Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Navy"]
Perhaps we should try discussing the equally serious topic of chocolate then. This was why a number of posts back I suggested that moving onto a discussion of supernatural theories was premature, without first agreeing on a need for one.

I agree, but you in spite of this continue to believe in the supernatural which off-course means it needs to be adressed if we want to reach a conclusion.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You have slightly lost me here – yes I do believe that I will go to heaven when I die, and I suppose you could say I bank on it, but it does not effect how I live now, or the rest of my belief.

I took it as an example since I thought most christians believe that non-repentant sinners didn't get in. But still, reaching heaven still does have an impact, since it'll effect your level of fear of death. If the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have believed that they'd go to heaven, I'm certain their actions would have been different.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I have known too many people to have long term healings as a result of prayer not to do so. I would fully agree that some healings are psychological, but enough are very real for it to approach delusion. I would go as far as to say that there is a lot to be lost by not doing so.

You've got a causality issue. In logic it's known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because B takes place after A, doesn't mean that A causes B.

There's been so much research into this that it's silly. Maybe your friends is the special case, but I saw research where they evaluated sick pilgrims at Lourdes. If I remember correctly, from about three million a year who visit the shrine there are 50 000 reported miraculous healings which correlated exactly to the same number for the population in general. None of these healings are stuff that science can't explain. No regrown limbs or anything the medical proffesion would label as impossible.

Science can tell us that there is no link between praying and healing from diseases. I'm not trying to be cheeky or anything but this was too easy to shoot down.

And then off-course you still have to link the healing to christianity. Good luck.

[COLOR="Navy"]

The existence or otherwise of heaven, and what happens after death, did not form part of my decision to belief. I know that often evangelists preach the believe or you will go to hell theme, but I made my decision without either the threat of hell or the promise of heaven. I based it solely on the desire to have a relationship with God. There are many things which the Bible does not cover – far more than it does if you are after details, although there are a significant number of broad principles. I only have the broadest idea of how my car works, and I have only read a few pages of the manual. I know enough about it to trust it to do what it is supposed to. In the same way, although some of the questions which you have raised I would be interested to know the answer to, I am not going to let not knowing effect the things which I do.
The supernatural is not the only thing which cannot be proved, the much quoted example is emotions. These are felt, they are demonstrated and expressed, but as for ‘proof’ it is only circumstantial, yet I would be surprised it you were to deny them. Even the natural which world I know is far broader than anything which can be proved by a scientific rule or set of equations.

But now you're back into making this some emotional stand point.

Chosing which authority figures to trust is important, since we cannot understand everything. A very valid and important thing to do. You've chosen to make the authors of the Bible trusted authority figures in your life. But wouldn't it be nice to have the figures of authority in our lives actually have to prove they've got the goods. If the engine runs you know the mechanic did his job. How do you check the priest did his? What do you measure? Or do you just go on faith and vague feelings? Treat your priest the same way as you would a car salesman. There's no reason to have any more respect for the priest. They're both salesmen.

It's nice that you have a relationship with god. There's many names for the super-ego. You don't need anything supernatural for that.

[COLOR="Navy"]
1. That does not mean that what we see is wrong.
2. Why try and measure everything by science? And to take what you mentioned above, physical healings. There science has been able to measure, and have been unable to provide an explanation.

No, but if I'm the only one who saw/heard it then maybe I should find something to back it up with. Especially if I'm claiming something as whacky as talking to god.

We need to measure it somehow. Science is a good measuring system. Again, science is only a method to judge the truth, not a model by which we compare against. Science doesn't have the truth, but it may allow us to find it. The alternative to science is to not be systematic and just go on vague feelings. Common sense is the most common non-scientific method of judging the truth. You tell me which method is the most likely to come up with the best result?

Just because science can't measure it, doesn't mean science is wrong. Shouldn't that rather lead us to suspect that there's probably nothing to measure? We really don't have any other way to reason. We can make wild theories and dream a little, but from that to having faith is a pretty big plunge into the dark.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Well, I asked God and a little alien to a meeting and only God showed up, so he sort of got it by default.
Not quiet sure what you asking here. How did I test what?

You don't know that. It's only assumptions. In spite of the large amounts of religious people in the world, nobody ever has been able to produce any tangible evidence that they've spoken to god. If you make this claim, you'll need hard proof of it, or it is bullshit. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you, "person who draws faulty conclusions". No, it's not a case of "either you have faith in it or you don't". The brain can only recieve messages in a few limited number of ways. We can measure it. God has yet to show up in any experiments.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Sorry – your work is not done. Just because something has not been proved does not make it not so, it merely makes it unproven. And for the record I have every expectation of going to heaven when I die – and I have heard they have great calorie free chocolate cake there.

sigh. Not this again. Look. The christian supernatural model doesn't have any more proof suporting it than the muslim, budhist, satanist, raelian, aum shin ri quo or heavens gate. No more. It doesn't make more sense or is any way more logical. They are equally as plausible. They are also equally as plausible as the infinate number of religions that nobody has thaught up yet. If I would make up a religion now on the spot, that version of the after-life would be equally plausible. This is pretty much what I've spent all this time exemplifying.

If your only demand on a theory is that nobody can invalidate it then you are gullible. I've got this great car here that is in tip top condition. I know it works because I've never driven it. Would you like to buy it?

[COLOR="Navy"]
Not sure I take your point there – because a significant number of believe something is so, you are saying that it is less likely to be so? Looks confused.

I'm only talking about belief in the supernatural modells of the universe. Ok, I'll let you do the work. Why do you think that Americans tend to be christians, Arabs muslim and Asians budhists?

People are off-course effected by the opinions of people around them. This is why, the more people believe in something that cannot be proven, the smaller chance it is being anything to the claim.

[COLOR="Navy"]
That could well be the case, however the only miracles I would quote or rely on are those where I have personally seen the evidence and know the people involved. I have seen too many well meaning people claim miracles when there are more likely explanations.

To quote my slave on this subject the other day, "Even if the pope himself would shoot lightning bolts from his fingers and pull rabits out his ass still would not prove a single word in the Bible is any less bullshit. It's not a case for anything".

There's no correlation between miracles being performed and any religion. None. Not even if the voices in your head tell you it is.

To reitterate. Proving the supernatural is true is only step one. You've got the same causality problem. You cannot link the miracles to any particular supernatural force, intelligent or not.

We've yet to find a link between suposed miracles and anything. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A miracle has yet to be a likely explanation for anything. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it was a divine intervention.

[COLOR="Navy"]
If you have a model into which you cannot slot all the evidence, the model ceases to be credible. It is a weak defence to claim that the evidence must be wrong since it does not fit the model.

It's the other way around. If there's any evidence that doesn't fit, the model by necesity must be wrong. Since the supernatural models have no evidence, niether for nor against and the models will stick around for all eternity. But I have a sneaking suspicion that they'll never be any more credible.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Same evidence, different conclusion, I guess because we put different weight on different elements. To me the supernatural model is more sound than the non-supernatural one. Complexity does not make something wrong, unless the complexity is being used to disguise a flaw.

No, we use different evidence. You also draw faulty conclusions from it. You have somehow managed to link your personal experience that you claim are proof of the supernatural, to christianity.

You assume the miracles performed and the voices you've heard in your head come from a supernatural force as the one you have identified in the Bible. This in logic is Affirming the consequent.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I am not aware of Christianity making any claims which invalidate non-supernatural theories, it merely makes claims as to an explanation of the gaps in those theories.

The non-supernatural models we have are based on the universal laws being constant. If they are not, (as in the supernatural) then we cannot draw conclusions. If the supernatural would exist then we would not be able to draw conclusions since the laws would keep changing. All scientific models for the universe today are built on the assumption that god doesn't exist.

Then there's always level two. If god would exist, what laws govern the supernatural. Saying that he's god so he could do what ever he wants is pure assumption. You cannot say anything about what god is or isn't capable of.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Whilst I will lap up the compliments I cannot agree that a reasonable balance suggests that my experiences with the supernatural can be explained by the non-supernatural.
I really think we have to go back to what you said at the very start of this discussion about circular arguments. I am convinced we are probably both as guilty as each other of it, and I am honestly not sure how possible it is to step out the circle which we are in because of our beliefs and see things from the other circle. Which is, as I said then, where the step of faith comes into play. That tiny bit of faith which gives a person the confidence to step out of the circle of non-belief into the circle of belief, of accepting that there could possibly be supernatural explanations. At that point everything falls into place, but without doing that, I am not sure it is possible to see it. I am sure the reverse also applies.

So basically. When we take a step into a realm where we don't aply logic systematically and where there's been no conclusive scientific find ever...then it makes sense? You're making it far too easy for yourself. No, I'm not guilty of circular argument. I'm too careful.

I'm open to the possibily of the supernatural. When any evidence shows up I'll be the first convert. And not necesarily to any existing religion.

[COLOR="Navy"]

Why do you need to have studied quantum mechanics to be able to know if God exists? By suggesting that he can only be proven by that particular discipline you are not taking a very narrow view.

ok, that's just me. I trust people who've studied subjects that are scientific. I might trust un-scientifically schooled people on other subjects rather than explaining to me complex mathematics. If all a person has to say is that it's a matter of faith, then it's a dead give away that the guy hasn't a clue.