Forums | MacLife

Right. The explanation that a person is simply lying is vastly more plausible than so many known physics laws being broken.

Why is it more plausible?
Could it be because you have already chosen to reject the supernatural?

The same thing happens with "scholars" and the book of Daniel - they have decided that any prophecy as detailed and accurate as Daniel has to have a non supernatural explanation: history re-written as prophecy - and they therefore give it a late date despite the wealth of evidence for an early date.

Sure - some prophecy is history re-written as prophecy. That does not mean all is.
Sure - some claims of miracles are lies and even damned lies. That does not mean all are.

You choose to accept that supernatural is possible, and then evaluate such claims without rejecting them outright - or you choose to believe it is not possible, and just reject them outright.

That's even biblical - Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness.

resedit wrote:

Right. The explanation that a person is simply lying is vastly more plausible than so many known physics laws being broken.

Why is it more plausible?
Could it be because you have already chosen to reject the supernatural?

No. It's called inductive thinking.

Tycho has experinced people lying before (he has lied and been lied to). Tycho has evidence that people lie.

On, the other hand, Tycho has never experinced any event like those presented in the bible. He has never seen men walking on water or people raising from the dead.

So, inductively Tycho concludes that it is vastly more plausible for it to be a lie than an event that breaks the known laws of physics.

Take a god damn philosophy course.

(soulcrusher does realize that there is a problem with inductive thinking, yet discussing such matter with resedit will be a waste of effort and time due to his lack of knowledge. soulcrusher attempts to keep the discussion at introductory philosophy level)

Last edited by soulcrusher (2005-06-27 5:05 pm)

btw - inductive reasoning doesn't make something more plausible, especially when it is based upon anectdotal evidence.

You should have learned that in your philosophy class.

anecdotal? we are talking about what Tycho himself has experienced!

so you jump from Jesus and his magical qualities to evolution. Great. Especially because you know how skeptic I am about the theory :\

Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is a conclusion that at leat attempts to arise from observation. Creationism, on the other hand, has no reason to be.

resedit wrote:

The Bible contains many prophecies that did in fact unfold exactly as described, and some that are unfolding now before our very eyes.

so does the horoscope.

I also have heard first hand from people who have experienced miracles

So have I, many times. I grew up in the Costa Rican countryside. Lots of people told me stories about what they've seen and heard. Stories about ghosts, flying sticks and light sources.
Actually, according to many of the maids we had over the years our house was "haunted".

I thought about it as a child. I wondered why if I lived in the same town and even house as they did I never had experienced such supernatural activity. Very odd. My parents never did either or the most educated people in the town.

I ended up attributing such phenomena to human ignorance. The only way it would make sense.

Other people have experienced miracles - including resurrection of the dead - and not just with a single witness.

There was this other place in Costa Rica were hundreds of people would go to see the sun take the form of the virgin at a particular time of the day. And lots claimed they actually saw the virgin.

Did the sun actually take the form of the virgin? If you are superstitious and gullible and blind yourself by staring at the sun long enough, I am sure you'll see the virgin.

Those accounts are very unreliable. I just don't believe them. It is often that people "see" what they want to see.
Of course, science does not have this problem.

Last edited by soulcrusher (2005-06-27 8:22 pm)

It is more plausible to you based upon YOUR reasoning which encompasses assumptions YOU make. It is not necessarily more plausible. I've already stated why it is more plausible TO ME for it to be real.

soulcrusher wrote:

I want to know what resedit has to say about all these supernatural anecdotes I've heard. Does he think they are real? Does he deny them?

Is his little and incapable protestant mind going to say that the sun could not take the form of the Virgin because he does not worship her?

I mean if you were to do research on the appearances of the Virgin I am very sure she will outnumber the appearances of any other supernatural being. Does this mean, resedit, that yourself and all your Protestants buddies are wrong based on anecdotal evidence?

Heck, I am sure that if you do enough research you'll see lots of anecdotal evidence about the miracles of gods from every culture. How could then anyone say that their anecdotal evidence is the "true" one? Faith again, so circular. It always comes down to the denial of knowledge.

I don't have opinions on the virgin mary sightings.
I know that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus, and that Samuel was summoned by a witch - I honestly can't deny the virgin mary sightings. Some may be made up, some may be genuine, some may be demons, some may be delusions.

What about ghosts? They could be ghosts! Or extradimensional time warps...

Or Astral Projections!!!  Or psionic manifestations!!!  Psychic burns in the taco shell!!!

Last edited by Metacell (2005-06-28 12:18 am)

resedit wrote:

This actually is not an uncommon occurrence in places where different "races" have mixed, such as latin america - where two parents who look the same can have children that look vastly different.

I have a black brother! (almost, except for his blue eyes) And I call him smurf. He doesn't have a problem with it but the "black community" does. Who are they to tell me how should I call my own brother?

Last edited by soulcrusher (2005-06-28 12:20 pm)

resedit wrote:

These "races" which aren't really races are possibly the result of natural selection in the area where the people settled. Eskimos tend to be short and stocky - which is better suited for where they live (less surface area to lose heat). The equator tends to be populated by darker skin - better for living where the sun can be quite intense, etc.

Also - it is quite possible that "races" came to be as a result of the tower of babel - when the languages were confused.

But anyway - there aren't multiple races, just one race. And we all have the same skin color, just different shades of it.

Thus the  alleged "tower of Babel" incident is what caused the racial variations to emerge.  It was then by some divine intervention that these "new" variations happened to gather in the same places, in many cases in distant places across large bodies off water that ships of that era were not equipped to traverse with ease.  What luck they all must have had to manage to get to those distant lands, ands where  their newly modified appearance and shapes suited the lay of the land better than what they had been accustomed to in the world before Bable.  It must then also have been through divine intervention that many of these cultures developed henceforth in a directions that differ so vastly that it is hard to believe they were the same before Babel.

You seriously don't think this was simply the human body evolving slowly to adapt to the climate that early humans relocated to over thousands of years.  I find that more plausible explanation than the tower of bable fairy-tail.   I only recall that passage mentioning the people at Babel starting to talk in different tongues, not transmogrifying into Eskimos, Aborigines, Occidentals, indians, Negroes and so on and so forth.

soulcrusher wrote:

resedit wrote:

This actually is not an uncommon occurrence in places where different "races" have mixed, such as latin america - where two parents who look the same can have children that look vastly different.

I have a black brother! (almost, except for his blue eyes) And I call him smurf. He doesn't have a problem with it but the "black community" does. Who are they to tell me how should I call my own brother?

So because the word isn't offensive to your brother (when it comes from YOU, specifically), thus it should never be offensive to anyone?

Are they dictating by law that you cannot address your brother in such a manner?

Do you believe that blacks are inferior to whites?

resedit wrote:

svenster wrote:

If one were to believe creationism which claims all humans are descendants from Adam and Eve, then how do you explain the vast variety in human races that are scattered all over the planet ?

You don't have to go all the way back to Adam and Eve for that arguement, Noah would suffice

There is only one race of human - and (at least according to a PBS or Discovery special) every "race" has the genes in the gene pool to produce someone that looks like any other "race". The chances of them coming together is just uncommon in a particular genetic circle, but the genes are there.

This actually is not an uncommon occurrence in places where different "races" have mixed, such as latin america - where two parents who look the same can have children that look vastly different.

These "races" which aren't really races are possibly the result of natural selection in the area where the people settled. Eskimos tend to be short and stocky - which is better suited for where they live (less surface area to lose heat). The equator tends to be populated by darker skin - better for living where the sun can be quite intense, etc.

Also - it is quite possible that "races" came to be as a result of the tower of babel - when the languages were confused.

But anyway - there aren't multiple races, just one race. And we all have the same skin color, just different shades of it.

I like that you're still ok with the possibility of "natural selection," but not evolution. 

Your post is an interesting example of you listing a number of (somewhat contradictory, too!) of possible reasons for the different cultural groups of humans.  Kind of a "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks" approach.