Biblical Miracles

Kiwi in IE

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Skip to the sequence from 8:25 to 8:45.

Seriously, it's the funniest argument I have ever seen.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just brilliant!

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Um, so why are you declaring that this search is over?
You believe that you have an explanation for why (though you know it doesn't actually explain anything at all). And further you believe that your explanations for how and why are unknowable.
You are the one claiming that there is no point asking why.

Again, you are arguing against your own confused and nonsensical position.

I am afraid it is you who are confused. You continue to misrepresent my position which indicates to me that you either 1. don't understand it, or 2. do not want to understand it. Let me state my position for now probably the 10th time on the A&A forum and perhaps you will finally get it, but I frankly don't hold out much hope.

1. I am an agnostic deist, open to my opinion or beliefs being wrong. I am very open minded and have been since my mid teens. You appear not to understand the term agnostic and somehow confuse it with a fixed belief.

2. By no means do I suggest that our scientific search for knowledge is over, such a position would be nonsensical. Our search will likely continue as it has, long periods of slow progress interupted by explosions of creativity that completely change our paradigm e.g. Copernicus, Einstein.

3. Stating anything is "truth" or "settled" based on science is questionable given so many theories have been overturned later. Science continues to evolve and will continue to evolve. I fully expect to continue to be surprised by scientific discovery, in fact that is what makes science so fascinating.

4. You are confusing science with personal philosophy. As correctly pointed out in previous posts, science can only answer questions that can be explored by the scientific method. However, science cannot answer many questions relating to personal philosophy. For example the debate going on in Ireland regarding abortion, a position of being pro-abortion or anti-abortion is not guided by science, it is guided by personal philosophy.

5. One aspect of my personal philosphy is that our universe was designed by a benevolent creator. I don't have to justify my personal philosophy to you or anyone else. The only thing I have to do is live my life in keeping with my personal philosophy, and I can do this due to something called free will.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

5. One aspect of my personal philosphy is that our universe was designed by a benevolent creator. I don't have to justify my personal philosophy to you or anyone else. The only thing I have to do is live my life in keeping with my personal philosophy, and I can do this due to something called free will.

And again, your personal philosophy is flawed and self contradictory.

Your personal belief in a benevolent creator is in conflict with all of your other positions you've claimed.

You claimed:

It is man's incessant search for "why" that drives him on to find the
"how". The day we start accepting that there is no point asking why is the day we stop evolving.

You have also said (and correct me if I am wrong):
1) that god is an answer for why and how
2) that why and how are unknowable.

So if the reasons how and why are impossible to know, as you claim, what's the point?

Stop with the bumper sticker philosophy and flowery nonsense. Actually critically examine what you believe.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And again, your personal philosophy is flawed and self contradictory.
Your personal belief in a benevolent creator is in conflict with all of your other positions you've claimed.

and yet again you are confusing science with personal philosophy.

In terms of science I believe that man's imagination and creativity pose many questions which can be pursued using the scientific method. In this sense the "why" and "how" as others have pointed out are the same in the context of science. There needs to be no consideration of a creator at all in the scientific method.

A personal philosophy is an entirely different issue. It is subjective based on reflection as opposed to an objective pursuit of knowledge based on the well established scientific method. I see absolutely no contradiction between science and my personal philosophy. That conflict is in your mind because of your beliefs.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

and yet again you are confusing science with personal philosophy.

In terms of science I believe that man's imagination and creativity pose many questions which can be pursued using the scientific method. In this sense the "why" and "how" as others have pointed out are the same in the context of science. There needs to be no consideration of a creator at all in the scientific method.

A personal philosophy is an entirely different issue. It is subjective based on reflection as opposed to an objective pursuit of knowledge based on the well established scientific method. I see absolutely no contradiction between science and my personal philosophy. That conflict is in your mind because of your beliefs.

No the conflict is in your mind as you've outlined. You personal philosophy, the vapid mess that it is, contradicts what you say about science.
And when it suits you, you have no issue mixing the two

If we go by your definition of "personal philosophy" then it has no baring at all on reality and is no different than fiction.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

No the conflict is in your mind as you've outlined. You personal philosophy, the vapid mess that it is, contradicts what you say about science.
And when it suits you, you have no issue mixing the two

If we go by your definition of "personal philosophy" then it has no baring at all on reality and is no different than fiction.

Please outline specifically what aspects of my personal philosophy (which you know very little about) contradicts what I say about science. Try and be specific and focus on what I have actually said as opposed to what you would like to think I have said.

Your last few posts by the way highlight why reasonable people find dogmatic atheists just as insufferable as fundamentalists.

Sarky

I think it highlights how reasonable people pointing out that belief is messy and hugely flawed gets other people who haven't really thought about it really upset because they don't like challenging their own positions.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Please outline specifically what aspects of my personal philosophy (which you know very little about) contradicts what I say about science. Try and be specific and focus on what I have actually said as opposed to what you would like to think I have said.

Your last few posts by the way highlight why reasonable people find dogmatic atheists just as insufferable as fundamentalists.

I have been repeatedly doing so for the last few pages.

Feel free to read my posts.

gbee

Sarky wrote: »

I think it highlights how reasonable people pointing out that belief is messy and hugely flawed gets other people who haven't really thought about it really upset because they don't like challenging their own positions.

Which is why I maintain that no child under 12 years of age should be brought up in any religion at all, anywhere in the world.

If you take a religion as an adult, you're not going to give a rats what the other fellow thinks, or if he make a good enough argument you'd as likely join him.

When you're innocent is taken away from you by your own parents, teachers and closest friends ~ yes, it's totally unacceptable that they would have lied to you, most people won't accept this at all, and I can't blame them, but we have to stop this senescence, it's decisive and blocking mans' evolution.