Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

[Omok]

[Starbuck]

If we could explain it, it would be fact not faith. end of story.

[Omok]

[Starbuck]

[Omok]

[Arellia]

Omok, be a little more civil, okay? If she feels that faith is something you either have or you don't, that's her business. Many people agree with her. She was not, I would add, discouraging discussion. Discussing that viewpoint is as valid as discussing your viewpoint.

The crux of the matter is, you can't disprove god, and you can't prove god except for yourself. You do not have evidence against the existence of a god (Similarly, you can't disprove elves or fairies). It's a personal choice and does not necessarily change a person's ability to reason and deal in the scientific world. You can believe in god along with evolution, the big bang, and atoms. You can also believe in god and use it to launch you into the world of religion, which dictates how you live and what you think of the world. A belief in god does not necessarily do that.

In the realm of philosophy proving and disproving is not always so cut and dried. That's why philosophy isn't a science, it's a mental exercise influenced by each individual's view of the world.

[Omok]

[PrankishSmart]

[Valathous]

[calvin]

i've participated in enough of these theology debates to know that the arguments are pretty much the same every time this discussion comes up. and since this thread has been going on for quite a while i think it's safe to say that most of the usual argument have been put forth by both sides.

all i'm gonna add is this; whether or not you're religious, and whether or not you trust in science, the innate nature of our minds and human communication is such that there is an immutable epistemological chasm that, whether intrapersonal or interpersonal, can only be crossed by means of reason.

if there is to be successful or fruitful dialectic communication between individuals, one must at the very least concede to this basic premise. if one cannot be reasoned with, then there is no use in trying to communicate, as you will never be able to penetrate this epistemic barrier.

the indispensable and self-evident nature of logic/reason is precisely why people consider math the universal language. that said, it is inherently irrational and _insane_ to attempt to persuade others to abandon reason for the mere fact that reason is the only commonality through which two different individuals can communicate knowledge. so unless you've mastered the vulcan mind-meld, it's simply mad to even try to convince others that the rules of logic are flawed.

metaphysical questions about life, existence, and spirituality can be answered by philosophy as well as theology. which one you choose depends on whether you trust in the veracity of logos or mythos, which in turn boils down to whether or not you trust your own faculty of reason. choosing logos still requires that you analyze many different conflicting philosophical ideologies and weigh/assess them yourself. ultimately it's still you who has to reach across the epistemic chasm and rend off a piece of the supernal from the firmament of knowledge. but there is nothing so satisfying as the sublime ecstasy that comes from comprehending for the first time that which was previously opaque. and even the process of trying to grasp a difficult or elusive concept can be rewarding in itself.

wow, i've been waiting like 2 weeks to post in this thread

[PrankishSmart]

[squiggy]

[calvin]

even though different people can use the same rules of logic to reach different conclusions based on different premises, the fundamental rules of logic are still universal and constant.

1 + 1 = 2
True != False
!(a OR b) = !a AND !b
p NAND q = !(p AND q)
!p = p NAND p
etc., etc.

a strong induction proof isn't a subjective opinion. it is a tautology that any rational individual who grasps its logic should understand to be true. this has nothing to do with forcing my version of anything onto anyone. it's just a fact of reality.

[squiggy]

[calvin]

formal logic is a branch of mathematics, but it is also a subset of logic as a general field of philosophy. the two are inextricably related to each other as one is based on the precepts of the other (similar to the connection between empiricism and science).

and i only gave mathematical examples because they are the most concise. but if you want, here are other examples:

if i am a man, then i am human.
--given this relationship (if P then Q), then the contrapositive must also be true (!Q then !P):
if i am not human, then i am not a man.

likewise, we know that the inverse of the original relationship is not necessarily true (!P->!Q):
if i am not a man, then i am not human
--this is not a sound inference because i could be a woman and still be human.

however, if we have a biconditional statement (if and only if), then the inverse is indeed true. for instance:
i am an artist if and only if i create art. (P iff Q)
therefore:
if i am not an artist, then i do not create art.

the same logical relationships exist in boolean math as in predicate logic. and although informal logic is more complex due to the nuanced nature of human language, they still obey universal laws of inductive or deductive reasoning. used in a deductive proof, an informal fallacy is never correct due to the disconnect between premise and conclusion stemming from a hidden co-premise. used in an inductive proof, however, it would depend on the inductive strength of the inherent premise-conclusion link. (ex. in the case of the fallacy of hasty generalization, the strength of the argument can be measured through inferential statistics--either frequency probability, or Bayesian inference.)

regardless of your worldview, cultural upbringing, or spiritual beliefs, informal fallacies such as argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam, etc. are still not considered part of a cogent argument. likewise, a red herring is a red herring regardless of one's personal beliefs. anyone who has studied logic or dialectic can understand why these arguments are considered fallacious. this isn't an issue of subjective opinion.

if you want to argue semantics then, yes, different people can perceive different actions or behaviors as rational/irrational. but that's not what is being discussed here as that has nothing to do with logical discourse. now, if a group of people were to sit down to discuss the rationale behind a particular set of actions or behaviors, then once again the laws of reason can be applied to the arguments raised. simply because some people apply the rules of logic less rigorously or are less aware of these rules than others doesn't mean that the rules of logic don't exist. just as the fact that there are different scientific opinions out there about the laws of nature doesn't imply that the laws of nature are entirely subjective.

the fact that you are trying to persuade me of your point of view through a logical argument is proof that there is a common language of reason shared by all human beings. otherwise it would be fruitless to use inferences in your argument, or to even give an argument at all. just as there are certain universal laws in physics, there are similarly universal laws which guide metaphysics.

[robbiewebster]

I made a mistake in an earlier post and I want to correct it. Please take the time to read this, it is a direct quote from One Heartbeat Away by Mark Cahill.

"According to distinguished British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle, the number of trial assemblies of amino acids needed to give rise to the enzymes required for life, and their discovery by random shuffling, turns out to be less than 1 in 1 x 10^40,000. Just to give you an idea of how astronomical this number is, one trillion is only 10^12. And it is estimated that there are only 10^80 electrons in the entire universe. So 10^40,000 of anything is almost impossible to imagine.Mathematicians say that any event in which the chances are beyond one in 10^50 is impossible-it is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is alotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of a living organism known is one chance in 10^340,000,000.

And the famous astronomer and evolutionist Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any single planet, including Earth, is one chance in 10^2,000,000,000"

[Arellia]

... that proves one of two possibilities. The first, is that creating life is extremely unlikely to happen by chance, so there must have been some other force at work. The second is that after billions of years eventually something that was highly unlikely occurred.

It does not prove the existence of one god, or any god(s) as we know them. Similarly it does not prove Christianity, the same as it does not prove Budhism, Islam, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Valathous]

[robbiewebster]

[IntrepidIsMe]

Do you mean microevolution? If there isn't one to believe in, that would be it.

[Arellia]

Hot-vent and tidepool evolutionary theories are the best ones we have for now. A scientific theory does not have to be correct in order to be useful--and the theory of evolution is useful when it comes to engineering microbes to perform specific tasks and such. The theory of evolution is useful in taxonomy and understanding genetics. It is not a perfect theory, but it is, as I said, a useful one. Since it is useful and I am studying biology, I use the theory that explains the most in the simplest terms. Ockham's Razor--creating an invisible being to explain science is not useful to science, it is simply making up extra unknown forces which are out of our control if they existed anyway.

Back when "ether" helped explain forces, it was a useful theory. We believe that today our "gravity" and "EM fields" are better, more simple explanations--and they are.

The idea that scientists (at least good scientists) are stating that all we know today is true is, in fact, untrue. A good scientist understands that there is always the possibility of a paradigm shift. The more we know, the better we become at manipulating our surroundings, the more humanity benefits. For a scientist to live and die by the theory of evolution as it exists today is just silly from a historical standpoint; a more moderate approach should be taken.

[robbiewebster]

[IntrepidIsMe]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the chances that enzymes would occur that would lead to life on a unicellular level... Something on a micro scale.

The evidence currently in support of macroevolution is overwhelming.