We Just Don't Know

SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
We Just Don't Know

In Sunday's football game between the Broncos and the Bills in Buffalo, Bills tight end, Kevin Everett, was injured on the second half kick-off while attempting what appeared to be a routine tackle of Bronco Domenik Hixon. 

But after striking his helmet on Hixon's shoudler pads, Everett immediately collapsed. he lay motionless for about 15 minutes.

On Monday afternoon, Andrew Cappuccino, an orthopedic spinal surgeon, described Everett's chances of a complete recovery as "unlikely" and that his condition as potentially life-threatening.

 Today, Everett is able to move his arms and legs and doctors felt that Everett could walk out of the hospital (yesterday, doctors were saying that "people who are paralyzed stay paralyzed&quotEye-wink.

 The surgeon who performed the surgery was quoted on Buffalo's WIVB-TV as saying "we may be witnessing a minor miracle".

 Now before you "rational responders" all get your panties in a knot, let me say upfront that I have no idea if we're possibly witnessing a minor miracle.

 For all I know, the doctor was quoted as saying this just minutes after smoking some crack cocaine - maybe when's he not being a top flight orthopedic spinal surgeon, he's a complete head case.

Maybe the gravity of his condition was exaggerated. Or maybe he's a brilliant doctor - a man of science, who has just witnessed something that can only be described as "miraculous"

I have no idea. 

Or maybe we really have witnessed a minor miracle.

I read comments on this site all the time about "no evidence - no proof - blah-blah-blah".

 Maybe this is evidence and you just choose to ignore it. Or attribute it to something else - luck / whatever.

The point is that there is NO way to know for certain - I can't say that it's a miracle and you can't say that it isn't. Perhaps you're looking for some "majestic" person in flowing white robes and a long white beard to descend from the heavens and lay his hand on this football playr and he jumps out of bed and everything's fine. Perhaps this is the ONLY evidence that would satisfy you.

I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure it works that way.

The believers may look at this incident and it may reinforce their beliefs. And the atheists will look at this incident and read the doctor's comment and just attribute it to a figure of speech or scoff at his "lack of rational thinking".

 Just because somebody chooses not to believe that "something" is evidence doesn't negate the fact that it may very well be evidence.

 And just because somebody chooses to believe that something is evidence doesn't necessarily make it so.

The point is that we really have no idea - we have beliefs and opinions and, in some instances, we have facts - but that's ALL we have.

Nothing more - nothing less!

 

 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote:In

SRV_Strat wrote:

In Sunday's football game between the Broncos and the Bills in Buffalo, Bills tight end, Kevin Everett, was injured on the second half kick-off while attempting what appeared to be a routine tackle of Bronco Domenik Hixon. 

But after striking his helmet on Hixon's shoudler pads, Everett immediately collapsed. he lay motionless for about 15 minutes.

On Monday afternoon, Andrew Cappuccino, an orthopedic spinal surgeon, described Everett's chances of a complete recovery as "unlikely" and that his condition as potentially life-threatening.

 Today, Everett is able to move his arms and legs and doctors felt that Everett could walk out of the hospital (yesterday, doctors were saying that "people who are paralyzed stay paralyzed&quotEye-wink.

 The surgeon who performed the surgery was quoted on Buffalo's WIVB-TV as saying "we may be witnessing a minor miracle".

 Now before you "rational responders" all get your panties in a knot, let me say upfront that I have no idea if we're possibly witnessing a minor miracle.

 For all I know, the doctor was quoted as saying this just minutes after smoking some crack cocaine - maybe when's he not being a top flight orthopedic spinal surgeon, he's a complete head case.

Maybe the gravity of his condition was exaggerated. Or maybe he's a brilliant doctor - a man of science, who has just witnessed something that can only be described as "miraculous"

I have no idea. 

Or maybe we really have witnessed a minor miracle.

I read comments on this site all the time about "no evidence - no proof - blah-blah-blah".

 Maybe this is evidence and you just choose to ignore it. Or attribute it to something else - luck / whatever.

The point is that there is NO way to know for certain - I can't say that it's a miracle and you can't say that it isn't. Perhaps you're looking for some "majestic" person in flowing white robes and a long white beard to descend from the heavens and lay his hand on this football playr and he jumps out of bed and everything's fine. Perhaps this is the ONLY evidence that would satisfy you.

I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure it works that way.

The believers may look at this incident and it may reinforce their beliefs. And the atheists will look at this incident and read the doctor's comment and just attribute it to a figure of speech or scoff at his "lack of rational thinking".

 Just because somebody chooses not to believe that "something" is evidence doesn't negate the fact that it may very well be evidence.

 And just because somebody chooses to believe that something is evidence doesn't necessarily make it so.

The point is that we really have no idea - we have beliefs and opinions and, in some instances, we have facts - but that's ALL we have.

Nothing more - nothing less!

The thing that would lead me to believe that it is a colloquial use of the word miracle is the quantifier "minor" before it. What exactly would constitute a minor as opposed to a major or median miracle in the divine intervention sense?

More to the point, I don't think that even if there is no readily available physical explanation for a given event, say that there is actually no understanding of how it is physically possible for this guy to walk again (which I see no reference to in the provided comments) how exactly would this be evidence of a 'miracle'? In order for it to truly be evidence of miracle in the divine intervention sense of the word wouldn't one need some understanding of the nature of a miracle, say the process by which miracles are manifested, in order to reasonably conclude that such an occurence should be attributed to the category of things we would call 'miracles'?

I would be more than willing to concede that if the doctors could find no physical explanation for his recovery that it could be attirbuted to unknown causes but without any criteria by which we can classify something as divine intervention it is ridiculous to consider anything evidence of such an occurence.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


el.kundo
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
 think about it: what is

 think about it: what is more likely? that this guy simply was very lucky or that the physical laws were intentionaly switched off by a devine being (just for a second, because it was only a "minor" miracle) to save him while so many other paralyzed people stay that way?

just because we don't know a 100% for sure what happend doesn't make the chances 50:50 

every natural explanation is a whole lot more likely than any supernatural explanation

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993

And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Quick question - if it is

Quick question - if it is divine intervention that he is not going to be paralyzed, where is the divine intervention before an accident like this happens?

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
One of the doctors close to

One of the doctors close to the case said (paraphrased - I don't have a link) that it is definately not a miracle but rather the result of a lot of good research put into practice.

Of course there is the minor "miracle" of our existence (trolling - sorry - couldn't resist) 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
This dovetails into a pet

This dovetails into a pet peeve of mine...

A theist goes to his doctor and finds a mass on or in his body. They do a biopsy and discover that the mass is cancerous. He has surgery, endures months of chemotherapy and radiation treatments and the cancer goes into remission.

His response: Praise God! Jesus healed me of cancer!

WTF? I'm not against using the tools that are available but give the doctors and the science some credit also. Or at least give God credit for giving you the cancer in the first place.

 

"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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: One of

wavefreak wrote:

One of the doctors close to the case said (paraphrased - I don't have a link) that it is definately not a miracle but rather the result of a lot of good research put into practice.

Of course there is the minor "miracle" of our existence (trolling - sorry - couldn't resist) 

I think I read the same article, but now I can't find it.  The doctor credits his recovery to the fact that they began a procedure to put his body in a hypothermic state within minutes after the injury.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Spinal concussion is a

Spinal concussion is a funny beast.  It can paralyse you for good or be temporary.  Most prudent consultants don't say anything until the swelling goes down.  In addition, a full recovery can be unlikely - you can be left with pins and needles in your hands or feet amongst other things.  Sure, not enough to be debilitating, but an annoying reminder.

My stepfather had a spinal accident so that's how I know.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

One of the doctors close to the case said (paraphrased - I don't have a link) that it is definately not a miracle but rather the result of a lot of good research put into practice.

Of course there is the minor "miracle" of our existence (trolling - sorry - couldn't resist)

I think I read the same article, but now I can't find it. The doctor credits his recovery to the fact that they began a procedure to put his body in a hypothermic state within minutes after the injury.

 

Yup. They cooled his body to 92 degrees or something like that. Apparantly it attenuates the damage. 


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
link Quote: "I don't know

link

Quote:
"I don't know if I would call it a miracle. I would call it a spectacular example of what people can do," [Dr. Barth] Green [, chairman of the department of neurological surgery at the University of Miami school of medicine who's been consulting with doctors in Buffalo] said. "To me, it's like putting the first man on the moon or splitting the atom. We've shown that if the right treatment is given to people who have a catastrophic injury that they could walk away from it."

 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote: The

SRV_Strat wrote:

The surgeon who performed the surgery

Key phrase "The surgeon who performed the surgery".  It sounds to me like he did a really good job when he was unsure of the outcome. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Just because somebody

Just because somebody chooses not to believe that "something" is evidence doesn't negate the fact that it may very well be evidence.

 

Well, no. The thing is, if you can't isolate a variable, it seriously affects its validity as evidence. If I have a headache and I respond by: taking aspirin, taking acetaminophen, applying a pressure point, practicing a Hopi purification rite, drinking herbal tea, and taking a 30-minute nap; which of these things do I call a cure when my headache goes away? If it works out, great, but this exercise ain't science.

 

The point is that we really have no idea - we have beliefs and opinions and, in some instances, we have facts - but that's ALL we have.

Nothing more - nothing less!

 

That's a common attitude I call the "Whatever!" stance. "Everyone's got an opinion, so all opinions are on level ground." That's a slap in the face of legitimate research, the benefits of which are hard to argue against from behind the keyboard of an amazingly cheap and sophisticated tool that only developed through extensive research, and through conclusions and hypotheses with results that actually mattered. There is such a thing as expertise, experience, knowledge; and there are informed and uninformed grounds to speculate.


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Quick question

BGH wrote:

Quick question - if it is divine intervention that he is not going to be paralyzed, where is the divine intervention before an accident like this happens?

 

 

Quick answer - I have no idea.


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:

Just because somebody chooses not to believe that "something" is evidence doesn't negate the fact that it may very well be evidence.

Well, no. The thing is, if you can't isolate a variable, it seriously affects its validity as evidence. If I have a headache and I respond by: taking aspirin, taking acetaminophen, applying a pressure point, practicing a Hopi purification rite, drinking herbal tea, and taking a 30-minute nap; which of these things do I call a cure when my headache goes away? If it works out, great, but this exercise ain't science.

The point is that we really have no idea - we have beliefs and opinions and, in some instances, we have facts - but that's ALL we have.

Nothing more - nothing less!

That's a common attitude I call the "Whatever!" stance. "Everyone's got an opinion, so all opinions are on level ground." That's a slap in the face of legitimate research, the benefits of which are hard to argue against from behind the keyboard of an amazingly cheap and sophisticated tool that only developed through extensive research, and through conclusions and hypotheses with results that actually mattered. There is such a thing as expertise, experience, knowledge; and there are informed and uninformed grounds to speculate.

 I'm not entirely sure you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

My guess is that Eddie Van Halen's opinion about the playability of a new type of guitar, for example, would carry alot more weight that some CA who has never picked up a guitar in his life.

My guess is that Tom Brady's opinion about the calibre of a particular's team's cornerbacks and safety's, for example, would carry more weight than my wife's opinion.

My guess is that David Ortiz's opinion about a certain pitcher's fast ball would carry more weight than an individual who has been blind from birth and never played a day of basebal in his life.

The above are "earthly" endeavours - they are activities in the natural world - things that we can see and hear and 'feel".

 But be my guest - please tell me all about the "scientific" research pertaining to the biblical account of the resurrection, for example.

Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response. 


richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
    There will never be

    There will never be evidence that something couldn't possibly happen. Unless that something is selfcontradictory.

    But that leaves an infinity of possibilities (invisible pink unicorns, teapots in orbit around Mars, ressurection, etc.). The only way I see to distinguish which of these items are real is evidence (examined through the methods of science) and if there is no evidence, the rational stance is to not believe in it. 

    Do you think we should be agnostic about the invisible pink unicorn, or can we just discard the idea because there is no evidence? 

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote: I'm not

SRV_Strat wrote:
I'm not entirely sure you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

 

I did. It just isn't any good. I've heard it before, and I tried to look surprised this time, I really did.

 

SRV_Strat wrote:

My guess is that Eddie Van Halen's opinion about the playability of a new type of guitar, for example, would carry alot more weight that some CA who has never picked up a guitar in his life.

My guess is that Tom Brady's opinion about the calibre of a particular's team's cornerbacks and safety's, for example, would carry more weight than my wife's opinion.

My guess is that David Ortiz's opinion about a certain pitcher's fast ball would carry more weight than an individual who has been blind from birth and never played a day of basebal in his life.

 

The above are "earthly" endeavours - they are activities in the natural world - things that we can see and hear and 'feel".

 

Oh, but the "CA," your wife, and the blind person have a "different kind" of knowledge of those things that's outside your conventional sense of knowing. They understand them on another level that isn't demonstrable in any way, and can't be articulated at all, but should nevertheless be given equal time and credence.

 

SRV_Strat wrote:
But be my guest - please tell me all about the "scientific" research pertaining to the biblical account of the resurrection, for example.

 

Is that an argument for or against it?

 

SRV_Strat wrote:
Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

 

The precedent that it has never happened since? A knowledge of biology that rules out the possibility of being dead for three days waking up? That we know that the sky is just our refracting atmosphere and not a portal to another dimension? That people don't generally levitate? How about that's there's not a shred of evidence in its favor? Do you really believe that something that completely defies all logic and our knowledge of nature; a complete suspension of everything our accumulated research tells us is, without a drop of evidence, is no less than 50% plausible?

 

SRV_Strat wrote:
Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response.

 

Give me evidence that conclusively proves you don't have a wood sprite living in your eyebrow.


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:SRV_Strat

magilum wrote:

SRV_Strat wrote:
I'm not entirely sure you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

I did. It just isn't any good. I've heard it before, and I tried to look surprised this time, I really did.

SRV_Strat wrote:

My guess is that Eddie Van Halen's opinion about the playability of a new type of guitar, for example, would carry alot more weight that some CA who has never picked up a guitar in his life.

My guess is that Tom Brady's opinion about the calibre of a particular's team's cornerbacks and safety's, for example, would carry more weight than my wife's opinion.

My guess is that David Ortiz's opinion about a certain pitcher's fast ball would carry more weight than an individual who has been blind from birth and never played a day of basebal in his life.

The above are "earthly" endeavours - they are activities in the natural world - things that we can see and hear and 'feel".

Oh, but the "CA," your wife, and the blind person have a "different kind" of knowledge of those things that's outside your conventional sense of knowing. They understand them on another level that isn't demonstrable in any way, and can't be articulated at all, but should nevertheless be given equal time and credence.

SRV_Strat wrote:
But be my guest - please tell me all about the "scientific" research pertaining to the biblical account of the resurrection, for example.

Is that an argument for or against it?

SRV_Strat wrote:
Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

The precedent that it has never happened since? A knowledge of biology that rules out the possibility of being dead for three days waking up? That we know that the sky is just our refracting atmosphere and not a portal to another dimension? That people don't generally levitate? How about that's there's not a shred of evidence in its favor? Do you really believe that something that completely defies all logic and our knowledge of nature; a complete suspension of everything our accumulated research tells us is, without a drop of evidence, is no less than 50% plausible?

SRV_Strat wrote:
Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response.

Give me evidence that conclusively proves you don't have a wood sprite living in your eyebrow.

Wow, and all this time, my wife, who I thought knew nothing about guitars other than they make music and people in a band use them, in fact, has a "different kind" of knowledge that's "equal" to Eddie Van Halen's. 

Excuse me, but is there any chance you could assist me in contacting say, Fender or Gibson guitars and letting them know that my wife is available to consult on their advisory committees for say $500,000 / year..??

I was looking forward to your credible link re conclusive scientific proof about Christ's "nonsensical" resurrection, but I guess you forgot to include one.  

Instead, you offered up another opinion.

Thanks, though, it's much appreciated.!!


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

SRV_Strat wrote:
magilum wrote:

SRV_Strat wrote:
I'm not entirely sure you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

I did. It just isn't any good. I've heard it before, and I tried to look surprised this time, I really did.

SRV_Strat wrote:

My guess is that Eddie Van Halen's opinion about the playability of a new type of guitar, for example, would carry alot more weight that some CA who has never picked up a guitar in his life.

My guess is that Tom Brady's opinion about the calibre of a particular's team's cornerbacks and safety's, for example, would carry more weight than my wife's opinion.

My guess is that David Ortiz's opinion about a certain pitcher's fast ball would carry more weight than an individual who has been blind from birth and never played a day of basebal in his life.

The above are "earthly" endeavours - they are activities in the natural world - things that we can see and hear and 'feel".

Oh, but the "CA," your wife, and the blind person have a "different kind" of knowledge of those things that's outside your conventional sense of knowing. They understand them on another level that isn't demonstrable in any way, and can't be articulated at all, but should nevertheless be given equal time and credence.

SRV_Strat wrote:
But be my guest - please tell me all about the "scientific" research pertaining to the biblical account of the resurrection, for example.

Is that an argument for or against it?

SRV_Strat wrote:
Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

The precedent that it has never happened since? A knowledge of biology that rules out the possibility of being dead for three days waking up? That we know that the sky is just our refracting atmosphere and not a portal to another dimension? That people don't generally levitate? How about that's there's not a shred of evidence in its favor? Do you really believe that something that completely defies all logic and our knowledge of nature; a complete suspension of everything our accumulated research tells us is, without a drop of evidence, is no less than 50% plausible?

SRV_Strat wrote:
Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response.

Give me evidence that conclusively proves you don't have a wood sprite living in your eyebrow.

Wow, and all this time, my wife, who I thought knew nothing about guitars other than they make music and people in a band use them, in fact, has a "different kind" of knowledge that's "equal" to Eddie Van Halen's.

Excuse me, but is there any chance you could assist me in contacting say, Fender or Gibson guitars and letting them know that my wife is available to consult on their advisory committees for say $500,000 / year..??

I was looking forward to your credible link re conclusive scientific proof about Christ's "nonsensical" resurrection, but I guess you forgot to include one.

Instead, you offered up another opinion.

Thanks, though, it's much appreciated.!!

You wrote that like you actually offered proof yourself - I wish you did.

What you originally was a story about human medical professionals busting their humps to keep a guy alive and keep him functioning as a human. You just offered your opinon (echoed by the opinions of others in the article) that "God did it".

Theists tend to swear by confirmation bias as "proof" that their God is on the job. You look at the few successes and gloss over the myriad failures. 

"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


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote: Please

SRV_Strat wrote:

Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response. 

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim ... Our skepticism vis-a-vis the Resurrection, the historicity of Christ, etc. are not claims.  One cannot prove a negative.  Prove to me, for instance, that a tea pot is not orbiting the sun or that Zoroaster is not God's avatar and the savior of the world ...

Now, if you are claiming a positive belief, for instance, that Christ existed and that he was God (and God's son at the same time), and that he was Crucified and Resurrected, please give us extra-biblical evidence ... that could include, for instance, evidence that sophistocated medical technology existed in 1st Century Galilee that could resuscitate a human body after three days of brain death or even that the metaphysical claims of religion are true (namely, that a god is not logically inconsistent and not highly improbable given what we know about the evolution of complex, intelligent living things ...)

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, my friend ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote: Wow, and

SRV_Strat wrote:
Wow, and all this time, my wife, who I thought knew nothing about guitars other than they make music and people in a band use them, in fact, has a "different kind" of knowledge that's "equal" to Eddie Van Halen's. 

Excuse me, but is there any chance you could assist me in contacting say, Fender or Gibson guitars and letting them know that my wife is available to consult on their advisory committees for say $500,000 / year..??

I was looking forward to your credible link re conclusive scientific proof about Christ's "nonsensical" resurrection, but I guess you forgot to include one.  

Instead, you offered up another opinion.

Thanks, though, it's much appreciated.!!

 

I, uh... really? You didn't pick up on the irony? Hmm. I hadn't planned on this contingency. OK... change of approach: be literal.

 

You made an allowance for the possibility of resurrection based on us "not knowing" for certain that it didn't happen. The possibility would require a complete suspension of natural principles -- something which has never been demonstrated. If all that's required for a prospect to be viable is that it hasn't been specifically excluded as a possibility (specifically proved false rather than just not being supported AT ALL), you don't have much basis not to believe almost anything, no matter how absurd. You defended your position by calling our understanding of nature "earthly," which I take to mean "natural," implying that there is another model of physics, biology, etc., in which a resurrection would make sense. Since that third space has never been demonstrated at all, in any way, you can question its validity, or open your mind to the "other kind" of knowledge your wife has about guitars, and start promoting her on the "We just don't know!" tour.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Although no one has crossed

Although no one has crossed the line yet, please be reminded that this is the KILL 'EM WITH KINDNESS forum.

No insults (veiled or otherwise).  No cursing.  No name calling.

Please be on your very best behavior in this forum.

Thank you. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Although no

Susan wrote:

Although no one has crossed the line yet, please be reminded that this is the KILL 'EM WITH KINDNESS forum.

No insults (veiled or otherwise).  No cursing.  No name calling.

Please be on your very best behavior in this forum.

Thank you. 

Duh ... that's why I followed up my foray into latin with the phrase, "my friend" ... =)

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Richard955:   You have the

Richard955:

 

You have the perogative to believe anything you want. 

Personally, I don't believe that pink unicorns exist- perhaps somewhere there is a person or people who do. 

That's their perogative.

I don't believe that EVERY human being on the planet, for example, has been fingerprinted (I know I haven't) and yet science tha courts of law are fairly confident in the belief that no two fingerprints are alike.

Personally, I believe that a man named Jesus Christ really lived and breathed and that he was EXACTLY who he said he was.

And you don't.

Like I said, we just don't know.

We can offer opinions based on what we know - we can speculate based on the available "evidence"- we can have "gut feelings" or faith.

 But that's about the extent of it.

 

 


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

SRV_Strat wrote:

Richard955:

 

You have the perogative to believe anything you want.

Personally, I don't believe that pink unicorns exist- perhaps somewhere there is a person or people who do.

That's their perogative.

I don't believe that EVERY human being on the planet, for example, has been fingerprinted (I know I haven't) and yet science tha courts of law are fairly confident in the belief that no two fingerprints are alike.

Personally, I believe that a man named Jesus Christ really lived and breathed and that he was EXACTLY who he said he was.

And you don't.

Like I said, we just don't know.

We can offer opinions based on what we know - we can speculate based on the available "evidence"- we can have "gut feelings" or faith.

But that's about the extent of it.

 

 

Do you have this same argument with other Christians who claim they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists?

Or do you just say "Amen"?

 Just asking...

"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


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
It never fails to astound

It never fails to astound me how so many of the atheist posters on this site don't take the time to actually read what a theist is saying.  

Instead, so many will read the theists' posts and will immediately assume that the author may have said "XYZ", but he / she really meant "ABC".

 Firstly, the post was entitled "WE Just Don't Know". 

The term "We" refers to others - in ADDITION to myself.

Now I've just reread my original post and am hard pressed to see anything that stated that the football player's "miraculous" recovery was the handiwork of God.

Jesus, I even prefaced my comments by making the very "loud and clear" comment that the doctor who made the statement could have smoked crack cocaine minutes before and could have been a complete head case.

Or how many times does the word MAYBE appear in my original post.

 I have no proof - I NEVER said I did. 

I have no "proof" that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. I have no "proof" that I'm going to be alive an hour from now.

And I certainly have no proof that the "miraculous recovery" of the football player was exactly that - "miraculous".

 I have opinions and beliefs - just like you and 6 billion other people walking this planet.

And you and I can debate this from now until the end of time and, assuming that nothing "changes" (i.e. God makes some "miraculous appearance" that puts the debate to bed once and for all), at the end of that "final" day, neither one of us will be able to prove or disprove the other person's position.

 

 


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
SRV_Strat wrote:

Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response. 

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim ... Our skepticism vis-a-vis the Resurrection, the historicity of Christ, etc. are not claims.  One cannot prove a negative.  Prove to me, for instance, that a tea pot is not orbiting the sun or that Zoroaster is not God's avatar and the savior of the world ...

Now, if you are claiming a positive belief, for instance, that Christ existed and that he was God (and God's son at the same time), and that he was Crucified and Resurrected, please give us extra-biblical evidence ... that could include, for instance, evidence that sophistocated medical technology existed in 1st Century Galilee that could resuscitate a human body after three days of brain death or even that the metaphysical claims of religion are true (namely, that a god is not logically inconsistent and not highly improbable given what we know about the evolution of complex, intelligent living things ...)

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, my friend ...

 

If you read my original post - I mean really read it - and look at the words (and try not to assume that just because I said "ABC", I really meant "XYZ&quotEye-wink, you will see that I'm not making any claims.

And I'm entitled to believe whatever I want - without having to 'prove" a damn thing.

I love my wife, but can I "prove" it - NO..!!!!!

Should I have to prove it - NO..!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course, we're talking

Of course, we're talking about the suspension of natural principals.

But if the conversation or subject matter pertains to something that exists outside of the natural world, then the natural principals don't apply, do they..??

Many theists - myself included - believe that this man - Jesus Christ (who may or may not have existed - I choose to believe that he did) is exactly who He said He was.

Can I prove he existed - nope..!!

Is there evidence He existed - yes..!!

Is the evidence 100% "for sure" - nope..!!

Can I prove that the resurrection really occurred - nope..!!!

Do I believe it occurred - yes..!!

Like I said in another post, I can't "prove" that I'm going to be alive in an hour's time.

Is there indisputable "proof" that I'm going to be alive in an hour's time -  nope...!!

Do I believe that I'm going to be alive in an hour's time - yes..!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it all comes full circle, doesn't it..???

I believe - you don't and, short of something "monumental" occuring that would put the debate to bed once and for all, that's all we have.

 

 


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Fair question.  In my

Fair question. 

In my opinion, anybody who claims that there is absolute proof that God exists - or doesn't exist - doesn't really know what they're talking about.

Like I said, all we have is "I believe that God exists" or "I don't believe that God exists" and that's about it in my opionion.

It's kind of like love, isn't it..??

It can be experienced, but I'm not sure it can be explained..!!

But best of luck to anybody who wants to try.

 

 


SRV_Strat
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: SRV_Strat

jcgadfly wrote:
SRV_Strat wrote:
magilum wrote:

SRV_Strat wrote:
I'm not entirely sure you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

I did. It just isn't any good. I've heard it before, and I tried to look surprised this time, I really did.

SRV_Strat wrote:

My guess is that Eddie Van Halen's opinion about the playability of a new type of guitar, for example, would carry alot more weight that some CA who has never picked up a guitar in his life.

My guess is that Tom Brady's opinion about the calibre of a particular's team's cornerbacks and safety's, for example, would carry more weight than my wife's opinion.

My guess is that David Ortiz's opinion about a certain pitcher's fast ball would carry more weight than an individual who has been blind from birth and never played a day of basebal in his life.

The above are "earthly" endeavours - they are activities in the natural world - things that we can see and hear and 'feel".

Oh, but the "CA," your wife, and the blind person have a "different kind" of knowledge of those things that's outside your conventional sense of knowing. They understand them on another level that isn't demonstrable in any way, and can't be articulated at all, but should nevertheless be given equal time and credence.

SRV_Strat wrote:
But be my guest - please tell me all about the "scientific" research pertaining to the biblical account of the resurrection, for example.

Is that an argument for or against it?

SRV_Strat wrote:
Please provide me with ONE credible link that provides conclusive proof that the resurrection, for example, NEVER happened and couldn't possibly happen.

The precedent that it has never happened since? A knowledge of biology that rules out the possibility of being dead for three days waking up? That we know that the sky is just our refracting atmosphere and not a portal to another dimension? That people don't generally levitate? How about that's there's not a shred of evidence in its favor? Do you really believe that something that completely defies all logic and our knowledge of nature; a complete suspension of everything our accumulated research tells us is, without a drop of evidence, is no less than 50% plausible?

SRV_Strat wrote:
Tell me all about the 'legitimate research" that's been done that conclusively PROVES that a man named Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead as the Scriptures say.

Looking forward to your response.

Give me evidence that conclusively proves you don't have a wood sprite living in your eyebrow.

Wow, and all this time, my wife, who I thought knew nothing about guitars other than they make music and people in a band use them, in fact, has a "different kind" of knowledge that's "equal" to Eddie Van Halen's.

Excuse me, but is there any chance you could assist me in contacting say, Fender or Gibson guitars and letting them know that my wife is available to consult on their advisory committees for say $500,000 / year..??

I was looking forward to your credible link re conclusive scientific proof about Christ's "nonsensical" resurrection, but I guess you forgot to include one.

Instead, you offered up another opinion.

Thanks, though, it's much appreciated.!!

You wrote that like you actually offered proof yourself - I wish you did.

What you originally was a story about human medical professionals busting their humps to keep a guy alive and keep him functioning as a human. You just offered your opinon (echoed by the opinions of others in the article) that "God did it".

Theists tend to swear by confirmation bias as "proof" that their God is on the job. You look at the few successes and gloss over the myriad failures. 

I never offered an opinion that GOD did anything.

I simply stated that maybe God did - and maybe God had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

We just don't know - we can ONLY speculate and offer up an opinion - nothing more and nothing less..!


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote: I never

SRV_Strat wrote:

I never offered an opinion that GOD did anything.

I simply stated that maybe God did - and maybe God had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

We just don't know - we can ONLY speculate and offer up an opinion - nothing more and nothing less..!

 

Here's what that sounds like to me:

 

"We don't absolutely know that there is no god, and we don't absolutely know that there is a god, therefore each person's opinion on the matter is as good as the next, since it is only an opinion."

 

Wrong. What if a person isn't arguing from an absolute position? In fact, most people (most atheists I've met anyway) don't! It's a question of probability.

Just because we can't say anything absolutely does not necessarily mean that both sides of the fence are equal in terms of their probability.

Applying this to your miraculous injury example, it's true that some will say that the recovery was miraculous. Some will say it was not miraculous, that it was strange but perfectly natural.

We cannot absolutely prove that this was not some kind of divine intervention, and we cannot absolutely prove that a divine being had nothing to do with it. But we can ask ourselves which of the two is more likely.

Miracles, magic, and supernatural beings always lose the probability game by a landslide.

Furthermore, whenever science fails to offer an explanation, you can't just assume it was God. That's a lazy brain at work. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
SRV_Strat wrote: Of

SRV_Strat wrote:

Of course, we're talking about the suspension of natural principals.

But if the conversation or subject matter pertains to something that exists outside of the natural world, then the natural principals don't apply, do they..??

Many theists - myself included - believe that this man - Jesus Christ (who may or may not have existed - I choose to believe that he did) is exactly who He said He was.

Can I prove he existed - nope..!!

Is there evidence He existed - yes..!!

Is the evidence 100% "for sure" - nope..!!

Can I prove that the resurrection really occurred - nope..!!!

Do I believe it occurred - yes..!!

Like I said in another post, I can't "prove" that I'm going to be alive in an hour's time.

Is there indisputable "proof" that I'm going to be alive in an hour's time -  nope...!!

Do I believe that I'm going to be alive in an hour's time - yes..!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it all comes full circle, doesn't it..???

I believe - you don't and, short of something "monumental" occuring that would put the debate to bed once and for all, that's all we have.

 

 


As part of my new policy, I will offer this one response. If you simply say the same thing again without addressing my specific points, I will abandon this thread.
We have evidence for the natural world; all of science is based on the natural world. All of technology, and every aspect of our daily lives, depends on the natural world being assumed. Your third space, your supernatural world, is not substantiated. We have as much evidence for it as we have for your wife (just using your example, not picking on your wife at all) secretly being a guitar virtuoso in a third space, or in what I referred to as a "different kind" of knowledge. The lack of evidence for the supernatural isn't neutral after all this time: it's an argument against the probability of something as unnatural as resurrection occurring. We barely have the still dubious evidence of Jesus the historical person, let alone for his supposed defiance of nature. Based on the lack of evidence for the event, the lack of evidence for the supernatural, we don't have the 50/50 proposition you seem eager to settle on. That the events you believe occurred is incredibly unlikely and wholly unsupported. Those claims are, at the most, on par with every other religion on earth; which I doubt you are quite so open to.


Fateless7
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure what the point

I'm not sure what the point of the original post is, if not to say, "What if an unverifiable theory can be used as evidence?" I think that would be the most concise way of putting it.

As with any similar question, we're going to save ourselves a lot of time by defining what evidence is; particularly, what criteria must be met for something to qualify as evidence.

Evidence, as a noun, is defined as:

1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Moving on, in the case of the original post, we are asking if the impression that we don't know how a patient recovered from a condition that he was unlikely to recover from can be evidence of a miracle.

Miracle:

1.an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2.such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3.a wonder; marvel.
4.a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.

There are two non-supernatural definitions to which we can already say the patient's recovery relates. It was unusual and surpassing expectations, so it could be called a miracle in this sense. However, to another doctor, it may not be considered unusual, so the term is essentially a figure of speech.

Is it a supernatural miracle? How can we observe anything that exists outside of the natural world, and if it is outside, how can it then do anything in the natural world when its very nature excludes it from ever being part of the natural world? I would say no, and not just that it was not a supernatural miracle, but that supernatural miracles can never occur.

Back to the issue of using unverifiable theories as evidence: Even if something unverifiable, such as the idea that an OJ Simpson robot murdered Nicole Simpson as a prank by extraterrestrials who then took the robot back into space, could be grounds for belief, we don't consider to have knowledge just because there is some evidence, but because we have an overwhelming amount of evidence.

In the case of the recovering patient, the idea that a supernatural miracle has somehow occurred is at best a deluded possibility, while on the other side of the pancake, we know that the patient was treated by doctors and extensive research was used in treating him-- and the research itself amounts to evidence. So we can at least say it was far more likely that it was not a supernatural miracle, which is what knowledge is really about: probability. When we say we know something, we mean that it is the most likely to be true.

Another way to show this is the case is to try to live by using unverifiable theories as evidence. There sure would be a lot of them! Gee, I think I'm walking and talking and seeing, but maybe I'm in a simulation or maybe my senses deceive me, maybe I can only do what I want to do by doing the opposite! But how you can know if you're doing anything if the unverifiable theories count as evidence too? According to the OP, you can't. And this is why we know that we can know, and unverifiable theories don't amount to evidence.