Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Antecedent Probability Principle, the Proportional Principle & Carl Sagan
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 72 (657895)
03-31-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tangle
03-31-2012 7:08 PM


Tangle writes:
By the time I was old enough to understand the concepts you mention - hot, iron, don't etc, I had had overwhelming evidence that my mother was trustworty.
There is no need to expound on this point to the length you have. You becoming old enough has nothing to do with NoNukes point. His point was as children with no knowledge of something we accept that there could be knowledge out there that goes beyond our childlike thinking even tho we don't know what it is. That's the analogy. You growing up does not give you a better understanding of the unknown. We will always have childllike thinking when it comes to the unknown.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2012 7:08 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 3:50 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 72 (657935)
04-01-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
04-01-2012 3:50 AM


I didn't mean the length of words, I meant to say taking the point to far. And yeah, I probably got it all wrong what NoNukes meant. I guess i missed it.
Then i'll say it myself. As a child we think like children. It doesn't mean that that's where the knowledge ends. And if the SN is real (Which I believe it is) then to me it's the same thing. Our finite minds now, cannot grasp the SN world. It doesn't mean it doesnt exist and it doesn't mean that miracles don't happen. Maybe not all miracles can be recognized by people as such. It doesn't mean there are no miracles happening just because we don't understand them.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 3:50 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 72 (657939)
04-01-2012 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tangle
04-01-2012 7:22 AM


They accept biblical (and other) miracles based on unevidenced beliefs. That is irrational.
What is your definition of miracles? If something happened to me that is out of the ordinary, and I was praying for it, how is that unevidenced? What do you arttibute it to? Luck? Coincidence?
You can take my word for it can't you? Just like you did your moms with the iron?
The distinction is largely irrelevant as we can't even trust the accounts of the miracles to be accurate.
Of course, but you trust your mom about the iron right? Maybe not some mom you never met but you do in fact trust somebody.
But to take one from the NT at random, the raising of Lazarus either didn't happen or could be explained naturally - pick one, most disbelievers wouldn't care which. We have no evidence for any of it so the only rational position is to be totally skeptical.
I don't get it. Are you saying no ones ever been brough back to life after they died?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 7:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2012 1:40 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 5:00 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 72 (657941)
04-01-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
04-01-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Tangle writes:
Why stick to those two theories? I'm happy to say that the search for knowledge about our world is always rational and seems self evident - it's on you to say why it isn't.
Seriously? So you think as long as something is being explored it's rational then no matter what is being explored? Then whats the problem you're having with miracles?
NoNukes asked why you think exploring string theory is rational. Surley you don't think it's rational just because they are exploring it right? What are your reasons?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 7:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 10:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 72 (657982)
04-01-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
04-01-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Tangle writes:
er, I AM saying that it's rational to research string theory and any other evidenced based subject.
Yeah, and that's the problem. What current evidence is there for string theory? About the same as miracles? Yet you say it's rational to explore string theory, why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 12:04 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 3:47 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 72 (657990)
04-01-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tangle
04-01-2012 3:47 PM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
So your rationale is based on the process and not the thing being investigated or explored?
Apply what to miracles? The same approach that is applied to string theory? Why? With all things being equal there can be the same process of investigation into miracles as string theory. Just different methods. Can it not?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 3:47 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 04-01-2012 4:29 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 4:54 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 72 (657999)
04-01-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
04-01-2012 5:00 PM


I'm not trying to prove to you miracles exist, even tho I believe they do. We're talking about whats rational or not.
What do you consider to be miraculous? The miraculous can cross over into the natural or how else would we be able to know it exists? The SN and the natural are compatable with eachother not incompatable.
People die then come back to life sometimes and we don't know why exactly all time time regardless how it happened. How are you defining miraculous?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 5:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 04-01-2012 5:54 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 6:02 PM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2012 6:46 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 72 (658056)
04-02-2012 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tangle
04-02-2012 5:47 AM


Re: What evidence??
Tangle writes:
My position is that if there was no rational basis for the enquiry into string theory, there would be no funding for it. Moreover, a cursory glance at the 'theory' throws up many reasons why it's a reasonable thing to consider given the evidence, and may indeed have testable outcomes - albeit difficult/contentious.
-bold mine
Can you give us some of that evidence?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2012 5:47 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2012 6:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 72 (658057)
04-02-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
04-01-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Apples with apples...
PaulK writes:
If you're going to talk about rationality it would help to express just what ideas you are comparing - and to be sure that they really are comparable.
Unevidenced claims is what we are comparing.
The OP was about belief in a specific miracle - and individual event.
String theory is a theory, not an individual event.
Is dismissing something like miracles irrational to do because at the moment there is insufficiant evidence to suggest they may occur?
Is dismissing string theory at the moment irrational because there is insufficiant evidence to suggest that it is the answer to the universe?
So what precisely are the beliefs that you trying to compare ?
Unevidenced ones based on insufficiant evidence.
Only when we know that can we compare the strength with which a belief is held - if it is held at all - and the evidence supporting that belief.
I don't believe it's irrational to investigate miracles when other unevidenced claims are also being investigated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2012 6:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2012 7:58 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 72 (658058)
04-02-2012 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
04-01-2012 6:02 PM


Tangle writes:
A miracle would be if the guy that came back to life had been decapitated, burned to a cinder, shot 10 times in the heart etc etc. funny how the uncontroversially dead NEVER come back to life isn't it?
No, actually it's not really that funny. You don't seem to understand what miracles are. You seem to think they are things that happen in horror movies apperantly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 6:02 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2012 6:08 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 72 (658060)
04-02-2012 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
03-30-2012 2:41 PM


Tangle writes:
The logical conclusion of this argument is that miracles cannot exist. This is because the more extraordinary the event, the less credible it must be, and as a miracle defies a natural law - which is impossible - they therefore cannot exist
This is from the OP. So is it your postion that miracles cannot exist?
Is it also your position that if the SN exists it cannot defy natural laws?
Do you claim that miracles cannot exist because the SN does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2012 2:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2012 6:22 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 72 (658061)
04-02-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
04-02-2012 6:08 AM


What is a miracle?
Since it's your thread, can you define miracle before I give an example?
I have prayed for healing for myself before and I was healed. Is that a miracle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2012 6:08 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2012 6:28 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 04-02-2012 8:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024