|
|
#31
03-19-2007, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God. [/ QUOTE ] The exact point I wanted to make. [/ QUOTE ] Well you are both totally wrong. By far the biggest single argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that it postulates the possibility that supernatural events can occur. If it was ever shown that they could in fact occur that argument goes away. Put mathematically it would go something like this: A sceptic/atheist assigns the probability that there is a power capable of producing supernatural events as 1%. He assigns the probability of the Judeo/Christian god to be .3% If a supernatural event occurs (that could reasonably be ascribed to the Judeo/Christian god), God moves up to a 5-2 shot. 
|
|
#32
03-19-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
I'm the first to convert if you can throw in one of the following to announce the healing a day in advance:
1. Burning bush that talks 2. Giant figure in the night sky who talks 3. Booming dis-embodied voice that everyone hears regardless of language 4. A corpse who rises from the dead, preferably one that has to reanimate most of his/her body, and a sense of humor would be a bonus 5. A sea that parts when a guy with a beard and a fixation for unpleasant insects waves a stick Thanks.
|
|
#33
03-19-2007, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
I'm the first to convert if you can throw in one of the following to announce the healing a day in advance: 1. Burning bush that talks 2. Giant figure in the night sky who talks 3. Booming dis-embodied voice that everyone hears regardless of language 4. A corpse who rises from the dead, preferably one that has to reanimate most of his/her body, and a sense of humor would be a bonus 5. A sea that parts when a guy with a beard and a fixation for unpleasant insects [/ QUOTE ] You're a better man than Pharoah. BTW, how would you know it was God?
|
|
#34
03-19-2007, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
Well you are both totally wrong. By far the biggest single argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that it postulates the possibility that supernatural events can occur. If it was ever shown that they could in fact occur that argument goes away. Put mathematically it would go something like this: A sceptic/atheist assigns the probability that there is a power capable of producing supernatural events as 1%. He assigns the probability of the Judeo/Christian god to be .3% If a supernatural event occurs (that could reasonably be ascribed to the Judeo/Christian god), God moves up to a 5-2 shot. [/ QUOTE ] .3% is too generous David. OBV the probability goes up once the reality of supernatural events is confirmed, and it goes up A LOT . However, we definitely have to start smaller than that. The reason is the sheer number of gods throughout history PLUS the infinite number of possible gods who don't have their own holy books and religions. Sure, the Judeo-christian god gets a head start vs the flying spaghetti monster, because the people that thought up the FSM weren't serious and could only be right by complete accident and not error. However, I'd like you to show that Yahweh is more likely than Anu, Odin, Aman Ra, Zeus, Vishnu etc. I know your post was just an example to illustrate a point, however I'm still going to call you on this because I think in general you accord too much respect to the bible vis a vis other religious myths.
|
|
#35
03-19-2007, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So any reason to make that claim about Dawkins? [/ QUOTE ] Plenty. But Dawkins is a placeholder, the self-appointed representative of atheism. He has become a symbol by his own choice. I could just say Dawkinsim from now on and maybe cut down on the number of posts that ask me why I hate him. [/ QUOTE ] You could just say Dawkinism but expect the same responses unless you can give some sort of reason why its anything to do with Dawkins. Otherwise why not call it Notreadyism? chez
|
|
#36
03-19-2007, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
"So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that."
Reproduced without permission from The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.
|
|
#37
03-20-2007, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
"So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that." Reproduced without permission from The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, NR already knew that Dawkins would consider this a miracle, because he is so well-versed in the views and opinions of the man.
|
|
#38
03-20-2007, 12:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
As Bluffthis says, I believe the ends justifies the means.
|
|
#39
03-20-2007, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story: [ QUOTE ] Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded. [/ QUOTE ] Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric. [/ QUOTE ] To bad that would never happen.
|
|
#40
03-20-2007, 05:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God. [/ QUOTE ] The exact point I wanted to make. [/ QUOTE ] Well you are both totally wrong. By far the biggest single argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that it postulates the possibility that supernatural events can occur. If it was ever shown that they could in fact occur that argument goes away. Put mathematically it would go something like this: A sceptic/atheist assigns the probability that there is a power capable of producing supernatural events as 1%. He assigns the probability of the Judeo/Christian god to be .3% If a supernatural event occurs (that could reasonably be ascribed to the Judeo/Christian god), God moves up to a 5-2 shot. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't negate the idea that its not evidence for a Judeo-Christian god. Iamgine observing a poker player who consistently loses and its obvious they play very bad. They insist they are good and the only reason they lose is because god hates them gambling and intervenes miraculously to make them lose. Then the arm re-growing 'miracle' happens, even if its true that the probability of them being correct has risen there's still no evidence that they are losing because of god. chez
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
