Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Miracles? Do they support religion / discredit scientific camp? - Minitokyo

Miracles? Do they support religion / discredit scientific camp?

page 2 of 3 « Previous 1 2 3 Next » 65 total items

Quote by Plunkies

If you KNEW your faith was nothing but your own desire to want it to be true then I guess you wouldn't believe in it anymore would you?

Come on Plukies, you're better than that. The operative word there is "if." You're right - If I knew my faith was nothing more than desire then of course I would eventually say "this is a bunch of crap." But, here again, you prove your ignorance of the Bible and my faith.

Quote: Your belief in an invisible man in the sky obviously wasn't based on evidence or logic though was it? His point still stands.

Your opinion and your definition. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky but I do believe in the God of the Bible. And my entire coming to believe in the Bible was a decision based off of logic and reason. His points falls because he claimed no Christians use logic or reason and my post presented a very good logical syllogism.

Quote:

Quote by kellyo

Quote: Faith is the argument used when all reason disappears. Follow my reasoning if you will:

Wait a minute. According to your first statement, we should have no faith in your reasoning.

That's a pretty lame copout. By your logic I can say you believe in an invisible supreme being and are therefore insane. So now I can just ignore every point you have to make because everything you say is just the insane ramblings of some nutjob. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean all their arguments are instantly flawed.

This is very simple but yet seems difficult for you. Look at his quote again. He claims that faith exists when all reason disappears. He then says follow my reasoning which assumes reason has not disappeared and exists within his argument. The first premise would then conclude that there is no faith because reason exists. Therefore, we should have no faith in his reasoning. Honestly, do you even study philosophy.

Quote:

Quote by kellyo

Quote: Your argument for miracles is not based on logic, reason or science of any sort...Many believing philosophers have been forced to abandon the seemingly indefensible position on miracles.

What exactly do you mean by "indefensible?" Unlike the person you seem to be responding to, my faith is based off of logic and reason. I have in fact studied Hume, McKinnon, Smart, Flew, Erlandson, Troeltsch, and the like. They have all presented arguments against miracles and everyone has a response.
If you claim it's "indefensible" then you are claiming that someone has a "watertight" logical reason to prove their point. So which one is it?

Uh I think you should look up indefensible or something man. He's saying a stance on miracles isn't even a reasonable position to take.

I just took a reasonable position and one you certainly didn't disprove. All you've done is disagree but nothing else.

Quote: By definition a miracle is an unreasonable assumption made to explain an odd occurance. I mean jeez, we have an entire thread here on miracles and nobody has pointed out a single one.

I didn't know you needed specific examples. There are 109 miracles in the Bible alone - before you even get to Jesus.

Quote: Not even a retarded one like an image of jesus on a wood grain or a virgin mary statue crying blood. Nothing.

I didn't know retarded miracles even existed.

Quote: Oh and name dropping a bunch of philosophers (who disagree with you) doesn't help you make much sense either. What, people responded to these guys so miracles are logical explainations of the world now? Guh?

Unlike some, I'm willing to throw the names out there that have developed much deeper thought than you and actually attempted to piece an argument together. They disagree with me. Because the truth prevails, even a guy like me can prove them wrong. So, Mr. wtf, find one of their arguments and play the damn game.

Quote:

Quote:
Here's some logical reasoning for you.

1. If a theistic God exists, then miracles are possible.
2. A miracle is a special act of God.
3. God is the source and standard of all truth; He cannot err.
4. Nor would a theistic God act to confirm something as true that was false.
5. Therefore, true miracles in connection with a message confirm that message to be from God: (a) The miracle confirms the message. (b) The sign confirms the sermon. (c) An act of God confirms the Word of God. (d) New revelation needs new confirmation.

Not a single part of that was logical. Logical - Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT GOD EXISTS.

The whole thing is logical - it's a logic construct called a syllogism. It is using logic itself to present major and minor premises which draw a conclusion. You disagreeing with the logic doesn't then conclude it's not logic. This is getting old.

Quote: Then you end it with a statement that basically states "because God did it God obviously did it, and that confirms that God did it". Yeah that's some serious logic for you. Thanks for that you've changed my perception of the universe.

Not even close. If you honestly think that's the conclusion then read again because that isn't even in the ball park of what was said.

Quote: You can't use god to prove miracles if the whole point of proving miracles is to prove the existence of god. It'd be like going to court and saying you didn't commit a crime because you had an alibi, and you had an alibi because you didn't commit the crime. It makes no sense. You have to prove one to prove the other, however in your case both are unprovable. Yup that's religion for ya.

False. You didn't know how to disprove a syllogism. Look at it again. Nowhere am I attempting two conclusions. In order to prove a conclusion false all you must do is prove one of the premises' false. Your post certainly has not accomplished that task.

Quote:

Quote:
If there is an all-powerful, all-good, and all-wise God, then it follows that He would not perform a miraculous act to confirm a lie. Since miracles are by nature special acts of God, God would not act contrary to his own nature. The God of all truth would not miraculously confirm error. Hence, when a truth claim is repeatedly confirmed by miracles, such as the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the New Testament apostles did, then it is true and all opposing views are false.

I can't tell if you really have a point to make here or if you're just babbling to confuse people. What does a miracle have to do with God not lying?

I can't help your illiteracy.

Quote: Wtf is a truth claim? Pretend I have no idea wtf you're talking about here and explain it (because I seriously don't).

Read the thread "Is the absolute truth knowable." That'll help you. In that statement it is referencing the truth claims which miracles confirmed. Again, evidence you argue against a Book you've never even read. Moses told the Pharaoh that plagues would come upon him if he didn't let the Jews go - truth claim. They miraculously happened - miracle supporting the truth claim.


Quote: Ok so here's something for you. There's really only two reasons for your God to create a miracle.

1.) Change an event
2.) Prove he exists

Again, False. There's theological dimension, moral dimension, teleological dimension, and a doctrinal dimension.

Quote: Since he obviously doesn't want to prove he exists since he could just as easily do something truly miraculous like build a mountain in the desert with the words "WORSHIP ME" written across the sky and giant squirrels playing banjos, then we have to assume it's to change an event.

I knew it. If you saw an actual miracle like I've described above then you'd believe. Again, evidence you argue against a Book you don't even read.

Quote: Let's take some person living through a car crash as an example since that's one of the few even labeled here. Person survives horrible crash - Miracle. But if god is all knowing and all powerful he could have just as easily saved this person without the whole car crash thing and covered his existence without the miraculous event even raising anyone's suspicions. The whole concept of miracles doesn't even make sense except to convert non believers by convincing them to accept an event as proof of a god. Yet when they're in the religion they find out that god works in mysterious ways and actually doesn't want to prove himself at all, so you have to use faith. I guess by mysterious they really mean stupid. He was probably too busy planting dinosaur bones and winning football games to figure out his own motives.

Now that's just funny and further evidence that your Biblical knowledge is non-existant. You now are arguing about why a good God would allow bad things to happen or why God wouldn't perform these "miracles" all the time to prove Himself - not the thread topic. But, feel free to start another one.

Quote: This is very simple but yet seems difficult for you. Look at his quote again. He claims that faith exists when all reason disappears. He then says follow my reasoning which assumes reason has not disappeared and exists within his argument. The first premise would then conclude that there is no faith because reason exists. Therefore, we should have no faith in his reasoning. Honestly, do you even study philosophy.

What the hell? That's not what he was saying at all. He didn't mean all reason on the face of the planet. Faith is just believing in something in the absence of evidence (or dispite evidence to the contrary). Faith is unreasonable. He was just stating it dramatically, like this.

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

Now you wouldn't take that literally would you? You wouldn't argue that you don't really have seperate eyeballs for faith and reason would you? Of course not, unless you weren't fluent in english or something.

Quote: I didn't know you needed specific examples. There are 109 miracles in the Bible alone - before you even get to Jesus.

HOLY COW! Really? Well gee that's all the proof I need...

I tried to respond to more of your post but every time you used the word "Bible" I felt an overwhelming feeling of futility in even trying to reason with you. Yeah yeah the bible says a lot of things. 109 miracles in the bible huh? The book of Scientology says we get sad because alien souls attach themselves to our bodies. There's over 800 references to orcs in the Lord of the Rings trillogy. What's your point?

"All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention�of barbarian invention�is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition�then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity."

There that saves me the trouble of explaining to you what I think of the Bible. Oh and I'd like to add that it's also mindnumbingly boring. It's a work of fiction, a poor work of fiction. And you'd have as much luck trying to convince me with any other random book.

Quote: In order to prove a conclusion false all you must do is prove one of the premises' false.

None of the premises were even based on reality. I can't prove any of them false any more than you can prove them true. And the burden of proof is on you skippy.

Quote: I can't help your illiteracy.

Ooooo good one! Zing! You totally got me dude! I couldn't understand your inane babble so clearly I can't read. Awesome.

Quote by Plunkies

What the hell? That's not what he was saying at all. He didn't mean all reason on the face of the planet. Faith is just believing in something in the absence of evidence (or dispite evidence to the contrary). Faith is unreasonable. He was just stating it dramatically

Doesn't prove anything other than he communicated ineffectively - which is what I said in the first place.

Quote: The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

Now you wouldn't take that literally would you? You wouldn't argue that you don't really have seperate eyeballs for faith and reason would you? Of course not, unless you weren't fluent in english or something.

A man's opinion. I myself came to the faith through reason. So what's your point?

Quote by kellyo

Quote: I didn't know you needed specific examples. There are 109 miracles in the Bible alone - before you even get to Jesus.

HOLY COW! Really? Well gee that's all the proof I need...

Never laid it out as proof. You specifically said that no one has mentioned any miracles at all. There's plenty to choose from.

Quote: I tried to respond to more of your post but every time you used the word "Bible" I felt an overwhelming feeling of futility in even trying to reason with you. Yeah yeah the bible says a lot of things. 109 miracles in the bible huh? The book of Scientology says we get sad because alien souls attach themselves to our bodies. There's over 800 references to orcs in the Lord of the Rings trillogy. What's your point?

You've disproved nothing other than there are other truth claims other than those claimed in the Bible. Congratulations. However, the law of noncontradiction requires that only one can be true since they all claim something different. Which one is the absolute truth? Well, that's for you to figure out on your own.

Quote: "All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention�¢ï¿½ï¿½of barbarian invention�¢ï¿½ï¿½is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition�¢ï¿½ï¿½then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity."

There that saves me the trouble of explaining to you what I think of the Bible. Oh and I'd like to add that it's also mindnumbingly boring.

You're entitled to your opinion. And that's all this quote is - your opinion.

Quote: It's a work of fiction, a poor work of fiction. And you'd have as much luck trying to convince me with any other random book.

I'm sure you've argued in classes whenever you've read Aristotle or textbooks about Rome that they were just fiction and shouldn't be taken as true history. Again, your opinion here - nothing else. If you honestly think you can show that it's a work of fiction feel free...that would be fun to read. Of course you don't. You just spew opinions as fact over and over and over again.

Quote:

Quote by kellyo In order to prove a conclusion false all you must do is prove one of the premises' false.

None of the premises were even based on reality. I can't prove any of them false any more than you can prove them true. And the burden of proof is on you skippy.

Nice dodge. Concession accepted. My syllogism stands. Never is the burdened placed back on the developer unless the premises and therefore the conclusion are proven false. Here's what you said: "Those are bogus premises and conclusion. But I can't prove it wrong so you show me that you can prove it right." No, because it is right already. Disprove it 'skippy.'

Sorry Plunky but an argument bursting with opinions that are not backed up with evidence does not disprove anything. Instead, it proves you don't hold up to the debate.

Thank you all for an entertaining argument. Kellyo you are quite adept at defending your viewpoint. However, obviously I feel I must reply to your assertions.

Firstly, I'm sorry If I was in any way unclear about faith in comparison to reasoning. My point was that faith is the tool used when reasoning can no longer be supplied. I then asked you to follow my reasoning. I did not in any way suggest that somehow all subsequent reasoning was illegitimate. I think either you misundertood me, or were perhaps playing on my words. A practicing theologian and philosopher such as yourself will already know (without me telling you) that faith and fideism are not based upon empirical knowledge. They come from knowledge a priori and thus are not founded upon reasoning. I hope that clears that point up a little better.

Secondly, in light of the reasoning which you sought to give for the existence of miracles. Plunkies was indeed correct that your argument starts from the assumptions that God exists and that he creates miracles. These points are not supplied with reasonable logic and must be assumed to be concluded through faith. Any conclusions that are therefore drawn from your reasoning are based upon these assertions and therefore not logical. What is more, the argument quickly descends into circularity as Plunkies pointed out. Now, in no way do I intend to be so presumptious as to say that your argument and stance in general are 'wrong'. All I seek to point out is that your argument does not contain empirical reasoning (the system that we generally use to discern fact) and is still based upon faith. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you.

There's a third point I wish to raise, which is slightly off topic. I just wanted to suggest that in order to more fully enjoy this argument it might be helpful not to make subtle character attacks, such as claims to illiteracy, and other put-downs. At the end of the day, we are all going to have to agree to disagree anyway, so we might as well have an adult discussion.

And lastly, if anyone is interested in learning more on the subject, David Hume's treatises on miracles are very interesting. He concludes that no sufficient evidence has yet been put forward for the existence of miracles, that the burden of proof does indeed rest with god and his followers and that until this proof materialises, the most logical path to take is to 'suspend your judgement'.

Best wishes,

Ed (Drills)

Quote: If you honestly think you can show that it's a work of fiction feel free...that would be fun to read. Of course you don't. You just spew opinions as fact over and over and over again.

You can't keep saying the word "opinion" over and over again with your fingers in your ears. They must have taught you that in church debate class along with the air-tight "But the bible told me so!" defense. I don't have to prove the bible is a work of fiction, even most Christians realize it's just a bunch of silly stories. And again the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you. You can start by explaining how noah got 30 million species of bugs on his ark and somehow managed to keep the elephants from rolling on top of them.

Quote: Nice dodge. Concession accepted. My syllogism stands. Never is the burdened placed back on the developer unless the premises and therefore the conclusion are proven false. Here's what you said: "Those are bogus premises and conclusion. But I can't prove it wrong so you show me that you can prove it right." No, because it is right already. Disprove it 'skippy.'

Sorry Plunky but an argument bursting with opinions that are not backed up with evidence does not disprove anything. Instead, it proves you don't hold up to the debate.

What debate? You haven't given me a single shred of reality to work with. Hell you've barely said anything of substance in the entire thread. Why am I the only one that has to use logic while you run around exclaiming how your God exists and you're right no matter what and miracles are going on and faith this and faith that. It's exausting. If I could disprove your freakin God we wouldn't even be having this discusion. I can't disprove him anymore than you can disprove there's an invisible leprechaun in my refrigerater. You confuse not being able to disprove something with it being right. Maybe you should start trying to disprove polytheism, you might be making other gods angry by only worshiping one. Have fun in hell. I bet several gods are even more vengeful than one. I mean they probably have gods specifically there for vengence.

Your syllogism isn't right anymore than it's wrong. It's just more fiction. You can't prove it. I can't disprove it. It's a meaningless waste of space and it wasn't even insightful to begin with. I think you just wanted to use the term syllogism in an argument. You didn't even use it correctly. Point 1 should have just said "1) God exists." but then the whole thing would have been even more blatently flawed from the start. It was pretty much just an if-then statement with a lot of junk tacked onto it.

Here disprove mine.

1. There's an invisible lephrecaun in my refrigerator (Hereby refered to as Big L)
2. Big L is always right.
3. Big L only farts on wednesdays.
4. Big L is a mythical being assassinator and killed your god last wednesday with a gigantic God killing fart.
5. Therefore, since your god no longer exists, miracles can't possibly exist and your "syllogism" is proven false all in one fell swoop.

Quote: I myself came to the faith through reason.

No you didn't. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. You might have your own reasons for believing the way you do but you certainly didn't use "reason" in the way you imply.

Reason - An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

That's the definition we mean. So what is your reasoning behind your "faith". Oh wait, if you had real reasoning then by definition it wouldn't be faith anymore now would it? So feel free to prove to the world that god exists because everyone is waiting.

Since an omnipotent, omniscient and, allegedly, all benevolent being is unfalsifiable, this is really a lot of hot air. The rationalising of miracles as acts of God or Apollo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is superfluous to the actual point that something improbable happened. You can add any number of magical sky pixies into the cause section of this debate and arrive at your own answer. It's simply circular reasoning like using the Bible to prove the Bible. By that logic, you can't really prove the God created North America, since it's never stated as such in the Bible anyway.

There is also the matter of Occam's Razor anyway. The idea that improbable events can occur is the whole point. No matter how amazing a feat is, it can be calculated to be readily explained away by naturalistic means, however unlikely, taking the driving seat and causing some wacky things to happen. Just because someone amazingly wins the national lottery on their own doesn't mean a deity intervened (and for what purpose? Oh that's right, God works in mysterious ways), it just means someone was lucky enough to get that 1 in 14,000,000 number combo. More people will win just a tenner through the same mechanism as the one, less common person winning several million.

In the end, if you use the term "rational" in your post which also conclude improbable events are the evidence needed to prove an All Mighty exists, you've got a weird definition of rational.

Additionally, the pointing to currently unexplained "miracles" as better evidence is not a sturdy base either. Many, if not all miracles in the religious sense, are explained away by human psychology or the art of conning and illusion. Those that seem baffling, are only currently baffling. It's like ridiculing all of science and reason simply because, despite all the models we have now, we can't fully explain the creation of the universe. Which, of course, is folly.

Quote by drillsThank you all for an entertaining argument. Kellyo you are quite adept at defending your viewpoint. However, obviously I feel I must reply to your assertions.

Firstly, I'm sorry If I was in any way unclear about faith in comparison to reasoning. My point was that faith is the tool used when reasoning can no longer be supplied. I then asked you to follow my reasoning. I did not in any way suggest that somehow all subsequent reasoning was illegitimate. I think either you misundertood me, or were perhaps playing on my words. A practicing theologian and philosopher such as yourself will already know (without me telling you) that faith and fideism are not based upon empirical knowledge. They come from knowledge a priori and thus are not founded upon reasoning. I hope that clears that point up a little better.

It certainly does. And thanks for responding in an intellectual way to effectively illustrate your disagreement as opposed to disrespectful opinion to make one look stupid. I understand what you are saying but I do not agree that faith allows no room for reason. Why? Because much of my faith is based on reason. For example, early on in my faith I had some issues with the resurrection. After studying much and analyzing the various alternatives my belief in the resurrection was 100% due to the logical reasoning I had done. Faith, in of itself, relys on nothing - not even reason. But my point has been that one can come to the faith by reason - like myself.

Quote: Secondly, in light of the reasoning which you sought to give for the existence of miracles. Plunkies was indeed correct that your argument starts from the assumptions that God exists and that he creates miracles. These points are not supplied with reasonable logic and must be assumed to be concluded through faith. Any conclusions that are therefore drawn from your reasoning are based upon these assertions and therefore not logical. What is more, the argument quickly descends into circularity as Plunkies pointed out. Now, in no way do I intend to be so presumptious as to say that your argument and stance in general are 'wrong'. All I seek to point out is that your argument does not contain empirical reasoning (the system that we generally use to discern fact) and is still based upon faith. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you.

I would agree with you from the standpoint of the syllogism used; however, I do believe there is evidence to then also back up the claim but it was simply not supplied. The reason for the syllogism was to show Plunky that logic and reason can be applied - he claimed that they couldn't. This discussion is in fact one of logic and reason; therefore, proving him wrong. That was my point.

Quote: There's a third point I wish to raise, which is slightly off topic. I just wanted to suggest that in order to more fully enjoy this argument it might be helpful not to make subtle character attacks, such as claims to illiteracy, and other put-downs. At the end of the day, we are all going to have to agree to disagree anyway, so we might as well have an adult discussion.

I agree again. I stooped to an inappropriate level. I get much of it in return for claiming what I claim - that's just the nature of it though.

Quote: And lastly, if anyone is interested in learning more on the subject, David Hume's treatises on miracles are very interesting. He concludes that no sufficient evidence has yet been put forward for the existence of miracles, that the burden of proof does indeed rest with god and his followers and that until this proof materialises, the most logical path to take is to 'suspend your judgement'.

Hume has presented many logical syllogisms and most of which can be shown to not be accurate. Like the above, I believe we can show that the first premise is false (no sufficient evidence has yet been put forward). This can be shown from the Bible but also ancient secular texts as well. I'm not dodging this, I'm just tired of typing. If you'd like me to go further I can - but, in the end, it won't change your opinion anyway.

In the past, the unexplainable was always put down as something to do with a Religion. A miracle indeed. Yet, as the Earth goes on, we learn more and more. We can prove what others, in the past, put down to Religion.

I believe that some "miracles" we simply cannot explain at the present moment.

First, Drills, please don't miss my previous post where I respond to you.

Quote by plunkies
The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

Plunkies, do you have faith in evolution?

Quote by kellyoFirst, Drills, please don't miss my previous post where I respond to you.

Quote by plunkies
The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

Plunkies, do you have faith in evolution?

Faith : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

No I have no faith in evolution.

Plunkies,

Oh but you're wrong. You have completely placed your faith in the fact that evolution is the answer. You believe that the evidence and logical reasoning is there to prove evolution; therefore, placing your faith in it. Even you have said that in cannot be absolutely proven. Therefore, you take the "reason" and apply your "faith."

When you get in your car, you have faith that it will start. When you drive down the highway, you have faith that the drivers will do their job and drive safely. Everyone has faith, in virtually everything we do. The only difference is what you have faith in.

At least we agree on one thing: I have no faith in evolution either.

Again you have to resort to arguing semantics and nit-picking on word choices that are obvious in their meaning. The term faith is clearly used in a religious sense.

And I don't have faith my car will start. I expect it to start. It started yesterday, I keep it in good condition, it has gas, I expect it to start and it's reasonable to assume it will. I don't have faith in other drivers, most people are idiots. But it's in their best interest to not kill themselves and damage their vehicles. It's a reasonable assumption to make. People tend to not like to die.

But even if you could label these things faith then so the hell what? What could your point possibly be other than to make your stance look less ridiculous? Another meaningless post from you. Everything you say lacks substance because it's based on blind faith. You're struggling to grab onto anything that looks like a point only to come up empty each time.

Wow you don't believe in evolution? No kidding? You're happy to claim up and down how your beliefs are based on reason or logic but it truly appears that you've only reasoned your mind into a corner. You no longer even twist your flawed belief-system to at least match up with proven scientific theories about the world? I bet you still think the Earth is flat huh? Is thunder really god bowling? Is lightning god pissed? Is snow his holy dandruff? Did he make the mountains or was that plate tectonics? Is the sky blue because of light striking air particles or was god just in a blue mood when he made it? Did our tail bone really have a use at one time or is god just a practical jokester?

Do you only except evidence that fits in with the conclusions you desire to be true? Looks like drills was right after all. It IS just your desire and there really isn't any logic or reason involved is there? Gee who'da thunk it huh? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED! NEVER! I WAS COMPLETELY FOOLED INTO THINKING YOUR STANCE WAS BASED ON PURE LOGIC! Oh dear I'm so dissapointed. Thanks for playing kellyo it's been fun.

Quote by PlunkiesAgain you have to resort to arguing semantics and nit-picking on word choices that are obvious in their meaning. The term faith is clearly used in a religious sense.

It doens't have to be but you claim it does have to be. It's fair to say, even logical to say, that I have faith in my beliefs based on reason. It's also fair, and logical to say, that I have faith my car will start when I need it to. It's also fair to say from a religious standpoint that there are some things I can't explain but I have faith in them. The last one is not the only example of faith.

Quote: And I don't have faith my car will start. I expect it to start. It started yesterday, I keep it in good condition, it has gas, I expect it to start and it's reasonable to assume it will. I don't have faith in other drivers, most people are idiots. But it's in their best interest to not kill themselves and damage their vehicles. It's a reasonable assumption to make. People tend to not like to die.

Now you're arguing semantics.

Quote: But even if you could label these things faith then so the hell what? What could your point possibly be other than to make your stance look less ridiculous?

My stance has been solid from post one. Never changing. You, in fact, have been the one to get trapped in your own words - not me.

Quote: Another meaningless post from you. Everything you say lacks substance because it's based on blind faith. You're struggling to grab onto anything that looks like a point only to come up empty each time.

Blind faith. Now it is apparent that you don't even read my posts. Go ahead. Challenge me on my blind faith. Let me ask you this: I struggled with the last supper for awhile. Please tell me why "Take this cup..." was so significant. What is it about that phrase that would have made the disciples sit silent? How was that used in their culture and what for? Why did Jesus say that to them? Looked purely at the surface of it's meaning, what did it appear Jesus asked of them? Of course you don't know. Why? Because you simply accuse people of ignorance for believing in a Book but yet you know nothing about it. So, go ahead. Answer these questions and prove that walking in faith with Christ is the farthest thing from blind. But wait, I don't apply logic do I? I don't study history, or the ancient terms and their meanings, or the ancient culture because I'm so damn stupid. I'd be stupid to take what you have to say concerning a topic you've never studied and therefore no nothing about. But go ahead, pull school-yard rank and call me blind, call me whatever, the fact remains, you argue about a Book and a topic that you don't even study or read.

Quote: Wow you don't believe in evolution? No kidding? You're happy to claim up and down how your beliefs are based on reason or logic but it truly appears that you've only reasoned your mind into a corner. You no longer even twist your flawed belief-system to at least match up with proven scientific theories about the world?

So because I said the very thing you did then this post would also apply to you.

Quote: I bet you still think the Earth is flat huh? Is thunder really god bowling? Is lightning god pissed? Is snow his holy dandruff? Did he make the mountains or was that plate tectonics? Is the sky blue because of light striking air particles or was god just in a blue mood when he made it? Did our tail bone really have a use at one time or is god just a practical jokester?

Your point is what? Your rhetoric is boring.

Quote: Do you only except evidence that fits in with the conclusions you desire to be true?

No. Unlike you, I don't carry my "bias" on my sleeve. I have many times been confused about something and felt that it didn't fit. There wasn't enough evidence to prove either way - but, that is where my "religious" faith comes in. You would turn to your non-religious faith.

Quote: Looks like drills was right after all. It IS just your desire and there really isn't any logic or reason involved is there?

You proved nothing. Please, attempt to back up your opinions.

Quote: Gee who'da thunk it huh? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED! NEVER! I WAS COMPLETELY FOOLED INTO THINKING YOUR STANCE WAS BASED ON PURE LOGIC! Oh dear I'm so dissapointed. Thanks for playing kellyo it's been fun.

*sigh* I never claimed it was based off of pure logic. I did mention that one aspect was - the resurrection - but that was it. If one wants to discredit another without evidence or sound reason then all they have is to insult or exaggerate. You're very good at that by the way. How sad.

Kellyo, he never stated that you stated your belief was based off pure logic in that quote. He stated that he thought it was, don't try to make Plukies look bad by putting in extra, non-existent details. He was obviously frustrated with your post.

Next for the "faith" thing, both of you seems to have different definitions in the term. Plukies seems to be using "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," while you appear to be using "loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance." (Dictionary.com for both) Both of you are correct, but you should define important terms before arguing a point.

If you don't believe evolution to be true you obviously have counter-arguments to evolutionary statements. If you do that's good, one thing I found interesting in the quote from Plukies was, "did our tail bone really have a use at one time or is god just a practical jokester?" Why do you think humans have tail bones?

You also said, "you would turn to your non-religious faith." People do not need faith in a negative in order to believe in a negative (e.g. atheism). If someone were to tell you that there was a flying pig outside you would deny it until they proved it so, the same goes for God. The logical thing to do is deny God's existence until it is proven. Thereby not needing "non-religious faith" in order to deny God's existence.

Once again it appears Plukies was annoyed at you because your views appeared to be illogical to him.

Archer79

Nerdly Ghost

Quote by Plunkies"Miracle" is kind of a vague term. Are we talking virgin mary on a cheese toast sandwich? A drunk driver lucky enough not to die in a head on collision? These are the only types of miracles I've seen in modern society.

And even if you did find a real unexplainable event you'd then have to be able to link it to a supernatural being which is obviously impossible. If you can't prove a god exists you obviously can't prove he's done anything specific. If you proved he did something then he would have to exist to have done it right?

Miracle is only a term that has meaning to someone who is already religious.

Hmmm... ...And just a "fantastic anomaly" to those who would prefer to not think about that which they can easily reason? ...Or maybe something else?

Quote by alexjohnc3

If you don't believe evolution to be true you obviously have counter-arguments to evolutionary statements. If you do that's good, one thing I found interesting in the quote from Plukies was, "did our tail bone really have a use at one time or is god just a practical jokester?" Why do you think humans have tail bones?

I have no idea, but either does anyone else.

Quote: You also said, "you would turn to your non-religious faith." People do not need faith in a negative in order to believe in a negative (e.g. atheism). If someone were to tell you that there was a flying pig outside you would deny it until they proved it so, the same goes for God. The logical thing to do is deny God's existence until it is proven. Thereby not needing "non-religious faith" in order to deny God's existence.

This I would disagree. Atheists also believe in a positive: when we die everything ends. You have to have a certain amount of faith in that to believe it.

merged: 03-11-2006 ~ 12:43pm
Plunkies,

Since you are so great at philosophy and understanding what is logical and what is not then I'd like to experience your great knowledge. Here's one for you:

1. Natural laws describe the actual course of events.
2. A miracle is a violation of a natural law.
3. But it is impossible to violate the actual course of events (what is, is; what happens, happens).
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
~Alistair McKinnon

Thought I'd provide one from your side-of-the-fence. However, this has been shown to be false, even by those who are not Christians. So, where's the problem and what is it called?

Again, remember, I, a Christian, don't use logic or reason for my faith. I just go along blindly without any understanding. So, please, enlighten all of us.

Quote: My stance has been solid from post one. Never changing. You, in fact, have been the one to get trapped in your own words - not me.

Hahahahahaha. You must have faith in that too because it isn't based on logic. You seem to like pretending in a lot of things though so you can pretend in that as well if it makes you feel better.

Quote: Your point is what? Your rhetoric is boring.

My point was plain as day but you chose to break it off into a seperate quote, no wonder you think I get trapped in my own words when you somehow manage to misinterpret every damn thing I say. My point was you only accept evidence you desire to be true. How can you deny evolution with all the evidence that supports it and still say your beliefs are based on logic and reasoning? It's simple. You can't. You'd have to deny explanations for almost everything scientific and then insert "goddidit". Obviously there's nothing reasonable about that (except you who apparently thinks it makes perfect sense). And how can you say goddidit without having to equally consider multiple gods?

Quote: Please, attempt to back up your opinions.

I DID. Holy crap you're dense. Finally starting to realize why you think the way you do in the first place. You only hear what you want to hear.

Quote: This I would disagree. Atheists also believe in a positive: when we die everything ends. You have to have a certain amount of faith in that to believe it.

When you die your brain dies. When your brain dies you can no longer think. Not exactly a gigantic leap of faith there is it?

Quote: 1. Natural laws describe the actual course of events.
2. A miracle is a violation of a natural law.
3. But it is impossible to violate the actual course of events (what is, is; what happens, happens).
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
~Alistair McKinnon

Yay more pointless filler from you. Hold on let me attempt to care for a few seconds here....

I dunno I suppose it would depend on whether he means natural laws in a human defined sense, or all natural laws in existence that we know and don't know. If it's the former then our interpretation of natural laws would be considered incomplete if a "miracle" occured, and science would have work to do. If it's the latter, well I guess it's pretty solid (as far as the whole 30 seconds I've considered it) unless you pulled some BS about god not operating within natural laws or some other crap.

There. Now it's your turn. Go disprove that Big L killed your god.

Quote: Again, remember, I, a Christian, don't use logic or reason for my faith. I just go along blindly without any understanding. So, please, enlighten all of us.

Yeah yeah figured that out 4 posts ago. I was thinking about ending this argument a while back but honestly I need the credits, how else am i gonna make my dvd covers?

Oh and I almost forgot...

Quote: Please tell me why "Take this cup..." was so significant. What is it about that phrase that would have made the disciples sit silent?

Okay. Perhaps Jesus said that right before he farted, and everyone went silent just before they all burst out into laughter?

Look I don't care why you struggled with that. I don't study the bible for the same reason you don't study the kuran and every other religious book out there. It's just another stupid book to me. Like I said there's no point in you even bringing it up. From now on whenever you feel the urge to bring up the bible to prove a point about something the bible says is true, just start randomly cursing at me instead. I'll have much more respect for you that way and at least it will be entertaining.

Plunkies,

Your last point sums it up. You argue against the Bible but you don't read it or understand it; therefore, you know nothing about it. Your assumption that I don't read the Qur'an is incorrect. I have read it and studied it. As well as the Book of Mormon, books of Buddha and the Vedas (Hinduism). Why? Because only one can be absolutely true. After that very long effort I made my choice. You too have made a choice and, according to your above post, place your faith in it.

Plukies try not to get into an argument.

Kellyo,

Quote by kellyo

Quote by alexjohnc3

If you don't believe evolution to be true you obviously have counter-arguments to evolutionary statements. If you do that's good, one thing I found interesting in the quote from Plukies was, "did our tail bone really have a use at one time or is god just a practical jokester?" Why do you think humans have tail bones?

I have no idea, but either does anyone else.


Evolution explains why humans have tail bones, a logical reason from an evolution point of view would be that humans developed from animals that have tails. If God existed it would not create a tail bone for the fun of it, if it is for the sake of testing people's faith you could apply that same reasoning to all valid arguments against theism. It doesn't prove anything though except that it's possible that a really annoying God exists.

Therefore evolutionists (is that a word?) think they know why humans have tail bones.

Quote:

Quote: You also said, "you would turn to your non-religious faith." People do not need faith in a negative in order to believe in a negative (e.g. atheism). If someone were to tell you that there was a flying pig outside you would deny it until they proved it so, the same goes for God. The logical thing to do is deny God's existence until it is proven. Thereby not needing "non-religious faith" in order to deny God's existence.

This I would disagree. Atheists also believe in a positive: when we die everything ends. You have to have a certain amount of faith in that to believe it.


Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in god(s). Atheism is a negative, it is fair to say that most atheists think that when you die "everything ends" (which I'm assuming you mean this subjectively to the atheist, not objectively). As Plukies stated it relates to the brain, I think you'll agree that mental functions take place in the brain and therefore once one dies and their brain deteriorates an atheist can say that this person lacks the ability to conceive. Because an atheist would not believe in a god(s) and most likely no afterlife they can say that the person's consciousness has ceased. Therefore the positive assertion only needs the lack of a belief in an afterlife and the knowledge that mental processes are in the brain, no faith.

BTW, could you respond to Plukies' argument relating to natural laws not being able to explain everything?

Quote by alexjohnc3

Quote by kellyoAtheists also believe in a positive: when we die everything ends. You have to have a certain amount of faith in that to believe it.


Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in god(s). Atheism is a negative, it is fair to say that most atheists think that when you die "everything ends" (which I'm assuming you mean this subjectively to the atheist, not objectively). As Plukies stated it relates to the brain, I think you'll agree that mental functions take place in the brain and therefore once one dies and their brain deteriorates an atheist can say that this person lacks the ability to conceive. Because an atheist would not believe in a god(s) and most likely no afterlife they can say that the person's consciousness has ceased. Therefore the positive assertion only needs the lack of a belief in an afterlife and the knowledge that mental processes are in the brain, no faith.

Said that way yes. But, if presented like that, the same then could be said of the Christian - all we'd have to do is substitute a few words. However, since an atheist cannot absolutely prove they're right then they must place a degree of faith into the idea. Same for me. I cannot absolutely prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bible is correct, otherwise everyone would believe it, therefore I must also place a degree of faith.

Quote: BTW, could you respond to Plukies' argument relating to natural laws not being able to explain everything?

Sure. I presented Plunkie with an argument that can be refuted using logic. He made some "if" statements but that was it. So, here's a better response that should fulfill your request.

There are several problems with McKinnon's argument that I posted earlier. Three are particularly worth noting:

1. Begging the question. If McKinnon is correct, miracles cannot be identified in the natural world, since whatever happens will not be a miracle. If whatever happens is a natural event, then of course miracles never happen. This, however, simply begs the question; this definition of natural law is loaded against miracles. No matter what happens within the natural world, it will automatically be called a "natural event." This would eliminate in advance the possibility of any event in the world being a miracle. But this fails to recognize even the possibility that not every event in the world is of the world. For a miracle can be an effect in nature by a cause that is beyond nature. For the mind that makes a computer is beyond the computer, and yet the computer is in the world.

2. Misdefinition. The problem is that McKinnon has misdefined natural laws. Natural laws should not be defined as what actually happens but what regularly happens. As Richard Swinburne points out, "laws of nature do not just describe what happens...They describe what happens in a regular and predictable way." Therefore, "when what happens is entirely irregular and unpredictable, its occurrence is not something describable by natural laws". In this way miracles can be identified as events within nature that fall into the class of the irregular and unpredictable. There may be more to a miracle than an irregular and unpredictable event in the natural world, but they are not less than this. At any rate they cannot be ruled out simply by defining a natural law as what actually occurs. Even though they occur in the natural world, miracles are distinguishable from natural occurrences.

3. Confusing Kinds of Events. Since natural laws deal with regularities and miracles with singularities, miracles cannot possibly be violations of natural laws. They are not even in the same class of events. A miracle is not a mini-natural law; it is a unique event with its own characteristics. Therefore, to claim that miracles don't happen (or should not be believed to have happened), because they do not fall into the class of natural events is a category mistake. By the same logic, we might as well say that no book has an intelligent cause because its origin cannot be explained by the operational laws of physics and chemistry.

Hope that helps.

Quote: Your last point sums it up. You argue against the Bible but you don't read it or understand it; therefore, you know nothing about it. Your assumption that I don't read the Qur'an is incorrect. I have read it and studied it. As well as the Book of Mormon, books of Buddha and the Vedas (Hinduism). Why? Because only one can be absolutely true. After that very long effort I made my choice. You too have made a choice and, according to your above post, place your faith in it.

Awesome dude. Thanks for ignoring the entirety of one of my posts for a second time and going straight for bible blather. I stated before that I have read the bible, and once was one too many times. Does it surprise you that an atheist doesn't study the bible religiously? It really shouldn't so stop bringing it up, it's pointless. And good for you for studying all those other religious books, it's quite a shame you can't study anything that matters in the real world.

Quote: Sure. I presented Plunkie with an argument that can be refuted using logic. He made some "if" statements but that was it. So, here's a better response that should fulfill your request.

BS. I answered it correctly which is why you ignored it until he brought it up. Either you argue definitions or you BS about "beyond nature" crap. Neither of which helps to prove or disprove miracles either way so they're basically irrelevent, just more talk about semantics and stupid syllogisms that no one uses anymore for a reason.

Quote: However, since an atheist cannot absolutely prove they're right then they must place a degree of faith into the idea.

Nope. When you take away everything magical it's the only conclusion you can possibly draw. It's really very simple. When your brain stops functioning your brain stops functioning. It's a fact. If you take a hammer and smash a calculator you don't assume it's up in heaven somewhere doing math. It just stopped working.

Quote by PlunkiesAnd good for you for studying all those other religious books, it's quite a shame you can't study anything that matters in the real world.

Your entitled to your opinion. I'd like to know what does matter to you? What is worth studying for you? It can't be atheism - since it wouldn't matter as well. So what does to you?

Quote:
BS. I answered it correctly which is why you ignored it until he brought it up.

Not quite. I knew you didn't study philosophy and I knew you wouldn't be able to answer my questions concerning McKinnon's argument (this argument was used because this thread is about miracles). However, unlike you, I made the choice to leave your answer alone - until alexjohn asked me to specifically address it.

Quote: Either you argue definitions or you BS about "beyond nature" crap. Neither of which helps to prove or disprove miracles either way so they're basically irrelevent, just more talk about semantics and stupid syllogisms that no one uses anymore for a reason.

Now that's an educated response.

Quote:

Quote by kellyoHowever, since an atheist cannot absolutely prove they're right then they must place a degree of faith into the idea.

Nope. When you take away everything magical it's the only conclusion you can possibly draw. It's really very simple. When your brain stops functioning your brain stops functioning. It's a fact. If you take a hammer and smash a calculator you don't assume it's up in heaven somewhere doing math. It just stopped working.

Again, this is what you place your faith in since you cannot prove that after you die you will not be face to face with Christ. There's no need to argue that because neither of us can prove it well enough to convince the other. So, instead of continue to argue and insult as opposed to debate then let's just agree to disagree. You place your faith in your beliefs and I mine.

Mm... I skipped most of it cuz it's so long ^^;;; And who really cares when you guys just name call each other about nit-picky things. It's all pointless if you're just there to bash people because of what they said. So you don't believe it - at least make some argument behind why instead of nit-picking about word choice or whatever the heck.

That said. My opinion: I think they both support science and religion. Like someone mentioned, science has improved with time. We just don't know everything there is to know at the time. And will we ever? I don't know. But at the same time, I think it also supports religion in the sense that there is an ultimate Creator. He can do things that seem impossible for us now. And yah sure, maybe science will improve to the point later in time that we could do it ourselves too. But by then, who cares if it's something like cancer? The person'll be dead by then... And by then, there'll just be more life problems/diseases.

Kind of a miracle story that I heard before (not my own). Just to keep it short, I'll make it simple. And whether you want to believe it or not and whatever your opinion is behind it, that's up to you. A couple was really depressed/hopeless because their young daughter was diagnosed with an uncurable disease and the doctors didn't even know what they could do for her. But after much praying and time, their daughter was cured and the doctors had no explanation for it.

I don't think it'll proves anything if you're disbelieving, but it's a story. And I think things like that happen all the time.

As for some previous comment made about why God doesn't just do miracles or what not to prove his existance. If he proved his existance, there would be no room for all of your disbelieving gainsay. But that's not His point. His point is to give you choice in your life. If you want to believe that He doesn't exist, then it's your choice. Just as much as it is my choice and kellyo's choice to believe that He does exist.

As for desire to believe and have faith, our "desire" to believe that He exists is like your "desire" to believe that everything in the Bible is just punk-ass bogus. Who's right? I believe I'm right just like you believe you're right.

ProgramZERO

ProgramZERO

The Lost Generation

Quote by unicorn2006Many discussions about religion and/or science bring in various types of support or evidence for their respective camps. It also seems like most of them are logic and science-based arguments.

Then what about things/events that are unexplainable and illogical from current humanity's point of view? More specifically, what do we make of 'miracles' that purportedly occur today in modern society?

Do miracles actually happen? If so, can they be used as 'evidence' to support religion and/or to detract from the scientific camp?

When I hear of miracles, I hear it on tv shows and stuff. Tv shows that aim at attracting as many viewers as possible. Since the majority of citizenry in the US is Christian, they stick to these shows like a magnet. Usually, reports of "miracles" happen to be rumors but are still put on the press so as to attract readers. An example would be the amount of rumors that were reported in the news after Katrina hit that were later reported as to being untrue, uncorroborated, or exaggerated. Same thing happens with "miracles". Some super-religious woman says that her son was "cured by God" from some disease and the media is all over it. Eventually, one has got to ask themselves "what about the unceasing effort of the doctors and of modern medicine?" BTW, if miracles truly exist, why is the number of people who have been cured from AIDS continue to be zero? Where is God or Jesus then?o_0

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

page 2 of 3 « Previous 1 2 3 Next » 65 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.