This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheReal
Laihendi agrees with Skreeran. People shouldn't just say god did it when they can't explain how something happened. They should try to figure out how it did happen until they know how it happened. And if this leads them to discover that god did it, then fine... but so far that has never happened before. Any belief in god being responsible for something has been based on faith. A person doesn't understand how something happened, and rather than trying to understand until he does, he just assumes it was an act of god.
This reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote: "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
Post by
Squishalot
Laihendi agrees with Skreeran. People shouldn't just say god did it when they can't explain how something happened. They should try to figure out how it did happen until they know how it happened. And if this leads them to discover that god did it, then fine... but so far that has never happened before. Any belief in god being responsible for something has been based on faith. A person doesn't understand how something happened, and rather than trying to understand until he does, he just assumes it was an act of god.
This reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote: "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
There are a whole raft of scientists who used to believe that the world is flat, who may disagree with
you
Carl Sagan.
And there are whole religions and denominations who would disagree with you too. Christianity as a whole being one of them.
Your mind is closed, for all intents and purposes. You appear to be happier to search endlessly for an answer, rather than accepting the thing that doesn't seem to make sense (but is an entirely consistent argument), because it involves a 'supernatural' force. The problem is that if you assume the existence of God, then he's not 'supernatural' by definition; he is, in fact, natural. He's only 'supernatural' if you assume that he doesn't exist.Oh, right. I guess I'll just start believing in faith healing, Young Earth Creationism, and the
Anemoi
. After all, why look for explanations like evolution and meteorology when you can just say God did it?
Because they explain it well. If they can't explain something (such as cases where leukaemia disappears, or your dog comes back to life), and you have an explanation available, why not use it?
Scientists accept the fact that sometimes unexplainable things happen. They search for more precise answers, always, but they're happy to shove square pegs into circular holes when there is a conflict with what they know and what they observe, in an attempt to explain things for the time being.
And you're also strawmanning the point. "Young Earth Creationism" has nothing to do with "faith based healing", so don't use it as your argument. Fail logic.
Religion is based on people believing what other people (priests, ministers, their parents) tell them, without questioning it.
Do you live the rest of your life like that? Do you believe that there are eight invisble cows that don't make a sound and don't take up physical space always following you around just because I just told you that and there's no way to disprove it. No you don't. I don't either, but as a scientist I don't say it's impossible, it's extremely unlikely, but if you could prove it with actual evidence, I would accept it as a theory. Not as an absolute fact, but as a very probable possibility.
I challenge you to read through this thread to identify my viewpoint before you challenge what I believe. Because you have no idea where I stand, judging by your statements.
Question for all of you. What do you think of UFOs?
Post by
Adamsm
What do you think of UFOs?They aren't what people think they are; I still think the creator of Calvin and Hobbes put it best; The only sign of intelligent life out there, is that it hasn't tried to contact us yet.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Because they explain it well. If they can't explain something (such as cases where leukaemia disappears, or your dog comes back to life), and you have an explanation available, why not use it?Because it is not a real explanation. Give me proof, give me evidence, give me some reason that it is "God" instead of the myriad of other explanations that have no evidence for them.
I can show you why medicine works. I can show you exactly how it affects the chemical processes of the body.
You cannot show me that it is God that healed a person any more than you can show that it is cancer eating elves.
Until you can actually show the explanation, instead of just writing it off to "a wizard did it," it remains unexplained.
Scientists accept the fact that sometimes unexplainable things happen. They search for more precise answers, always, but they're happy to shove square pegs into circular holes when there is a conflict with what they know and what they observe, in an attempt to explain things for the time being.Scientists accept the fact that we don't know everything yet. What is "unexplainable"is merely what has not been explained
yet
.
And you're also strawmanning the point. "Young Earth Creationism" has nothing to do with "faith based healing", so don't use it as your argument. Fail logic.Lawl. You totally missed my point.
There was once a time when we could not explain our origin. So we attributed it to God. Turns out that it was evolution.
There was once a time when we could not explain where wind came from, so we attributed it to gods. Turns out that it is convection currents in the air.
There was once a time when we could not explain solar eclipses, so we attributed it to gods, magic, or whatever else we could think of. Turns out that it is the moon blocking the sun.
There was once a time when we could not explain volcanoes, so we attriubuted it to
gods
. Turns out it was plate tectonics.
See the pattern? God of the gaps. We can't explain it, so it must be God.
Actually, no, that's not true. Not being able to explain something only means that we haven't figured out the explanation yet.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Squishalot, I've now read through the thread (it took a while, it's been a busy day).
Can you give me an example of a non-religious well-reputed doctor who has accepted that something is faith-healing and cannot be scientifically explained? I don't want an example where science cannot explain what has happened, I want an example where it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person was healed by something divine, or faith, and not for example the placebo effect.
People love to bring up the placebo effect, but I don't believe that the placebo effect can eliminate cancer overnight!
Check the book that I linked on page 12, and further referenced on page 13. I'm going to see if I can hunt it down at the bookstores at lunch time today.
If they cannot attribute a cure to medical means, would that be sufficient 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' for you? Because it's not for Skreeran.
Lawl. You totally missed my point.
No. Young Earth Creationism is still considered valid by people who are exposed to the theory of evolution. Faith based healing has no comparable scientific theory to refer to instead.
I'll respond to everything else later.
Post by
Skreeran
No. Young Earth Creationism is still considered valid by people who are exposed to the theory of evolution. Faith based healing has no comparable scientific theory to refer to instead.Not by any serious scientist. Evolutionary theory is about as scientifically contested as Gravitational theory, or Relativistic Theory.
And from now on, my theory is that the woman was healed by cancer-eating elves.
If they cannot attribute a cure to medical means, would that be sufficient 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' for you? Because it's not for Skreeran.Indeed it is not. Saying that it's God just because we can't explain it is stupid. We couldn't explain solar eclipses for a few thousand years either. Turns out, there was a perfectly logical explanation for those too.
Post by
Squishalot
Skree, I still haven't seen a response to this:
Tell me - if you could oversee a case where a person was completely cured of a disease, with no remission, that's considered to be medically uncurable, without the use of experimental treatments, and you were provided evidence of all of the above by a panel of international doctors who are specialists and leaders in their field, who tested the evidence using 'blind' testing, would that be sufficient to convince you that there exists a deity?No, there could always be a different explanation. How do I know it's god? How do I know it's not something completely natural, rather than supernatural?
The evidence would be that there was no recovery, up until the point where they made a pilgrimage to so and so monastary, and the patient got better the following morning. Coincidence or causation?
At least there is a basis for faith-based healing, however supernatural it may appear to be. There's no evidence for cancer eating elves. Your argument is only showing how closed minded you are.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Skree, I still haven't seen a response to this:
Tell me - if you could oversee a case where a person was completely cured of a disease, with no remission, that's considered to be medically uncurable, without the use of experimental treatments, and you were provided evidence of all of the above by a panel of international doctors who are specialists and leaders in their field, who tested the evidence using 'blind' testing, would that be sufficient to convince you that there exists a deity?No, there could always be a different explanation. How do I know it's god? How do I know it's not something completely natural, rather than supernatural?
The evidence would be that there was no recovery, up until the point where they made a pilgrimage to so and so monastary, and the patient got better the following morning. Coincidence or causation?
At least there is a basis for faith-based healing, however supernatural it may appear to be. There's no evidence for cancer eating elves. Your argument is only showing how closed minded you are.I've never seen a case of a patient getting better the following morning. And even if I did, I'd still be skeptical.
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
I am under the belief that
everything
, from the biggest mysteries of the universe down to the smallest detail of our daily lives has a logical, scientific, natural explanation.
Post by
Monday
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.
Post by
Skreeran
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
Post by
Monday
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
You do?
That's funny considering your past views.
Edit: And are you sure you had a common cold? Those don't usually last two weeks unless they mutate into something else (iirc).
Post by
Skreeran
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
You do?
That's funny considering your past views.It's no less plausible than faith healing.
Post by
Monday
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
You do?
That's funny considering your past views.It's no less plausible than faith healing.
Actually it is.
Basically what you are doing is comparing faith healing to lasagna healing. It's stupid, humiliating and shows your ignorance and closemindedness.
Now I remember why I don't argue with you.
Post by
Squishalot
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
Were you dosing yourself with any cold and flu medicines? Would a doctor be able to attribute your recovery to said cold and flu medicines?
Would your doctor have said that even if you
didn't take anything at all
, you'd still get better?
Then no, it's not a good analogy.
Post by
Skreeran
Actually it is.
Basically what you are doing is comparing faith healing to lasagna healing. It's stupid, humiliating and shows your ignorance and closemindedness.
Now I remember why I don't argue with you.Nah, I've never seen any better evidence for faith healing than I have for my own personal experience with lasagna healing.
Tell me, what about psychic healers? Totally secular instances of people being healed without going to a monastery or mosque or whatever?
What about people who's disease disappear without any prayer or seeking of divine intervention at all?
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
Were you dosing yourself with any cold and flu medicines? Would a doctor be able to attribute your recovery to said cold and flu medicines?
Would your doctor have said that even if you
didn't take anything at all
, you'd still get better?
Then no, it's not a good analogy.I didn't have a doctor at the time. I didn't have any immunizations. I didn't take any medicine.
I was barely able to get out of bed, I ate lasagna, and I was totally healthy the next morning.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually it is.
Basically what you are doing is comparing faith healing to lasagna healing. It's stupid, humiliating and shows your ignorance and closemindedness.
Now I remember why I don't argue with you.Nah, I've never seen any better evidence for faith healing than I have for my own personal experience with lasagna healing.
Tell me, what about psychic healers? Totally secular instances of people being healed without going to a monastery or mosque or whatever?
What about people who's disease disappear without any prayer or seeking of divine intervention at all?
I once had a terrible cold. Could barely get out of bed. I had lasagna for dinner one night, and the following morning I was completely healthy. 100% true story, I kid you not. Coincidence or causation?
Colds hardly ever last for more than 1 day, especially if you have a good immune system. The analogy is bad.
Try it with RSV like I posted in another thread.Not for me, I've been bedridden for two weeks or more at a time with colds. I firmly believe that lasagna cured me.
Were you dosing yourself with any cold and flu medicines? Would a doctor be able to attribute your recovery to said cold and flu medicines?
Would your doctor have said that even if you
didn't take anything at all
, you'd still get better?
Then no, it's not a good analogy.I didn't have a doctor at the time. I didn't have any immunizations. I didn't take any medicine.
I was barely able to get out of bed, I ate lasagna, and I was totally healthy the next morning.
Other doctors asked to testify would happily state that you would get better from colds from taking the action you did. A cold recovery is nothing compared to a cancer recovery.
Edit: I'd also question your state of 'total recovery' the next morning too, relative to your health states in the previous couple of days.
Post by
Skreeran
Other doctors asked to testify would happily state that you would get better from colds from taking the action you did. A cold recovery is nothing compared to a cancer recovery.
Edit: I'd also question your state of 'total recovery' the next morning too, and your health states in the previous couple of days.I don't seem to recall that lady from the evangelical site having cancer. I don't remember it saying what she had at all.
Anyway, point is, you don't know why the person recovered. It could have been faith healing, it could have been lasagna, it could have been cancer-eating elves.
I subscribe to the belief that there was a totally rational explanation that we haven't figured out yet. In the same sense that tornadoes used to be unexplainable, but were eventually figured out.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but we don't know everything. There are still discoveries being made. Yes, even in medicine and biology. Just because we don't understand something now does not mean that it's God.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.