Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
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 can see that, and it goes along with another favorite quote of mine; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke. My point is that for years science has argued that miracles as they are described in the bible are impossible. we are just now beginning to understand that they are actually possible.

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.
And where is that serious study? Science already thinks it has the answers, so it is not looking.

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.
As a scientific theory it does make me laugh. I always want to brain the people who try to make the theory fit their beliefs, even if it is as natural as breathing. I am not trying to argue that God is the answer here, just that that explanation makes a bit more sense to me than random chance. Scientists reject it as a theory only because they do not want to believe in God, which shows their prejudice, not mine.

Sure, this opens new questions, but since science is about exploring questions, why not explore them? Can we find answers? I do not know, but I do know that there is no way we will if we do not look.

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.
Now you are the one confusing things here. I said the scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else, and you rebut that science is about questioning. The thing that I know is that scientists are humans. I can go back through history, even recent history, that shows how scientist resist new ideas. This is only human, but it should raise a flag whenever it occurs. I personally have found that the more violently I react to a new idea, the more likely it is to be correct.

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.
True, but amateurs have access to all the same information that scientists do. They can subscribe to all the scientific journals, read all the articles online, and everything that a regular scientists does. In this day and age information is readily available to anyone who looks for it. This enables even someone without a degree to understand everything that a PhD does.

This is why I always take exception to people who try to tell me I cannot understand something without years of university training. Schools do not teach us how to think. In fact, they actually do the opposite, they teach us what to think. At least that is what happens here in the US, it might be different in Sweden.