|
|
#41
03-20-2007, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] The boldface highlights where your argument fails. I claim no such evidence could possibly exist. Suppose, for example, I contend that the world is controlled by "xrak". I say that xrak is a square circle in shape, who is everywhere but nowhere. As "evidence" for xrak, I produce a man who can regrow limbs which have been amputated. Most people would find this less than convincing, and with good reason. The concept of xrak is so incoherent, even the most extraordinary event could not be reasonably considered "evidence" of it's existence. And so it is with the Judeo-Christian God. True, if an extraordinary event occurred, it could possibly be evidence of something beyond our current understanding. What, exactly, would depend on the specifics of the observation. (And once something has specifics, it is not by it's nature incoherent or contradictory, even if completely not understood.) Attributing this as "evidence" for the incoherent Judeo-Christian God, however, can only hinder understanding the true cause, which is a common mistake many have made in the past. But I digress... 
|
|
#42
03-20-2007, 06:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .3% is too generous David. OBV the probability goes up once the reality of supernatural events is confirmed, and it goes up A LOT [/ QUOTE ] or maybe it goes down a lot. This is not the MO of the Judeo/Christian god who supposedly accompanies miracles with messages. What goes up a lot is the possibility that miracles happened without messages in the past and people made a lot of stuff up to try to explain them - that would fit the evidence so snugly that its a cinche. chez
|
|
#43
03-20-2007, 06:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] Be that as it may, since you presumably would accept the observation of such events as evidence for God, it is still a valid argument from my perspective to point out that these miracles are never observed. Or in other words, a reasonably necessary (but arbitrarily not sufficient, according to me) condition for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that we'd occasionally observe "miracles." Obviously, you would claim this is not necessary (but maybe sufficient), since you will rationalize any set of observations (or lack thereof) to be consistent with your dogma.
|
|
#44
03-20-2007, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
you will rationalize any set of observations (or lack thereof) to be consistent with your dogma. [/ QUOTE ] And I was about to accuse you of that.
|
|
#45
03-20-2007, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
But those numbers are rathar arbitrary.
There have been hundreds of Gods that people have imagined. There could also be a myriad of 'non God' creatures that could perform feats we consider supernatural. If a Supernatural Occurance happens, there is far to little evidence to say that the specific God as conceived by the Judeo/Christian Religion is any more likely then Zeus, Crom or Mithra.
|
|
#46
03-20-2007, 11:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] you will rationalize any set of observations (or lack thereof) to be consistent with your dogma. [/ QUOTE ] And I was about to accuse you of that. [/ QUOTE ] I suppose you could, if you consider strictly adhering to what is rationally, objectively justified according to the evidence to be a "dogma." This is an old trick often employed by theists. Simply define rational objectivity as a "dogma," and then it's just a matter of which "dogma" you accept on faith: atheism or theism. Fundamentally, the idea is to destroy the distinction between reason and faith.
|
|
#47
03-20-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you could, if you consider strictly adhering to what is rationally, objectively justified according to the evidence to be a "dogma." [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't referring to rational objectivity. I was referring to your irrational choice of human reason as absolute. I'm the one who is rational and objective. You're the one who is an irrational dogmatist.
|
|
#48
03-20-2007, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] Please clarify why they would have to readjust anything at all. Also, please clarify why DS would offer up an explanation equivalent to a god.
|
|
#49
03-20-2007, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
Please clarify why they would have to readjust anything at all. [/ QUOTE ] Dawkinism would have to allow for the possibility that ID'ers aren't completely loony. [ QUOTE ] please clarify why DS would offer up an explanation equivalent to a god. [/ QUOTE ] Same thing. He's admitted as much. The chance of some kind of god, by Bayes' theorem, goes from .00000000001 to .00000000002.
|
|
#50
03-20-2007, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please clarify why they would have to readjust anything at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dawkinism would have to allow for the possibility that ID'ers aren't completely loony. [/ QUOTE ] Their loonyness would remain unchanged. Even if new evidence made ID a rational belief it wouldn't make the irrational beliefs before that evidence emerged and more rational. If I believed you are Richard Dawkins then it wouldn't make me any less loony if it turned out that you were Richard Dawkins. chez
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
