Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

My historical defense of miracles

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past.

That's untrue, T_S. All science studies the past. For example, while it takes only eight minutes for light to travel from the surface of the sun to our eyes, it takes millions of years for it to leave the centre of the sun and get to the surface in the first place. In a similar fashion, geology is the study of ancient processes of the earth; biology includes the study of ancient steps in species development; physics is the study of what happened microseconds ago to millennia go. Science is built on observation, and observation is always about the past.

Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.
We can think of verification as the independent and skeptical analysis of evidence to confirm that a particular event occurred, rather than something else.

Independence is important: the evidence cannot be interpreted theologically, for example. Theologians have no authority to say what may have occurred or has occurred, because it introduces bias throughout the investigation.

Skepticism is also important: when we consider the possibility of unusual events, it's important to be diligent in exploring the possibility that ordinary events occurred instead. And similarly, it's important to look at the methods of transmitting the claims, since it's known that people change the story to suit their purposes.

So, for example, there are a great many ancient attestations of resurrections. We cannot single one out theologically to explore while ignoring all the others, because that's leading the evidence. Either the ancient world is full of errors and deceits about resurrection (in which case that's an ordinary explanation for resurrection claims), or it is not full of error and deceit -- in which case, resurrection in different cultures and faiths was commonplace.

I hope that may help. :)
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:34:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

I know of a common event that until fairly recently science said was not reasonably possible.
Such an event, would be, by most standards, a miracle.
I mean, when scientists have said repeatedly, we applied the scientific method, and such an event is not reasonably possible - sounds like a miracle to me - when it happens.

What would you say to a theory that is about 100 years old, tested and retested, repeat, and denied
Fallacious arguments say it is correct, so it is reviewed again, according the Scientific Method, and the Scientific judgment is upheld, by numerous scientists in the discipline.
The event is not scientifically possible.
The whole process actually covers hundreds of years.
Then one day, by accident, the event unexpectedly happens, and as it turns out, Scientific instruments are present and record the event, just as the fallacious arguments had claimed.
So the scientific theory is ditched, and the books of Science are rewritten, to say, such events are scientifically reasonable.

Rogue waves with a frequency of more than once in 10,000 years were scientifically impossible, until 1995.
They have been reported for hundreds of years, but this was anecdotal evidence.
In 1916 Ernest Shackleton, a scientist/explorer experienced one, and reported it, in detail, just more anecdotal evidence.

"Despite these and other encounters with rogue waves, scientists long rejected such claims as unlikely. Anecdotal evidence is often unreliable, so researchers used computer modelling to predict the likelihood of such massive waves. Oceanographers' findings indicated that waves higher than fifteen meters were probably very rare events, occurring perhaps once in 10,000 years. That all changed in 1995 when a freak wave hit the Draupner North Sea oil platform. The oil rig swayed a little, suffering minor damage, but its onboard measuring equipment successfully recorded the wave height at nineteen meters."
http://www.damninteresting.com...

So rogue waves could only be supported by fallacious arguments, but they were 100% true.
It is this way with many things, in science, and our lives.
~ ~ ~ ~
Science (actual science - with computer modeling) - along with mathematics and physics said rogue waves were 'scientifically not possible'.
For 80 more years Shackleton's account of a factual event was denied, by science, actual science, following the scientific method. Many groups, spanning time and distance.
Then one day, science itself witnessed such an event - with test instruments, etc, and they had to rewrite the textbooks.

This mistake of science was costly, in money, and probably human lives.

The fact that rogue waves actually take place relatively frequently had major safety and economic implications, since current ships and offshore platforms are built to withstand maximum wave heights of only 15 metres.

~ ~
http://ec.europa.eu...
Sometimes towering to a height of 30 metres, and seemingly coming from nowhere, 'rogue waves' are genuine monsters of the seas. Over the past 20 years, about 200 vessels of over 200 metres in length have been sunk or damaged by an encounter with these freaks of nature which have claimed the lives of 540 sailors. The multidisciplinary team working on the MaxWave European project is now trying to understand how these waves are formed, to analyse their potential to harm, and to suggest an appropriate warning system. It is hoped that shipyards will be able take these data into account to strengthen the resistance of ships and offshore platforms.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

What kind of miracles?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 6:14:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before the scientific verification of rogue waves in 1995 there were probably hundreds of reports of rogue waves by seaman.
In doing my research I ran across many of them, and such reports were often attributed to drunken sailors indulging in too much grog.
[Though mariners long have known of the existence and danger of rogue waves, skeptical scientists often debunked reports of waves the size of 10- story buildings as wildly exaggerated. "They automatically were put in the box of [sightings by] a drunken sailor," Rosenthal says.
Mathematical models suggested these freak monster waves occur only once every 10,000 years in any given locale in the open ocean.
http://www.soundingsonline.com... ]

Explanation of such reports would sometimes mention mermaids, and other 'sea monsters'. Rogue waves were part and parcel of other wild tales sailors told since before the time of Columbus.

Among all of these colorful and wild reports was a report by the explorer/scientist Earnest Shackleton. he was not known for consuming too much strong drink, or spreading of fanciful tales. He was well respected, his reports were well respected.

It now seems a scientific view (as opposed to "the scientific view", which supposes that any mortal can speak for the scientific community, and we should not assume this, according to a scientific view) is that Shackleton's account should not be considered any more trustworthy than all the others. After all, this would be leading the evidence.
I find this interesting, and entertaining (chuckle chuckle).
Shackleton's account not any more credible than that of a drunker sailor.
Well, if we are to be fair and impartial, perhaps this makes sense.
And science is noted for being fair and impartial, now we can better understand what that means, I suppose.

Here is the Shackleton account, as recorded:
At midnight I was at the tiller and suddenly noticed a line of clear sky between
the south and south-west. I called to the other men that the sky was clearing, and
then a moment later I realized that what I had seen was not a rift in the clouds but
the white crest of an enormous wave. During twenty-six years" experience of the
ocean in all its moods I had not encountered a wave so gigantic. It was a mighty
upheaval of the ocean, a thing quite apart from the big white-capped seas that had
been our tireless enemies for many days. I shouted, "For God"s sake, hold on! It"s
got us!" Then came a moment of suspense that seemed drawn out into hours.
White surged the foam of the breaking sea around us. We felt our boat lifted and
flung forward like a cork in breaking surf. We were in a seething chaos of tortured
water; but somehow the boat lived through it, half-full of water, sagging to the dead weight and shuddering under the blow.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:30:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you want to talk about history and miracles, then you have to accept that once science became more dominant, whenever a miracle was present logical scientific reasoning was put behind it.

Its why, not, miracles are found more and more in communities on the boundries of science (Indias a good example).

Furthermore, you have to look at those the miracles happened too.
By vatican law, all Saints must perform at least two miracles.
Every ability to truly delve in these saints backgrounds proves fallacy everywhere.

A good example is mother Theresa. Cannonized as a saint, more and more evidence is turning up to prove that she was a cruel woman, and newly found letters even found her claiming she did not feel god for some quite time, and it made her bitter.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 9:39:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:30:49 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
If you want to talk about history and miracles, then you have to accept that once science became more dominant, whenever a miracle was present logical scientific reasoning was put behind it.

Its why, not, miracles are found more and more in communities on the boundries of science (Indias a good example).

Furthermore, you have to look at those the miracles happened too.
By vatican law, all Saints must perform at least two miracles.
Every ability to truly delve in these saints backgrounds proves fallacy everywhere.

A good example is mother Theresa. Cannonized as a saint, more and more evidence is turning up to prove that she was a cruel woman, and newly found letters even found her claiming she did not feel god for some quite time, and it made her bitter.

I appreciate what you say, certainly a lot of truth.
However, some problems.
1) Fallacies do not mean 'false', they mean questionable.
2) Rogue waves were only supported by fallacies for as long as man was on the high seas, until 1995 - yet completely factual, as was eventually shown.

As for mother Teresa - maybe all that stuff is true, no need to argue it is not.
So who was a Pope the atheists think was a good person?
What - only Pope Francis? One out of 266 - Oh my.
it seems the word has spread that he said Atheists can go to heaven - yeah, like that happened.
But it makes some of them like him.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is what Steve Jobs said about the county people of India.

"The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

Like Einstein said - "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:22:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 9:39:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:30:49 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
If you want to talk about history and miracles, then you have to accept that once science became more dominant, whenever a miracle was present logical scientific reasoning was put behind it.

Its why, not, miracles are found more and more in communities on the boundries of science (Indias a good example).

Furthermore, you have to look at those the miracles happened too.
By vatican law, all Saints must perform at least two miracles.
Every ability to truly delve in these saints backgrounds proves fallacy everywhere.

A good example is mother Theresa. Cannonized as a saint, more and more evidence is turning up to prove that she was a cruel woman, and newly found letters even found her claiming she did not feel god for some quite time, and it made her bitter.

I appreciate what you say, certainly a lot of truth.
However, some problems.
1) Fallacies do not mean 'false', they mean questionable.
2) Rogue waves were only supported by fallacies for as long as man was on the high seas, until 1995 - yet completely factual, as was eventually shown.

As for mother Teresa - maybe all that stuff is true, no need to argue it is not.
So who was a Pope the atheists think was a good person?
What - only Pope Francis? One out of 266 - Oh my.
it seems the word has spread that he said Atheists can go to heaven - yeah, like that happened.
But it makes some of them like him.

First of all, I just re-read my post and man my english breaks something awful at times.
Im not a native english speaker so my apologies.

Secondly, as an athiest I can tell you we dont like Francis because he said we can go to heaven. That means nothing to us, we dont believe in heaven. Its even comforting to me to know there is no after life. Thats our point of view.

We do not have favorite popes from history just as you do not have favorite imam's of history.
Its not in our interest. It has little to no meaning to us besides history, which there is so much to learn that we dont delve into the church that deeply.

Furthermore, we like Pope Francis for other reasons.
While his predacessors would talk of the poor and famine, they would wear gold and sit in extravagent golden thrones. He does not.
He is the first pope to reserve a small apartment as his home and not move into the palace, to show others that his comfort is not an important issue.
He was caught sneaking out of the vatican to give comforting prayers to the poor. I do not believe in prayer but im certain they did and it gave them great peace of mind. It was a charitable deed that he tried to do in a way that would garner him no PR.
He does not use the pope mobile.
One of my favorites - he washed and kissed the feet of 10 AIDS patients.. true humility. Any man who did that to make the point that these sick people are still people gets respect.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 10:13:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Here is what Steve Jobs said about the county people of India.

"The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

Like Einstein said - "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Steve Jobs is not a person too be quoted beside Einstein.
He was a great business man, he never really invented a thing himself.

Furthermore, ever been to India?
Ever see people die in the street as others walk by?
Ever heard of the Untouchables?
They are the lowest level of the Indian caste system, born into forced poverty, they are outlawed by tradition to take any work but the cleaning of toilets and sewers.

Saying it is somehow 'more' is a cop out. As rape crimes raise and raise in public view, its clear that its a country ill... there is virtually no middle class. Most are poor, even very poor, the rest are rich.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 7:42:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:22:32 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 9:39:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:30:49 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
If you want to talk about history and miracles, then you have to accept that once science became more dominant, whenever a miracle was present logical scientific reasoning was put behind it.

Its why, not, miracles are found more and more in communities on the boundries of science (Indias a good example).

Furthermore, you have to look at those the miracles happened too.
By vatican law, all Saints must perform at least two miracles.
Every ability to truly delve in these saints backgrounds proves fallacy everywhere.

A good example is mother Theresa. Cannonized as a saint, more and more evidence is turning up to prove that she was a cruel woman, and newly found letters even found her claiming she did not feel god for some quite time, and it made her bitter.

I appreciate what you say, certainly a lot of truth.
However, some problems.
1) Fallacies do not mean 'false', they mean questionable.
2) Rogue waves were only supported by fallacies for as long as man was on the high seas, until 1995 - yet completely factual, as was eventually shown.

As for mother Teresa - maybe all that stuff is true, no need to argue it is not.
So who was a Pope the atheists think was a good person?
What - only Pope Francis? One out of 266 - Oh my.
it seems the word has spread that he said Atheists can go to heaven - yeah, like that happened.
But it makes some of them like him.

First of all, I just re-read my post and man my english breaks something awful at times.
Im not a native english speaker so my apologies.

None needed.

Secondly, as an athiest I can tell you we dont like Francis because he said we can go to heaven. That means nothing to us, we dont believe in heaven. Its even comforting to me to know there is no after life. Thats our point of view.

If my new neighbor has weekly family Feasts of dog poop and cat entrails, and the family matriarch invites me over for this 'any time I want, no invitation needed', I will like her for that, even though I have an aversion to eating dog poop and cat entrails.
I do not see that I implied that hordes of Atheists plan on spending eternity in heaven with Catholic popes.

We do not have favorite popes from history just as you do not have favorite imam's of history.
Its not in our interest. It has little to no meaning to us besides history, which there is so much to learn that we dont delve into the church that deeply.

See, I was going to say something to that effect, and yet, there are all of these news stories linking Atheists and Pope Francis in a favorable light, certainly implying many Atheists have a favorable attitude towards him.
You do not particularly, and apparently this means none of the others do either.
I believe that 'some of them' do like him, for this reason as well as the ones you list, despite your objections.

Furthermore, we like Pope Francis for other reasons.
While his predacessors would talk of the poor and famine, they would wear gold and sit in extravagent golden thrones. He does not.
He is the first pope to reserve a small apartment as his home and not move into the palace, to show others that his comfort is not an important issue.
He was caught sneaking out of the vatican to give comforting prayers to the poor. I do not believe in prayer but im certain they did and it gave them great peace of mind. It was a charitable deed that he tried to do in a way that would garner him no PR.
He does not use the pope mobile.
One of my favorites - he washed and kissed the feet of 10 AIDS patients.. true humility. Any man who did that to make the point that these sick people are still people gets respect.

So you do not have favorite popes, and yet you have listed the reasons why you like this one. You are too busy into church matters, yet you have all of these reasons to like this one, even though it is 'not in your interest'.

I think you read into my statements things I did write, and responded to them, assuming you know the mind of all members of the Atheist community.
Two errors on your part.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 7:56:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:26:06 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 10:13:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Here is what Steve Jobs said about the county people of India.

"The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

Like Einstein said - "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Steve Jobs is not a person too be quoted beside Einstein.
He was a great business man, he never really invented a thing himself.

If Steve Jobs and Einstein both like chocolate ice cream, I may quote both of them on that.
I do not care if Steve Jobs loved sports, and Einstein did not, that has nothing to do with their common interest in chocolate ice cream.
They were both outstanding achievers in their fields, and both respected intuition as a means to knowledge, so I will quote them together.

Furthermore, ever been to India?
Ever see people die in the street as others walk by?
Ever heard of the Untouchables?
They are the lowest level of the Indian caste system, born into forced poverty, they are outlawed by tradition to take any work but the cleaning of toilets and sewers.

Yes, I was reading about the untouchables 50 years ago, and how it was 1500 years before that, and little has changed in some respects, great strides in other respects.
I was reading about Western racial bigotry 50 years ago, and little has changed in that, in some respects, great strides in other respects.

Saying it is somehow 'more' is a cop out. As rape crimes raise and raise in public view, its clear that its a country ill... there is virtually no middle class. Most are poor, even very poor, the rest are rich.

An' ill country', surely not the only one. I see many across the globe. My own has certainly been healthier.
And this negates the intellectual ability of its people as noted by Steve Jobs - exactly how?
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 8:23:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 7:56:03 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:26:06 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 10:13:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Here is what Steve Jobs said about the county people of India.

"The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

Like Einstein said - "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Steve Jobs is not a person too be quoted beside Einstein.
He was a great business man, he never really invented a thing himself.

If Steve Jobs and Einstein both like chocolate ice cream, I may quote both of them on that.
I do not care if Steve Jobs loved sports, and Einstein did not, that has nothing to do with their common interest in chocolate ice cream.
They were both outstanding achievers in their fields, and both respected intuition as a means to knowledge, so I will quote them together.

Furthermore, ever been to India?
Ever see people die in the street as others walk by?
Ever heard of the Untouchables?
They are the lowest level of the Indian caste system, born into forced poverty, they are outlawed by tradition to take any work but the cleaning of toilets and sewers.

Yes, I was reading about the untouchables 50 years ago, and how it was 1500 years before that, and little has changed in some respects, great strides in other respects.
I was reading about Western racial bigotry 50 years ago, and little has changed in that, in some respects, great strides in other respects.

Saying it is somehow 'more' is a cop out. As rape crimes raise and raise in public view, its clear that its a country ill... there is virtually no middle class. Most are poor, even very poor, the rest are rich.

An' ill country', surely not the only one. I see many across the globe. My own has certainly been healthier.
And this negates the intellectual ability of its people as noted by Steve Jobs - exactly how?

1. If Einstein liked chocolate ice cream, and so did Dahmer, I guess youd be able to quote both, yes?

Einstein revolutionized science purely do to his love of it. He reshaped the very view of existence. He had no love for money, as was proven when he gave every cent of his Noble Prize winnings to his ex-wife. He lived out of a small suitcase, had a few clothes, would take the most basic living quarters, and this was all at the time where crowds and political figures would come to meet him at the airport as he arrived.

Steve Jobs never invented a thing. His great accomplishments were selling said things, and making his company alot of money. He took technology that he couldve made far more available to poorer people if he lowered the price some which wouldve still allowed him unmitigated profits, but always chose route B - to glamorize things and make them more desirable then they actually were. He is the anti-thesis of Einstein.

Try googling "Did Jobs invent anything".. you get some rather credible sources saying, simply, no. Heres one:
http://www.forbes.com...

2 - In western society, in 60 years, things went from often open discrimination, especially in America, to a black president that was hailed the western world over for the fact that a black man was elected. A black man with the name Hussein. Are all racial issues over? Hardly.. but the steps are significant.
Meanwhile there was virtually no progress to the fate of the Untouchables. Its as bad as ever and Indian society only speaks of it in circles where international eyes see, down the road they do nothing to stop the problem.

3 - Your mixing your own words up. Jobs essentially said they were 'not' intellectual, but worked through intuition. Intuition is an easy thing to claim, as its one of those impossible to exactly define or quantify concepts.
Beyond that, as stated before, anything that came out of Jobs mouth had nothing to do with the care for others, it had to do with being a business man..

How do you know he didnt really care?
Bill Gates, who was famously a narcissist when it came to business, has already donated tens of billions from his fortune. He claims by the end of his life only a few million will be left for his children. He set up a charity where billionaires around the world will agree to donate half of their fortune to charity upon their death.

Steve Jobs, in his life, donated about 50 million.. on his death he was worth over 8 billion.
Lets do some math. If he was, for the sake of easing numbers, worth 5 billion, 50 million is.. thats right, 1% of his fortune. Now remembering that it was actually 8 billion, then it was even less.

If I own 10,000 dolars, and I donate 100 dollars, im essentially more charitable then Steve Jobs, even though my money is clearly less expendable then his.

Stop holding the bastard up like he was some kind of great man.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 9:31:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 8:23:09 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/26/2015 7:56:03 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:26:06 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/25/2015 10:13:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Here is what Steve Jobs said about the county people of India.

"The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

Like Einstein said - "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Steve Jobs is not a person too be quoted beside Einstein.
He was a great business man, he never really invented a thing himself.

If Steve Jobs and Einstein both like chocolate ice cream, I may quote both of them on that.
I do not care if Steve Jobs loved sports, and Einstein did not, that has nothing to do with their common interest in chocolate ice cream.
They were both outstanding achievers in their fields, and both respected intuition as a means to knowledge, so I will quote them together.

Furthermore, ever been to India?
Ever see people die in the street as others walk by?
Ever heard of the Untouchables?
They are the lowest level of the Indian caste system, born into forced poverty, they are outlawed by tradition to take any work but the cleaning of toilets and sewers.

Yes, I was reading about the untouchables 50 years ago, and how it was 1500 years before that, and little has changed in some respects, great strides in other respects.
I was reading about Western racial bigotry 50 years ago, and little has changed in that, in some respects, great strides in other respects.

Saying it is somehow 'more' is a cop out. As rape crimes raise and raise in public view, its clear that its a country ill... there is virtually no middle class. Most are poor, even very poor, the rest are rich.

An' ill country', surely not the only one. I see many across the globe. My own has certainly been healthier.
And this negates the intellectual ability of its people as noted by Steve Jobs - exactly how?

1. If Einstein liked chocolate ice cream, and so did Dahmer, I guess youd be able to quote both, yes?

Well why not? Of course. They have this in common, if I wanted to convince both sociopaths and eggheads to eat chocolate ice cream, it may be convincing to both groups.
Jeffery Dahmer says Chocolate ice cream was his favorite, and Einstein said the same thing.

Einstein revolutionized science purely do to his love of it. He reshaped the very view of existence. He had no love for money, as was proven when he gave every cent of his Noble Prize winnings to his ex-wife. He lived out of a small suitcase, had a few clothes, would take the most basic living quarters, and this was all at the time where crowds and political figures would come to meet him at the airport as he arrived.

Steve Jobs never invented a thing. His great accomplishments were selling said things, and making his company alot of money. He took technology that he couldve made far more available to poorer people if he lowered the price some which wouldve still allowed him unmitigated profits, but always chose route B - to glamorize things and make them more desirable then they actually were. He is the anti-thesis of Einstein.

Try googling "Did Jobs invent anything".. you get some rather credible sources saying, simply, no. Heres one:
http://www.forbes.com...

So, if two people do not share all characteristic, then neither can be mentioned in the same discussion with the other.
Like if one is a womanizer, and the other is a loyal family man, don't discuss their common opinions of string theory, they are just too different.


2 - In western society, in 60 years, things went from often open discrimination, especially in America, to a black president that was hailed the western world over for the fact that a black man was elected. A black man with the name Hussein. Are all racial issues over? Hardly.. but the steps are significant.
Meanwhile there was virtually no progress to the fate of the Untouchables. Its as bad as ever and Indian society only speaks of it in circles where international eyes see, down the road they do nothing to stop the problem.

3 - Your mixing your own words up. Jobs essentially said they were 'not' intellectual, but worked through intuition. Intuition is an easy thing to claim, as its one of those impossible to exactly define or quantify concepts.
Beyond that, as stated before, anything that came out of Jobs mouth had nothing to do with the care for others, it had to do with being a business man..

Here is what jobs said: "don't use their intellect like we do".
You take this to mean, 'they were not intellectual'.
Rubbish. If I say you do not use your muscles like I do, I am not saying you are a weakling. Swimmers use their muscles differently than weight lifters, that doesn't mean swimmers are not Athletic.
Eastern mind and Western mind are different.
This does not mean The Buddha was not an intellectual. he was not a Western intellectual, no doubt there.

How do you know he didnt really care?
Bill Gates, who was famously a narcissist when it came to business, has already donated tens of billions from his fortune. He claims by the end of his life only a few million will be left for his children. He set up a charity where billionaires around the world will agree to donate half of their fortune to charity upon their death.

Steve Jobs, in his life, donated about 50 million.. on his death he was worth over 8 billion.
Lets do some math. If he was, for the sake of easing numbers, worth 5 billion, 50 million is.. thats right, 1% of his fortune. Now remembering that it was actually 8 billion, then it was even less.

If I own 10,000 dolars, and I donate 100 dollars, im essentially more charitable then Steve Jobs, even though my money is clearly less expendable then his.

Stop holding the bastard up like he was some kind of great man.

Well, you are totally irrational.
I will join you.
That bastard, despicable waste of a human being, Steve Jobs, accomplished great things and gave credit to intuition and an Eastern way of viewing the world, may all good men spit on his grave in memory of his deplorable acts.
Can we agree on that?
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 10:17:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Apologies but I was forced to cut out previous posts because of character count cap.

You wish to throw around the word irrational, but then claim that if two very different men happened to like something similar, then they themselves are similar.

To go to my absolute limit in an example of absurdity of using comparisons so freely, at the risk of conjuring claim of Godwins Law:
Early Zionist Theodore Herzl wished Jew's to build their home in Palestine in the late 1900th century because he saw the great threat looming over European Jewry in the form of the Dreyfus Affair.
Hitler spoke of sending the Jews to Palestine as well before the Reich reached the conclusion that murder is the more appropriate method.
They both wanted the same thing.. so clearly they were very much alike and circumstance is irrelevant.
There is not intellectual interest in knowing that two people felt the same over something. That is the shallowest level of research on any subject. The important information will always be 'why'.

Furthermore, Buddha was an intellectual. Dictionary definition:
"Intellect is a term used in studies of the human mind, and refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems."
How was Buddha's conclusions on the human condition non-intellectual? Is it due to him basing it on religious principal?
Different muscles may be needed for different tasks, but they all function exactly the same and are all made of primarily the same things.
Intellectual and Intuition are two vastly different things that do not work in any of the same ways, your example is false.

Lastly.. and ive pointed this out with facts and an actual article.. what great things did Steve Jobs exactly do?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:27:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 10:17:51 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
Apologies but I was forced to cut out previous posts because of character count cap.


You wish to throw around the word irrational, but then claim that if two very different men happened to like something similar, then they themselves are similar.


Do the both have two arms, two legs, a heart? They are similar.
I never implied that the character of the two men was similar - maybe Steve jobs was a womanizer, and Einstein a faithful husband, don't know, don't care.
You assume meaning in my words that I did not put there.

To go to my absolute limit in an example of absurdity of using comparisons so freely, at the risk of conjuring claim of Godwins Law:
Early Zionist Theodore Herzl wished Jew's to build their home in Palestine in the late 1900th century because he saw the great threat looming over European Jewry in the form of the Dreyfus Affair.
Hitler spoke of sending the Jews to Palestine as well before the Reich reached the conclusion that murder is the more appropriate method.
They both wanted the same thing.. so clearly they were very much alike and circumstance is irrelevant.
There is not intellectual interest in knowing that two people felt the same over something. That is the shallowest level of research on any subject. The important information will always be 'why'.

Here is what I say:
"This does not mean The Buddha was not an intellectual. he was not a Western intellectual, no doubt there."

Can you see that I say. I say The Buddha WAS an intellectual.
And your reply:

Furthermore, Buddha was an intellectual. Dictionary definition:
"Intellect is a term used in studies of the human mind, and refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems."
So, you have to refer to a dictionary, to show I am right about The Buddha being an intellectual, and imply that you are correcting me.
English is your second language, that may be the cause.
Jobs essentially said they were 'not' intellectual, but worked through intuition. :Intuition is an easy thing to claim, as its one of those impossible to exactly :define or quantify concepts.

Your understanding of intuition is lacking. You have a Western attitude.
There is no conflict with an intellectual person using intuition.
I used The Buddha as an example. He was an intellectual, he relied on intuition.
The fact that the country people of India used intuition does not imply they were not "intellectual". They were not 'learned', and it may be that some were intellectual, and some were not. Working through intuition does not dismiss them as non-intellectual, as you claim.

How was Buddha's conclusions on the human condition non-intellectual? Is it due to him basing it on religious principal?

Religious principle?
The Buddha had no belief in god, and you accuse him of being a religionist.
The Buddha was an intuitionalist.
Conclusions arrived by intuition, are nonrational. Not irrational, that is different. Intuition leaps over rational thought processes, such as logic.

Different muscles may be needed for different tasks, but they all function exactly the same and are all made of primarily the same things.
Intellectual and Intuition are two vastly different things that do not work in any of the same ways, your example is false.

The mind preforms intellectual processes, and intuitive processes. Yes or no?
Simply because I use my mind to perform intuitive processes, does not mean I am not an intellectual. My mind has the capacity to do both.
The Buddha is a prime example. Apparently you do not know about his use of intuition. Thanks to the dictionary, you do understand he was an intellectual.
When we say 'Eastern mind', as opposed to 'Western mind', we are pointing out that Eastern relies on intuition, but not to the total exclusion of rational thought, and the Western mind relies on Rational thought, but not to the exclusion of all intuition.
This is pointed out by Einstein.

Here is what I said of Steve jobs:
That bastard, despicable waste of a human being, Steve Jobs, accomplished great things and gave credit to intuition and an Eastern way of viewing the world, may all good men spit on his grave in memory of his deplorable acts.
Can we agree on that?


Your reply:
Lastly.. and ive pointed this out with facts and an actual article.. what great things did Steve Jobs exactly do?

He made a pile of money.
He was not accused of any crime, or seriously accused of any immoral activity in the acquisition of that money.
People who acquire great wealth without crime, have done 'great things'.
I realize that for some people, anyone who acquires great wealth, is a bad person, and never, ever, in their life, did a great thing.
You may be such a person.
Fuzzed
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 1:09:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:27:28 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 10:17:51 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
Apologies but I was forced to cut out previous posts because of character count cap.


You wish to throw around the word irrational, but then claim that if two very different men happened to like something similar, then they themselves are similar.


Do the both have two arms, two legs, a heart? They are similar.
I never implied that the character of the two men was similar - maybe Steve jobs was a womanizer, and Einstein a faithful husband, don't know, don't care.
You assume meaning in my words that I did not put there.



To go to my absolute limit in an example of absurdity of using comparisons so freely, at the risk of conjuring claim of Godwins Law:
Early Zionist Theodore Herzl wished Jew's to build their home in Palestine in the late 1900th century because he saw the great threat looming over European Jewry in the form of the Dreyfus Affair.
Hitler spoke of sending the Jews to Palestine as well before the Reich reached the conclusion that murder is the more appropriate method.
They both wanted the same thing.. so clearly they were very much alike and circumstance is irrelevant.
There is not intellectual interest in knowing that two people felt the same over something. That is the shallowest level of research on any subject. The important information will always be 'why'.

Here is what I say:
"This does not mean The Buddha was not an intellectual. he was not a Western intellectual, no doubt there."

Can you see that I say. I say The Buddha WAS an intellectual.
And your reply:

Furthermore, Buddha was an intellectual. Dictionary definition:
"Intellect is a term used in studies of the human mind, and refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems."
So, you have to refer to a dictionary, to show I am right about The Buddha being an intellectual, and imply that you are correcting me.
English is your second language, that may be the cause.
Jobs essentially said they were 'not' intellectual, but worked through intuition. :Intuition is an easy thing to claim, as its one of those impossible to exactly :define or quantify concepts.

Your understanding of intuition is lacking. You have a Western attitude.
There is no conflict with an intellectual person using intuition.
I used The Buddha as an example. He was an intellectual, he relied on intuition.
The fact that the country people of India used intuition does not imply they were not "intellectual". They were not 'learned', and it may be that some were intellectual, and some were not. Working through intuition does not dismiss them as non-intellectual, as you claim.

How was Buddha's conclusions on the human condition non-intellectual? Is it due to him basing it on religious principal?

Religious principle?
The Buddha had no belief in god, and you accuse him of being a religionist.
The Buddha was an intuitionalist.
Conclusions arrived by intuition, are nonrational. Not irrational, that is different. Intuition leaps over rational thought processes, such as logic.

Different muscles may be needed for different tasks, but they all function exactly the same and are all made of primarily the same things.
Intellectual and Intuition are two vastly different things that do not work in any of the same ways, your example is false.

The mind preforms intellectual processes, and intuitive processes. Yes or no?
Simply because I use my mind to perform intuitive processes, does not mean I am not an intellectual. My mind has the capacity to do both.
The Buddha is a prime example. Apparently you do not know about his use of intuition. Thanks to the dictionary, you do understand he was an intellectual.
When we say 'Eastern mind', as opposed to 'Western mind', we are pointing out that Eastern relies on intuition, but not to the total exclusion of rational thought, and the Western mind relies on Rational thought, but not to the exclusion of all intuition.
This is pointed out by Einstein.

Here is what I said of Steve jobs:
That bastard, despicable waste of a human being, Steve Jobs, accomplished great things and gave credit to intuition and an Eastern way of viewing the world, may all good men spit on his grave in memory of his deplorable acts.
Can we agree on that?


Your reply:
Lastly.. and ive pointed this out with facts and an actual article.. what great things did Steve Jobs exactly do?

He made a pile of money.
He was not accused of any crime, or seriously accused of any immoral activity in the acquisition of that money.
People who acquire great wealth without crime, have done 'great things'.
I realize that for some people, anyone who acquires great wealth, is a bad person, and never, ever, in their life, did a great thing.
You may be such a person.

Back your judgemental as up.
I miss read something.
I am not an english speaker, a mistake can be made. Its clear that I misread something, and you took it as a chance to assault my argument from a clearly unfair advantage. Very good of you.

If India is using intuition, then clearly it is the lesser of the two, as proven by the use of faith and superstition over logic and structured thought.

Furthermore, nonrationality and irrationality.. is that the argument you want to make?
That he was nonrational means that he used no rational thought?
So he came to conclusions without logic or reason? Purely through spirituality?
Sounds like religion to me (which, curiously, Buddhism is).

Intuition is often related to scientific progress. A intellectual man might understand information, but it would take natural intuition to reach different conclusions, yes?
What great scientific leaps and bounds has Indian society made, with a population of nearly 2 billion?
I will not look kindly upon a society that has both some of the worlds poorest people, and some of the richest, including the worlds largest personal home while millions are forced into literal slavery forcing them to deal with human excement their whole lives.
Jobs 'praise' of India were aimed at the rich, and curiously as 2012 there were rumors of Apple moving its industry to India, with now more official reports coming through ( a major deal that would take more then a decade to create).

Lastly, people who acquire money did f*ck all great. People who open companies in China, even though they make obscene amounts of money, so they can use cheap labor that work in conditions that would be illegal in America for pathetic sums. Such terrible conditions, in fact, that it caused a heavy wave of suicides that forced the factory to put anti-suicide nets around the roof. Not immoral at all because he was never put to trial, right?

http://www.theguardian.com...

Ever hear of Salk?
He invented the Polio vaccine. He couldve made billions in the 50's.. and what did he do?
He refused to patent it or even try to do so. He made the lives of millions better because he wanted to make the world a better place, not his bank account.

What an empty excuse to put a bussiness man like Jobs who used cheap miserable human labor next to one of the pinnacles of human brilliance, Einstein, who used any free time to debate against war and human rights violations.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 1:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 1:09:24 PM, Fuzzed wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:27:28 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 10:17:51 AM, Fuzzed wrote:


Back your judgemental as up.
I miss read something.
I am not an english speaker, a mistake can be made. Its clear that I misread something, and you took it as a chance to assault my argument from a clearly unfair advantage. Very good of you.

If India is using intuition, then clearly it is the lesser of the two, as proven by the use of faith and superstition over logic and structured thought.

Furthermore, nonrationality and irrationality.. is that the argument you want to make?
That he was nonrational means that he used no rational thought?
So he came to conclusions without logic or reason? Purely through spirituality?
Sounds like religion to me (which, curiously, Buddhism is).

So, when Einstein used intuition, he was purely spiritual?
Many other scientists, mathematicians more so, give credit to intuition, not reason or logic. You will say they were all spiritualists?
Some forms of Buddhism are religion -as practiced today.
Many Buddhists are Atheists.
Buddha had no teachings about god, persistence of identity after death, rituals, liturgy, and other hallmarks of religion.
~ ~
~ ~
In recent years neuroscience has made great strides in explaining how flashes of insight work. We find reference to flashes of insight as well in a variety of older fields that seek to explain how good ideas for action happen. They appear in Asian philosophy, classical military strategy, business strategy, the history of science, and the newer field of cognitive psychology. By pulling together these various sources, we are able to arrive at a modern discipline that puts flashes of insight at the center of a philosophy of action across all fields of human endeavor.

I call this new discipline strategic intuition. It is very different from ordinary intuition, like vague hunches or gut instinct. Ordinary intuition is a form of emotion: feeling, not thinking. Strategic intuition is the opposite: it"s thinking, not feeling. A flash of insight cuts through the fog of your mind with a clear, shining thought. You might feel elated right after, but the thought itself is sharp in your mind. That"s why it excites you: at last you see clearly what to do.
http://columbiapress.typepad.com......

~~~~

Although intuitions may often lead to suboptimal decisions, it is still possible that intuitions are sometimes as good or better than judgments derived from deliberation. This quality of intuitions is not necessarily a default circumstance due to deliberative strategies falling short when overused (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Schooler, Ohlson, & Brooks, 1993; Wilson & Brekke, 1994), but rather may be the result of the structural properties of intuition once it is considered in its proper information processing context.
http://www.scn.ucla.edu...
~ ~
Intuition in mathematical proofs is inseparably connected with the originality of
mathematical thinking, with creativity while proving. Modern usage of the term
"intuition" originates from Descartes. Russian mathematician Steklov (1923) stated
that "the method of discovery and invention is the same for all, one and the same
intuition , because nobody discovers anything with the help of logic; a syllogism may
lead other people to the agreement with that or other proof known before, but as a
tool of invention it is useless" But the heart of the matter is that even in simple cases
it is impossible to logically explain all the stages of proof. In invention of practically
every step of proof it is intuition that matters and not logic; intuition is hig her than
any logic". Independent proofs, thus, can be divided into proofs where intuition is
present (the so-called intuitive proofs), and the proofs which will be called logical
proofs, i.e. proofs made only with the help of logic, in other words proofs where one
uses the method known to a pupil and leading to a purpose though not demanding to
put forward new ideas, while the proofs with the use of intuition are necessarily
connected with the presence of originality in the ideas proposed by a pupil.
http://www.lettredelapreuve.it...

~ ~

~ ~

Intuition is often related to scientific progress. A intellectual man might understand information, but it would take natural intuition to reach different conclusions, yes?
What great scientific leaps and bounds has Indian society made, with a population of nearly 2 billion?
I will not look kindly upon a society that has both some of the worlds poorest people, and some of the richest, including the worlds largest personal home while millions are forced into literal slavery forcing them to deal with human excement their whole lives.
Jobs 'praise' of India were aimed at the rich, and curiously as 2012 there were rumors of Apple moving its industry to India, with now more official reports coming through ( a major deal that would take more then a decade to create).


Lastly, people who acquire money did f*ck all great. People who open companies in China, even though they make obscene amounts of money, so they can use cheap labor that work in conditions that would be illegal in America for pathetic sums. Such terrible conditions, in fact, that it caused a heavy wave of suicides that forced the factory to put anti-suicide nets around the roof. Not immoral at all because he was never put to trial, right?

http://www.theguardian.com...

Ever hear of Salk?
He invented the Polio vaccine. He couldve made billions in the 50's.. and what did he do?
He refused to patent it or even try to do so. He made the lives of millions better because he wanted to make the world a better place, not his bank account.

What an empty excuse to put a bussiness man like Jobs who used cheap miserable human labor next to one of the pinnacles of human brilliance, Einstein, who used any free time to debate against war and human rights violations.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 12:07:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:30:49 AM, Fuzzed wrote:
If you want to talk about history and miracles, then you have to accept that once science became more dominant, whenever a miracle was present logical scientific reasoning was put behind it.

Its why, not, miracles are found more and more in communities on the boundries of science (Indias a good example).

Furthermore, you have to look at those the miracles happened too.
By vatican law, all Saints must perform at least two miracles.
Every ability to truly delve in these saints backgrounds proves fallacy everywhere.

A good example is mother Theresa. Cannonized as a saint, more and more evidence is turning up to prove that she was a cruel woman, and newly found letters even found her claiming she did not feel god for some quite time, and it made her bitter.

You were obviously never a Catholic and don't understand Catholic theology in the least.

http://www.catholiceducation.org...
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 9:01:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:21:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past.

That's untrue, T_S. All science studies the past. For example, while it takes only eight minutes for light to travel from the surface of the sun to our eyes, it takes millions of years for it to leave the centre of the sun and get to the surface in the first place. In a similar fashion, geology is the study of ancient processes of the earth; biology includes the study of ancient steps in species development; physics is the study of what happened microseconds ago to millennia go. Science is built on observation, and observation is always about the past.

I'm excluding fields such as biology when studying history.


Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.
We can think of verification as the independent and skeptical analysis of evidence to confirm that a particular event occurred, rather than something else.

Independence is important: the evidence cannot be interpreted theologically, for example. Theologians have no authority to say what may have occurred or has occurred, because it introduces bias throughout the investigation.

Skepticism is also important: when we consider the possibility of unusual events, it's important to be diligent in exploring the possibility that ordinary events occurred instead. And similarly, it's important to look at the methods of transmitting the claims, since it's known that people change the story to suit their purposes.

So, for example, there are a great many ancient attestations of resurrections. We cannot single one out theologically to explore while ignoring all the others, because that's leading the evidence. Either the ancient world is full of errors and deceits about resurrection (in which case that's an ordinary explanation for resurrection claims), or it is not full of error and deceit -- in which case, resurrection in different cultures and faiths was commonplace.

I hope that may help. :)

There's a difference between theological beliefs and objective evidence. The existence of Jesus is objective but his divinity is up to faith.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 4:17:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 9:01:27 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:21:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past.
That's untrue, T_S. All science studies the past.
I'm excluding fields such as biology when studying history.

Itself a science (though not an exact science), history can draw on any other scientific area: geology, climatology, genetics, anthropology, economics, linguistics.

If we use all the knowledge available to us, we quickly recognise that:
* Cultures traded stories of miracles along with other mythological ideas;
* Few miracles claimed in Christianity originated there;
* Psychologically, we know that people are disposed to believing in wondrous events whether they're true or not; and
* Historically, people would embellish stories of their heroes over time -- sometimes even in their lifetimes -- in order to give them more authority and status.

So unless you have strong, independent supporting data, it generally makes more sense to explain reports of miracles as psychosocial effects than aberrations in physics and similar.

There's a difference between theological beliefs and objective evidence. The existence of Jesus is objective but his divinity is up to faith.

Not quite, TS. Historical figures are defined by their biographies, and most historical biographies are mixtures of fact and fiction. Historical writers lied routinely: they pretended they were other authors; fabricated dates at which things were written; falsified prophecies; attested rumour to authority to give it legitimacy; purported to have witnessed things themselves that they'd only heard about. And later redactors would alter texts, combine them, reattribute them -- all without ever mentioning they'd done it.

So you can easily find that an historical figure might be some pre-existing figure renamed, multiple pre-existing figures combined, or a new figure highly embellished. Finding evidence that the figure was actually a real and original person with a substantive biography is a matter of working through source by source, claim by claim, in the context of whatever else is known about the era, its writers, their language and so on.

The sort of thing that would clinch it -- like Roman administrative records -- are missing. We're relying on the storytelling of people (often unnamed or reattributed, some decades or centuries later) who were telling stories for political and theological purposes.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 4:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

Is there any evidence that the miracles described in the Bible could take place?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 5:43:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's cut to the chase.

Here is a common view of History:

In any case, what we have described here as the sort of understanding at which history aims is evidently of a very different sort than that at which the sciences aim. And this is probably the strongest reason for saying that history is not, and indeed does not seek to be, a science.
http://www.eurozine.com...

There is a lengthy article leading up to this summary.

This does not mean History is not a science.
It does mean that such ideas are controversial, and based as much on core beliefs in other areas.
No individual has the authority to say History is, or is not a Science for mankind.
Some will say it is, others will disagree.

Scientific America has an interesting article titled: Humanities aren't a science. Stop treating them like one.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Many articles can be cited that say history is a science, the point being, it just depends who you ask.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 6:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 4:35:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

Is there any evidence that the miracles described in the Bible could take place?

The is the scientific evidence.
Any event has a probability of happening that is greater than zero.
This is just plain old basic science.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 5:08:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

But even verifying them historically is *not* certain or even close because of self-selection bias, etc.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:38:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

You last statement is absurd. And as wrong as can be.

"...oral transmission proven very reliable?"

LMFAO.

Obviously you never played the telephone game as a kid in school. And THAT took place in a matter of minutes. Imagine what immense falsity and exaggeration takes place over the course of decades. Or centuries. Let alone millenia--like with the Bible.

Many of the Bible's historical inaccuracies and downright falsehoods are due to the fact that the vast majority of the Jews back then were illiterate, and so their tales had to be passed-on through oral communications before being written.

And we all know what a fine and objective history book the Bible is. LOL

Your OP basically says that matters of testimony should be taken as true. Or that there is no such thing as a faulty witness. Or outright fraud.

I find that very naive.

Miracles have NEVER been proven--NEVER!--for a reason. They do not nor ever did exist.

Disagree? Ask James Randi. Why has nobody ever collected that $1 Million?

Or..we could debate this formally if you wish?

Let me know.

Peace.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:41:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:38:18 AM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 4/22/2015 7:01:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How can we know miracles are historically reliable? Scientifically they cannot be verified because they are in the past. Thus, they can only be verified historically. One source says this.

"If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences beholding the events" (Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.)

Several methods of verification exist according to the historical method. My fav. is comparison with current evidence.

Oral transmission has been proven to be very reliable in the ancient world with little to no exaggeration.

You last statement is absurd. And as wrong as can be.

"...oral transmission proven very reliable?"

LMFAO.

Obviously you never played the telephone game as a kid in school. And THAT took place in a matter of minutes. Imagine what immense falsity and exaggeration takes place over the course of decades. Or centuries. Let alone millenia--like with the Bible.

Many of the Bible's historical inaccuracies and downright falsehoods are due to the fact that the vast majority of the Jews back then were illiterate, and so their tales had to be passed-on through oral communications before being written.

And we all know what a fine and objective history book the Bible is. LOL

Your OP basically says that matters of testimony should be taken as true. Or that there is no such thing as a faulty witness. Or outright fraud.

I find that very naive.

Miracles have NEVER been proven--NEVER!--for a reason. They do not nor ever did exist.

Disagree? Ask James Randi. Why has nobody ever collected that $1 Million?

Or..we could debate this formally if you wish?

Let me know.

Peace.

And...umm...ya might wanna check this out. Let me know if you need more info on the falsity of alleged miracles, OR oral and written history. I got a million of 'em! LOL

http://www.salon.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.