The offended God theory

[Zeta-Flux]

Bruno,

What we're talking about are miracles stricto sensu.

We are? If so, I'd agree with you that such has probably never happened. (Except in the case when "well-known and well-established natural laws" are simply incorrect [such as a flat earth, etc...])

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ET_

Faith is not a scientific answer...

Luigi

I didn't say it was scientific. I gave you the answer as I know it. The fact that it isn't scientific is why I included that there's no answer that will satisfy you that can exist. You want an answer that simply can't be at all.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

I cannot believe in such a being, proof of whose existence is unaccessible to the reason of a person of average intelligence (like everyone in this discussion).

I never said you had to do so. No explanation that you can't sense with the human body would ever be good enough for you.

Originally Posted by brunoparga

What we're talking about are miracles stricto sensu. This means, "alleged facts which counter well-known and well-established natural laws". None has ever happened, AFAIK. An example of which, recorded with the precautions needed to "avoid self-decption" (I quote someone in this forum ), is what I'm asking for.

Thanks,
Bruno

Such things do not exist that you ask for because you'd always assume they were faulty until you saw them with your eyes and ran some kind of physical test with a machine or a lab.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Bruno,

We are? If so, I'd agree with you that such has probably never happened. (Except in the case when "well-known and well-established natural laws" are simply incorrect [such as a flat earth, etc...])

That idea doesn't work for them either, Zeta. Science assumes, which is faith even if they won't admit it, that things have always been the way they are now as far as what they believe is testable. Well, it's the same as a certain amount of time after the beginning of the universe where their math ideas fall apart anyway. This is the kind of time and area of discussion where it becomes pointless to delve into because the only answers that the scientists will believe cannot and do not exist because it would violate the point in the first place. Now, I know that the religious extremists and the scientists both won't like that sentence, but for different reasons.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I didn't say it was scientific. I gave you the answer as I know it. The fact that it isn't scientific is why I included that there's no answer that will satisfy you that can exist. You want an answer that simply can't be at all.

Oh, no! I just don't look for answers of that kind...

I prefer asking questions that I know can be answered, like scientific ones.

Luigi

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Science assumes, which is faith even if they won't admit it, that things have always been the way they are now as far as what they believe is testable.

No, it doesn't. It tests that. It has means of knowing, instead of believing, what is and what isn't testable. That's why it's science, not faith. That's why it heals people - perhaps not each individual case, but many of them - and that's certain for science while it hardly can be argued for in the case of faith - as you both have admitted.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

...as you both have admitted.

Bruno,

I fail to see where I've admitted anything like that.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

No, it doesn't. It tests that. It has means of knowing, instead of believing, what is and what isn't testable. That's why it's science, not faith. That's why it heals people - perhaps not each individual case, but many of them - and that's certain for science while it hardly can be argued for in the case of faith - as you both have admitted.

Just for your own information, I don't believe miracles of any kind happen now.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Bruno,

I fail to see where I've admitted anything like that.

I have a feeling that Bruno might be talking about someone else besides you.

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Bruno,

I fail to see where I've admitted anything like that.

OK, I might be wrong about that, but I think Jwb has. I just won't look it up to prove it.

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Just for your own information, I don't believe miracles of any kind happen now.

As far as I can interpret his postings, Zeta does; I didn't mean to imply you did.

But both of these posts aren't close to what I meant: scientific knowledge is of a different nature, when compared with faith. I think that's something anyone can agree with, if they consider the way science designs tests to challenge its own theories and predictions (something unacceptable to faith). Now, what I don't expect religious people to agree with is my belief that, because of this objectivity, of this "avoidance of self-deception", of its undeniable potential for doing good to humans (e.g. curing diseases), science is a *better* kind of discourse than faith, which is nothing more than the will of believing unproven assumptions and the fragile well-being derived from it.

Bruno

[jasong]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

I cannot believe in such a being, proof of whose existence is unaccessible to the reason of a person of average intelligence (like everyone in this discussion).

I don't know if this is considered proof, as such, but many who have faith have found that regularly reading the Bible increases faith, even if what they're reading has nothing to do with the problems they're dealing with at that time. To me, that's a proof of sorts.