat earth is only forgivable for a land-locked tribe with little experience of the wider world. The Greeks 'got it' long before the Bible was written, yet many passages in the Bible only make any kind of sense in the context of a flat Earth, such as going up to a high place to see the extend of the earth.

actually a historical note.  Bible writers did not believe in a flat earth.  There are passages in the OT that mention God putting a circle in the deep or Isaiah 40:22 that says, "It is He who sits above the circle of the Earth.."  Job mentions God hangs the Earth on nothing, giving knowledge to earth not sitting or lying on a surface but floating in space.  

Sure a circle can still be flat.  Taking into consideration documentations of the bible and Hebrew translation, a theory is that because it is mentioned many times "the foundations of the Earth" that the Bible people didn't believe it was completely round, but maybe felt that it was more like a dome shape with foundation pillars on the bottom.  To me that theory doesn't hold much water with the statement made in Job about the Earth hanging on nothing.  In any case, they accepted curvature of the Earth. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no logical requirement that any being with the powers you imagine could not, and was not, deceiving you, playing with mankind for its own incomprehensible motives, so none of the testimony in the Bible, or your experiences, can be taken as proof of anything about such a being, even if it existed. It is utterly fallacious to take any such imagined being as a guide for morality.

Sure, God could do anything and be deceiving us.  The problem is he has made particular promises that make it hard for him to deceive us without reveiling the deception.  He has also come through for believers time and time again, which makes me think... if he is deceiving us, then why bother help?  why not do what other Gods have done and force child sacrifices and hard labor for appeasement.  He would no be questioned, he's god right?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The actual evidence of history is vastly more in the direction of an evil or uncaring or prankster God than an all-loving one.

Based on what exactly?  Can't blame God for choices we made.  Sickness could be genetically and retroactively our fault, there were specific rules about hygene and eating in the Bible.   People die from major accidents, but how much risk was the person not aware of in those situations?  I've heard that one a million times, but I have yet to hear a good reasoning behind that perspective.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course, all the paradoxes and problems of religious claims, especially the major one, the Problem of Evil, disappear when you only accept as likely that which reality itself seems to point to, not the ravings and fantasies of the writers of scripture, who had no real hint of understanding of the nature of the universe, or even the human mind.

I accept that which itself points to and yet still accept the existence of God.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course my 'life-changing' experience is 'spiritual', based on, inspired by, and in turn inspiring, the same ultimately emotional high that 'religious' ones are, no super-natural required.

would it not be life changing?  The problem is, if that's all I had, no research, experience or knowledge, then I'd have nothing to go on and it would be a "religious high" but mean nothing.  For all i know Yoda used the force in my presence.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are the one persisting in inserting the unnecessary and complicating 'God' hypothesis.

I only follow leads.  I make simple statements which compile over time.  It seems you think the God hypothesis is simple.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Don't be surprised if I stop responding here, at least for a while. It is ultimately frustrating and apparently futile to keep banging my head against the brick wall of your dogged clinging to this nonsense. Doesn't mean I won't come back. I just thought I would give it another try, having come up in the intervening period since I was last on here with a few different approaches to these topics.

awe, don't quit.  You were the only rational thinking person on this thread at the moment.  I was enjoying discussing with you.  Think about it, just as you're not just going to buy my word on God, I'm not just going to buy yours.  I would need to investigate and challenge it.  This is all I'm doing.  

Well, if I don't hear back from you for a while, thanks for the podcast link.  I've been enjoying them.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have been thinking on the nature of reality and the way the human mind works for over 50 years now, visited many parts of the world, many cultures, and any lingering shred of appeal or plausibility of the supernatural, the 'metaphysical', has long disappeared under the weight and wonder of actual scientifically and directly revealed reality.

...and understandably so.  It's easy to accept what's put right in front of your face.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

It can be difficult to fully convey just why that life experience has lead to my position of confidence on the total banality and silliness of the whole God idea. But I mention it to make it clear to you that arguing from personal experience to me is utterly pointless, since if you want to throw your experience against mine, I doubt you are even in the race. At the same time, I will not take my personal experience as proof of my position, rather it is the mountain of evidence I have seen and considered over that time.

I never took my personal experience as "proof of my position"  I remember specifically stating that when i mentioned personal experiences.  The funny thing about my following is it also is the evidence I have seen and considered over time.  I may not have been traveling as much as you, nor studied as long as you have, but I ain't no slouch.   

BobSpence1 wrote:

Much of what I consider evidence is not necessarily convincing in isolation, but when I keep coming across so many indications in so many articles, in so many things I see myself, all pointing in the same general direction, namely to a world far more consistent with that described with ever-increasing accuracy by Science, I find it virtually impossible to see any merit in Religious ideas.

I have if anything, found science in agreement with scripture rather than contradicting it.  Granted miracles are a possible exception, but then again, we weren't there and the details are too vague to make a conclusion, therefore that can't even be a factor.  In my personal experience, I have seen that miracles are more of a perfect timing rather than something that defies scientific law.   It's funny how again I can agree with your take on evidence.  I'm pretty sure in my own words I have said pretty much the same thing.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

So when you don't find the big arguments for a non-supernatural view convincing, I am at a loss, since the bulk of the other supporting evidence gets down to a large volume of these consistent but less 'slam-dunk' individual elements.

the big arguments aren't though and I thought I had explained why.  I would at least want to hear what lacked in my reasoning for not accepting those.  I will either try to clarify or recheck my sources.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

I assume you would see your position in an analogous way, and it would boil down to an endless back and forth about 'interpretation' of each other's bits of 'evidence'.

Which is what happens, and part of the reason this thread has persisted so long...

This thread has persisted so long because I don't mind messing around with people who don't care to think.  I have used this thread to start appropriate and more detailed threads with those who do want to think.  

When it comes down to it, it's all about interpretation.  It is how you interpret results as to how it can apply to you in your life.  this is how it's always been religious or not.  you drop a rock and it hits the ground.  Your wisdom of the cause will determine your understanding of what just happened.

The ultimate question of course is: who's interpretation is right and how do we confirm and agree on that?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
     caposkia wrote:  

     

caposkia wrote:
  

redneF wrote:

 

heh... and see what happens when you make an assumption before addressing the issue. 

Ya, I do.

I see you use it as an opportunity to avoid a challenge

Oh hey!!! you're still here... thought you were avoiding as usual... oh wait... I'm the one avoiding.  oh.. uh.. sorry I didn't reply to myself for so long on our debate thread.. I guess I was just waiting to see if I would challenge my own perspective, guess not.  

dude what exactly have I avoided.  Please, I beg you.  I have given you ample opportunity to shut me down and you've failed... but it's because I'm avoiding something apparently.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
So... is this a diversion tactic of your own as well...

You wish.

It's shining a light on your tactics.

ah, so dropping the debate twice before it even gets going is your way of "shining a light on my tactics".......... got it.

what I wish is that you'd actually stick to your guns for once and stop running away when it starts getting interesting.  

redneF wrote:

I know exactly what a diversion tactic is. Diverting is habitual with you.

You never responded to that post from Anon directed at you and your OP.

Are you going to respond?

Here it is again:... *edit*

no need.  I love how you can come out of left field and try to make me look bad.  Nice try,  You might want to read post #2397.    Good job though, you had me going for a second.

BTw, if I ever do miss a response to a post, it has never been intentional and if you look at my history, anytime it may have been brought to my attention, i would reply and apologize.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
... or are you just thinking really really hard about what you want to write in the debate thread.

You're projecting. I don't think or evaluate things like you do. I'm not in the same position as you, in our debate.

But, at least you're beginning to put something on the table now, so that we can begin to understand why you think the way you do, as opposed to how I do, which is what I'm most interested in.

I'm trying to get you to reply in our 1 on 1.  you're right you don't think. and that you are not in the same position as me.  I'm glad you're finding some interest... does this mean you might finally respond... and stick with it for a change???

 

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I can't look

jcgadfly wrote:

I can't look anything up based on the nothing that I found (and yes I looked). I still don't know why you're asking me to look up stuff to support your claim. Do you just enjoy shirking the burden of proof?

ok, I give you credit for looking... not sure what you've been looking for if you haven't found anything.  I'm asking you to look up stuff to refute my claim... you seem to think it will support it, which I'm saying it will, but I challenge you to find a good point to use from the process of their investigation.  Do you enjoy being ignorant?  It seems you're on vacation, you also know I don't shirk the burden of proof and will battle it out with you till the end regardless of burden of proof.  

I'll give you a nudge in the right direction.  This link will give you a summary of the process... you can use terminology from the summary to look up more details about specific points..  I encourage you to do so so you're not making any more assumptions and can come back to me with something legitimate against the process.  

http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_18979_l3.htm

jcgadfly wrote:

Why would the need of the miracle being done solely by the intervention of the saint preclude a doctor visit? Think about it - if the doctor attempts treatment and it makes any positive change then there is doubt about the magic being involved.

and it would not be deemed a miracle by their process of investigation.

jcgadfly wrote:
 

It seems to be far more important for them to make sure of the magic than it is to see if they guy actually got cured (something for which we have only the word of the claimant and the clergy with a vested interest).

just read the link, then get back to me.   It's again a summary and does not go into drastic detail, but gives you the gist of what you're claiming they don't do.

jcgadfly wrote:

You're no more religious than me?  yay! we're both Christians!

or not Sticking out tongue


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You are so hopeless Cap. You

You are so hopeless Cap. You post a link that is nothing more than a list of naked assertions made up by a gang to promote the gang.

You might as well be pointing us to a flat earther's link.

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37