Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next]
|
Slim King
Eternal Order
Orlando
18033 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 05:49 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 13:10, George Hunter wrote:
Oh Bob:
It wasn't a competition.
You don't believe I won. You just bailed!
George
Love your posts George. And you logic is seasoned beyond the ability of those like Bob to comprehend. but I appreciate it... I'm not very good at explaining how I think but you seem to hit the nail right on the head!!!
There are now more than 80 pics without a priest in any of them ... I'm not saying he wasn't there but man was he sneaky!!!!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 06:10 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 10:13, George Hunter wrote:
Bob:
Several points come to ind:
1. You assume that you occupy the olympian vantage point from which you can, at last, resolve the most substantial meg-questions that have hounded philosophers and theologians for centuries. Good for you. I did four degrees and spent my career as a dean and professor in two divinity schools, but I may need to adopt you as my guru.
2. The Edison example was offered as an analogy, NOT a parallel case.
3. Your next-to-last paragraph plays a version of the same game I addressed earlier. "Why was it him, rather than someone else? Why did that happen, rather than something else?" Welcome to what theologians have long called "the scandal of particularity." One early form: "How odd of God to choose the Jews."
4. You assume that anyone who is open the the possibility of a specific miracle is necessarily someone who sees miracles "at every turn." That may be your simple classification, but many people, including me, do not fit within it.
5. Arthur Eddington (the Cambridge physicist and Einstein's British interpreter) observed, "The cosmos is more complex than we imagine; it is more complex than we CAN imagine." Bob, that might mean that the "simplest answer" is perhaps NEVER "the correct answer." No authoritative thinker, anywhere in the Solar System, makes that premise the basis of his or her hermeneutic.
George
Have to say I'm with Bob on this one. He was expanding the issue beyond the one man not because the expansion resolves the particular case but rather illuminates why the assumption of miracle in the particular case is unwarranted.
It boils down to the question of possibilities and likelihoods.
1. An angel appeared and disappeared
2. A man entered and departed, unnoticed, a chaotic scene
There are other possibilities, I suppose, but those are the core ones. Can I prove it was #2? No, nor can I disprove #1, but that does not make #1 more likely than #2 or even as likely. Slim expresses his (manufactured) frustration with those who don't accept the miracle explanation, but he provides no reason to accept it as valid, possible, or likely.
Even if we grant that miracles occur, it does not justify the leap in this case to assuming that a miracle is more likely than people occupied with saving a life didn't pay attention to a man walking up and walking away.
Regarding the Eddington quotation, I am interested in the context. Can you point me to a source? Remember that Eddington also said something else which is quite appropriate here:
It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory.
I am hard pressed to find a better situation in which to apply this thought.
That being said, I have to thank you for teaching me something today. I have often used "scandal of particularity" in discussion and debate without ever knowing it was called that. You've saved me effort in the future. Thanks.
|
DutchFrank
Special user
Has a fence with
541 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 08:26 pm
0
Isn't one of the pilars of a Believe the fact that it is not an exact science?
In other words, as long as we can't proove anything being wrong, it could be right.
And who are we to judge that something did not happen, if we can't proove it didn't. This goes both ways.
The discussion leads nowhere. Nobody can or will convince the other of what did or did not happen, it a matter of:
Believe it or not, but don't judge.
Frank
Forgive me any language mistakes.
I'm Dutch.
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 08:51 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 01:40, Slim King wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-11 00:25, acesover wrote:
Guess you guys don't know of or understand sarcasm.
My Bad!!!!!!
Understand fully. Hard to convey what one really means in this medium. The person who posted it knows, but those reading it often do not.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
Slim King
Eternal Order
Orlando
18033 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 08:58 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 16:26, DutchFrank wrote:
Isn't one of the pilars of a Believe the fact that it is not an exact science?
In other words, as long as we can't proove anything being wrong, it could be right.
And who are we to judge that something did not happen, if we can't proove it didn't. This goes both ways.
The discussion leads nowhere. Nobody can or will convince the other of what did or did not happen, it a matter of:
Believe it or not, but don't judge.
Frank
Yes ... and it appears that those on the scene actually "believe' ...that something miraculous happened. It is almost always this way. The cops or those involved say it was paranormal and the nay sayers on the internet say the people at the scene were idiots and deluded or some such assault on their integrity!!!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:09 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 16:58, Slim King wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-11 16:26, DutchFrank wrote:
Isn't one of the pilars of a Believe the fact that it is not an exact science?
In other words, as long as we can't proove anything being wrong, it could be right.
And who are we to judge that something did not happen, if we can't proove it didn't. This goes both ways.
The discussion leads nowhere. Nobody can or will convince the other of what did or did not happen, it a matter of:
Believe it or not, but don't judge.
Frank
Yes ... and it appears that those on the scene actually "believe' ...that something miraculous happened. It is almost always this way. The cops or those involved say it was paranormal and the nay sayers on the internet say the people at the scene were idiots and deluded or some such assault on their integrity!!!
Except for two points:
1. The ability to believe says exactly nothing about verifiable truth, and
2. No one here has said anything about anyone being idiots or deluded. Or are you referring to someplace else on the internet?
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:10 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 09:09, seneca77 wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-10 09:44, George Hunter wrote:
"If so-called divine intervention is what happened, how come the divine intervention didn't prevent the accident in the first place? ":
That is one of two reflex responses to apparent "wonders." The other would be "If the divine intervention happened there, why didn't it happen at that other accident the same day in a neighboring state?"
By such criteria, we could never agree that any exceptional (much less unprecedented or supra mundane) "wonders" ever happened. So one would have to logically conclude (say) that Edison probably did not invent the electric light bulb, because it wasn't happening elsewhere and had not happened before.
George
George, my reply was hardly a "reflex response". It was a legitimate supposition to counter folks who see miracles and apparent "wonders" at every turn. And it's a question I have to pose every time there's a so-called miracle. It's a variation of the age-old question of why God allows bad things to happen to good people. I've heard all the replies from the faithful and, frankly, they just don't satisfy me. As is usually the case, I think the simplest answer is the correct answer: there is no god.
Bad things happen to good people "because." But good things also happen to good people. And bad things happen to bad people, etc. IOW, things happen. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
George, applying my initial question to Edison's invention of the light bulb is not a valid, logical extension. No one has suggested that the light bulb is a "miracle" (in the Biblical sense of the word). It was the result of years of hard work by Edison and others who came before him. Edison was not working in a vacuum (pun intended), but instead following the work of those who came before him, notably Humphrey Davy 80 years prior.
Now, as to who the Catholic priest was or where he went. As Acesover correctly points out, I wasn't there. So I have no idea. But I wonder why it was a Catholic priest? Why wasn't it a rabbi or imam? Or, if you want to stay within Christianity, why not a Protestant minister? In fact, why did it have to be a priest at all? Why couldn't it have been just a firm believer, maybe one of the rescuers, who led the prayer? My point is, it could have been, but it wasn't.
My guess is that the Catholic priest was driving by, saw the accident scene and thought he could offer some help, spiritual or otherwise. Yes, I know the article said that the road was blocked off, but perhaps he parked his car and walked to the scene. But where did he go after the girl was rescued? Well, he went back to his car and continued on his way. Is it that much of a stretch to think that with all the rescuers bustling about and focusing on extricating the girl from the car that nobody noticed the priest walking up to the scene or leaving?
Am I right? I don't know because I wasn't there. But either were any of you.
- Bob
Well for one I believe only Catholic priests carry anointing oils. His grab could have been either Catholic or other but the oils I believe lean toward Catholic. Actually I am not sure who decided it was a Catholic priest.
Also I may be sticking my foot in my mouth here because maybe he already did. But don't you think he would have come forward?
I understand your not believing in miracles or not wanting to believe in miracles as I see you do not believe in God. So I understand. I have a hard time with the miracle thing also. But I don't know. It sure would be nice if it was a miracle wouldn't it?
The reason for this could possibly be to open the eyes of some of the first responders to believe. Or make some others ponder about things they never thought about before. I as a believer do not question God. You as a nonbeliever cannot question God as you do not believe in Him.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:15 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 16:26, DutchFrank wrote:
Isn't one of the pilars of a Believe the fact that it is not an exact science? Belief is not a science at all, let alone exact.
Quote: In other words, as long as we can't proove anything being wrong, it could be right. Only in the most broad sense, at which points it becomes without value. You cannot prove that I am not composing this post by using trained leprechauns while sitting on Mons Olympus, Mars. Your inability to disprove it does not lend the claim any weight. Please understand that I am not implying that all claims are equal, but I am insisting that an inability to disprove something does not in itself make it possible.
Quote: And who are we to judge that something did not happen, if we can't proove it didn't. We are people with brains and with access to a history of successful methodology in evaluating claims. But more precisely, I think that no one on this thread has claimed that the event did not happen. We are commenting on the proffered explanation for it, not its existence.
Quote: This goes both ways.
The discussion leads nowhere. Nobody can or will convince the other of what did or did not happen, it a matter of:
Believe it or not, but don't judge. Don't judge? Ever? Anyone? Anything?
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:17 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 17:10, acesover wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-11 09:09, seneca77 wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-10 09:44, George Hunter wrote:
"If so-called divine intervention is what happened, how come the divine intervention didn't prevent the accident in the first place? ":
That is one of two reflex responses to apparent "wonders." The other would be "If the divine intervention happened there, why didn't it happen at that other accident the same day in a neighboring state?"
By such criteria, we could never agree that any exceptional (much less unprecedented or supra mundane) "wonders" ever happened. So one would have to logically conclude (say) that Edison probably did not invent the electric light bulb, because it wasn't happening elsewhere and had not happened before.
George
George, my reply was hardly a "reflex response". It was a legitimate supposition to counter folks who see miracles and apparent "wonders" at every turn. And it's a question I have to pose every time there's a so-called miracle. It's a variation of the age-old question of why God allows bad things to happen to good people. I've heard all the replies from the faithful and, frankly, they just don't satisfy me. As is usually the case, I think the simplest answer is the correct answer: there is no god.
Bad things happen to good people "because." But good things also happen to good people. And bad things happen to bad people, etc. IOW, things happen. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
George, applying my initial question to Edison's invention of the light bulb is not a valid, logical extension. No one has suggested that the light bulb is a "miracle" (in the Biblical sense of the word). It was the result of years of hard work by Edison and others who came before him. Edison was not working in a vacuum (pun intended), but instead following the work of those who came before him, notably Humphrey Davy 80 years prior.
Now, as to who the Catholic priest was or where he went. As Acesover correctly points out, I wasn't there. So I have no idea. But I wonder why it was a Catholic priest? Why wasn't it a rabbi or imam? Or, if you want to stay within Christianity, why not a Protestant minister? In fact, why did it have to be a priest at all? Why couldn't it have been just a firm believer, maybe one of the rescuers, who led the prayer? My point is, it could have been, but it wasn't.
My guess is that the Catholic priest was driving by, saw the accident scene and thought he could offer some help, spiritual or otherwise. Yes, I know the article said that the road was blocked off, but perhaps he parked his car and walked to the scene. But where did he go after the girl was rescued? Well, he went back to his car and continued on his way. Is it that much of a stretch to think that with all the rescuers bustling about and focusing on extricating the girl from the car that nobody noticed the priest walking up to the scene or leaving?
Am I right? I don't know because I wasn't there. But either were any of you.
- Bob
Well for one I believe only Catholic priests carry anointing oils. His grab could have been either Catholic or other but the oils I believe lean toward Catholic. Actually I am not sure who decided it was a Catholic priest.
Also I may be sticking my foot in my mouth here because maybe he already did. But don't you think he would have come forward?
I understand your not believing in miracles or not wanting to believe in miracles as I see you do not believe in God. So I understand. I have a hard time with the miracle thing also. But I don't know. It sure would be nice if it was a miracle wouldn't it?
The reason for this could possibly be to open the eyes of some of the first responders to believe. Or make some others ponder about things they never thought about before. I as a believer do not question God. You as a nonbeliever cannot question God as you do not believe in Him.
Regarding the last sentence, I do not think that either George or I are questioning God. We are questioning the alleged explanation for one event.
|
Slim King
Eternal Order
Orlando
18033 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:18 pm
0
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:19 pm
0
Correction to my last post: I meant to say "Bob or I," not "George or I."
To Slim: So you can't point to an instance of it happening yet you stick to it. I'm not the one acting stupid or cruel here, Slim.
|
Slim King
Eternal Order
Orlando
18033 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:21 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 17:19, Garrette wrote:
Correction to my last post: I meant to say "Bob or I," not "George or I."
To Slim: So you can't point to an instance of it happening yet you stick to it. I'm not the one acting stupid or cruel here, Slim.
Garrett ... if I show where you have called a believer delusional will you leave this forum forever?
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:26 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 17:21, Slim King wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-11 17:19, Garrette wrote:
Correction to my last post: I meant to say "Bob or I," not "George or I."
To Slim: So you can't point to an instance of it happening yet you stick to it. I'm not the one acting stupid or cruel here, Slim.
Garrett ... if I show where you have called a believer delusional will you leave this forum forever?
No, as I have not claimed never to have done it, nor have I claimed never to have made a mistake, so your diversions don't play with me.
This discussion is about this incident in this thread. Can you or can you not show where a skeptic in this thread called the believers in the supposed miracle liars or delusional.
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:47 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 17:17, Garrette wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-11 17:10, acesover wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-11 09:09, seneca77 wrote:
Quote: On 2013-08-10 09:44, George Hunter wrote:
"If so-called divine intervention is what happened, how come the divine intervention didn't prevent the accident in the first place? ":
That is one of two reflex responses to apparent "wonders." The other would be "If the divine intervention happened there, why didn't it happen at that other accident the same day in a neighboring state?"
By such criteria, we could never agree that any exceptional (much less unprecedented or supra mundane) "wonders" ever happened. So one would have to logically conclude (say) that Edison probably did not invent the electric light bulb, because it wasn't happening elsewhere and had not happened before.
George
George, my reply was hardly a "reflex response". It was a legitimate supposition to counter folks who see miracles and apparent "wonders" at every turn. And it's a question I have to pose every time there's a so-called miracle. It's a variation of the age-old question of why God allows bad things to happen to good people. I've heard all the replies from the faithful and, frankly, they just don't satisfy me. As is usually the case, I think the simplest answer is the correct answer: there is no god.
Bad things happen to good people "because." But good things also happen to good people. And bad things happen to bad people, etc. IOW, things happen. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
George, applying my initial question to Edison's invention of the light bulb is not a valid, logical extension. No one has suggested that the light bulb is a "miracle" (in the Biblical sense of the word). It was the result of years of hard work by Edison and others who came before him. Edison was not working in a vacuum (pun intended), but instead following the work of those who came before him, notably Humphrey Davy 80 years prior.
Now, as to who the Catholic priest was or where he went. As Acesover correctly points out, I wasn't there. So I have no idea. But I wonder why it was a Catholic priest? Why wasn't it a rabbi or imam? Or, if you want to stay within Christianity, why not a Protestant minister? In fact, why did it have to be a priest at all? Why couldn't it have been just a firm believer, maybe one of the rescuers, who led the prayer? My point is, it could have been, but it wasn't.
My guess is that the Catholic priest was driving by, saw the accident scene and thought he could offer some help, spiritual or otherwise. Yes, I know the article said that the road was blocked off, but perhaps he parked his car and walked to the scene. But where did he go after the girl was rescued? Well, he went back to his car and continued on his way. Is it that much of a stretch to think that with all the rescuers bustling about and focusing on extricating the girl from the car that nobody noticed the priest walking up to the scene or leaving?
Am I right? I don't know because I wasn't there. But either were any of you.
- Bob
Well for one I believe only Catholic priests carry anointing oils. His grab could have been either Catholic or other but the oils I believe lean toward Catholic. Actually I am not sure who decided it was a Catholic priest.
Also I may be sticking my foot in my mouth here because maybe he already did. But don't you think he would have come forward?
I understand your not believing in miracles or not wanting to believe in miracles as I see you do not believe in God. So I understand. I have a hard time with the miracle thing also. But I don't know. It sure would be nice if it was a miracle wouldn't it?
The reason for this could possibly be to open the eyes of some of the first responders to believe. Or make some others ponder about things they never thought about before. I as a believer do not question God. You as a nonbeliever cannot question God as you do not believe in Him.
Regarding the last sentence, I do not think that either George or I are questioning God. We are questioning the alleged explanation for one event.
Actually,I was responding to seneca77. here is the sentence from his post.: As is usually the case, I think the simplest answer is the correct answer: there is no god.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 09:55 pm
0
To acesover, I understood that you were answering seneca77 (Bob, though I mistakenly said George). Since he appeared to have signed out of the thread, I gave my own answer instead.
|
Slim King
Eternal Order
Orlando
18033 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 10:06 pm
0
So garrett I have proven that you have called believers delusional in the past betraying the bigotry in your thinking ... Nuff said!!!!!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
Garrette
Special user
926 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 10:09 pm
0
Quote: On 2013-08-11 18:06, Slim King wrote:
So garrett I have proven that you have called believers delusional in the past betraying the bigotry in your thinking ... Nuff said!!!!!
You're a hoot, Dave, though your antics are repetitive. Still can't back up your claim about this thread, I see, and still unable to admit it. I confess, I am not surprised.
|
seneca77
Loyal user
Tampa Bay, Florida
201 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2013 11:44 pm
0
To Acesover: Thank you for your calm and respectful reply to my earlier post. You bring up some interesting points. You are right that as a nonbeliever, I can't logically question someone who I don't believe exists. But I *can* speak about God, or other deities, in a hypothetical manner. Why did Zeus swallow his first wife, Metis (thought I would use an Olympian reference for George's benefit), Why does God allow evil, etc.? These are legitimate philosophical and religious questions and just because I don't believe in God (or Zeus), that doesn't disqualify me from examining the questions.
To Garrette: Thanks for your well-reasoned and cogent arguments. Glad to have you in my corner, at least where magically appearing priests are concerned.
To George: I was hoping for more from you. More substantive arguments rather than being met with sarcasm and derision (referencing your 10:13 AM post from today). I've read other posts of yours and didn't think you'd stoop to that level.
Slim/David Koenig: Your insults and indignant ultimatums get so tiresome. Seriously, how old are you? BTW, you're always crying about people derailing your threads. Aren't you doing the same by crossing swords with Garrette and his supposed "delusional" slam against believers? Why don't you stick to the OP's topic about the angel priest? Why not? Because you're a hypocrite.
I still stand by my supposition that the priest happened upon the scene, walked up to a chaotic rescue operation, offered a prayer, and left. Maybe he hasn't come forward because he doesn't know that anyone's looking for him. In my scenario, he was passing through. When he was done with his prayer, he got back in his car and continued his travels, not wanting to be in the way of the rescuers. He's just doing his good deed for the day, helping someone in distress with some spiritual solace, and calling on God to help the woman.
Just because he doesn't appear in any photographs doesn't mean anything at all. I recently was looking through some photos that I had taken at a party. There were 40-50 people there and I had taken a lot of pictures. But no sign of my friend, Tom. I know he was there, but no pictures of him. Is this evidence of the supernatural? Not unless you're David Koenig.
As I alluded to with George in an earlier post, I think Occam's Razor comes into play here. My explanation of the traveling clergyman is the simpler one and doesn't involve having to make the leap to calling the incident a "miracle." It's been my experience that well-meaning people vastly underestimate how frequently coincidences actually occur, and are too quick to ascribe miraculous or paranormal properties to them.
- Bob
|
George Hunter
Inner circle
2016 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 12, 2013 12:43 am
0
Hi Guys:
I am enjoying this energized discussion. I have only two brief comments, for now:
Bob, if my attempt at hyperbole came off as sarcasm, that is my fault. The burden of clarity is upon the communicator, so I apologize.
Slim, I cannot support you in inviting Garrett, or anyone else, to leave our forums. I want more people involved, not fewer. We learn more from a range of points of view.
George
|
seneca77
Loyal user
Tampa Bay, Florida
201 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 12, 2013 12:58 am
0
Thank you for clarifying, George. The limitation of text-only communication rears its ugly head again. Subtleties are often lost, but I see that you are sincere and deliberate in your arguments, and I look forward to more spirited debate with you and others.
- Bob
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The spooky, the mysterious...the bizarre! » » Riddle of the Angel Priest (0 Likes) |
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |