Banned from RaptureReady...

[Riddick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureRe

You tell me. Further away from the middle ground we were both taking a few months back. You seem to have rejected skepticism and put your beliefs in the realm of non-testability.

at some time, you will have to think beyond the envelope of skepticism, logic, and/or critical thinking

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureRe

You tell me. Further away from the middle ground we were both taking a few months back. You seem to have rejected skepticism and put your beliefs in the realm of non-testability.

I am skeptical of skepticism.

Nah, I am just playing around with a myriad of ideas and concepts.


Edit - Recall I said that I believe logical entitlements can be fluid and legitimate.

 

[geni]

This has all already been explained to you. Your questions are based on a fundamental lack of understanding on your part of what our conception of physical law admits as possible. None of the miracles described in the New Testament are beyond known physics, although they're beyond known engineering principles and certainly beyond known human potential. Not believing in resurrection from the dead because it "violates physics" is invalid; not believing in resurrection from the dead because it would require resources beyond anything we know exists is reasonable.[/B]

Water to wine. No source of carbon and the conditions required for nuclear fusion/ fission don't seem to be present.

 

[RandFan]

Water to wine. No source of carbon and the conditions required for nuclear fusion/ fission don't seem to be present.

Hey geni,

Thanks for the response. I think you are right. However Swarm will say that does not prove that it is impossible. It only proves that it would appear that they lack the technology.

All things are possible, aliens could come down and change the water into wine.

But his argument is dishonest as it relates to the intent of my argument and is backed up by others like Randi "By definition, just as a "flying pig" would exceed natural laws, and would violate the laws of physics".

At best he is being overly pedantic and at worst he is being downright dishonest.

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureRe

I am skeptical of skepticism.

(snipped)

That's a joke we haven't heard before....

 

[Martin]

But his argument is dishonest as it relates to the intent of my argument and is backed up by others like Randi "By definition, just as a "flying pig" would exceed natural laws, and would violate the laws of physics"

Hey, flying pigs are possible right now. Current technology can manage it just fine. And yet, people still consider it to be improbable. How bizarre...

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureRe

That's a joke we haven't heard before....

Indeed, I have witnessed little new...when in Rome.

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from RaptureRe

at some time, you will have to think beyond the envelope of skepticism, logic, and/or critical thinking

Riddick
At some time, you will have to think beyond the envelope of faith, assumption, and/or christian thinking.

 

[RandFan]

Hey, flying pigs are possible right now. Current technology can manage it just fine. And yet, people still consider it to be improbable. How bizarre...

Yes, but this is just a pedantic response. It is possible for reindeer to fly so by this logic James Randi's `flying reindeer' experiment is invalid.

But we know what Randi meant and making such pedantic observations does not illuminate anything IMO.

But let's take this to the other thread.

Questions Wrath of Swarm refuses to answer.

 

[scribble]

Actually, they do not violate the laws of physics. Admittedly, it seems unlikely that Jesus had access to some really rockin' nanotechnology... but all of those events are technically possible. [/B]

I think just maybe you missed Randfan's argument. You're stretching "Technically possible" a lot further than I'd be willing to, but even if that is absolutely true, it doesn't change Randfan's argument one bit.

He's saying "why do you look at them and say, 'that's ridiculous' when your own religion contains the exact same silliness?"

And he said it well, I thought. A good argument.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

He's saying "why do you look at them and say, 'that's ridiculous' when your own religion contains the exact same silliness?"

And he said it well, I thought. A good argument.

No, he said it very poorly. He rejects the events because he claims they're ridiculously incompatible with physics, which is absolutely false. (They're ridiculous for many other valid reasons.)

His final point may be worthy, but he failed to reach it appropriately.

 

[scribble]

No, he said it very poorly. He rejects the events because he claims they're ridiculously incompatible with physics, which is absolutely false.

Hrm -

On further reflection, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Your nanotechnology is a red herring, because it's implicit in Christianity's claims (if not explicit, I'm sure I could find Biblicial verse to back this up) that these effects are caused by "natural" means - by the power of GOD and not any artifice of man or physics.

And by that interpretation, Rand's comment is good. You can always play weasely verbiage games... (ie: redefine GOD) that's why we all love English so much. But without being absolutely ridiculously pedantic, I don't think you can deny what Randfan meant here.

GOD, by his usual definition, runs contrary to the laws of physics. Of course we can redefine him so he doesn't, and then you win, but I think on average, most people will read what Randfan meant and see that it is correct without playing any language games or pedantry.

-CJ

 

[sparklecat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Banned from R

at some time, you will have to think beyond the envelope of skepticism, logic, and/or critical thinking

Why?

 

[sparklecat]

I am skeptical of skepticism.

Nah, I am just playing around with a myriad of ideas and concepts.


Edit - Recall I said that I believe logical entitlements can be fluid and legitimate.

Logical entitlements? What do you mean?


How go the new ideas/concepts then? You prefer a faith-based worldview?

 

[RandFan]

No, he said it very poorly. He rejects the events because he claims they're ridiculously incompatible with physics, which is absolutely false. (They're ridiculous for many other valid reasons.)

His final point may be worthy, but he failed to reach it appropriately.

Then would you say that Paul Kurtz who is Chairman and Founder of CSICOP made his argument poorly when he said. " If it is the case that a paranormal event, if confirmed, would overthrow the known laws of science"?

But hey, why answer this question?

 

[RandFan]

Hrm -

On further reflection, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Your nanotechnology is a red herring, because it's implicit in Christianity's claims (if not explicit, I'm sure I could find Biblicial verse to back this up) that these effects are caused by "natural" means - by the power of GOD and not any artifice of man or physics.

And by that interpretation, Rand's comment is good. You can always play weasely verbiage games... (ie: redefine GOD) that's why we all love English so much. But without being absolutely ridiculously pedantic, I don't think you can deny what Randfan meant here.

GOD, by his usual definition, runs contrary to the laws of physics. Of course we can redefine him so he doesn't, and then you win, but I think on average, most people will read what Randfan meant and see that it is correct without playing any language games or pedantry.

-CJ

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Someone finally understands. I'm afraid scribble that you are in the same boat as Randi, Paul Kurtz and myself. All a bunch of morons and fools. Right swarm?

 

[frisian]

Logical entitlements? What do you mean?


How go the new ideas/concepts then? You prefer a faith-based worldview?

Logical entitlements...------>http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122367

The ideas and concepts...as well as usual.

Not sure I would choose the word prefer, I don't believe in solely a faith based worldview.

 

[sparklecat]

You'll have to quote, that post is in apologetics.

So where does faith apply and where doesn't it? How do you draw the lines?

 

[frisian]

You'll have to quote, that post is in apologetics.

So where does faith apply and where doesn't it? How do you draw the lines?

Well damn, I figured you'd saved that one.
It was the quote and question thread.

Good question.

With pencil I draw the lines.

Are you asking where is faith logically valid according to me?

 

[sparklecat]

Well damn, I figured you'd saved that one.
It was the quote and question thread.

Good question.

With pencil I draw the lines.

Are you asking where is faith logically valid according to me?

I have, yes, but it's rather long and I'm not scrolling through to find which post you meant. You can quote it.

Hmm, that wasn't exactly what I was asking, but you can answer that as well. When does faith apply and when does it not? If it is logically valid at times, what distinguishes those from when it isn't?