Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 31 of 253 (114029)
06-09-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object
06-09-2004 3:34 PM


WT writes:
My entire point is that your starting assumption (God/miracles don't exist) keeps concluding the conclusion under the guise of objective enquiry. Your particular atheist worldview invents a substitute explanation every step of the way without ever clearly identifying a criteria of falsification for your explanations.
Actually, he is approaching the issue very scientifically. Everytime a scientist comes up with a hypothesis or theory, he is suppose to try his best to disprove his own creation.
Answer: You will say something about "objective evidence that can be independantly examined/verified", but this is saying nothing, because this is always the criteria in any quest for truth. My point is that you will conclude faithful to your worldview despite any contrary evidence, which means you are claiming an objectivity that doesn't exist. The objectivity doesn't exist because THERE ARE certainly miracle healings whether it is admitted or not.
If indeed there are faith based miracles happening, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be subject to independent verification.
Your problem is you automatically assume anything that supports your religious beliefs to be true without first questioning it. So what if Dr. Scott converted a lot of people? The Nazis converted a lot of people, too, but that doesn't mean what they claimed were right.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-09-2004 3:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-09-2004 11:52 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-10-2004 3:58 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 43 of 253 (114262)
06-10-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object
06-10-2004 3:58 PM


WT writes:
I agree this is the goal but Gil has not done this, he has an assumption (God/miracles don't exist) then he proceeds to conclude this assumption under the disguise that he would admit a miracle happened if it could be "objectively and independantly confirmed/verified". This is a smokescreen.
No, it is not a smokescreen. Science automatically assumes that every phenomenon has a scientific explanation whether it can be currently explained or that we need to wait 100, 1000, or 10,000 years before our understanding of the natural world is advance enough.
Gil will always conclude faithful to his worldview, which I don't have a problem with if he would only admit it. The problem is this phony front of objective enquiry masking the worldview which is constantly concluding the assumption.
What phony front? Being objective is being objective, period.
To explain what I mean, let us look at the definition of "miracle".
According to webster online, miracle is:
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law
I'm going to assume that you are leaning toward the first one.
The problem comes when trying to tell what is a miracle and what is not is how do we know if it is divinely inspired or it is just something that our current scientific knowledge can't comprehend yet?
Just think of how many things people thought were miracles 5 hundred years ago that we don't even pay attention to today.
99% of miracles are not; for arguments sake I will agree.
I don't agree to this, because there's no way to know. Although this is probably common sense, I never rely on common sense when debating with someone else.
But the remaining 1% PROVE miracles do exist. This 1% is where Gil and company depart from their so called scientific enquiry and stick their head in the proverbial sand.
How do you constitute "PROVE"? Are you using the method of elimination? Are you using some kind of divine-measuring device? What do you mean by "prove miracles"?
Objectively speaking, you can't assume that something is a miracle if it can't be explained by our current scientific theories and knowledges.
Gotta go fast. Back for more later. Need to eat dinner.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-10-2004 3:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-10-2004 11:15 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 103 of 253 (115114)
06-14-2004 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object
06-10-2004 11:15 PM


WT writes:
Lam writes:
Objectively speaking, you can't assume that something is a miracle if it can't be explained by our current scientific theories and knowledges.
Why not ?
Because there are a million possible explanations beside the ones we can currently come up with, and most of them we can't even think of. I don't understand how you can so eagerly accept a phenomenon as somehow divinely inspired yet you simply dismiss possibilities like extraterrestrial intervention. By simply saying "Goddunit," you practically say, "I have no will to bring myself out of my state of ignorance."

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-10-2004 11:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 245 of 253 (123210)
07-09-2004 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
07-09-2004 12:50 AM


the frog writes:
Hopefully your next question is "if we can't know the difference between any of these alternatives, does it really matter?"
You remind me of a lot of sci fi episodes out there. One in particular is Buffy not knowing if her life as a slayer is real or that the mental hospital she finds herself in is the real one. In the end, she decided that it doesn't matter as long as she's happy with her decision.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 12:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by nator, posted 07-09-2004 10:30 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024