Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Sadly...

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 9:51:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

I cannot say I can contribute anything meaningful to the post you are referring to, but can I ask about your signature? What do you mean by #FIxTheReligionForum?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

Sadly:
Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:04:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:51:38 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

I cannot say I can contribute anything meaningful to the post you are referring to, but can I ask about your signature? What do you mean by #FIxTheReligionForum?

The religion forum used to have actual intellectual discourse. It was rare, but much more common then now. Now we have people who do not want to engage in intellectual discourse but just want to preach.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

Sadly:
Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

That is not what The uniformity of nature means.

The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well.

In short if what does not hold true today such as miracles, Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, they could not have held true in the past and cannot hold true in the future.

Sadly:
Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:20:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

I think we don't have the ability to test these sorts of things, and will never have something to test the past for this stuff. However, it seems logical to me that we will invent new tests or theories that will give some supernatural "things" some credit. I personally look at things as logically as i can, and there have been more than a few times that i had to think "what in the world was that." It goes beyond mere coincidences to me. Unless i am just noticing things bc i thought about it, or i just may accidentally have had more coincidence in my life. Who knows? i am not stating this to say, "hey i'm special" I am stating this bc these experiences are what have made me think spiritual or supernatural may exist. I question it every day. Now, how do we test something like this? I mean, if a scientist followed me around from 4 years of age to now, we may have something. But, i don't see how my experiences or any supernatural experience can be tested with what we have at this point. We need a new way to test for these things. Anything in history, is history. I don't call myself religious bc i understand this. They did not understand science like we do today, so it would make sense that 90% of what they thought was supernatural was just natural. I am just curious about the 10%, which i have luckily (or imo unluckily) have also had the chance to experience. We just need to evolve more.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:21:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:17:50 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

That is not what The uniformity of nature means.

The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well.

In short if what does not hold true today such as miracles, Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, they could not have held true in the past and cannot hold true in the future.

I know what the uniformity of nature means.
You are correct, if those things cannot happen today due to natural laws then they cannot happen then either.
That isn't the point though. I am saying that even if they could happen today (though still limited by what we know of natural law) then while they might have happened in the past, one can never prove (show that it is probable) that they did actually happen in the past.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:27:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Oh and to address your OP more directly, i think you are right and wrong. Some things that we can prove today to be impossible were more than likely impossible years ago. However, like i stated before, we may find new things or ways that show us there is something more. Something that seems impossible today may not be tomorrow. I mean, even in physics, if we somehow find a way to prove there is another dimension, that can turn everything over. What if in other dimensions the laws of physics are different? That may not change anything for our world, but would prove that we don't have the one absolute truth ... i firmly believe there is no one absolute truth.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:48:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:21:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:17:50 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

That is not what The uniformity of nature means.

The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well.

In short if what does not hold true today such as miracles, Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, they could not have held true in the past and cannot hold true in the future.

I know what the uniformity of nature means.
You are correct, if those things cannot happen today due to natural laws then they cannot happen then either.
That isn't the point though. I am saying that even if they could happen today (though still limited by what we know of natural law) then while they might have happened in the past, one can never prove (show that it is probable) that they did actually happen in the past.

That is again not how uniformity of nature is applied.
If what we can prove or accept happens today, there will be little reason to doubt it didn't happen in the past and there will be little reason to prove it because we know it is still happening today.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:52:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:48:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:21:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:17:50 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

That is not what The uniformity of nature means.

The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well.

In short if what does not hold true today such as miracles, Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, they could not have held true in the past and cannot hold true in the future.

I know what the uniformity of nature means.
You are correct, if those things cannot happen today due to natural laws then they cannot happen then either.
That isn't the point though. I am saying that even if they could happen today (though still limited by what we know of natural law) then while they might have happened in the past, one can never prove (show that it is probable) that they did actually happen in the past.

That is again not how uniformity of nature is applied.
If what we can prove or accept happens today, there will be little reason to doubt it didn't happen in the past

But the probability of any event being supernatural/miraculous is so low that one wouldn't be able to prove any event in ancient history was supernatural/miraculous. Even if it would be expected that it can happen back then, it is not possible to prove if an event was or was not, and thus one would have to dismiss it unless EXTREMELY good evidence showed it to be the case (and it is doubtful that there is that quality of evidence for ancient history).

and there will be little reason to prove it because we know it is still happening today.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:59:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:52:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:48:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:21:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:17:50 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

That is not what The uniformity of nature means.

The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well.

In short if what does not hold true today such as miracles, Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, they could not have held true in the past and cannot hold true in the future.

I know what the uniformity of nature means.
You are correct, if those things cannot happen today due to natural laws then they cannot happen then either.
That isn't the point though. I am saying that even if they could happen today (though still limited by what we know of natural law) then while they might have happened in the past, one can never prove (show that it is probable) that they did actually happen in the past.

That is again not how uniformity of nature is applied.
If what we can prove or accept happens today, there will be little reason to doubt it didn't happen in the past

But the probability of any event being supernatural/miraculous is so low that one wouldn't be able to prove any event in ancient history was supernatural/miraculous. Even if it would be expected that it can happen back then, it is not possible to prove if an event was or was not, and thus one would have to dismiss it unless EXTREMELY good evidence showed it to be the case (and it is doubtful that there is that quality of evidence for ancient history).

and there will be little reason to prove it because we know it is still happening today.

You are confusing sir. I thought you said if it can be proven today it would be hard to prove it happened back then. But if something can be proven today there is no reason why it couldn't happen back then. Yeah, it is impossible to prove per say. Unless it still stands and gives us information. This is silly. The answer is yeah ... it would be hard to prove something that happened in the past ... bc, it was in the past; unless it happened in a time it was well documented ... I'm lost what answer you are looking for.. i will read the person you are responding to in hopes of understanding this question.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 2:35:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, you should have put it here.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 1:11:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:52:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:48:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:21:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:17:50 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 10:05:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:52:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Sadly this destroys the concept of a personal God, miracles, Virgin birth, resurrections and much of what Christians believe.

It just means that one cannot show it in ancient history. It must be left to the realms of philosophy and science.

That is not what The uniformity of nature means.

The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well.

In short if what does not hold true today such as miracles, Virgin births, resurrections, walking on water, they could not have held true in the past and cannot hold true in the future.

I know what the uniformity of nature means.
You are correct, if those things cannot happen today due to natural laws then they cannot happen then either.
That isn't the point though. I am saying that even if they could happen today (though still limited by what we know of natural law) then while they might have happened in the past, one can never prove (show that it is probable) that they did actually happen in the past.

That is again not how uniformity of nature is applied.
If what we can prove or accept happens today, there will be little reason to doubt it didn't happen in the past

But the probability of any event being supernatural/miraculous is so low that one wouldn't be able to prove any event in ancient history was supernatural/miraculous. Even if it would be expected that it can happen back then, it is not possible to prove if an event was or was not, and thus one would have to dismiss it unless EXTREMELY good evidence showed it to be the case (and it is doubtful that there is that quality of evidence for ancient history).

The uniformity of nature is not about proving probabilities in the past. To visit the past you rely on historians, archeologists and forensic scientists. The uniformity of nature is a doctrine based on the principle of induction. It is a position from induction that all things being the same (uniform) what happens today in much the same way happened in the past and will continue the same into the future.
Because we don't see miracles, virgin births , resurrections today, we can inductively conclude it couldn't have happened in the past.
This eliminates the need to speculate because what is not occurring today makes it just as unlikely that it did it occur in the past.

Christians offer a myriad of reasons why miracles, Virgin births, resurrection and acts such as Jesus walking on water do not happen to day and by faith accept it happened in the past. But this defies the uniformity of nature principle which simple reasons if those things aren't happening today, they also didn't happen in the past. There is no scientific explanation offered, the reasons follows common sense and deduction/induction.

and there will be little reason to prove it because we know it is still happening today.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 2:35:35 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, you should have put it here.

Problem is, I want a historical discussion by people actually interested in history, NOT a theological discussion by people who have no idea how the study of history works.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:21:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 5:07:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:35:35 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, you should have put it here.

Problem is, I want a historical discussion by people actually interested in history, NOT a theological discussion by people who have no idea how the study of history works.

If you apply Historical Methodology your argument is supported 100%. There is no evidence that miracles are real. Therefore they cannot be used as historical evidence or concidered as actual past events in historical papers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

It does make a lovely con argument for most of the arguments presented in this forum. But I understand why you wouldn't want it to go in that direction.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:24:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 5:21:52 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/2/2015 5:07:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/2/2015 2:35:35 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:42:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Sadly, I think this will only get attention if posted here...
http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, you should have put it here.

Problem is, I want a historical discussion by people actually interested in history, NOT a theological discussion by people who have no idea how the study of history works.

If you apply Historical Methodology your argument is supported 100%. There is no evidence that miracles are real. Therefore they cannot be used as historical evidence or concidered as actual past events in historical papers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

It does make a lovely con argument for most of the arguments presented in this forum. But I understand why you wouldn't want it to go in that direction.

Ya, its just I am becoming more interested in history than theology at the moment. I can still debate and discuss theological issues, but it just isn't as interesting.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO