Kuja
RPG Townie
I have no idea what that was meant to be ^^^
Posts: 887
|
Post by Kuja on May 11, 2003 10:06:22 GMT -5
I WONDER whether you can prove those miracles ever happened.
I WONDER if your counter-arguement will be 'You can't prove it, you just have to have faith' or 'You cant prove it never happened'.
I WONDER whether faith is just the easy way out. If someone says 'Prove it' you say 'Have faith'. Ah yes the convenience of faith....
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on May 11, 2003 11:52:26 GMT -5
The problem, Jacket, is that appealing to "miracles" allows one to simply make up whatever explanation they like, no matter how absurd or far-fetched, and believe it without evidence. Although there is nothing self-contradictory in the idea of miracles, you'll have to provide some evidence that these happen, other than an appeal to anonymous, hearsay documents that mention them. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept your claim of miracles, as this is an extraordinary claim equivalent of myself telling you that I own a magic elf.
One might make a similar claim of ignorance on your part, for asking how every single aspect of humans evolved. We may not know everything about how things have evolved, but we know enough from observation and the fossil record to draw inferences. I would recommend reading some on the topic.
By the by, do you have those free will quotes? Or have gone through the gratuitous suffering argument? I understand that school is probabl;y keeping you busy, but just a reminder, as I'd like to go into those topics eventually.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on May 11, 2003 13:18:47 GMT -5
I WONDER whether you can prove those miracles ever happened. I WONDER if your counter-arguement will be 'You can't prove it, you just have to have faith' or 'You cant prove it never happened'. I WONDER whether faith is just the easy way out. If someone says 'Prove it' you say 'Have faith'. Ah yes the convenience of faith.... I WONDER whether you can prove evolution absolutely positively with not ONE shadow of a doubt happened. I WONDER if your counter argument will be 'The scientists/text books said..' I WONDER if you believe the absence of proof for my belief makes yours fact. I WONDER whether you realize that you put forth faith in scientists to be correct and that unless you've been in the rooms where they've done the fossil testing and research, you too carry 'blind faith.' I'm not quite sure I completely understand what you mean in this line and I don't want to reply without knowing what I'm countering. Could you clarify a bit? I see what you're saying, but my motive was not persuasion. I do rely on the Bible, which I'm not sure and will have to check again, but I believe only contains one book who's author we are unsure of as yet. (I believe we have narrowed the top 2 down to Paul and Barnabus however.) I wasn't intending to imply that I didn't actually know about the theory of evolution. I simply find it extremely questionable that given the small period (Yes, small period) of a mere few million years humans evolved from amoeba (I believe that was the correct name given to the organism) with perfectly functioning limbs, bone structures, muscles, thought processes, ect. And all by chance. One a side note, I find the idea of the giraffe (genus?) stretching his neck over time and thus adding length to it in small measures and passing it down to it's offspring who did the same thing particularly bizzare. Alas, I'm getting distracted. Not at the moment. It probably seems as though I'm trying avoiding the subject though I assure you I'm not. I find the discussion of free will especially intriguing and I am looking forward to the discussion. Yes, it is school that is keeping me wrapped up, but we are out in two weeks. After that, we should be able to discuss it in-depth. Sorry it's taking so long. But I assure you, we'll get to it ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on May 11, 2003 14:07:18 GMT -5
I see, Jacket... So, even though there is fact that evolution took place (as there are fossils to prove it) you still refuse to believe it?
Also, you find Evolution over millions of years "extremely questionable" yet you don't find "God" creating the world in seven days to be a tad bit questionable?
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on May 11, 2003 14:46:38 GMT -5
Have you forgotten the little discussion we had over inductive reasoning, Jacket? Empirical sciences, such as biology, cannot deal with certainty due to inductive reasoning as its basis. It allows us to hold the conclusion as more likely than not, but never with certainty. However, if you hold to such a Descartes-esque epistemology, you'll find yourself having to reject most of your beliefs. For example, you'll have to reject anything you believe about the world around you (i.e. gravity, medicine, etc.), you'll have to reject your theism, and furthermore other commonsenscial positions such as the belief in an external world. Can you prove with that certainty that you are not a brain in a vat being fed complex stimuli by a mad scientist? Will yours be "The Bible says..."? Nope. The evidence is what matters. The lack of evidence for your belief only means that there's no reason to accept it. You mean to say that everytime you eat your parent's cooking, you're exercising blind faith that it isn't poisoned? Baloney! You don't hold blind faith in that case, nor I in scientists because of inductive reasoning. Your know from countless situations that your parents have yet to poison your meals, so you have several bits of evidence that they will NOT poison your food. Likewise, as scientists constantly test their conclusions and when wrong, correct themselves, I can trust them on such matters without exercising blind faith. I think you mean Hebrews. However, you are aware that the Gospels are not written by their namesakes, right? You mean 3.5 billion years, which isn't a "small period". In addition, although mutations are random, natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution) is not. If an organism has traits favorable for survival, it will likely survive to mate and pass these traits on. Nothing random about that. Last I remember, Lamarckian views of heredity went of style in the 1800s. The problem with such is that by that reasoning, if I chop off one of my fingers, my children should have only 9 fingers. If giraffes with longer necks were able to survive better than ones with shorter necks, then the long-necked ones would pass the genes for this trait on. The genes, NOT "stretching their necks" would be responsible, and through natural selection could easily account for the giraffe's neck. I fail to see how its a problem. I have no problem. I was just giving a reminder (as school just ended for me, so now I'm free to discuss such myself).
|
|