Science and religion

[Darkstar]

"Miracles are magic therefore impossible" is this supposed to be an argument? It is not self evident that magic is impossible.

It isn't? If science could explain it, it would no longer be magic.

You havn't disproved the existence of miracles and you won't. You assume that everything must be scientifically proven for it to be true, but you don't argue this, you assume it.

Well, something not being scientifically proven doesn't mean it isn't true. If there is strong evidence, then we can conclude that it is at least probable. If there is no evidence, then we can conclude that it is improbable. The more likely it is that we would find evidence (relatively quickly) if it were true, the less likely it is to be true if we find no evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind, by the way, as it cannot be verified, and human senses are fallible, and can misinterpret what they think they witnessed.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

"Miracles are magic therefore impossible" is this supposed to be an argument? It is not self evident that magic is impossible. You are using psuedo-logic terminology.

Do you believe in magic? Do you have any limits on the magic you believe in? If so, what are those limits.

I might also add if you do believe in magic when attributed to some god or other you believe the attribution made by some unknown writer, of unknown character and unknown motivation at some unknown time in the past without the least physical evidence of the event occurring. Given those facts is there really anything you will not believe?

---

You havn't disproved the existence of miracles and you won't.

That is true because disproof is proof of a negative which is impossible and I do not do the impossible. OTOH, because you think I could do the impossible you must also think I can do miracles.

You assume that everything must be scientifically proven for it to be true, but you don't argue this, you assume it.

I assume that everything which occurs must leave physical evidence. No physical evidence no miracle. I also require that claimed physical evidence must be tested to determine that it really is and further if it really is that it means no more than it is. Insisting upon such things has been the source of all human progress for the last four centuries. Deviations from those rules have always lead to nonsense. Those four centuries produced greater human progress than all previous human history.

So if you object to physical evidence you are clearly on the wrong side of history.

Babylonian astronomy is nothing like modern science, which trces back to Christian Europe. You are pulling anything you can to ignore the obvious roots that science has in Europe and America.

I can only suggest you read (horrors) and learn something about the subject. Astronomy as well as their astrology went well from Babylon to the Greeks and then all observatories in Europe vanished by Christian edict. It reappeared as astrology under Christianity. The patronage of the Christians sponsored the reappearance of astrology. Copernicus and Galileo might be considered the reappearance of astronomy under Christianity to the condemnation of all Christendom.

There is nothing wrong with using wikipedia as a source the way that I did, and the list of thinkers it mentions are real. You can find their biographies elsewhere.

Yes you are among those who think they can't put it on the internet unless it is true. On the internet does include on wikipedia on the internet. Except for some highly technical articles in the hard sciences wikipedia is a high school level resource. So are all the other encyclopedia. It is ruled by self-appointed cliques which have nothing to do with facts. I personally tested this and discovered Herodotus, the father of history, is not considered an historian and is rejected as a source for history even when he recited objective facts. These were not his anecdotes but political facts as he learned they were while he was there.

It is not fallacious to mention the fact that many, probably most scientists in history believed in some form of God, including some of the most important ones. Obviously that does not prove the existence of God, but in your black and white world, everything either gives absolute proof of something, or it is a fallacy. This is how atheists think, everything is black and white.

It is fallacious to use upper case G god to imply it is some kind of current conception of the christian god.

It is even more fallacious to appeal to authority. Appealing to scientists, so what? It is not as though their OPINION has any meaning. And appealing to any outside source instead of presenting the evidence yourself is an appeal to authority. That has been identified as a logical fallacy for at least 2500 years. It is with a touch of sorrow I note you are so far behind the times.

If you don't think it is significant that there have been millions of scientists who do not believe the scientific method conflicts with miracles, you are just a dishonest, proud person and there is really no reason to reason with you. If you can't see the difference between providing a piece of evidence and making a formal argument, you are brainwashed by psuedo-intellectual atheist propaganda.

There you go with your big G god assumption. You drag in the Christian miracles along with the upper case G. You assume facts not in evidence. You might as well point out most of the founding fathers believed in a god but also went no further than "it created this mess, turned its back, and hasn't paid attention to it since." Obviously no miracles there. But claiming they believed in God with all the baggage you want to drag along with it is simply nonsense.

So to claim a scientist's belief in some god or other is the same as believing in miracles obviously your attempt at misdirection.

[Ryantology]

If you can't see the difference between providing a piece of evidence and making a formal argument, you are brainwashed by psuedo-intellectual atheist propaganda.

Quite. The difference is obvious.

"Piece of evidence" is what we demand, "formal argument" is all you give us.

The difference is that formal arguments don't prove shit. Even if you weren't heinously guilty of seeding your formal arguments with assumptions you erroneously call 'knowledge', you can't prove the existence of your specific God with logical or philosophical prestidigitation any more than you could pound a hammer with it. You demand we take your personal testimony as valid without ever providing a single good reason to do so. In spite of neuroscience obviously not being your field of study, you presume to know that the neurological glitch(es) you've suffered is without question, the will of the Christian God being conveyed directly to you and nobody else telepathically. You go from erudite ideologue to raving lunatic without warning or pause.