Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.

Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".

So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.

The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.

There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.