|
|
#81
07-12-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 4. People coming back from the dead 5. Seas parting 6. Serpents talking 7. Bushes speaking 8. Banishng demons [/ QUOTE ] Prove they didn't happen. Go ahead. I dare ya. [/ QUOTE ] Science can NEVER prove that something didn't happen. The atheists who say otherwise are morons. Only MATH can prove something never happenned. For example no one ever discovered two cubes that added up to a third one. However, Probability and Statistics, can be used to show that the information we have about ressurections and speaking bushes is such that when someoneone claims to have witnessed such an event, the odds are overwhelming that he is mistaken. The odds shrink if he supplies us with evidence. But the original statistical evidence is so overwhemingly against him that his own evidence is unlikely to make a big dent in the statistical odds. Certainly the existence of the Bible is not strong enough evidence to accomplish that task. 
|
|
#82
07-12-2007, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you ignoring the rest of the body of my posts? [/ QUOTE ] I was trying to engage Ben and multitable. What is you want to know? As to burden of proof, I can just claim you have the burden - the Bible has been around a long time, is something of a miraculous item in itself, and has been attested to by hundreds of millions, many of them very "smart" people. So who gets to set the burden?
|
|
#83
07-12-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
Science can NEVER prove [/ QUOTE ] You're right about science (man I love trolling these atheists), but you're wrong about probability - for much the same reason.
|
|
#84
07-12-2007, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
As to burden of proof, I can just claim you have the burden - the Bible has been around a long time, is something of a miraculous item in itself, and has been attested to by hundreds of millions, many of them very "smart" people. So who gets to set the burden? [/ QUOTE ] But if you're trying to prove non-believers that these supernatural events actually occurred, you have to give them a reason to believe that the laws of physics did not apply in the past. I'm not really asking you why you believe what you do (although I am curious). I'm more concerned with understanding how you can convince someone who doesn't already believe in the Bible. It seems as though this document is the only primary source that provides evidence to these claims. Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical, so it seems that the best reason for believing in a literal miracle is that it is what Christians have traditionally believed.
|
|
#85
07-12-2007, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
But if you're trying to prove non-believers that these supernatural events actually occurred, you have to give them a reason to believe that the laws of physics did not apply in the past. [/ QUOTE ] What I was trying to extract from you and Ben in my trollish ways is whether or not you admit the possibility of miracles. If you are a naturalist, as the Bible says, someone could return from the dead and you would not believe. If science is the only valid form of knowledge, and science only studies natural phenomenon, then science will never prove or disprove miracles. [ QUOTE ] Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical [/ QUOTE ] You may be right concerning professing Christians. Some of them don't even believe God exists or that there's an afterlife, so the word Christian is mostly meaningless.
|
|
#86
07-12-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Science can NEVER prove [/ QUOTE ] You're right about science (man I love trolling these atheists), but you're wrong about probability - for much the same reason. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, what would HE know about probability? Seriously... It seems you are incorporating probability in the same vein as someone who jokes that flopping a set is 50/50. Either you will, or you won't. So too, it seems you relate probabilities to biblical miracles. Either they happened, or they didn't. And you choose to believe they did. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The probability of a miracle having occured is NOT zero. It never will be. Not as long as you are using math. But if you ARE using math, then you have to acknowledge that the more spectacular the miracle, the less likely it actually ocurred. It doesn't mean it didn't, but if you think it's more likely than not to have occured, YOU are the one who is wrong about probability. As I've always said, what it comes down to is faith. Just admit it. You believe these things based on faith. Not because they are likely to have occured, but because you choose to believe (have faith), that they did. Say that, and there's nothing left for argument.
|
|
#87
07-12-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
It seems you are incorporating probability [/ QUOTE ] I am? [ QUOTE ] The probability of a miracle having ocurred is NOT zero. [/ QUOTE ] Miracles don't occur. They are performed. [ QUOTE ] As I've always said, what it comes down to is faith. Just admit it [/ QUOTE ] Faith is involved on both sides, but evidence is also involved. Can you admit that?
|
|
#88
07-12-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to extract from you and Ben in my trollish ways is whether or not you admit the possibility of miracles. If you are a naturalist, as the Bible says, someone could return from the dead and you would not believe. If science is the only valid form of knowledge, and science only studies natural phenomenon, then science will never prove or disprove miracles. [/ QUOTE ] I am most certainly open to the possibility although I have to admit I'm not exactly sure what would qualify as evidence to me. I would most certainly need more than a document though. A first hand account with sufficient testing would probably do it, but I realize that this is not possible for the notion of past miracles. I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical [/ QUOTE ] You may be right concerning professing Christians. Some of them don't even believe God exists or that there's an afterlife, so the word Christian is mostly meaningless. [/ QUOTE ] What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem. There is no authority that delineates what is literally true in the Bible and what is not. So it is hard to point to a passage and say that it happened because there is so much disagreement within the Christian community.
|
|
#89
07-12-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim. [/ QUOTE ] I don't claim to be able to prove something to someone who denies the possibility. [ QUOTE ] What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem. [/ QUOTE ] My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident.
|
|
#90
07-12-2007, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is religion harmful?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim. [/ QUOTE ] I don't claim to be able to prove something to someone who denies the possibility. [/ QUOTE ] But what about someone who says it's possible but very unlikely given what he knows? What can you do to convince him that it's more likely than he thinks? You seem to be saying that you can only convince believers. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem. [/ QUOTE ] My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I understand this. Could you rephrase it maybe? I was saying that if you only have one source you have to work extra hard to show that this source is extremely accurate. And my whole point was that not even 'believers' seem to agree on what it says. [ QUOTE ] And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident. [/ QUOTE ] What about those of us who claim that we genuinely don't know how it all happened? What evidence would you give them to sway their opinion. Trust me, I get what you're saying. Many people don't want to know and don't want to hear you out. But what about people who are on the fence? What do you say to them?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
