hey athiests! i'm chatting with a person from liberty university on yahoo

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If the measurement or observation was repeatable and consistent it would cease to be supernatural and become natural.

Not necessarily, take my tape recorder experiement as an example.

[korn469]

Ben Kenobi (did you used to be obiwan18?)

i don't understand this need to turn christianity into a pseudo science, and i think it goes against the doctrine laid out in the bible

look at romans chapter 9

32 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."

you aren't going to prove god through ID or othersuch nonsence, it is a matter of faith according to the bible, and for me I have nothing that inspires that faith in me

that being said though, i think that people have a spiritual component and need to have their spiritual needs met to be a happy and healthy person, though people can go about that in a multitude of ways

[Jon Miller]

I think you and I have different deffinitions of natural.

Note that at one time all sorts of things like lightning and the like were supernatural.

What seems to be a reasonable deffinition of natural to me, is that part of reality which we have the technology and mathematics to investigate. This is also what you are asking for when you ask for a repeated measurement or observable.

Note that ideas like probability wave or even electrons would seem supernatural to people of long ago.

You are on this site so you have probably read a fantasy book or two. In many of them, magic (and things relating to the gods) are most deffinitely natural events and occurances since they can be probed by science (I don't hink Tolkien's can, but a lot that I have read can be). I know you play some DnD, in that system magic is most deffinitely natural, not supernatural.

Your tape recorder experiment would just be a first step (like Franklin's experiments with lightning) towards making something that was supernatural, a natural phenomenum.

I personally feel that my deffinition of natural, that which can be studied and probed by science, is a better one than yours, since your deffinition does not hold for all time.

Jon Miller

[Sarxis]

The supernatural is quite natural to me.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I personally feel that my deffinition of natural, that which can be studied and probed by science, is a better one than yours, since your deffinition does not hold for all time.

Repeatability and consistency are necessary but not sufficient conditions of what makes something natural (as opposed to supernatural).

[connorkimbro]

ha ha, funny.

korn: you know that i went to liberty university for 3 years?

i became an atheist there.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrFun
He's a fvcking homophobic lunatic.

Yes, he is, but then you are a fvcking Christophobic lunitic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Yes, he is, but then you are a fvcking Christophobic lunitic.

No, but you're pretty ignorant, considering MrFun is a professed Christian.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I like living in California. We've chased off most of the bible thumpers with our hedonistic athiest ways.

And this is why California is probably the best State in the US. Are you converting your latinos into heathens as well ?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by korn469
Ben Kenobi (did you used to be obiwan18?)

i don't understand this need to turn christianity into a pseudo science, and i think it goes against the doctrine laid out in the bible

look at romans chapter 9



you aren't going to prove god through ID or othersuch nonsence, it is a matter of faith according to the bible, and for me I have nothing that inspires that faith in me

that being said though, i think that people have a spiritual component and need to have their spiritual needs met to be a happy and healthy person, though people can go about that in a multitude of ways

It is true that the knowledge of God according to the Bible is brought forth by relelation. In other words the initial move is made by God and not man. That is in fact the foundation of Christianity. But on the other hand there is a general knowledge available to all as to the reality of a supreme being:

Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...

There are millions of people who are of no particular religion but still realize that a God of some type exists. They apparently see the evidence differently than do atheists.

[Elok]

I hadn't thought of it, but this is another one of those things where a trick of semantics can have people argue two completely different points against each other, isn't it? After all, to a Wiccan or somebody like that, magic IS "natural."
It's kinda like what C.S. Lewis said about the different senses of the word "my." A little boy uses "his" toys, and can throw them against a wall if he chooses, but has to treat "his" friends nicely if he wants to keep them, has no control over "his" country, and is expected to listen to "his" mother; yet they all have the same adjective in front...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, but you're pretty ignorant, considering MrFun is a professed Christian.

Whoooooosh! Yet another comment goes flying over Boris' head.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Repeatability and consistency are necessary but not sufficient conditions of what makes something natural (as opposed to supernatural).

are you going to provide any counter arguments?

I put forward that what is considered supernatural is based upon our understandings at the time and repeatedly taht which would be considered supernatural in the past is natural now as it becomes science. I see no reason why this would not continue to be the case.

Jon Miller

[Sava]

hahaha korn, good discussion... most people like that tuck and run when you force them to think critically.

"Do not eat from the tree of knowledge"

Isn't that from Genesis?

Any religion that hails ignorance is not worth believing in.

[Lincoln]

Before we continue with this debate we should lay out a few basic rules of science:

A Concise Guide
to Understanding
Evolutionary Theory

You can observe a lot by just watching.

– Yogi Berra

First Law of Scientific Progress

The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.
Corollaries:

1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.

2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.

3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.

Darwin’s Law:
Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.

Bloch’s Extension:
So will Darwinists.


Finagle’s Creed:
Science is true. Don’t be misled by facts.

Finagle’s 2nd Law:
No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe it happened according to his own pet theory.

Finagle’s Rules:
3. Draw your curves, then plot your data.
4. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
6. Do not believe in miracles – rely on them.

Murphy’s Law of Research:
Enough research will tend to support your theory.

Maier’s Law:
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.

Corollaries:
1. The bigger the theory, the better.
2. The experiments may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.

Eddington’s Theory:
The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given biological phenomenon is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.

Young’s Law:
All great discoveries are made by mistake.

Corollary:
The greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake.

Peer’s Law:
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.

Peter’s Law of Evolution:
Competence always contains the seed of incompetence.

Weinberg’s Corollary:
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.

Souder’s Law:
Repetition does not establish validity.

Cohen’s Law:
What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.

Harrison’s Postulate:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Thumb’s Second Postulate:
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.

Ruckert’s Law:
There is nothing so small that it can’t be blown out of proportion

Hawkins’ Theory of Progress:
Progress does not consist in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong.

Macbeth’s Law:
The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.

Disraeli’s Dictum:
Error is often more earnest than truth.