Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:18 AM
336 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7071
72
7374
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1066 of 1250 (824765)
12-03-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by Phat
12-03-2017 11:10 AM


Re: Tales Told Round A Campfire
Phat writes:

Is a given event declared a miracle by consensus or strictly by evidence?


There can be evidence that an unexplained event happened. There can not be evidence that it was a miracle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 11:10 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1067 of 1250 (824770)
12-03-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1064 by jar
12-03-2017 12:46 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Jar writes:

I will tell you I don't know if wine can be turned into blood.

You know absolutely for sure that wine can't be changed into blood by someone talking at it. You know that there is no possible mechanism for it. You know it to be utterly impossible.

I know I don't know how to do it but if there was evidence that it happened my position would be "It happened but I don't know how!" not "It's a miracle."

That's because you know that miracles don't happen. It would seem like a magic trick or a fraud or somesuch. But if all of a sudden ever chalice in the land turned into blood and there was no other possible explanation you'd be left with the miracle.

Sorry but you have not presented any reason to think it a miracle other then you believe it is impossible.

It would be a miracle because what has happened is impossible.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 12:46 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1068 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 3:13 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 1069 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 3:48 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1068 of 1250 (824775)
12-03-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1067 by Tangle
12-03-2017 1:47 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Tangle writes:

That's because you know that miracles don't happen. It would seem like a magic trick or a fraud or somesuch. But if all of a sudden ever chalice in the land turned into blood and there was no other possible explanation you'd be left with the miracle.

No, I would be left with an unexplained event. You might be left with a miracle but that does not mean I would be left with a miracle.

Tangle writes:

It would be a miracle because what has happened is impossible.

Too funny.

No, if it happened then it is certainly not impossible.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2017 1:47 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1070 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2017 3:51 PM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1069 of 1250 (824777)
12-03-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1067 by Tangle
12-03-2017 1:47 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
It would be a miracle because what has happened is impossible.
So in your mind, the only thing that is really possible is something that has a natural explanation.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2017 1:47 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1072 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 4:52 PM Phat has responded
 Message 1082 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2017 5:48 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1070 of 1250 (824778)
12-03-2017 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1068 by jar
12-03-2017 3:13 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
jar writes:

Too funny.

This has become your tell.

No, if it happened then it is certainly not impossible.

If the impossible happens we call it a miracle. As you know.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 3:13 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1071 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 4:49 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1071 of 1250 (824780)
12-03-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1070 by Tangle
12-03-2017 3:51 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Tangle writes:

If the impossible happens we call it a miracle. As you know.

Still funny.

If it happened it is not impossible. YOU can call it a miracle if you want but I still see nothing that shows it was a miracle.

But whatever keeps you happy.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2017 3:51 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1072 of 1250 (824781)
12-03-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1069 by Phat
12-03-2017 3:48 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Phat writes:

So in your mind, the only thing that is really possible is something that has a natural explanation.

Phat if it happens in the real world then it is certainly possible. We may not be able to explain it; we may believe it is a miracle, but that does not make it a miracle.

Miracles involve some supernatural intervention but I cannot think of anyway any supernatural intervention could be seen, determined or evidenced.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1069 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 3:48 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1073 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 5:02 PM jar has responded
 Message 1074 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2017 5:16 PM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1073 of 1250 (824782)
12-03-2017 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by jar
12-03-2017 4:52 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
But what if the supernatural agent wanted to be seen?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 4:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1075 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 5:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1074 of 1250 (824784)
12-03-2017 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by jar
12-03-2017 4:52 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
ringo writes:

Miracles involve some supernatural intervention but I cannot think of anyway any supernatural intervention could be seen, determined or evidenced.

Your failure of imagination is not relevant.

A supernatural intervention - what you agree would be a miracle - must involve intervention in the natural world. Any supernatural intervention would create an observable event. A child could tell that a miracle is “an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws” and could give you an example of a dozen possibilities in a minute.

But you're fully aware of all this so I guess that's all for now.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 4:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1076 by jar, posted 12-03-2017 5:46 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1075 of 1250 (824794)
12-03-2017 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1073 by Phat
12-03-2017 5:02 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Phat writes:

But what if the supernatural agent wanted to be seen?

Then I think the supernatural agent has a problem. If it can be seen and tested what would show it is supernatural?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1073 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 5:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1076 of 1250 (824795)
12-03-2017 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1074 by Tangle
12-03-2017 5:16 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Tangle writes:

A supernatural intervention - what you agree would be a miracle - must involve intervention in the natural world. Any supernatural intervention would create an observable event. A child could tell that a miracle is “an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws” and could give you an example of a dozen possibilities in a minute.

Fortunately I grew up and am no longer a child.

Yes, a child could do that; they are still children. But if something can be shown to have happened then it is not impossible.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1074 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2017 5:16 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1077 of 1250 (824812)
12-03-2017 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1062 by Percy
12-03-2017 11:49 AM


I agree, you are right, I just reacted with a sort of blurt and didn't give enough information to make it clear what I had in mind. I was simply reacting to jar. And no I won't discuss such irrelevant nonsense with him..
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by Percy, posted 12-03-2017 11:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1078 of 1250 (824815)
12-03-2017 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1060 by Percy
12-03-2017 11:38 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
Percy writes:

From a scientific perspective, theoretically miracles should not exist, and from an experimental/observational standpoint they've never been observed.

They've been observed and described by hundreds, thousands, but the reports of those observations are simply denied by you on the basis of your own prejudice and nothing else.

I was speaking, as I said, "From a scientific perspective..." If you want to have faith that miracles are real then that's fine, but from a scientific perspective they have no more evidence than leprechauns, Santa Claus, and Bilbo Baggins.

Observation is observation and there is no way to test a miracle experimentally since it is a one-time event in the past, so if you refuse to believe the reported observations of others you've made it impossible to believe miracles occur even when they do actually occur.

...you simply will never believe in miracles though millions of others have seen them.

This is the "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" fallacy yet again.

No it is not. It is a simple if-then proposition. The millions seeing them are the premise -- they SAW them, it's not hypothetical, and if this was the case you would have no way to know it because you refuse to trust witness reports.

...but the supernatural is real and those who consider it real know quite well how to tell the difference.

Now there's a very interesting unsupported claim. Just how does one tell when one is witnessing the supernatural and tell that it is real?

The same way you can tell a dream from the room you wake up in.

Miracles seem to be the realm of fantasy (I'm not sure whether to classify fantasy and the supernatural as separate things or as the same thing) and religion. Fantasy, by definition not part of reality, is not amenable to scientific study.

But it is fantasy only in your own fantasies.

You misunderstand, and you quoted too little of what I said. Miracles are the realm of fantasy and religion, which are two different things. Miracles in fantasy works of fiction are just fantasies, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Where you and I disagree is about the miraculous claims of religion.

I have no idea what the point of this distinction is supposed to be.

Also, Christians don't use the term "religion" as you do,...

I define the term "religion" in the same way you do, it's just that you refuse to acknowledge that flim flam is a big part of religion. If that's not true then explain Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff and Robert Tilton among many, many, many others. Religion is big industry.

Fake religion is big industry, genuine Christianity is not, and there are Christians galore who call those guys fakes and charlatans.

We DO believe the accounts of the Bible as records of actual historical events, and I'd say there's plenty of good reason for that, but convincing you doesn't seem to be a possibility.

You've never given a good answer as to why your holy books are superior to other religion's holy books.

The differences are enormous and any literate person ought to be able to see it with some careful reading, but if you can't even tell genuine history from fiction, the style of an honest reporter from a fantasy writer, I have to give up.

No, you believe in the historicity of Napolean and Khan and anybody else because you believe the written reports so apparentlly you assume the reports are honest reports. But since you deny such an obvious point I'm going to drop that one too.

That's a lot to claim to know about the supernatural and how it interacts with the real world. Without a careful scientific study, there's no way for you to know this.

One knows the supernatural by experience and by reports of trustworthy witnesses and by the revelation of God. But there's no point in trying to argue with you about that either.

The only such thing I've ever seen was not a miracle, but the appearance of an apparition or "ghost" but I didn't need to have that experience to know they can occur because I'm one of those who believe the many others who have described such things, people I know to be reasonable and honest and able to distinguish the products of their own mind from external realities.

This is a very credulous thing for you to say.

Well, I too can tell the difference, and I think you could too if you weren't too confused by your own assumptions. Another topic to drop here.

In fact perhaps what you really need is a little more faith in your fellow man rather than this weird fantastical version of "faith" you think "religious" people have.

We have a pretty good idea of the reliability of people as eyewitnesses, and the conclusion is that they're damn poor at it. What we think we know about reality is learned through study, observation, experiment, and replication, all missing from religion. If the supernatural can manifest itself in the real world, then it can be studied.

No it cannot unless it can be required to perform on cue and it cannot. There is no way to study something that occurs without warning and can't be repeated on command. And you are talking completely abstractly about eyewitnesses. If someone you know well and trust tells you about an experience of the supernatural, or you have one yourself, that could be a test of your stubborn theories about these things, but I'm not holding my breath. Another topic bit the dust.

(I'm speaking only of Christians in all this, please don't drag us off into all the other religions which are not really comparable.)

People who have strong evidence for their position don't need to unilaterally exclude other sources of evidence.

Sorry, there is no comparison between Christianity and any other religion. Christianity is God's own revelation to the human race, other religions are human observations of supernatural things or the inventions of demons. But there's no point in arguing this either with someone whose mind is utterly closed to the evidence there is for such things.

Time to call it quits on this. Maybe Mod has more energy to continue it, I don't.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1060 by Percy, posted 12-03-2017 11:38 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1079 by Percy, posted 12-04-2017 3:45 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16298
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1079 of 1250 (824873)
12-04-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1078 by Faith
12-03-2017 10:35 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:

Time to call it quits on this. Maybe Mod has more energy to continue it, I don't.

Up to you, but I don't believe you, because of your long history of using this as a ploy to forestall or at least minimize responses. I can't believe you're pulling this yet again. Are you operating under some delusion that despite all your time here we still haven't learned your modus operandi?

This is from the Wikipedia article on Miracles. The first opinion pretty much sums up my own and was, unbeknownst to me, held by Thomas Jefferson. The second opinion, the one advanced by David Hume, seems closer to Modulous's opinion. The third opinion, that of theologians, I also agree with, that the probability of miracles is the same as that of God:

quote:
A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many rational and scientific thinkers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) or impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). The former position is expressed for instance by Thomas Jefferson and the latter by David Hume. Theologians typically say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through nature yet, as a creator, is free to work without, above, or against it as well. The possibility and probability of miracles are then equal to the possibility and probability of the existence of God.

I think your faith in eyewitnesses to miracles is misplaced. First, you don't really have millions of eyewitnesses to miracles, just lots of stories about people seeing miracles, and anyway, the closer you get to methodical approaches to truth the more unreliable eyewitnesses are discovered to be. Second, miracles never leave evidence behind that can be examined by us today, always being that special class of event that either took place long ago or that was something seen but left no physical evidence behind. Third, addressing your claim of the unpredictable nature of miracles that are nonetheless seen by millions, given how many people are taking images and videos everywhere all the time, how is it that just by chance not a single miracle has yet been captured electronically? My bet is that no miracle ever will.

I also think your faith in your ability to tell the supernatural from the natural or the real from the fictional is misplaced.

I also think your belief in the superiority of Christianity over all other religions is misplaced and is merely a simple conceit possessed by many devout adherents of many different religions.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1078 by Faith, posted 12-03-2017 10:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2017 4:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1091 by Faith, posted 12-05-2017 2:40 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1080 of 1250 (824875)
12-04-2017 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1079 by Percy
12-04-2017 3:45 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
quote:

The second opinion, the one advanced by David Hume, seems closer to Modulous's opinion

It’s the view that jar has been putting forward. The one that Faith can’t understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by Percy, posted 12-04-2017 3:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1081 by jar, posted 12-04-2017 4:39 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7071
72
7374
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017