Originally posted by HalitoseThey're elusive alright. But I am not sure they constitute a minority. You may be thinking of Elvis rather than the Elvish.
[b]How can we be sure that it was the work of your God and not the elvish?
The elvish are more elusive -- and constitute a minority in the supernatural market.[/b]
That gets me thinking: can Elvis heal a damaged ear drum? Some say his music is therapeutic.
Originally posted by stockenFlawed analogy warning. I repeat. Flawed analogy warning.
Flawed analogy warning. I repeat. Flawed analogy warning.
If God is an architect like the ones creating houses, then he did not create the inhabitants of his creation and therefore we are free to kick him out.
[Edit]
Or is that what you're actually saying?.. :
That's the understatement of the week. Your warning should follow every single one of these architect posts. There's enough anthropormorphizing going on in this thread that geneticists should check it for viable stem cells.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThank you for responding (I really do want to talk about this topic).
[b]If one concludes, before the evidence is found, that nothing can be caused by God, then the evidence will never point towards Him. And that's not science.
I agree. Good science does not a priori reject the possibility of supernatural explanations. But it does lean toward a regimen of contingent naturalism. This is warranted since natur ...[text shortened]... damaged ear drums. How can we be sure that it was the work of your God and not the elvish?[/b]
I agree with you, a miracle not evidence of God any more than it’s evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the problem I'm seeing is that this is where most scientific types stop (thus the 'evidence must to be looked before it can be found' statement).
But what if science did want to find out what cured the boy's ear?
Well, we have the entire list you gave (plus a bunch more) that are all equally likely to have done it. What would be a scientist's next step? He'd have to weed out that list, right?
We know that the SuperNatural Critter (SNC) that did the healing interacts with humans (it healed the boy). Thus it's logical to look for more evidence of SNCs interacting with humans.
We do have a short list of books that have been written that humans say are linked to some SNC. And it's reasonable to assume that if an SNC interacted with humans once, it would be willing to do it again. So maybe it already has.
Now we have 2 lists of SNCs, those with writings (the short list) and those without (the long list). All possibilities are still on the list, it's just that some are more likely to have healed the boy than others based upon its tendency to interact with humans. Does this mean you can write a book and claim it's from the Flying Spaghetti Monster and get it on the short list? Yes.
What would a scientist do next? Examine the writings seems a logical choice. If an SNC inspired/dictated some info to a human, it's reasonable to expect that writing to have some indication of it. If the writing has no SNC influence, we can't be sure it wasn't written by some guy falsely claiming to be a prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There was a guy named Ezekiel, who claimed to be a prophet of God (Eze 1:1-3), who wrote in 586BC that God spoke to him about the city of Tyre and said, “And they shall plunder your riches, and make a prey of your merchandise. And they shall break down your walls and destroy your desirable houses. And they shall lay your stones and your timber and your dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of your songs to cease; and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. And I will make you like a shining rock. You shall be a place to spread nets on; you shall be built no more; for I Jehovah have spoken, says the Lord Jehovah.” (Eze 26:12-14)
So far, it’s just a claim like many others. Can it be shown that this prophesy came true?
In 332 BC (254 years later) Alexander the Great attacked the city of Tyre which had moved itself out onto an island when Nebuchadnezzar attacked them in 573BC. Since Alexander didn’t have a fleet and needed take that city, he took the ruins of the mainland Tyre (left behind by Nebuchadnezzar) and threw every stone into the sea to build a causeway for his army. He left behind only the flat bedrock the city was originally built on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_%28332_BC%29)
Is there any way Ezekiel could have known what was going to happen 254 years later? It’s not likely, no. Therefore, Ezekiel’s SNC becomes one of the more likely to have healed the boy’s ear.
To me, this is where science leads if one applies it to something like a miracle. Unless, of course, I’ve made a non-scientific leap along the way, which I’d be happy to have someone point out.
DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendLike I said before, good science should not a priori reject the possibility of supernatural explanations. If no natural explanation has yet been found, is it reasonable for the scientist to seek supernatural explanations? I think so, yes.
Thank you for responding (I really do want to talk about this topic).
I agree with you, a miracle not evidence of God any more than it’s evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the problem I'm seeing is that this is where most scientific types stop (thus the 'evidence must to be looked before it can be found' statement).
But what if science di ...[text shortened]... -scientific leap along the way, which I’d be happy to have someone point out.
DF
So, OK, the scientist delves into the supernatural literature, and let's suppose he happens upon the words of Ezekiel to which you refer. The scientist is intrigued by the words and he thus hammers out a hypothesis: namely, that the eardrum healing may be the work of Ezekiel's SNC. The good scientist doesn't stop there, though. He next would consider possible ways that he could test this hypothesis, with the goal of being able to draw compelling conclusions concerning the truth value of the hypothesis.
And that is where this scientist will hit a fundamental brick wall because the supernatural hypotheses are generally not testable. That doesn't mean the supernatural solution is wrong -- only that it probably will never be compelling. Keep in mind, many natural solutions have never been properly put to the test either, and are usually properly reported as such; but at least with these natural solutions, we can muster some hope that appropriate testing techniques will exist someday.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf you're saying that we can't scientifically prove that God healed the boy's ear, I agree. God requires a step of faith before He'll show Himself, and so such a proof will never exist.
Like I said before, good science should not a priori reject the possibility of supernatural explanations. If no natural explanation has yet been found, is it reasonable for the scientist to seek supernatural explanations? I think so, yes.
So, OK, the scientist delves into the supernatural literature, and let's suppose he happens upon the wor ...[text shortened]... l solutions, we can muster some hope that appropriate testing techniques will exist someday.
But shouldn't the scientist be able to infer the existance of God from the evidence with at least as much surety as he can infer the existance of dark matter? (from my org post on this thread) And yet the scientist types will accept that dark matter exists and not God. I don't understand why.
DF
Dark Matter? Yes scientists have detected it and in some ways observed or measured it or there would probably be no hypotheses about it. Gravity is also a method of detection. However it is not the only possible explanation for the observations and thus to a large extent remains a hypothesis.
Some people have tried to prove or disproove the existance of God using science but in many cases they fail to follow the scientific method because of a strongly biased view point ie they feel that they know the answer and will do anything to make the results fit.
ID is an example of a hypothesis which attempts to claim the existance of an inteligent designer and then to proove it scientifically. However all such arguments to date have been shown to be flawed but proponent refuse to accept that which is a sign of bad science.
Originally posted by DragonFriend
To me, this is where science leads if one applies it to something like a miracle. Unless, of course, I’ve made a non-scientific leap along the way, which I’d be happy to have someone point out.
Your hypothesis that a successfull prophesy from a prophets many thousands of years ago implies that the likelyhood that other statements by the same prophet were accurate and thus the source or the curing of a boys ear in present day can be identified is flawed in so many ways. For your hypothesis to be even remotely scientific you must first show the following:
1. All other prophets with conflicting views have been less accurate.
2. All prophesies by the origional prophet in question were accurate.
3. The prophesies were sufficiently specific to be statistically highly unlikely to come true by mere chance. (this is a particularly hard one to proove)
4. There is no non-miracle explanation for the boys healling.
It would also be important for other similar evidence to be available and also other testable predictions to be possible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that I'd have to prove the healing wasn't everything else before I could call it a miracle. No, that's not science either. We all know you can't prove a negative.
Dark Matter? Yes scientists have detected it and in some ways observed or measured it or there would probably be no hypotheses about it. Gravity is also a method of detection. However it is not the only possible explanation for the observations and thus to a large extent remains a hypothesis.
Some people have tried to prove or disproove the existance o ...[text shortened]... t for other similar evidence to be available and also other testable predictions to be possible.
According to Wikipedia, "In cosmology, dark matter refers to hypothetical matter particles, ..." Hypothetical matter means it's not been measured directly, which agrees with the articles I've read about it. Can you give me a reference of someone who has measured it directly?
As far as I gather, it's been assumed to exist based on anomolies in other readings.
My point is that the scientific types put their faith in science while calling me more kinds of stupid than I can count for putting my faith in God. Webster's defines faith as: 2b: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. That certainly discribes my belief in God (God will never be proven to exist) but it also describes the scientists belief in dark matter, dark energy, that life started via evolution, etc. So why am I wrong and they right?
DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendNot that you're necessarily wrong...but (to generalise) a scientist will change his mind when the facts change (can't remember who said that first), while a theist will try force the facts to fit. So, if it turns out there's something wrong with the theory on dark matter, scientists may conclude that they were wrong...will a theist ever admit being wrong about their basic premise?
So why am I wrong and they right?DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendThere is one major problem with your example. From your Wiki quote itself, dark matter is "hypothetical" (i.e. a hypothesis). This means that dark matter is an idea that harmonizes the current data (the anomolies) and that makes predictions about what else we should find in the data. It is NOT something that scientists assume to be true or take to be true on faith.
If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that I'd have to prove the healing wasn't everything else before I could call it a miracle. No, that's not science either. We all know you can't prove a negative.
According to Wikipedia, "In cosmology, dark matter refers to hypothetical matter particles, ..." Hypothetical matter means it's not been ...[text shortened]... energy, that life started via evolution, etc. So why am I wrong and they right?
DF
Scientists may consider what else might be true IF dark matter does exist. This does not mean that the scientist has put his/her faith in dark matter rather it means that he/she will not stand idly by waiting for proof/disproof of the dark matter hypothesis, but he/she will instead create other hypotheses that are contingent on the existence of dark matter. If the dark matter hypothesis is later shown to be inconsistent with observation (or another hypothesis better fits and predicts the data), then the scientist must accept the demise of his/her contingent hypotheses as well.
In contrast, the believer in God takes his deities existence to be true no matter what the data in nature tells us. It is an assumption, taken upon faith, and for which he/she seeks no proof. As I'm sure you can now see, this is a different position entirely.
BTW if you look carefully at the two conditions required to be a scientific hypothesis, you'll notice that Intelligent Design fails to even meet this lower standard (forget being a 'theory'😉 because while it harmonizes the current data, it has failed to make a testable prediction about what we will find in the data.
To rephrase the original statement using different terminology:
Take the Hand Of God as an example. “In cosmology, the Hand Of God refers to a hypothetical substance, of unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies.”
This substance is thought to comprise 23% (up to 99% depending on the article you read) of the universe, and yet we have never seen it, never measured it, and thus have no direct evidence of its existence at all.
How can science possibly accept the existence of something like this? The same way it accepts the existence of anything new to it, by admitting it’s a possibility and looking for evidence supporting or disproving that position.
If science can accept the existence of something like the Hand Of God, why can’t it accept the existence of God?
St. Gregory of Nyssa ...
God is all-in-all...
God who still today exists in humanity...
he is in us to day no less than he was then
Olivier Clement says: “Everything in effect exists in an immense movement of incarnation which tends toward Christ and is fulfilled in him;” and refers to “...the great synthesis, in Christ, of the human, the divine and the cosmic.”
Later in his book (all these quotes are from his The Roots of Christian Mysticism; all bolds are mine), Clement pushes the envelope a bit further when he says: “The world is a vast incarnation which the fall of the human races tries to contradict.”
This is all pretty sensible stuff, but of course it does not take us long to take the leap of arrogance to arrive at such statements as:
Meister Eckhart seems to fuse the orthodox concept of theosis with a more Western theological perspective, when he writes:
“The seed of God is in us.
Now, the seed of a pear tree
grows into a pear tree,
and a hazel seed
grows into a hazel tree—
A seed of God
grows into God.”
Admittedly how this reads depends on ones definition of God and Seed of God, but surely this is a flawed analogy. For this analogy to work you must either take there to be only one seed, or many Gods.
Now admittedly there are many gods, but God is usually used to refer to a monotheistic belief.
______________________________________________________
In any event, the implication is that God’s spirit is, to put it somewhat poetically, the very spirit and fragrance of aliveness within us, without which we die. As such, I might argue that it [b]is a tangible exhibition of God[/b]
Well said. As such, to us, it IS God. Just like we, when we stand on the beach can point at the waves and say THAT is the ocean. This does not prove our concept of what the ocean is and how it works, but still there it IS.
Originally posted by telerion"The stars far from the center were rotating too fast to be balanced by the gravitational force from the luminous mass contained within that radius. This led to the proposition that most of the mass in a galaxy was low luminosity mass of some kind, and this invisible mass was called dark matter.
There is one major problem with your example. From your Wiki quote itself, dark matter is "hypothetical" (i.e. a hypothesis). This means that dark matter is an idea that harmonizes the current data (the anomolies) and that makes predictions about what else we should find in the data. It is NOT something that scientists assume to be true or take to be tru ...[text shortened]... ent data, it has failed to make a testable prediction about what we will find in the data.
Dark matter is probably not baryonic matter, because the abundance of primordial elements such as hydrogen, helium and deuterium would be much higher if the Big Bang had produced enough baryon density to account for the dark matter in galaxies.
The amount of dark matter present in the Universe has been estimated using various techniques, including observing the velocities of galaxies in clusters and calculating the gravitational mass of galactic clusters by their gravitational lensing effects on surrounding spacetime. The end result is that the baryonic density WB is about 5% and the dark matter density WD is about 30%
The leading candidate for dark matter right now comes from supersymmetry. Supersymmetric versions of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics contain heavy supersymmetric partners of the electroweak gauge bosons and the Higgs field that are electrically neutral and hence don't interact with electromagnetic radiation, aka light. These neutralinos, as they are called, are fermionic partners of the neutral gauge bosons and the Higgs field. They would have high mass, yet interact very weakly, and those two qualities make them a good candidate for dark matter."
http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo2a1.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompAre you Bruno's ghost or Frogstomps ghost? Dude, I thought you were dead... 😞
"The stars far from the center were rotating too fast to be balanced by the gravitational force from the luminous mass contained within that radius. This led to the proposition that most of the mass in a galaxy was low luminosity mass of some kind, and this invisible mass was called dark matter.
Dark matter is probably not baryonic matter, because the e them a good candidate for dark matter."
http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo2a1.html
Are you gonna share your NDE? 😵
If you have no clue what I'm talking about, check:http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37435
Originally posted by DragonFriendI think one should only formulate belief on sufficiently compelling evidence. I don't really know that much about dark matter, but it sounds to me that most people would say that dark matter is a hypothetical substance of unknown composition, the existence of which demands further testing and scrutiny. And, yes, I think the exact same thing should be said about God.
If you're saying that we can't scientifically prove that God healed the boy's ear, I agree. God requires a step of faith before He'll show Himself, and so such a proof will never exist.
But shouldn't the scientist be able to infer the existance of God from the evidence with at least as much surety as he can infer the existance of dark matter? (from my ...[text shortened]... ntist types will accept that dark matter exists and not God. I don't understand why.
DF