quote:I am willing to accept this, but what examples would you suggest for demonstrating a situation where science is not the best tool?
There are many, but here's one: Evaluating mathematical theories. Sure, you can experiment scientifically and run a number of trials to see if the theory holds true each time. However, you often can do it much quicker and which much greater certainty if you prove the theory using logic instead.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean--blue hell--this thing's turned into a monster in less than a week.
Where is the objective evidence that hell is in fact blue? You people keep on making blanket statements as if they were fact without even trying to bring up your evidence. Your belief in a Blue Hell offends me, because Neutonian Physics has certainly proven that, if there were any sort of hell to exist at all, it would most likely be violet with flourescent orange polka dots.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that hell is exothermic, it should be possible to calculate its color, given sufficient data on its temperature.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If we accept the postulate given to me by Theresa Banyan during freshman year, that, "It'll be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and taking into account that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then [A2] cannot be true... thus, Hell is exothermic."
posted
Interestingly enough on that is Hell endothermic or exothermic quiestion, I have attended classes at the U. of Oklhahoma, with Dr. Shambaugh as a prof. While I love the proof I don't believe that urban legend actually started there, because I know Dr. Shambaugh would have bragged about it. Plus he doesn't give essay questions in his classes, they are all problem solving with numbers and symbols. There is another version stating that it originated from Cal-Tech, which I believe is more plausible.
I guess the best place to start is with the assumption that we exist in an objective universe: The universe exists, and we exist within it.
The state of the universe (its condition) is its objective "truth" (it is "THE" objective truth, if you will). Aspects of this truth that we understand are objective "knowledge."
But it's how we gain this knowledge, I think, that has lead to the majority of our disagreements.
The primary way we gain knowledge of the universe is though perception--our senses. That makes the path "subjective"--subject to modification. But even before the objective truth of the universe can be perceived by us, it passes through filters--modifiers, if you would. Filters of time, for starters, filters of speed (think: red shift/blue shift/one shift/two shift), gravitational distortion filters, atmospheric filters, radio telescope filters, optical telescope filters, CCD/Photomultiplier sensing array filters, cosmic-ray- detection-array filters, data storage filters, etc., etc., etc. And I'm not even talking about real "filters" filters--like red filters, polarizing filters, anti-smog filters, bandpass filters, all the corrective filters and refocusing manipulations performed on the Hubbell Space Telescope, etc. I'm talking about the fact that you have to use a telescope at all (or any sensor), and the fact that whatever media the data passes through will modify the data simply by "handling" it.
And, as I said--that's even before this information gets to us! We then add additional filters (modifiers) to this data. We can't see most of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can't hear most of the audio spectrum. We can manipulate the incoming data to help us improve our range, but even that's "more filters." And who's to say that our five senses are all there is? There could be data out there that we can't even conceive of.
And then there's the perception filters we impose on this data. When we study photons, we perform tests--the results of these tests address our concerns as to whether light is a particle or a wave. When we see a statue bleeding from the eyes, we perceive it as either a miracle or a fraud.
Once we finally perceive this data--once it gets to our ego/soul/sense-of-self for interpretation, it's gone through so many "transport layers" that it's only a shell of what it started out as. And it's only then that we start to try to figure out what it all means.
So, you don't have to worry if I know about the subjectivity of sensing/perceiving and interpreting otherwise (or originally) "objective" data. I know.
But there's nothing in that multi-layer filtering of data to indicate that "anything is possible," or that it all might change without warning. Scientists, engineers, and technical folk all acknowledge that the data we perceive is, at best, second-hand. We also acknowledge that the "laws" we create to model the universe's actions are interpretive and (hopefully) predictive--they are not somehow the "drivers" of reality. So far, when our laws have failed to properly describe some goings-on in the universe, it's been a failing of our laws to interpret the universe correctly. I believe that it's never been the case that the the universe suddenly "changed direction" and invalidated our interpretation of it.
Quantum physicists acknowledge that it is possible that all the atoms that make up a particular telephone, for instance, might suddenly change position, causing the phone to disappear from its first spot and somehow appear 6 feet to the left. Possible, but not probable. No one wastes their time waiting for it to happen, starting a betting pool as to when it will happen, or [insert appropriate snarky comment on how the probability of physical laws changing, or God existing is far, far, less than that for the phone shifting 6' to the left]
Let's say you park your light blue Volkwagon Jetta in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and go in to do some shopping. When you come out, your Jetta is gone, and a light blue Porsche is sitting in its spot.
What has happened here? Has the Jetta changed into a Porsche? You know that it's possible (well, it certainly can't be proven that it's impossible), but...has it? You try the door--it's unlocked. You go in, and put your key in the ignition--it fits. As you're about to turn the key, there's a rap on the window. It's the cops.
Do you tell them about how, without any true objective means of determining that--or if--the laws of the Universe cannot change in a moment, your Jetta has therefore changed into a Porsche, or do you make up some really lame excuse?
"You better think quick," says the cop, "because that 350 pound linebacker coming this way with the two baseball bats and a Porsche key-ring thinks this is his car."
"That's not a 350 pound linebacker," you think, "I know just how subjective my perceptions are--I wonder, perhaps if it's just a 90-pound little old lady, looking for her Toyota Echo..."
Thwack Thwack
It's a linebacker.
These are really cute theories, guys, but highly impractical.
I accept the limitations, but I really need something I can work with. Saying that because there are uncertainties in our data stream, our perception of the universe is invalid is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To say that nothing is impossible (everything is possible) is just not supported by the known data. Moreso, to accept things so far out of the ordinary as to be considered "miracles" (or, at least "miracles" as defined by the Weekly World News), and somehow feel that they do not need to be subjected to intense scrutiny just smacks of intentional, self-imposed gullibility (which, in most circles would be called "foolishness.")
I put in that list: Bleeding Statues, the Bat Boy, Aliens hell-bent on anal probing and/or meeting with Bill Clinton, People rising from the dead, Dark Matter, plus God, Jesus, Jonah, etc. Unfortunately for Jesus, Jonah, etc., all the good data is lost. All we have left is a SINGLE written document, which has gone through many translations (read: filters, modifications), and has thus lost a substantial amount of what might have been some original validity (as proof or evidence).
And this is all I have to say about that. I feel that I've been fair, and that I've made proper fun of myself in those few areas where I've gotten a little snarky.
So either you believe me or you don't. But if you don't, then you're all a bunch of poopy-heads.
posted
Great - and I doubt anyone would act as if the Jetta turned into a Porsche (although if the key fit, I'd be hard pressed to come up with another explanation).
There are three problems with your post: 1.) No one is saying they think the universe changes a lot or all the time. Of course the less something has happened in the past the more evidence we would want. So your example introduces nothing new to the conversation.
2.) There's little or no objective reason to think the Universe (the natural world) "just happened." It's creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurance. So with regards to this particular piece of objective proof, atheism stands on no better grounds than theism given your criteria.
3.) You're definition of "objective truth" excludes the possibility of anything existing beyond this Universe. Isn't that begging the question? Any definition of "miracle" contains an aspect of the unusual. Otherwise the event wouldn't be considered remarkable enough to give it name.
posted
(Volkswagons and Porsches are made by the same parent company. Makes Audis, too. Not that I've ever owned any of them, but if ever a key from one car had a chance of fitting into another...)
I know you are not saying that the universe is changing "all of the time." But if you are saying it can change, then either it won't ever change, or it will change at least once. I thought your point was, in part, that you would probably never know in advance if or when (or how) it would change.
There's little or no objective reason to think that the Judeo-Christian God (the super-natural world) "just happened." Its creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurence.
This is one of the oldest arguments around: If everything needs a point of creation, then why the Universe, and not God? And if there exist things that do not require a point of creation, then why God and not the Universe?
So with regards to this particular piece of objective proof, theism stands on no better grounds than atheism given your criteria. In fact, theism adds another whole layer of complexity--a layer that is both poorly defined and impossible to detect or prove (impossible to prove either way--by its own definition). Theism therefore stands on weaker gound.
By "universe" I should have used "metaverse" (or some such nonsense). I mean all that there is--both natural and (should it "exist") super-natural. If you can't experience something, does it exist? If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one there to hear it, and it strikes a mime, does he make a noise?
I would define a miracle as something counter to all known physical laws, and not explainable except through the direct contradiction of a known law. Finding giant stars at the far side of the universe that defy our known cosmological laws is not a miracle, as we have acknowledged serious limitations to our knowledge in that category. Seeing the dead come to life, or water turning into wine, or sticks to snakes--in the absense of any and all chicanery--would be a miracle.
A related note: my alma mater, Washington University in St. Louis, started up a "Department of PARA-Psychology" in an attempt to verify a few miracles. The only thing they learned was how easy it was for "conjurers" to trick scientists into believing in miracles (eventually, James Randi--who demystifies this stuff for a living-- came and showed the scientists the errors of their ways, after supposedly sending in Penn & Teller to intentionally fake them out!)
quote:Robespierre said: What are you basing this on?
quote:TomDavidson said: "It's creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurrence."
How do you know? How often are universes created, and how do you tell?
In the context of events that are rarely observed requiring more proof than events that are commonly things, the creation of Universes can safely be called rarely observed, at least by human standards. I’ve witnessed or seen evidence of some 12,000 odd sunrises. There’s not recorded first-hand testimony of the creation of the Universe (even Genesis purports to be a record of what happened as revealed, not as witnessed.)
If other universes are being created often, we can’t observe them right now. So they are rare.
If our universe was “created” more than once, then space-time was created with it (since space-time is part of the universe). Since we can only observe things within space-time, barring some “supernatural” intervention, it’s safe to say we can only observe one creation per universe from within that universe.
quote:Robespierre said: Unusual does not imply supernatural.
No, it doesn’t. But I wasn’t claiming it was. Basically, I said “all miracles (actual or otherwise) are rare,” not “all rare events are miracles.”
I was explaining why there will never be enough evidence of a miracle to satisfy the standard of proof proposed in the earlier post. If a Jetta did get turned into a Porsche under those circumstances, the driver probably wouldn’t be able to convince anyone it happened, even if the VIN was the same.
posted
On behalf of the mimes of the universe, I must ask: Since when is a mime "no one"?! For shame!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:ssywak said: If everything needs a point of creation, then why the Universe, and not God? And if there exist things that do not require a point of creation, then why God and not the Universe?
So with regards to this particular piece of objective proof, theism stands on no better grounds than atheism given your criteria. In fact, theism adds another whole layer of complexity--a layer that is both poorly defined and impossible to detect or prove (impossible to prove either way--by its own definition). Theism therefore stands on weaker gound.
Actually, assuming one uncaused cause makes the argument less complex. Either one inexplicable guiding intelligence exists, or ALL those parameters and events of the universe necessary to lead to the creation of human life happened by chance (the right attractive force for gravity, the right charge for an electron, the close to uniform distribution of matter and energy with just enough variation to create galaxies, stars, and planets, the appropriate size of earth, the appropriate distance to the sun, the appropriate tilt of the axis, the appropriate rotation of the earth, the appropriate chemical mix, especially abundances of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, the accidental creation of DNA and other organic compounds, the formation of bacteria, the creation of oxygen, the evolution of plant an animal life to radically change the earth’s atmosphere, the evolution of more complex organisms, and finally the evolution of primates just a little bit smarter than the rest to create human intelligence) Change to any one would have resulted in non-human life and most would have resulted in a universe unsuitable for life as we can conceive it.
quote: If other universes are being created often, we can’t observe them right now.
I agree...
quote: So they are rare.
What now? How can you quantify something you admitt isn't observable right now?
ssywak is on the right path here. We are presented with a problem, the nature of the universe. To solve this problem, theists first create another problem, the nature of God. Neither of these are currently solvable.
The way I understand theism, God is never going to be provable or unprovable. So without all the facts being in, theists are basically claiming that the universe was created by something totaly beyond understanding. Why go this extra step? Why not just admit that we don't know the nature of the universe as well as we would like to?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said: What now? How can you quantify something you admitt isn't observable right now?
I’m only quantifying it the extent it’s been observed, because the topic was how the rarity of an event being observed affects the level of proof required for it to be believed. So whether it’s happening every second somewhere else or it’s only happened once, no human to my knowledge has claimed to have observed the creation of the universe.
quote:Robespierre said: ssywak is on the right path here. We are presented with a problem, the nature of the universe. To solve this problem, theists first create another problem, the nature of God. Neither of these are currently solvable.
The way I understand theism, God is never going to be provable or unprovable. So without all the facts being in, theists are basically claiming that the universe was created by something totaly beyond understanding. Why go this extra step? Why not just admit that we don't know the nature of the universe as well as we would like to?
We go the extra step because we believe that knowledge about God has been revealed, and we believe the revelation. God is beyond our complete understanding; he has attempted to help us understand a portion of his will.
You asked earlier why scripture contained nothing provable by present-day observation. The answer is that things that can be presently observed require no revelation. That which is revealed, verses observed, provides us with information about the nature of the universe that is not otherwise obtainable.
quote:(the right attractive force for gravity, the right charge for an electron, the close to uniform distribution of matter and energy with just enough variation to create galaxies, stars, and planets, the appropriate size of earth, the appropriate distance to the sun, the appropriate tilt of the axis, the appropriate rotation of the earth, the appropriate chemical mix, especially abundances of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, the accidental creation of DNA and other organic compounds, the formation of bacteria, the creation of oxygen, the evolution of plant an animal life to radically change the earth’s atmosphere, the evolution of more complex organisms, and finally the evolution of primates just a little bit smarter than the rest to create human intelligence)
I think each of these points makes the next more likely. By the time we get to the first unlikely point--the creation of DNA--we've already assumed that the factors necessary to it's creation have already happened.
Reminds me of a recurring discussion on Fate I have with a good friend. He tries to convince me that we're supposed to be having the conversation, and I try to convince him that having the conversation is just one of an infinite number of possibilities, all of which have relatively equal probability.
Neither of us will give in, so we usually just end up getting drunk, then run aroung NYC screaming at the top of our lungs to confound the Gods of Fate.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that because there are uncertainties in our data stream, our perception of the universe is invalid is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Exactly. Just because we can't prove something with complete certainty doesn't mean we should stop believing it. Since you recognize this, you must also understand why religious people object to the suggestion that we shouldn't believe what the Bible says to be true just because we can't prove the Bible to be perfectly accurate.
quote:I would define a miracle as something counter to all known physical laws, and not explainable except through the direct contradiction of a known law. Finding giant stars at the far side of the universe that defy our known cosmological laws is not a miracle, as we have acknowledged serious limitations to our knowledge in that category.
Actually, you just acknowledged limitations to ALL of our knowledge ("I accept the limitations, but I really need something I can work with.") Thus you can't use limitations of our knowledge as some sort of distinguishing feature between miracles and discoveries.
The truth is, your definition suggests that we've had a great many recorded miracles, especially in regards to science. Every great scientific discovery is caused by a direct contradiction of "known" scientific law. Most of these are not even discoveries far off in distant galaxies where we know little. Many are right under our noses. The discovery that continents move, the discovery that Newton's physics doesn't work in all cases, the discovery that matter is neither wave nor particle - all of these are miracles by your definition. Thus, by that definition, miracles are essential to the scientific process (and therefore, I think it's safe to say we should believe in the possibility of miracles.)
The truth is, you cannot separate scientific "surprises" from religious "miracles" in any consistent way. If you are looking just at outlandishness, scientific theories far surpass anything religion has ever thought up. Science claims absolutely absurd sounding things, far more so than water becoming wine. Just read up on quantum physics for plenty of examples.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frisco said: I think each of these points makes the next more likely. By the time we get to the first unlikely point--the creation of DNA--we've already assumed that the factors necessary to it's creation have already happened.
Since subsequent, conditional probabilities are multiplied, certainly each point succeeding makes the next more likely. And I agree that the DNA step is a major break point in the probability line.
But by no means is the formation of DNA the first unlikely point. There are many more initial states to the universe that lead to either a uniform distribution of matter and energy (hence no differentiation from one point to another) or to a chaotic, ever-changing universe where there is no pocket of stability suitable for long term changes to the state of matter (as needed by evolution) or to a universe collapsing in on itself within nanoseconds of the big bang. So given that there are a huge number of potential universes that could lead to intelligent life, there are many, many, many more that lead to no possibility (at least as we could conceive it).
This is all based on my admittedly layman’s knowledge of Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe and such.
This conversation would be much more fun over beer.
posted
"There are many more initial states to the universe that lead to either a uniform distribution of matter and energy (hence no differentiation from one point to another) or to a chaotic, ever-changing universe where there is no pocket of stability suitable for long term changes to the state of matter (as needed by evolution) or to a universe collapsing in on itself within nanoseconds of the big bang."
Why would you think that all of these universes do not currently exist? There's no conceivable reason for them NOT to. And that makes a universe such as ours pretty much a statistical certainty.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, you can't use the word "currently" to describe them because they're outside our space-time. I know, this is more of a nit than a substantive response. But I find the concept mind-bogglingly fascinating.
Second, conjecturing the existence of the other universes to make ours a statistical certainty is at least as complicating as conjecturing the existence of a single Creator who created this universe with human intelligence as one of its objectives.
It comes down to “every possible thing exists, but only the things that lead to a human intelligence are observable by us” versus “a creator capable of creating anything chose to create a universe such that it would produce humans.” I don’t see how the one is any more or less complex than the other.
And both require less complexity than explaining why a single, unlikely universe exists that ended up creating human intelligence.
quote:It comes down to “every possible thing exists, but only the things that lead to a human intelligence are observable by us” versus “a creator capable of creating anything chose to create a universe such that it would produce humans.” I don’t see how the one is any more or less complex than the other.
And both require less complexity than explaining why a single, unlikely universe exists that ended up creating human intelligence.
What are you using to measure this complexity?
And what's more, who cares which is least complex? If we want to minimize complexity, why not just be solipsist after all? If nothing exists except me, that gives us far fewer things to explain - just one!
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax said: And what's more, who cares which is least complex? If we want to minimize complexity, why not just be solipsist after all? If nothing exists except me, that gives us far fewer things to explain - just one!
I don’t buy the idea that the least complex idea is the correct one. I’m simply refuting the claim that atheism is less complex in order to show that complexity is a useful criteria for evaluating worldviews.
I'm responding to a criticism made that accepting the non-understandability of the Universe's creation was a simpler argument, and therefore more acceptable, than positing a Creator. That's all I'm doing.
posted
The least complex argument, as far as I can tell, is this:
"This universe sure seems remarkably unlikely, but it obviously happened, since we're here."
It's the Weak Anthropic Principle. Learn to love it.
Now, we can argue HOW we beat the odds until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that this is purely speculation. And there's considerably more scientific reason to believe in multiple universes than in God....
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm definitely thinking the least complex possibility is solipsism, especially when you combine it with the Weak Anthropic Principle - then you don't even have to explain why you are having all of these sensations. Positing the existence of all these "external" people and objects that you can't even really prove is just unnecessary added complexity when you can just as easily say you are just imagining them.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with solipsism, Tres, is that it requires one to deny the evidence of one's senses. The Weak Anthropic Principle does not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with solipsism, Tres, is that it requires one to deny the evidence of one's senses.
Not at all. If I see a chair and I'm a solipsist, I don't have to deny I see a chair. I only have to deny there's some physical object making me see that chair - something that we assume, not something our senses tell us.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:ssywak said: Unfortunately for Jesus, Jonah, etc., all the good data is lost. All we have left is a SINGLE written document,
Actually, in the case of Jesus, we have at least 4 accounts in the Gospels alone. You wouldn't be calling the compilation called the New Testament (let alone the Old and New Combined) a 'Single Written Document' now, would you Steve?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I will admit to a good amount of ignorance regarding the developmental histories of the Olds and New Testaments.
These four Gospels, though obviously claimed to be the writings of four allegedly independent apostles, were actually written by who, and when?
And if Jesus was a benificent Rabbi, who was attempting to improve the moral lives of his society (in other words--no more a son of God than you or I), then all the apostles would be in on the effort, and hence not reliable "independent sources."
Just the same as if four scientists on the same project were all to write "independently" on how they co-discovered cold fusion.
Treso,
quote:Just because we can't prove something with complete certainty doesn't mean we should stop believing it. Since you recognize this, you must also understand why religious people object to the suggestion that we shouldn't believe what the Bible says to be true just because we can't prove the Bible to be perfectly accurate
There are levels of accuracy. I'm partially color blind. In the early morning, when I'm putting my socks together, sometimes I can't tell the difference between brown and grey, or dark blue and black. All it means is that I can't really tell what color my socks are, sort of. It does not mean that I start thinking that they're really toaster ovens, or apple blintzes. And I certainly would be wrong to start wondering if, because of the color question, that they were really only 3-dimensional projections of large, pan-dimensional beings with amazing but undetectable magic powers.
quote:The truth is, you cannot separate scientific "surprises" from religious "miracles" in any consistent way
I'll have to think about that one to properly refute it. But, at the same time, I don't go attributing scientific surprises to sudden changes in how the universe is run, just my understanding of it. And once I've noticed (and hopefully figured out) the scientific surprise, I can verify that it is, in fact, how the universe works.
Miracles do not ever work that way. They're remarkable free from any means of verification. And I'm not even looking for an explanation as to how a particular miracle worked, just verification that it is, in fact, a miracle.
I'd love to go visit a backyard to see Jesus in the whorls of a lightning-struck tree, or a monastery to see a statue bleeding from the eyes, or have a doctor at Long Island Jewish Medical Center examine someone for stigmata.
BTW, Cold Fusion was a "miracle," wasn't it? But it turned out to be non-repeatable, and unverifiable. How many cold fusion power plants do you see running today? Science has no problem whatsoever rejecting its own.
quote:Miracles do not ever work that way. They're remarkable free from any means of verification. And I'm not even looking for an explanation as to how a particular worked, just verification that it is, in fact, a miracle.
Most of the miracles reported today fit that mold. A lot of the ones described in scripture certainly don't.
A pillar of fire descending to consume an altar prepared with sacrifices is hard to mistake for anything else.
But someone can always come up with a reason as to why something wasn't a miracle. Humans are born with great capacity to filter information to support their beliefs.
Materialists just have more precisely defined filters.
posted
Fit which mold? That they are verifiable (please include pointers), or that they're not (as with miracles of old--you know, the ones with a SINGLE REFERENTIAL SOURCE, like Sodom & Gammorah (no, not the flying turtle...)).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steve, the most commonly accepted hypothesis is that there are at least three independent source documents for the four gospels. “Independent” as in “written by people with no contact with each other while they were writing.” John is vastly different from the three synoptics. There are multiple theories on how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to each other. There is definitely some relationship, but it’s debated. It’s likely there were at least two sources involved, however, whether or not one of them was the infamous “Q.”
Add in all the Gnostic writings, and it’s definitely not true to say that all we have about Jesus is from a single document.
Most of the time atheists play up the fact that the gospel accounts don’t harmonize very well. You may be the first I’ve ever seen try to conflate them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miracles that are impossible to prove miraculous, even assuming all accounts of the miracles are true: “And I'm not even looking for an explanation as to how a particular miracle worked, just verification that it is, in fact, a miracle.”
What I’m talking about in scriptures are things that, if the accounts are believed, pretty much have to be miraculous. Or, if you will, are more probably miracles than not. Again, a big bolt of fire descending from the sky just as a prophet is praying for it to do so is much more likely to be a miracle than a random accident. All assuming the accounts of them are believed, of course.
posted
"All assuming the accounts of them are believed, of course."
The big issue, of course, is whether those accounts are trustworthy. In order to do this, the only tools we have are historical comparison and philosophical crosschecking. Do the events described seem possible? Are they recorded anywhere else? Are they consistent with OTHER events described by the same source?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
