Search this Topic:
Flattop wrote:So, I would be required to prove -- something I have no real interest in doing -- something I don't actually believe in order for you to consider a theorem about something I do believe.To do what? I guess I am a little lost as to what you are trying to do here. If you are trying to prove that "then a miracle occurred" is actually a superior methodology for understanding how things occur; then yes you would be required to prove that it is has ever worked better than the scientific methodology. That would be the first step. The next step would be to show that over time and a whole series of studies that it is superior. That is the exact same requirement that we generally use in deciding any kind of methodology to adapt when we are studying things. The whole point of most of my discussion on this subject was to show why I believe the scientific methodology is vastly superior to believing in miracles in order to understand how things work. If you are trying to prove that your belief system is correct I am afraid that is a whole other issue; and one that quite correctly could be considered near to impossible for the simple reason that the books it was based upon were clearly written in such a way as to NOT be falsifiable. Hence the whole discussion about religion and science and the difference between the two.
Yeah, I call that ludicrous. Any believer in god(s) who undertook such an endeavor would be foolish in my opinion.Yes. I think that is a correct assessment. I think ludicrous is usually the end result when people start down the path of using science to justify religion or..... using religion to justify science. They are two different methodologies with different requirements. Any suggestions that one can mix the two to justify anything quickly devolves into ludicrous territory.
None of that means we can't use science to intelligently verify the veracity of religious stories or events. Science is a wonderful tool for uncovering and understanding facts. It gets muddled when we start trying to use it to understand opinions.
That was not a shot at you. It wasn't meant as an insult or a
judgment of any kind about you. It was just an observation of the matter as I understand it.I understand. I also agree.
Flattop wrote:I have no interest in proving miracles occurred.
I have no interest in proving my belief system is correct.
As I suggested in earlier posts, I actually believe the God of my religion is more likely to work within the laws of nature than outside of them. Therefore, trying to prove that something currently understood to have happened naturally was actually supernatural would be attempting to prove something I don't believe.
Flattop wrote:You do not appear to be understanding what I or the quotes I posted are saying.
We definitely claim that miraculous events happened and do happen. What we are saying is that such miracles were/are not done outside the laws of nature.Perhaps we should define the laws of nature in order that we can understand each other. And... it seems to me that stories and later, beliefs, that fall back on "then a miracle occurred" would include feats that were humanly impossible at the time, such as the voyage we talked about in the other thread.
I have stated repeatedly that I have no interest in proving my beliefs. I am happy to share them with those who are interested. I am happy to answer sincere questions. I will not force my beliefs on others (which would include proving them).Ok.... this is your right. It doesn't seem to agree with the following quote I found:“The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.” ― James E. Talmage
Flattop wrote:Einstein proved that time travel is possible, in theory. It remains impossible for any human to travel in time.
I imagine that someday, probably not in my lifetime, someone may well prove, in theory, that it is possible to turn water into wine. Yet, like time travel, it will still be impossible for any human to turn water into wine.
We are having a discussion. I am listening. What does the quote have to do with my lack of interesting in proving my beliefs or forcing them on anyone?
Flattop wrote:"Does cold exist? In fact, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Does darkness exist? Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. Evil does not exist. It is just like darkness and cold. God did not creat evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart."
-- Albert Einstein
Flattop wrote:So, Einstein did not prove time travel was possible, in theory?
ferlin wrote:I have finally gone through all nine pages of this exchange, and all I can say is, wow. Just, wow.
A very interesting and excellent exchange! Thank you!
Flattop wrote:I broke my own rule about not believing a quote in a meme but googling it first. Oh well.No big deal. It happens to everyone at some point or another.
As for time travel, I've never been much for science or mathematics, and I don't expect that to change -- and religion has nothing to do with it. I was never a good student, I managed to get through algebra but dropped out of geometry halfway through my sophomore year. Biology was okay, photosynthesis was fascinating, but I was more interested in history. Instead of doing classwork in geometry I sat reading a book about the Pacific War, that's when I knew it was time to drop the class. Later I took an A.P. U.S. history class because I wanted to, not for the college credits.I hated math. I was decent at Algebra and Geometry but absolutely loathed Trigonometry. I bought a set of DVD's on Calculus a few years ago from a professer who is reputed to be one of the best in the country at explaining the history and utility of calculus. I loved it and have watched in numerous times so far. Good teachers can make even the hardest subjects interesting and thereby much easier to grasp. Honestly, I didn't really understand physics beyond the basics until I hired a guy a few years ago to do some programming in our lab. He was a very good programmer but I discovered in talking to him one day that he also had a doctorate in Physics. He has long since moved on to greener pastures but I loved talking to him. I got so interested I was checking books out of the library on Physics, Quantum Theory, Einstein's theories, Shrodinger's cat, and later bought and read a few books on string theory. I have since worked with several physicists and I absolutely love their approach to understanding systems. I never fail to make it point to discuss theories with them at every opportunity now. Like you, I took a very early liking to history. I still find it easier to go through and understand in detail than any other subject but have also found that I enjoy the study of philosophy and theology. Somehow my readings of theoretical physics and the approach I learned to develop in studying physics also has allowed me to grasp and enjoy economics as well. I still struggle with math for the sake of mathematics. I can usually dig my way through the math I need to learn to understand other subjects but have never developed a taste for pure mathematics. Quantum theory is some of the strangest science I have ever read. Some of the experiments involving light waves being effectively in two places at once is very hard to grasp but endlessly fascinating as well. No wonder Einstein considered it spooky physics.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.