Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Tassman]

Oh there is plenty of verifiable evidence, you just don't accept it. I and millions of others have. Logical, historical, archeological, and documentary evidence abounds.

There is no scientifically verified evidence of miracles.

[Tassman]

Science is agnostic as to whether miracles occur. When investigating natural processes, it assumes that what is observed is the result of natural processes.

Incorrect! Methodological naturalism, the essential component of science, does not allow for miracles. To invoke a supernatural explanation is to end up with a god-of-the-gaps scenario, thus effectively abandoning scientific methodology altogether.

your expression is overreaching. It pushes into the realm of science having something to say about the possibility of miracles, which it simply doesn't.

I agree. Belief in the supernatural can only be a matter of personal faith. It has nothing to do with science.

there would always be the possibility what caused the man to see had an as yet unknown natural cause - though it might be that the element restored would be so astounding science itself would tend to predict it would be virtually impossible via the known natural healing capabilities of the human body.

[oxmixmudd]

Incorrect! Methodological naturalism, the essential component of science, does not allow for miracles. To invoke a supernatural explanation is to end up with a god-of-the-gaps scenario, thus effectively abandoning scientific methodology altogether

You are not understanding my point. Your statements tend to use the success of science in uncovering fundamental workings of the natural world as license to assume it also can inform us about the supernatural. But that is overreaching. Science has very limited application to questions about the supernatural, by definition.

Jim

[Tassman]

You are not understanding my point. Your statements tend to use the success of science in uncovering fundamental workings of the natural world as license to assume it also can inform us about the supernatural. But that is overreaching. Science has very limited application to questions about the supernatural, by definition.

No, you

[rossum]

That isn't even close to what oxmixmudd said.

It is more what the Bible says. Scientists test things. If God does not want to be tested, then why do Christians expect scientists to test for God, and complain when they do not do so?

God is perfectly capable of hiding if He so wishes, and not wanting to be tested seems to indicate that He wishes to hide.

Sounds like the "this" is something you presupposed before you even joined the conversation.

Currently the scientifically detectable effects of God are on a par with the scientifically detectable effects of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You claim that your God is more real than the IPU, yet you have no actual scientific evidence to show for it. Studies like the Benson (2006) paper show that God does not intercede when prayed to.

Two possible explanations are either that God does not exist or that God is deliberately hiding. Occam's razor would indicate the first, until further evidence is found.

rossum

[rossum]

For you, perhaps that is true. For the seeker that yearns to know God and has found Him through Christ, that is not true.

For you, perhaps that is true. For the seeker that yearns to know Allah and has found Him through Mohammed, that is not true.

Many religions have many believers. The existence of believers does not indicate the truth of any particular religion. There are too many contradictions between different religions for them all to be fully true.

Let me ask you a question. How many times over the history of the world would God need to become a man, live among us, suffer, die, and Rise again to convince skeptics like yourself?

Why is that necessary? God could have intervened in the Benson study I quoted above. God could rearrange the stars in the sky to read, "Judaism is correct". There are many possible ways for God to show Himself. How many times over the history of the world would Vishnu need to become a man and live among us? He has already done so once, as Krishna. Why do you not believe in Vishnu?

rossum

[oxmixmudd]

For you, perhaps that is true. For the seeker that yearns to know Allah and has found Him through Mohammed, that is not true.

You assume there is a true equivalence. There isn't. The religions are quite different, they produce different results in the people that follow them. That means it is possible one is better than the other. One is correct and the other is not.

Many religions have many believers. The existence of believers does not indicate the truth of any particular religion. There are too many contradictions between different religions for them all to be fully true.

You are correct. They can't all be true. You have chosen to assume they all are false.

Why is that necessary? God could have intervened in the Benson study I quoted above.

I've not looked at the study - so I'll do that before I make any comments that are specific to it. However, in general, God does not do tricks is one element of the equation. The other is that faith is required, and further, even Jesus was not able to do miracles in a town where there was no faith. So - at least from a Christian theological perspective - there is an impact on the capacity even for the faithful to evoke 'detectable' responses from God in a community that has no faith.

God could rearrange the stars in the sky to read, "Judaism is correct". There are many possible ways for God to show Himself. How many times over the history of the world would Vishnu need to become a man and live among us? He has already done so once, as Krishna. Why do you not believe in Vishnu?

rossum

He could do that - yes. But then everyone would follow judaism whether they wanted to or not. Christian theology teaches that God is not interested in forced allegiance. He has gone to extreme lengths (the Cross) to make it possible for any that wish to be saved, to be in direct relationship with Him - if they will believe in what He has done. But likewise, He leaves it possible for those determined not to believe to remain unbelievers. But Has has promised that those who seek Him will find Him. There is nothing from God that will force you to believe in Christ Rossum. No proof that would force you mind to bow to Him here on the Earth. No physical sign that you can't find a reason to dismiss. The atheist professor in my story believed it was just dumb luck and was probably very mad rather than humbled by what happened. You are allowed to choose Rossom. That is why it is the way it is.


Jim

[Adrift]

It is more what the Bible says.

No it isn't. But more to the point, it isn't what oxmixmudd had said, which is precisely what I was replying to.

Scientists test things. If God does not want to be tested, then why do Christians expect scientists to test for God, and complain when they do not do so?

While there are always exceptions to the rule, "Christians" don't expect scientists to test for God. Certainly none here do.

God is perfectly capable of hiding if He so wishes, and not wanting to be tested seems to indicate that He wishes to hide.

Those aren't the only options. For instance, he may be present in plain sight, yet we're too full of ourselves to notice. Of course, if we expect the creator of the universe to do tricks for us, like he's our pet Schnauzer, we may be in for a rude awakening.

Currently the scientifically detectable effects of God are on a par with the scientifically detectable effects of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You claim that your God is more real than the IPU, yet you have no actual scientific evidence to show for it.

Science isn't the only way we come to know things. We don't use the scientific method to learn things about history, literature, art, mathematics, logic, and the like. Science has well known limits of observation. It can't really tell us what happened before the material universe began. It's limited in what it can tell us about metaphysics. Science is wonderful, and has added so much to our lives, but it isn't the end-all-be-all. We come to know about God in all sorts of ways that we can't come to know about invisible pink unicorns. There are volumes of heavily philosophical work on natural theology where we reason to God through deductive logic. There's uncountable cases of people experiencing the divine through personal experiences. We recently saw the publishing of a two volume work on documented miracles by Craig Keener. There are historical cases for the Resurrection. Whenever someone uses goofy dismissive crap like pink unicorns, fairies, or Santa Claus, it's not really worth anyone's time to refute that sort of nonsense. No one seriously makes the case for these imaginary characters because, unlike a creator of the universe, there simply isn't enough evidence that's logically consistent to bother with. But most people since the dawn of history have believed in some concept of the divine, and have had what they believe to be good reason to do so.

Studies like the Benson (2006) paper show that God does not intercede when prayed to.

Studies like the Benson paper show that you can't make the creator of the universe jump through your hoops.

Two possible explanations are either that God does not exist or that God is deliberately hiding. Occam's razor would indicate the first, until further evidence is found.

rossum

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What's your scientific evidence for the traditional views on reincarnation, Karma, total enlightenment and Buddhist cosmology?

[Sparko]

So, what does that Bible passage actually mean?

rossum

It is speaking on believers agreeing with each other and God's will. Our job is to do God's will. That includes praying. If we pray outside of God's will, we will not get anything. That is what "amen" means. That we agree with God's will. We pray in his name, in his will.

[Roy]

You assume there is a true equivalence. There isn't. The religions are quite different, they produce different results in the people that follow them. That means it is possible one is better than the other. One is correct and the other is not.

Jim, three problems here:

First, there is more variation in the results each of the major religions have on their followers than there is between the religions: Anders Breivik, Dara Singh and Mohammed Attar have more in common with each other than any of them have with Mudaddam or Francis of Assisi or Ghandi.

Second, Christianity is not necessarily the religion which produces the best results. Jainism, for example, is more peaceful.

Third, the effect of a religion on its followers is not dependent on whether the tenets of the religion is true.

No religion has any argument for it that cannot, when recast, be used to support any other religion.

[Sparko]

How do you know what God does and doesn't do dumbass, got a personal hotline? Hey God, do you do tricks. NO? OK. I'll tell our new Buddhist friend.

Because I belong to God.

John 8:47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

[JimL]

Because I belong to God.

John 8:47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

Oh Sparko, you so funny!

[seer]

Oh Sparko, you so funny!

Well James, it is your very soul that is at stake... You are brave and rebellious now, but who knows what dread will enter your heart on that long dark night as you shuffle off this mortal coil...

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, three problems here:

There are a lot of problems if the goal is to establish which religion is better or correct. But that was not my goal in making that statement. My point was that Rossum was trying to define those religions as equivalent and they are not. And so his argument fails.

First, there is more variation in the results each of the major religions have on their followers than there is between the religions: Anders Breivik, Dara Singh and Mohammed Attar have more in common with each other than any of them have with Mudaddam or Francis of Assisi or Ghandi.

This is true. You and I have more in common the Jorge and I - at least in the arena of Science. And oftentimes in our take on the implications of certain religious constructs. The impact of a religion does depend on the individual. Some Muslims are peaceful and friendly, others blow up children in market squres. Some Christians seek understanding, others spit in the faces of homosexuals. So the evaluation of a religions effect on people and society has to be looked at in a broad sense, and over a population of perhaps over the history of a civilization.

Second, Christianity is not necessarily the religion which produces the best results. Jainism, for example, is more peaceful.

And that would go to a definition of what is 'best', which can easly become circular. But keep in mind my goal wasn't to resolve which religion was best, but just to point out that a blanket statement that tries to dismiss the potential realiaty of one by declaring them all equivalent misses the point that they are not. The potential exists for one of them to be correct and all the others wrong. The potential also exists for some subset of them to each be partially correct, with one of some of them having a greater percentage of the correct view so to speak. It would take a lot of work and a lot of study to create an unbiassed assessment even of the 3 major western mono-theistic religions - which are in fact hierarchically related. The major Eastern religions form a very different set with a good many variations of belief.

Third, the effect of a religion on its followers is not dependent on whether the tenets of the religion is true.

This is also true. Likewise I would add to it that many times the effect of a religion on its followers is often not even directly related to its primary tenets. Which adds greatly to the difficulty. Not once does Christ excuse or call for violence in His name. On many occasions he specifically intervened to prevent it. The closest thing that ever happened that might be called violence would be when he chased the Money changers out of the temple. And yet, people have gone to war in the name of Christ, people blow up abortion clinics in the name of Christ, and there has even in our lifetimes been long standing violent conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

I would say this illustrates a critical truth of Christian faith - that evil is intrinsic and often seeks the cover of the appearance of righteousness. Nowhere is this contrast more stikingly seen that in the Priest/Preacher pedophile scandals.

No religion has any argument for it that cannot, when rephrased, apply equally to any other religion.

Here we would disagree. And that goes to the fact rossum's attempt to make them all equivalent fails. One that comes to mind that I think illustrates the point is the idea of loving ones enemies, praying for those that condemn us or spitefully use us. This tends to be almost an unthinkable position - even as an ideal - from within the Islamic point of view.


Jim

[rossum]

You assume there is a true equivalence. There isn't. The religions are quite different, they produce different results in the people that follow them. That means it is possible one is better than the other. One is correct and the other is not.

That is possible, but in the UK we have had more people killed or injured by Christian terrorism than by Muslim terrorism. By picking and choosing examples we can show almost anything. I can show Buddhists killing Christians and I can show Christians killing Buddhists. Many other pairs of religions can show the same.

You are correct. They can't all be true. You have chosen to assume they all are false.

Erm... Please read the entry next to "Faith:" at the top left of my posts.

even Jesus was not able to do miracles in a town where there was no faith. So - at least from a Christian theological perspective - there is an impact on the capacity even for the faithful to evoke 'detectable' responses from God in a community that has no faith.

A limit on the power of the omnipotent God?

rossum