MNb wrote on 10/30/10 at 15:55:39:


Well yes, I do posit that there exists an objective reality and that it is revealed by the observations of the senses.  There is really no point in carrying on conversations with those who disagree with that, is there?  Because without that, we wander off into solipsism and the everlasting "How do I know you're real?" discussions of so many dormitory B.S. sessions among sophomores.  

Which argument is lame (your word): that reality reveals no divine manifestations and that this is a valid basis for rejecting the existence of divine beings; or that whatever the senses reveal, nothing can be said about reality because everything could be a dream?  

I addressed this higher up, when I said that "objective reality", the "minds" of others and so forth are models constructed to assist the interpretation of the senses and, in general, to serve as a basis for useful action.  Ultimately whether the thing modeled "actually" exists is perhaps not worth talking about, but it is taken on faith as a matter of human nature and sheer convenience.  When a knife cuts you, it hurts and you bleed, which is a pretty convincing demonstration that it is real.  Baal the Destroyer could show up in some forms that could be taken as illusory, but He could also show up in forms that were quite convincingly real.  If He did, or if any similar divine manifestation were unmistakably made, then I would give up my atheism.  

I maintain that all the various proposed godheads are also models with similar purposes and with exactly the same claim on truth as, for example, that other people have minds.  It is only that these particular models have increasingly been found to be useless for interpreting experience and as guides to successful action.  At one time it was considered quite important to take auguries before sowing seeds or before marching out to give battle, a procedure that would provoke mockery if proposed today.

Personally I take many things on faith, including not only that there is an objective reality but also that you are a real human being and not a monkey with access to a keyboard and extraordinary good luck in hitting the right keys to produce messages that appear to be from a human.  But like you, I do not extend my faith to any divine presence in this world, for the reason that I see no correspondence between that model and reality.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/30/10 at 14:46:12:


Well if a miracle is defined as occurrence (I don't understand "act," which would presume an agent) that strengthens faith, then this enters entirely the realm of the subjective, and moreover it trivializes any notion of the truly miraculous.  If the Virgin Mary did indeed appear to those children in Fatima, or if Jesus did indeed raise Lazarus from the dead, these were miracles in the usual sense.  But if three Portuguese children went to confirmation classes and had their Roman Catholic faith correspondingly strengthened, this you would call a miracle?  Further suppose for the sake of argument that there is indeed no god; that all is matter and energy; but that some event happens to strengthen someone's belief in some god or other.  Is this event a miracle?  Or still further, supposing that when the Aztec preists cut people's hearts out on the peaks of their pyramids, faith in the Aztec godhead generally increased.  Were these events miracles?

I do think that in all fairness, the idea that Jesus performed miracles is customarily taken to mean much more than that he increased anyone's degree of faith.  Billy Joe Hargis did that every time he went on the radio, you know?  In the early days of Christianity and really ever since, Jesus' miracles have been held up as proof that he was divine.  The divine has manifested itself to thee; ergo, believe.

The atheist's essential and contrary point is that nothing divine manifests itself in this world.  Now contrary to what MNb thinks, if the sky did indeed crack open and Baal the Destroyer look in and utter commandments, and if people who refused to obey Him all suffered excruciating headaches while those who obeyed Him experienced indescribable joy; or if countless other things happened such as the trees bowing down to the priests; then the atheist's point could not be made.  Frankly I think that in "defining down" what a "miracle" is, you are dodging the critical question of whether anything divine is objectively manifest.

I haven't tried to define "miracle" scientifically; I have only offered what I believe is the customary meaning of this term.

Was superconductivity above 35 K a miracle 25 years ago? It defied the regularities of nature. So what happened is that theoretical physicists adapted (they had to) their theories.
I am pretty convinced that the same will happen If the trees would bow down to the priests. Such is the nature of science.
Being non-religious I don't believe in miracles either. I just think Markovich' condition as lame as Kent Hovind's challenge: formulated in such a way that it never can be fulfilled.
In other words: Baal may command me whatever he likes, I will remain non-religious.

sloughter wrote on 08/10/10 at 00:51:24:


What I would call a miracle is an event that defies the regularities of nature in such a fashion as to give clear supposition of divine intervention.  If the trees would bow down to the priests, for example, or if the Red Sea were suddenly to be parted without a major seismic disturbance, or if 5,000 loaves were to be produced out of a single sack.  Or if the sky would crack open and Baal the Destroyer look in and command everyone to fornicate.  At the same time, I would express my belief that no such event has ever happened or ever will happen.

TopNotch wrote on 10/23/10 at 19:14:46:

I did not know Science had a problem with God the Almighty.

TopNotch wrote on 10/23/10 at 19:16:19:

It says that God belongs to metaphysics. So God cannot be subjected to any Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol. Prof. should reread his Popper again.
So Science does not have a Problem with God.

TopNotch wrote on 10/23/10 at 19:18:26:

Two wrongs in one sentence.
Evolution has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Moreover evolutiontheory is a theory and theories never can be proven. The three Newton laws have never been proven either. Prof and Student once again should reread their Popper.

TopNotch wrote on 10/23/10 at 19:18:26:



Sorry, Toppy, but that story is baloney, as a quick google search will show.

Student    :  No, sir. 
Professor :   Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD? 
                     Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student    :   No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't. 
Professor :   Yet you still Believe in HIM? 
Student    :  Yes. 
Professor :   According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, 
                    Science says your GOD doesn't exist.  What do you say to that, son?
Student    :  Nothing.  I only have my Faith. 
Professor :  Yes,Faith.  And that is the Problem Science has. 

Student    :   Professor, is there such a thing as Heat? 
Professor :   Yes. 
Student    :   And is there such a thing as Cold? 
Professor :   Yes. 
Student   :   No, sir. There isn't. 

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events) 

Student    :   Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat, 
                   a Little Heat or No Heat. 
                   But we don't have anything called Cold. 
                   We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that. 
                   There is no such thing as Cold. 
                   Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. 
                   We cannot Measure Cold. 
                   Heat is Energy. 
                   Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it. 

(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre) 

Student    :  What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness? 
Professor :  Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness? 
Student    :  You're wrong again, sir. 
                   Darkness is the Absence of Something 
                   You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . . 
                   But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it? 
                   In reality, Darkness isn't. 
                   If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?
Professor :   So what is the point you are making, Young Man ? 
Student   :   Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed. 
Professor :   Flawed ? Can you explain how? 
Student    :   Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 08/09/10 at 00:13:43:


What constitutes a miracle is debatable. One of the most intriguing concepts is the Papp engine allegedly over unity using a combination of noble gasses to run the engine. 

Here is an account from Power Pedia PES Wiki from an interview with Ken Rauen on November 25, 2006.

"Rauen composed the following historical overview of the Papp engine and discussed the same in a live interview."

"Joseph Papp invented and demonstrated a pulsed plasma discharge automotive style piston engine that ran on noble gas mixtures in the cylinders.

"This engine is a multicylinder piston and crank design but each cylinder is sealed with a charge of helium, neon, argon, kryton and xenon.

"Three U.S. patents were issued to Papp, specifically for engine design. The most noteworthy is 4,428,193. The engine could run smoothly down to 100 rpm and developed hundreds of horsepower at 1000 rpm.

"The public display of the Papp/Roser engine in Roser's parking lot in Torrence, California in 1968 attracted Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman. Feynman saw the extension cord and thought he knew the source of the hoax he was convinced it was. Feynman pulled the plug but the engine continued to run. After about two minutes, the engine had not slowed down (running about 3000 rpm, as evidenced by the fan on the engine to produce a visible effect) but started to run rough. Papp grew nervous and argued with Feynman to plug it back in. Feynman refused, so Papp yanked the cord from Feynman and plugged it in. The engine exploded, killing one bystander. Feynman accused Papp of placing explosives in the engine to keep the hoax alive. Since a fatality occurred, the FBI got involved. No evidence of explosives was found. Papp sued Feynman and Feynman and Caltech settled out of court. If it were a hoax, there is no way Caltech would have settled out of court. It was done so Feynman and Caltech could save face."

Want a miracle? How about an over unity engine run on noble gasses? Cold fusion investigators have faith that their science is sound. Now that they are steadily being proven right e.g. the Papp engine, does their faith in cold fusion science really faith or a belief system that is different from the norm?