"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[bsmeter]

Quote from vhehn:

it is always amusing to hear the theist proclaim that evolution is false because we dont yet have all the answers and yet he will readily believe that some unseen deity just spoke and the world popped up from nothing just as it is today.
as far as fossils go there has never been a fossil found in a layer of the earth that would not be predicted if evolution were true.

Why not take the concept of Gods existence as being a yet unproven scientific Hypotheses that explains universal creation. It will be scientifically proven when the human mind and technology advances to the stage when it can be proven at a later date.


Taking an excerpt from a prior poster:


This happened in the beta decay of radioactive nucleii. It was discovered in 1926 that the energy was not conserved during beta decay. This was shaking the foundation of modern science since energy conservation was one of the central laws of physics.

It would be easy for people to simply attribute this nonconservation of energy to something "outside the realm of science" and go home. Science would stop at that point and won't make any further progress.

Pauli wouldn't buy that anything can be outside the realm of science. So in 1930 he "invented" a particle called neutrino to account for the deficiency in the energy. At this point neutrino was simply a hypothesis because no one was able to see it. It remained a hypothesis for over a quarter of century. Finally in 1956, physicists were able to observe neutrino in experiments. This was one of the great triumphs in science in the past century.







So their observation broke with existing scientific knowledge.

Scientists hypothesized a particle "X" to explain away the observed corruption. ( so far at this stage the Hypotheses="Scientific Faith")

Many decades later, science evolves enough to be able to correct the "Scientific Faith" into observable fact.

And thus it continues.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from Aapex:

The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

You want to take on a tidal wave of interlocking and mutually confirming evidence, that is only getting stronger over time, by jumping up and down over a two-inch tall straw man?

Good luck with that...

By the way, as long as we're discussing monkeys:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060508/drunkmonkeys_ani.html

"Like humans, monkeys are more likely to drink after stressful periods, such as soon after the daily 8-5 testing hours and after a long week of testing."

Interesting. Now how bout monkeys on the net? Hmm, we've got this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4794279.stm

Now if only we could get some monkeys on ET. Or maybe the experiment is already in progress, and we're just waiting for results to come in...

p.s. One last question: is there an elephant heaven?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...VCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/14/nelephant14.xml

 

[archimedes]

Quote from bsmeter:

It's the absolute same thing! Your pre-supposed "educated" point of reference is nothing more than a refinement of your past prejudices. Your "educated" point of reference will always include your past experiences and alleged knowledge.

...

Therefore by the very nature of how you construct your thought, your logic is doomed into a recursive loop that you will always terminate at a point of logic that is analogous to the point you began. And why is that? well it's like mothers "home cooking". Familiar and comforting.

You missed my point.

All points of view include "past experiences and alleged knowledge." It is, um, not possible to have a point of view otherwise.

The fact that "no knowledge can ever be final" does not mean that all knowledge needs to be questioned. That way madness lies. And there's no time for it anyway.

I won't "refine my thought" to "arrive at your conclusion" because I don't think your conclusion is worth arriving at.

Look, here's the thing. If you have a point of view that differs from someone else's, and you want to convince that someone to change their point of view so it aligns with yours, you need to convince them why it behooves them to do so.

This means, like, coming up with, like, reasons and stuff, y'know? It does not mean blathering about prejudices and alleged knowledge.

There's a very simple way to demonstrate that your bullshit meter is blaring. If a particular defense of an argument can be used to defend any argument, no matter how outlandish, then that defense is probably valueless.

Hypothetical case in point:

I assert that Ronald McDonald is God.

You disagree and question my sanity.

I respond by saying The very nature of your comment reflects that you will not be able to refine your thought to arrive to the above conclusion. (Hint hint, those are your words.)

You disagree more strongly now, saying I am just being an asshole, that I don't really believe that Ronald McDonald is God. That I can't believe such a thing, it's too stupid.

I respond by saying, wait for it, By the very nature of how you construct your thought, your logic is doomed into a recursive loop that you will always terminate at a point of logic that is analogous to the point you began. And why is that? well it's like mothers "home cooking". Familiar and comforting.

See? Bullshit. Get a real argument.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from kjkent1:


God could have created evolution and evolutionary processes for scientists to find and understand, and simultaneously, God could have created the antediluvian epoch of Earth for theists to find and understand. And, even though both sets of findings and understandings would seem to logically rule each other out, God, if God is God, could declare the two states consistent and they would BE consistent by virtue of God's declaration.

But such a capricious God would also be a deliberate sower of deceit and confusion in human terms, with the ability to declare ANY action or whim consistent via cosmic sleight of hand. Such would render all theology texts worthless.

If we postulate that God is like Q from Star Trek or The Great Gazoo from The Flintstones, there's no sense in trying to figure out metaphysics at all... but maybe that's the deeper message: "Leave this be, get back to work on something useful."

A good message for me to heed right now in fact.

 

[bsmeter]

Quote from archimedes:

You missed my point.


All points of view include "past experiences and alleged knowledge." It is, um, not possible to have a point of view otherwise.

ummm, that's exactly why if you want the correct answer you should start WITHOUT a point of view. The fact ( or not ) wether you have a bunch of advanced degrees hanging on your wall SHOULD be completely irrelevant.

Once that is accomplished, then the process of iteratively refining the process of seeking the answer to the question will lead to a more correct answer, as the process of seeking the answer to the question is itself part of the answer.

Actually, now I think about it, this process is a LOT like learning how to trade. The process of learning how to trade correctly is itself part of the answer of how to become a consistently profitable trader.

Anyway, at this point I feel we're discussing my apples to your oranges. At some point we do have to move on to better things. Good luck with your search.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from bsmeter:

ummm, that's exactly why if you want the correct answer you should start WITHOUT a point of view. The fact ( or not ) wether you have a bunch of advanced degrees hanging on your wall SHOULD be completely irrelevant.

Once that is accomplished, then the process of iteratively refining the process of seeking the answer to the question will lead to a more correct answer, as the process of seeking the answer to the question is itself part of the answer.

Actually, now I think about it, this process is a LOT like learning how to trade. The process of learning how to trade correctly is itself part of the answer of how to become a consistently profitable trader.

Anyway, at this point I feel we're discussing my apples to your oranges. At some point we do have to move on to better things. Good luck with your search.

In most cases it's impossible to start without a point of view. If the subject is even tangentially related to one's interests, then certain ideas and perceptions regarding the topic will already exist.

This applies tenfold if the topic at hand is one of deep interest. If one has thought extensively on a subject, a large body of evidence and experience has accumulated that weighs in when new assertions are presented.

Experience is, in fact, little more than the application of past judgment and knowledge to existing situations. This is why experienced practitioners in a field can make sound decisions much more quickly than novices, and make consistently better decisions overall.

So when you exhort someone to throw out their past knowledge and prejudices, you are really asking them to dismiss the value of their experience. This isn't really a very sensible thing to do.

It is, of course, desirable to try and maintain an objective frame of mind while listening to arguments for a new point of view. But in order for this to work, good arguments have to actually be presented, so that they can be analyzed and digested. If you get frustrated because someone intelligent dismisses what you are saying, chances are you have failed to make a compelling case, not that they are necessarily close-minded.

My main beef with you in this thread is that you seemed to come in with a point of view strongly counter to that of other posters, and then immediately started bitching about closed-mindedness without taking any real effort to logically defend your views.

 

[stu]

bsmeter,
Can you explain just how you managed to conclude this...

Quote bsmeter
" since scientists can't measure gluons independently, they must not exist. As you commented: "

from this....

Quote stu
".........you presuppose Existence for those things first, and therefore Existence is THE primary imperative. There is no in-between "

without misunderstanding everything that's being put to you??



I made no mention, nor do I infer anywhere, that not being able to observe or measure something means the something must not exist. Again, if you jump to conclusions from assumptions and then run off in a paddy, it would appear reasonable to suggest you are not going to understand very much about anything being said.

Either Gluons, quarks, ( anti-matter, God and Fairies included ) Exist or they Do Not Exist. I offered that response because your 'supra conscience' idea was relying on statements, such as this one....

iQuote from bsmeter
" No, break matter down further? eventually you reach a sub-sub-atomic level whose boundary lies between physical existence and non-existence"

Your statement is wrong. There is no sub atomic level anywhere which lies between existence and non-existence. Can you really not understand how that is?

There is no in-between, there cannot be an 'in-between' existence and non existence. Anything that exists 'in-between' will necessarily Exist.

That simple statement also illustrates the primary imperative (to coin a phrase) - which you appear to have completely missed or are perhaps conveniently overlooking for the sake of a specious 'supra' proposal...

It is abundantly clear that Quarks, Gluons, God and Fairies are ALL completely and utterly dependent on a form titally unnafected and uncontrollable by their own definitions or conditions.

 

[Aapex]

Quote from vhehn:

it is always amusing to hear the theist proclaim that evolution is false because we dont yet have all the answers and yet he will readily believe that some unseen deity just spoke and the world popped up from nothing just as it is today.
as far as fossils go there has never been a fossil found in a layer of the earth that would not be expected if evolution were true.

By your very statement you have just contradicted yourself.
You have admitted that you don't have all the answere yet you still hold to your position. When the Theist admits that they don't have all the answers you determine THAT is False?

Which is it?

I don't see the evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record.
I do however see evidence for the Creation account as given in Scripture.

Remember, I can't prove that God exist.
Neither can you prove that God does not exist.
The only thing we can do is examine the evidence for both sides.

For starters let's introduce ourselves:

I'm a Born Again Christian who believes that God created the heavens and the earth and all they that dwell therein.

What do you believe about creation?
Are you Atheist or Agnostic?

 

[Aapex]

Quote from stu:

It is abundantly clear that Quarks, Gluons, God and Fairies are ALL completely and utterly dependent on a form titally unnafected and uncontrollable by their own definitions or conditions.

On what grounds?

Based on your statements it is NOT abundantly clear.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Aapex:

By your very statement you have just contradicted yourself.
You have admitted that you don't have all the answere yet you still hold to your position. When the Theist admits that they don't have all the answers you determine THAT is False?

Which is it?

I don't see the evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record.
I do however see evidence for the Creation account as given in Scripture.

Remember, I can't prove that God exist.
Neither can you prove that God does not exist.
The only thing we can do is examine the evidence for both sides.

For starters let's introduce ourselves:

I'm a Born Again Christian who believes that God created the heavens and the earth and all they that dwell therein.

What do you believe about creation?
Are you Atheist or Agnostic?

You can't examine the evidence to prove whether God exists or not. If look for the evidence that God doesn't exist, you will find them. However, that cannot prove or disprove your faith. The fossile records are the "evidence" God created to tempt the nonbelievers. If you believe those evidence then you're already won over by the Satan.