I Hate That Word "Lucky"

Posted by khalling 10 years ago to Philosophy
123 comments | Share | Flag

from Objective Standard via fuguewriter

All Comments

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago
    Science invites people to expose fraud. It loves data that upsets established models.

    Science is not taking issues far outside your expertise, deciding what you wish were true, and then looking for evidence to support it.

    The fact that science discovers fraud is actually a good thing about science. It invites criticism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately "we don't believe in scientific claims, we accept the facts" is belied by the FRAUD which is the manufactured scientific consensus behind man-made global warming. Each side has its full of sh*t aspects...neither will ever win everyones fidelity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. I've thought the same thing, esp about old religious debates, such as a heliocentric solar system. That really wasn't a religious question.

    Also, sometimes people will talk about believing in things like evolution. We don't believe in scientific claims, we accept the evidence. We're open to new evidence. Religious claims, like the golden rule, is not something religious people want to disprove. It's an axiom, a starting point, a belief.

    I agree religious beliefs and scientific claims are completely different things. They do not need to be nasty toward each other. I don't approve of the recent atheists who dismiss religion as stupid. I often do feel like religious people are arguing over their imaginary friend, but I try to be humble and accept I'm not theologian, and it's not productive for me to dismiss people out of hand. I known many very intelligent and scientific people who believe in religion devoutly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Personally I think science is simply figuring out how things were made - reverse engineering. Whereas religions are setting the foundation without worry about the mechanics of how it came to be. The two, neither which will proven right while your still alive, have plenty of room to co-exist without animosity. My 2 bits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you saying scientific inquiry supports religion? Is it many religions or just yours? Are you eagerly inviting new hypotheses and tests to disprove your current understanding and create a new one? If so, this is inconsistent with my understanding of religion, which I think of as starting with faith in unfalsifiable claims-- not wrong or right claims but claims outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

    The thing about the Shroud just seems like god of the gaps.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The typical answer from the atheist - you're just cherry-picking data, or that data doesn't meet my standard of substantiation. There have been entire branches of science that started with less evidence than I have cited. You merely don't like it, so you refuse to allow it.

    Explain how the Shroud of Turin was created. Mere molecules thick of the essence that creates the image, and created in a fashion that it only makes sense when shaped as if draped over a body. Carbon dating has been contradictory and since this test consumes some of the fabric, it is unlikely to be allowed again.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    http://www.ibtimes.com/shroud-turin-wron...

    why is the "image" cut off at the neck? the carbon dating doesn't jive and the most recent earthquake stretch is psuedo scientific. The carbon dating does jive with a period in which christian relics were highly prized in Europe, following the Crusades' pillaging. and why does the image match perfectly with European drawings and paintings of Jesus in the early middle ages? It's not even likely a carpenter from that time and place looked like that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This is just argument from antiquity and starting with a desired answer and cherry picking any evidence to support it. Scientific evidence does not support religious claims. Our mythology tells us something about where we came from, but it is not good for scientific claims like under what conditions molecules can form into life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. Why would god kill his/her own son, bring him back to life,, and then not leave us evidence as a test of faith. If the god did that, why wouldn't he come up with some really sick and twisted test of faith, like demanding someone kill his own son for no reason?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If you had absolute proof that Jesus in fact rose from the dead and you saw that resurrected body lifted to heaven would you have any difficulty in accepting in a God, and in so doing, know that you had to live a moral and just life otherwise you would suffer eternal damnation?

    Of what use in such a situation would be free-will?

    If you accept a creator who gave us free-will then all else is rational.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, I'm guessing that those people of whom you speak are much more prominent people at least in the aspect of the contemporaneous society. Jesus was the son of a carpenter in the society of the day. How many other Jewish carpenters from 2000 years ago do you know recorded in history?

    And what do you call the Shroud of Turin? Pretty much a miraculous polaroid, if you ask me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Got it... but what you're describing does not predict outcomes; it predicts the probability of an outcome or outcomes... High probability for the desired outcome is still just that, but not 'luck' or 'destiny.'

    Oh, and in a tiny way like the Global Warming 'models'... lousy models make for lousy Monte Carlo results, too! :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    no one asked for polaroids. Why is it we have so much more evidence of those who lived hundreds of years earlier and only eyewitness or hearsay about Jesus. A test? ahhh, yes, a test of faith
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Written down by more than 4 perhaps. There are contemporaneous reports of the events of the crucifixion. There are no polaroids of the risen Christ, but there are again reports that more than 500 people saw him resurrected. It is part of the mystery that He is not revealed definitively to all. That would undercut God's plan. He gave us free-will in order to be able to choose the righteous path or not. If you had absolute evidence, such a choice would be easy. It is the making of the choice in a circumstance of doubt that makes it powerful.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You keep saying that there is no evidence, but reject the evidence presented because you don't want to believe it. That is dishonest. You cannot say show proof and then say that you don't accept the proof.

    To whit: Jesus caused a blind man to see. Brought a dead man back to life. Turned water to wine. Healed a leper. Caused a lame man to be able to walk. Fed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had leftovers. Rose from the dead after 3 days and displayed himself to over 500 people. The Shroud of Turin shows a person scourged, exhibiting wounds on his head his side, hands and feet consistent with the story of the crucifixion and produced in a manner unknown (even today) with mere microns of artifact and in a manner that only represents the info when draped as it would be over a body. None of these things are possible by humans.

    These are merely some of innumerable examples of evidence that I could cite. You will likely say that they don't rise to a sufficient level for you to accept. That is your right. But do not say that because you reject them, that they do not exist.

    The most recent example is the boy that states things that he could not have known and says that he learned these things in heaven. Again, you can reject this evidence and claim that it is brainwashing, outright lying, or some sort of mass hallucination.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This may be one of those rare times we disagree, Khalling. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and all those in the Gulch. The number of things that had to go correctly for all of what we are and do to happen is just too many coincidences (luck?) for me to accept. There must be a reasonable explanation even if we are too primitive to understand what it is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Self-doubt can be debilitating. I know many Christians and non-Christians who have such self-doubt. I am glad that I have not been so cursed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, but we must agree on some basis. or else, everything is meaning-less. Lack of perfect knowledge does not negate knowledge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    no. the point is I do not have to entertain the concept. Or if I have examined, studied the concept, I can refute it. I do not need to leave the door open a crack to let a little light in.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo