Banned from RaptureReady...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The fatal flaw to your argument is that you must change documented and accepted accounts to make that which WAS impossible to possible.

Um, no. Resurrecting a corpse that was in reasonably good condition with advanced nanotechnology (as one example) IS raising someone from the dead. By ancient standards, so is using paddles to restart the heart of a person in cardiac arrest. Neither violates any of the known laws of physics.

Ah, but it is demonstrable that there was no intervention immediately after death. In fact Christ intentionally delayed his visit to Bethany for this very purpose.

Makes everything more impressive. The basic intervention could easily have been performed some time earlier (Lazarus was supposed to be an old friend, yes?).

And my contention is that it is the account that is physically imposible and not the concept alone. I am not arguing in a vacuum.

The account is meaningless. Gunpowder is way beyond the understanding of physical principles of the ancient Romans, and definitely beyond the understanding of some peasants from the backwater of Judah. Heck, objects of different rates falling at the same speed would have been beyond them. Your argument is utterly pointless - and if the space between your ears isn't awfully close to a vacuum, I don't know what is.

To bring someone back to life through metaphysical means defies the laws of physics. To walk on water by faith alone is physically impossible.

You presume a great deal - namely, that you understand what the laws of physics actually are and that you can validly create a category of "non-physical" laws. You can't do either.

All things that occur within our universe are physical events - by definition - and occur according to physical principles - by definition. If you observe an event that couldn't have happened according to the principles you understand, then either your observation is flawed, your principles do not match those that actually run the universe, or both.

 

[Yahweh]

I havent posted any kitties in a while...

 

[RandFan]

Swarm, you are being obtuse. You obviously refuse to answer questions so I have documented a number of questions at the bottom of this post that I would like you to answer. However, my many days of dueling with Jedi and others like him have convinced me that it is not possible to compel someone to answer questions if they simply refuse.

Um, no. Resurrecting a corpse that was in reasonably good condition with advanced nanotechnology (as one example) IS raising someone from the dead. By ancient standards, so is using paddles to restart the heart of a person in cardiac arrest. Neither violates any of the known laws of physics.

Not my point, not my argument. Which raises the question, what is YOUR point? I agree with everything in the paragraph. Sadly it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument.

[This might be a good place for you to insert more ad hominem]

The account is meaningless.

The account is everything. How can you say that the account is meaningless? If someone claims that they have successfully dowsed for gold in the past may I consider the physical possibility of such an event? Is it possible for me to conclude that such an event is not possible because it would otherwise violate the laws of physics? Can I say to that person, "I don't accept your account because to be true it would "break" (violate) the laws of physics.

It's easy to be obtuse by simply refusing to answer questions.

Gunpowder is way beyond the understanding of physical principles of the ancient Romans, and definitely beyond the understanding of some peasants from the backwater of Judah. Heck, objects of different rates falling at the same speed would have been beyond them. Your argument is utterly pointless - and if the space between your ears isn't awfully close to a vacuum, I don't know what is.

Non responsive and has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Good ad hominem though. I can't wait for more. Interesting how you avoid using logic and reason and settle for attacking me instead.

You presume a great deal - namely, that you understand what the laws of physics actually are and that you can validly create a category of "non-physical" laws.

No, I presume nothing. I'm asking you a question. I'm asking if it is possible for the event as recorded and as believed to be physically possible?

Is it possible to walk on water unaided by technology? It's a simple question. Why won't you answer it?

All things that occur within our universe are physical events - by definition - and occur according to physical principles - by definition. If you observe an event that couldn't have happened according to the principles you understand, then either your observation is flawed, your principles do not match those that actually run the universe, or both.

Who said anything about an observation? I'm talking about stories in the bible. I don't believe the stories because to be true they would have to otherwise violate the laws of physics.

Question: Is it possible for someone to construct a story in such a way that the story is not possible because it would other wise violate the laws of physics?

My questions are not rhetorical. I would like answers. Unfortunately, I trust that your arrogance and ego will not allow you to answer them and you will resort to ad hominem and more fallacious reasoning.

Oh well.

Non rhetorical questions in order of preference:

1. Is it possible for someone to construct a story in such a way that the story is not possible because it would otherwise violate the laws of physics?
   
2. Is my "account" of today physically possible?
   
3. Who said anything about an observation?
   
4. If someone claims that they have successfully dowsed for gold in the past may I consider the physical possibility of such an event?
   
5. Is it possible for me to conclude that such an event is not possible because it would otherwise violate the laws of physics?
   
6. Can I say to that person, "I don't accept your account because to be true it would "break" (violate) the laws of physics.

Warning the following could be construed as an appeal to authority. It should be noted that it is possible for me to be wrong and it could be possible that Randi is also wrong. Considering the context it would not be a bad appeal. However my true motivation is to show that I am not alone in my usage of such language.

Finally, you might want to contact Randi and inform him of your observations. Apparently, at least at some point he did not understand the laws of physics.

Randi - Commentary - June 22, 2001
By definition, just as a "flying pig" would exceed natural laws, and would violate the laws of physics, I agree.

Randi - Commentary - January 1, 2000
in this case those collectively known as `extrasensory perception' -- that appear to violate known laws of physics.

Swarm, someone needs desparately to contact Randi and tell him that he is wrong. It IS possible for pigs to fly. They just need a little "technology", right?

Assuming that I am wrong, and I really doubt that I am, then you are just being pedantic not to mention a real prick. I doubt you would say the same to Randi.

 

[RandFan]

Swarm.

A simple google shows that I am not alone in my usage of the phrase "break (violate) the laws of physics".

The following is from Paul Kurtz who is Chairman and Founder of CSICOP.

The New Skepticism: A Worldwide Movement

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence:

This principle has been adduced for anomalous accounts. If it is the case that a paranormal event, if confirmed, would overthrow the known laws of science, then one would need abundant evidence to accept it. The evidence must not be skimpy or haphazard, but so strong that its denial would require more credulity than its acceptance. A good case has been made about psychokinesis, that the mind can move matter without an intervening physical object or material force, or that precognitive events can be known before they happen. Helmut Schmidt has claimed experimental evidence that persons in the present
can retrogressively affect past events in a random generator. This unusual anomaly would seem to violate the laws of physics, and/or it would require that physics be revised to account for it. We would need several lines of independent replication before we can accept the claim.[/b]

Yes, Paul does say "or require tht physics be revised to account for it". But why does Paul use wording that is for all intents and purpose identical to mine? "Accounts"...hmmmm... I wonder where we have heard that one before? Why does Paul use the term "accounts"? Doesn't Paul understand that "accounts" according to you are meaningless?

Let me point out that Paul is discussing my exact point about paranormal (AKA metaphysical).

Should I shoot of an email to Paul and inform him about the empty space between his ears and that "accounts" are meaningless?

 

[RandFan]

Swarm,

Here is a good one from Peter D. Wilson. What makes this one so special is that he uses James Randi to make his argument.

Degrees

• B.S. in Physics and Astronomy (1990, Univ. of Iowa)
• M.S. in Astronomy/Planetary Studies (1994, Cornell Univ.)
• (PhD expected in Astronomy/Planetary Studies in Aug. 1997, Cornell Univ.)

Affiliations:

• Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
• American Astronomical Society-Division of Planetary Science (AAS-DPS)

Publications:

• Research articles with abstracts listed at: http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/wilson/abstracts.html
• "The Atheist's Certainty," The Cornell Atheist, Fall 1993.
• "A Tribute to Carl Sagan"

Do you suppose that he would know enough about physics that you could explain to him why he and Randi are wrong?

The Atheist's Certainty (1994)

Neither atheists nor agnostics believe in gods. Whether or not this lack of belief is itself a belief has long been debated and forms part of the disagreement between atheists and agnostics. The atheist confidently proclaims ``God does not exist'' while the agnostic admits uncertainty and believes nothing (for now). On what do atheists base their claim of nonexistence? Can atheists prove God does not exist? No. They cannot. In fact, it is impossible to prove any nonexistence claim. The reason why is well illustrated by James Randi's `flying reindeer' experiment.

In American culture there exists a popular story of a man traveling the world one night every year delivering presents to children. This man makes the trip in a sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer. Because they lack wings and there is no other known way by which they could fly, flying reindeer appear to violate the laws of nature.

Ooops, Randi really stepped in it there. I guess Randi doesn't know that with the right technology Reindeer can fly. Isn't that right? And apparently Peter failed to realize that such statements demonstrate that Randi lacks...oh...how did you say it? Oh yeah, a "sufficiently solid grasp of physics". It's really too bad Peter and Randi didn't have you to point out the error of their ways.

But I digress.

Even without such extraordinary events some level of proof can be obtained through the many claims of religion (special creation of humans, world-wide flood, prophecy, etc). If any of these claims could withstand scientific scrutiny and not be more likely explained by delusion or deception, theists would have a large leg up on atheists. The level of scrutiny, however, is admittedly very high and some theists do cry foul. They would have us judge their claims based on credence of character rather than the weight of evidence. But by their very nature divine interventions violate the laws of physics.

Uh-oh! Now it looks like Peter is making the very same mistake.

Let's look at that phrase again, "But by their very nature divine interventions violate the laws of physics." "Divine interventions" sounds like raising the dead to me. It also sounds like walking on water and turning water into wine and the virgin birth and Jonah in the belly of a whale.

How many times did I say "power of God"? Couldn't this power of God also be known as "divine intervention?"

Now hold on there Peter. Just a damn minute. No they don't according to Wrath of Swarm! Now understand, according to Swarm, I don't "have a sufficiently solid grasp of physics" for Swarm to explain this to me, but he assures me that this type of thinking is wrong. Perhaps you should go back to school you stupid moron. My budy swarm can't be wrong.

 

[RandFan]

So here it is Swarm, it all comes down to a couple simple dichotomies.

Either it is possible to walk on water or it isn't.

• If it is possible to walk on water then pigs and reindeer can fly and James Randi is wrong.
• If it isn't possible to walk on water then Randi is right.

Either metaphysical powers can be said to "break" the laws of physics or they can't.

• If metaphysical powers can't be said to "break" the laws of physics then Peter is wrong when he said "by their very nature divine interventions violate the laws of physics."
• If metaphysical powers can be said to "break" the laws of physics then Peter is correct when he said "by their very nature divine interventions violate the laws of physics."

It is staring you in the face. You can't have it both ways. If Randi and Peter are right then I am right.

I wonder, can you set aside your ego and arrogance and admit that you are wrong? I doubt it. Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Obsessed, yeah, it must be my own ego and that space between my ears.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I see the Raptureready crowd are praying for Sparklecat. As well as that they are praying for a little baby who has been beaten to a bloody pulp and someone's son/husband who has to drive a car with a manual transmission.

Where's the consistency? When the baby, hopefully, wakes up is that as much a demonstration of the power of prayer as when some idiot manages to pull away from the lights in third without stalling?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

While it's possible to explain supposed "miracles" in terms of violating fundamental precepts of physics, it's not necessary. All that's required are some phenomena that go beyond our current understanding of engineering. Resurrecting a corpse doesn't violate any physical principle, although reconstructing the brain might, depending on the level of decay and the ability to approximate the original structure (which I can't even begin to guess at).

The other miracles don't necessarily involve violations of physical principles either.

 

[Finella]

Wow, what a thread on RR, Sparklecat!

I was talking about it with Budddyh and he told me about the doctrine (if that's the word) of being "fallen" -- being a good Episcopalian, I'm not familiar with the term or even the concept. Dang! Do they really think you are "gone for good"? How horrible to label someone in that way. Sheesh, God gave us brains, s/he expects us to use 'em.

Found you on one of the Apologetics threads in Christianforums. That's a very nice (albeit "cutesy") board. Good threads, and a nice variety of theological perspectives. I think I'm gonna have to hang out there some... despite all the "blessings" and huge sigs and pastel colors...

---,---'--{@

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

No you didn't, you merely claimed it had been attempted, not refuted. That's not a response.

That you thought it unfair.

Overwhelmed by the pressure to conform?

You tell me. I was certainly accepted by all my atheist friends as a Christian, while not accepted by all my Christian "friends" as an atheist.

I stated I wouldn't answer it, then proceeded to such in the same post.

You are asking if I feel pressured to conform?

That is humorous, if anything I usually FEEL precisely the opposite, generally.

Indeed, do you know why?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

before:
frisian


also:
assumption and attack is courteous how?

JREF board is just as likely to smack a poster upside the head for being incorrect, than to slap someone on the back. Or you have failed to notice this in your self-inquisitorial role of false dilemma, ad hom, straw man, no true scottsman, and accusations of fallacy by population?
Or you interested are does Frisian just like to heckle? RaptureReady is welcome to JREF. Can one say the same of RaptureReady?

Ello Sue. I don't recall where I ever said I was courteous.

Are you going to point out such case by case?

Interested? At times, my attention wanders.

Ah, we are now discussing tolerance? Is that the direction?

 

[frisian]

Why are Mormons ridiculed for relying on faith to accept fanciful notions like the golden plates and god talking to Joseph Smith but Christians accept equally fanciful notions like walking on water, people living in the belly of a fish, the flood, water into wine, etc., etc.

Mormons are criticized for the many contradictions of their beliefs and dogmas by people who have just as many if not more contradictions in their beliefs and dogmas.

The virgin birth, resurrection, people talking to god, walking on water, blind people being able to see, lame men walking, dead people rising, etc., etc.. Are all unprovable (not to mention downright silly). It is impossible to come to an intellectual belief in any of these events because objectively they all violate the laws of physics.

Yet people who believe in these events based only on faith laugh at the notion that Joseph Smith talked to angels and used magic stones to interpret a book he found hidden in New York.

Christians have explanations and "convenient" answers for the many discrepancies and silly stories found thoughout the bible but then so do Mormons have for the silly stories and discrepancies found throughout the book of Mormon.

Question: Why is it ok for Christians to accept silly mythology based on faith but not ok for Mormons to accept silly mythology based on faith?

Answer. To each their own, believe as you may. Perhaps you could direct me to a website that has already explored typical apologetics in relation to both? Most of above is fairly vague, but I get the point.

 

[RandFan]

While it's possible to explain supposed "miracles" in terms of violating fundamental precepts of physics, it's not necessary. All that's required are some phenomena that go beyond our current understanding of engineering . Resurrecting a corpse doesn't violate any physical principle, although reconstructing the brain might, depending on the level of decay and the ability to approximate the original structure (which I can't even begin to guess at).

The other miracles don't necessarily involve violations of physical principles either.

Non responsive. Your post tells us nothing and fails to even address the main point of the argument. You are merely repeating your past argument. You are now arguing ad infinitum. I wonder if you ever met a fallacy that you did not like.

I note that my prediction was proven true and you did not answer any of the questions.

1. Is it possible for someone to construct a story in such a way that the story is not possible because it would otherwise violate the laws of physics?
2. Is my "account" of today physically possible?
3. Who said anything about an observation?
4. If someone claims that they have successfully dowsed for gold in the past may I consider the physical possibility of such an event?
5. Is it possible for me to conclude that such an event is not possible because it would otherwise violate the laws of physics?
6. Can I say to that person, "I don't accept your account because to be true it would "break" (violate) the laws of physics?
7. Can pigs fly?
8. Was Paul wrong for discussing "accounts" or for saying "overthrow the known laws of science"?
9. Was Randi wrong when he said "a "flying pig" would exceed natural laws, and would violate the laws of physics"?
10. Was Peter wrong when he said "But by their very nature divine interventions violate the laws of physics"?[/list=1]No guts no glory Swarm.
    
    I should note: The fact that Randi, Paul and Peter are making the same argument that I am, is not proof that I am right. Furthermore, the fact that so many others make the same argument is not necessarily proof either.
    
    The two constitute appealing to the gallery and appealing to authority. But like I said earlier, these are not such bad authorities considering the subject mater.
    
    I won't hold my breath waiting for swarm to respond in any meaningful way.

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

Ello Sue. I don't recall where I ever said I was courteous.

Are you going to point out such case by case?

Interested? At times, my attention wanders.

Ah, we are now discussing tolerance? Is that the direction?

moving the goalposts? You were asking Sparkle

When did you arrive at the conclusion that your mannerisms and protocol were courteous?

This obviously does not pertain to yours mannerisms. In reply, Sparkle said,

Originally posted by sparklecat

Point out where I've been impolite?

understand now?

 

[RandFan]

Answer. To each their own, believe as you may.

Perhaps you could direct me to a website that has already explored typical apologetics in relation to both? Most of above is fairly vague, but I get the point.

I know of no apologetics web sites. I suppose that I could google and find some but I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

Of course if you don't believe that Mormon doctrine is illogical then there is nothing that I would expect of you. If you do believe that Mormon doctrine is illogical then I think my points are quite plain.

Christian theology is based upon the acceptance of events that if true would violate the laws of physics. I have no problem with this personally, like you said, believe as you may.

My problem is with those who use logic and reason to discredit Mormonism but who refuse to use the same logic and reason to question their own held beliefs.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

moving the goalposts? You were asking Sparkle This obviously does not pertain to yours mannerisms. In reply, Sparkle said,

understand now?

The goalposts move by themselves, but that is another discussion.

Indeed I asked, did not declare.

Understand now?

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

The goalposts move by themselves, but that is another discussion.

Indeed I asked, did not declare.

Understand now?

No, you're moving the goalposts. Take some responsibility.
What is your asking save for a declaration? Or why did you ask in the first place?
Mimicking 6 year- old- child requirements for advocating grasp of situation?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

No, you're moving the goalposts. Take some responsibility.
What is your asking save for a declaration? Or why did you ask in the first place?
Mimicking 6 year- old- child requirements for advocating grasp of situation?

I imagine that you missed where you moved the goalposts?

I wanted to be enlightened, is why I asked. Tis done, then you came into the discussion.

 

[frisian]

I don't recall, why should one take responsibility for anything? Where did this concept originate?

Go ahead...without using a priori.

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureReady...

I imagine that you missed where you moved the goalposts?

I wanted to be enlightened, is why I asked. Tis done, then you came into the discussion.

Show me where I moved those goalposts.
ah, so disruptive am I?

I don't recall, why should one take responsibility for anything? Where did this concept originate?

Go ahead...without using a priori.

A lackluster human being would need to ask such a thing, especially, it seems, when there is resistence to the concept. And its orginal concept has little to do with the reasoning whys of now.

Are you sure you don't mean "posteriori"?