08 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat basis do you have for that claim?
What basis do you have for that claim?
Your own God has supposed to have performed miracles that could have been identified by physical sciences. Note that I'm not claiming it is proof. I'm perfectly aware of the fallibility of science as it is today and its possible limitations even in the far future.
Basically, all I'm saying is that it is not ...[text shortened]... tact with such phenomena, this is evidence that they do not exist. Mere evidence, not proof.
A philosophical one.
Your own God has supposed to have performed miracles that could have been identified by physical sciences.
You're confusing the identification of physical phenomena and the identification of those phenomena as 'miracles' (in much the same way as you confused the identification of physical pieces of paper or data stored in computers with the identification of 'stocks' and 'bonds'😉.
Let's take the miracle of Bartimaeus (the blind beggar). What are the relevant data to a medical researcher investigating this event? Is his talking to Jesus relevant? No. Is his request, "Lord, I want to see" relevant? No. Is the fact that he was blind before, but can see now (one that we would not expect), relevant? Yes, but only as a starting point of investigation.
Let's go a step further. Suppose Bartimaeus's blindness was caused by damage to his optic nerves. Let's say that the cure was achieved by the healing of those optic nerves. Whereas before there were no nerves connecting his eye to his brain, now there are fresh neurons there. Say the researcher knows that, according to established neurophysiological theories, nerves cannot regenerate. In her scientific paradigm, Bartimaeus's case will need to be resolved by altering or rejecting the earlier theory. Any new theory that takes its place will necessarily look to aspects of neurophysiology for an explanation. Out of domain factors (such as God or metaphysics) would simply not be proper candidates for her investigation.
Suppose she discovers that the new nerves were formed by the "re-activation" of certain genes in surrounding nerve cells that are normally de-activated in infancy (when neurons stop dividing). This is not unheard of - it happens in some cancer cells, in fact. The gene subsequently deactivated once the optic nerves were repaired. This too is not unheard of - cancers do go into remission. As far as she is concerned, a purely scientific (i.e. her science) explanation has been produced. Perhaps there are still open questions about what caused the gene to first activate and then deactivate, but these would be issues for similar further enquiry.
The point is, from a scientific perspective, the totality of the situation is not relevant. The fact that a cancer broke out in Bartimaeus's nervous system that had the precise effect of curing his blindness and then went into remission would, to most observers, be an exceedingly strange event; to a scientist it is not relevant as long as it fits the established theory or helps create a new one. Her view is a sliver of the event, a filtered look at a specific aspect of what happened. The term 'miracle' is meaningless in neurophysiology, as in most of science.
As a person who views reality on many levels, an individual scientist may find such an event remarkable; but with her "scientific hat" on, she only sees what's properly within the domain of her science.
Basically, all I'm saying is that it is not through observation of physical evidence that one becomes a theist, as that type of evidence points clearly the other way.
And I'm saying that's based on a flawed philosophical understanding of the nature and scope of scientific investigation. A physicist, a biologist, an economist and a sociologist looking at the same event (e.g. a person withdrawing money from a bank) all "see" different pieces of evidence that are relevant to their domains.
Faith, divine inspiration even revelation (as far as I know) are not yet identifiable or measurable scientifically and they may very well never be.
Neither are love, family, beauty, abstract numbers and a million other things that are not within the domain of science.
08 Dec 06
I said before that our existance as creature is clear evidence of creator existance. But Palynka thought I'm idiot because I didn't understand that his parents created him.
I will try to explain my idea about creation...
I work in computers, and I'm doing PhD in computer engineering. I have created a lot of things during my work. Currently I'm working on using evolutionatry algorithms to design systems. It simply using algorithms that resimple the biological evolution to create DSP systems. So I will exactly do the same what most people think that the nature do for us.
Given specific contraints (usually defined by me) and application it is required to design a hardware system to implement this application.
So I started to put rules that controlr the evolution. I desinged the cromosome representation for each design and all the mechanisms required to breeding to produce generations. I define the selection mechanism that select the most fit designes , so the best individuals are kept alife and the worse die. I also define the fitness scheme for each individual. Then using crossover and mutation each pair of the selected individuals are used to generate other individual.
Then starting from a random generations of designs my program start working to generate more individuals. And because I'm using computer I'm able to go through 400 generation in a single run and I can trace the improvement in each generation.
So I simply I do every thing you assume happen in evolution theory for living species. But I have a question for every one. Do you think without me could this evolution system create itself?
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs a person who views reality on many levels, an individual scientist may find such an event remarkable; but with her "scientific hat" on, she only sees what's properly within the domain of her science.
[b]What basis do you have for that claim?
A philosophical one.
Your own God has supposed to have performed miracles that could have been identified by physical sciences.
You're confusing the identification of physical phenomena and the identification of those phenomena as 'miracles' (in much the same way as you confused the ident ...[text shortened]... and a million other things that are not within the domain of science.[/b]
Very likely to be true for a vast number of scientists, you might even call it professional defect. However, the fact remains that if that the event itself is testable and there's no reason for the scientist to actually exclude the circumstances, especially when the event is so peculiar.
The term 'miracle' might be meaningless in modern science exactly because there is no evidence for its existence.
Neither are love, family, beauty, abstract numbers and a million other things that are not within the domain of science.
Why aren't they? Mathematics (as we would have to discuss if it fits the definition of science we're using) and beauty (as it is a relativist concept) aside all those things can and are studied by several branches of science.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I said, the number of young Earth creationists is a very small minority among theists. I doubt that even in America the number of fundamentalists is as high as some statisticians claim.
Please read my post again. I did say they were not in the majority.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadthere is a God.Save yourself alot of aggravation. Go to the library and start to read . Start with theology , anything you want... all roads will lead you too a clear question mark as to whether we are related to the squirrel and the salamander or are a unique species unst to ourselves in spirit and in body. big b.
I realize that the thread title will get lots of views but why not!
In the Qu'ran thread I stated that I am personally certain that there is no God and one of the many reasons for that is that in my opinion there is significant evidence that there is no God. Several people said they would be interested in knowing what that evidence is.
I don't think a t ...[text shortened]... , it makes me sure that there isn't a God who exists and is trying to communicate with me.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by biggest bIf we were to rely on twhitehead to demonstrate to us that God didn't exist, we would all become theists in short order.
there is a God.Save yourself alot of aggravation. Go to the library and start to read . Start with theology , anything you want... all roads will lead you too a clear question mark as to whether we are related to the squirrel and the salamander or are a unique species unst to ourselves in spirit and in body. big b.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadif ur kids possessed by bad spirit , whos u gonna call for help? police or priest?
I realize that the thread title will get lots of views but why not!
In the Qu'ran thread I stated that I am personally certain that there is no God and one of the many reasons for that is that in my opinion there is significant evidence that there is no God. Several people said they would be interested in knowing what that evidence is.
I don't think a t ...[text shortened]... , it makes me sure that there isn't a God who exists and is trying to communicate with me.