Originally posted by Proper Knobhttp://www.mindfully.org/Health/2005/Dead-Dogs-Safar29jun05.htm
Do you believe Jesus resurrected Lazarus after he had been dead for four days? If so, that would contradict science.
humans resurrect dog after he had been dead.
science gets contradicted all the time. that is why we keep improving it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you open it?
Going to the North Pole and not finding Santa does not rule out the existence of Santa. Yet I suspect you would criticize people who believe in Santa the same way you criticized RJ.
The fact is that there is no evidence for God and lots of evidence against there being one and you willfully choose to go against the evidence, yet criticize RJ for doing exa ...[text shortened]... ze that your belief is based primarily on a desire for personal happiness not on the truth.
You consider it highly unlikely she would cheat on you, but there is that small chance....
Would you rather not know?
dude, i kept answering that. over and over. that is the case where proof is presented and you choose to ignore it. and as i mentioned before, those that do that are no longer ignorant, they are acting like mindless drones.
i was drawing the picture of the husband that has no proof, no proof is presented to him, and he chooses to believe in the better truth. that is similar to having faith.
"god has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist"
Academician Prokhor Zakharov.
"You think you have a water tight excuse for your irrationality, but you recognize that you are being irrational nonetheless."
faith is indeed irrational. we are irrational beings, no matter how much you dislike the concept. it is irrational to play the lottery, it is irrational to drink, to smoke. it is irrational to pay 100 million dollars for a work of art. it is irrational to buy a ferrari with 100k dollars when a volvo gets you from A to B just as fast and comfortable. it is irrational to pay 1000 dollars for a meal in an expensive restaurant rather than eat a bland nutrient paste filled with what your body needs to survive. entertainment is irrational. love is irrational. art is irrational.
happiness comes from being irrational in certain degrees. to be 100% logical is to cease being human.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ZahlanziStraw Vulcan fallacy. You don't understand what being rational means.
Do you open it?
You consider it highly unlikely she would cheat on you, but there is that small chance....
Would you rather not know?
dude, i kept answering that. over and over. that is the case where proof is presented and you choose to ignore it. and as i mentioned before, those that do that are no longer ignorant, they are acting like mindless dron ...[text shortened]... comes from being irrational in certain degrees. to be 100% logical is to cease being human.
There are two aspects of rationality.
The first part is about having as accurate world view as possible so as to
provide as good a foundation as possible for making decisions.
The second part is achieving your goals as efficiently and effectively as possible.
If your goal is to impress women then it 'might' be entirely rational to buy a Ferrari
rather than a Volvo.
Or having a fast car might be what makes you happy and you enjoy going to track
days and that you value that happiness highly enough for it to be worth the price tag...
I think you need to learn more about what rationality actually means before you start
saying what is or is not rational.
Watching the linked video would be a good place to start.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe first flight, by Orville, of 120 feet (37 m) in 12 seconds, at a speed of only 6.8 miles per hour (10.9 km/h) over the ground, was recorded in a famous photograph. The next two flights covered approximately 175 feet (53 m) and 200 feet (61 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively. Their altitude was about 10 feet (3.0 m) above the ground.[58]
What flight are you talking of? You've lost me.
it got better after that.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat relevance does this have to the resurrection of Lazarus?
The first flight, by Orville, of 120 feet (37 m) in 12 seconds, at a speed of only 6.8 miles per hour (10.9 km/h) over the ground, was recorded in a famous photograph. The next two flights covered approximately 175 feet (53 m) and 200 feet (61 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively. Their altitude was about 10 feet (3.0 m) above the ground.[58]
it got better after that.
Besides, there is zero scientific evidence that a human can be dead for four days and be brought back to life by the command of someone's voice.
Originally posted by googlefudgethen it follows that by your second definition, faith is very rational, as the goal of being closer to god is achieved.
Straw Vulcan fallacy. You don't understand what being rational means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc
There are two aspects of rationality.
The first part is about having as accurate world view as possible so as to
provide as good a foundation as possible for making decisions.
The second part is achieving your goals as efficientl ...[text shortened]... ying what is or is not rational.
Watching the linked video would be a good place to start.
taking it to extremes, the mouse that constantly presses the switch that gives him orgasms instead of food is very rational because he achieves his goal of having orgasms efficiently and effectively.
sarcasm aside, i do not agree with your opinion.
Originally posted by googlefudge"Watching the linked video would be a good place to start."
Straw Vulcan fallacy. You don't understand what being rational means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc
There are two aspects of rationality.
The first part is about having as accurate world view as possible so as to
provide as good a foundation as possible for making decisions.
The second part is achieving your goals as efficientl ...[text shortened]... ying what is or is not rational.
Watching the linked video would be a good place to start.
Reading the Bible is the best place to start if one hopes to have an accurate world view as well as a good foundation for rational thinking.
"In the beginning God created..." Absolute foremost building block of a rational world view.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think that his point was the two examples are not in any way analogous.
The first flight, by Orville, of 120 feet (37 m) in 12 seconds, at a speed of only 6.8 miles per hour (10.9 km/h) over the ground, was recorded in a famous photograph. The next two flights covered approximately 175 feet (53 m) and 200 feet (61 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively. Their altitude was about 10 feet (3.0 m) above the ground.[58]
it got better after that.
Flight was a technological challenge that was never scientifically impossible
(birds could do it for starters) but technically difficult to achieve.
Reversing death is a totally different kettle of fish.
After several days of actually being dead (as opposed to being in a coma) your
brain cells will have died and the structures encoding your thoughts, personality,
and memories will be irrevocably destroyed.
Bringing someone back from that point is scientifically impossible, the information
you need to recreate their personality no longer exists.
No technological advance is ever going to overcome that.
Originally posted by Proper Knobit is hard to follow, is it?
What relevance does this have to the resurrection of Lazarus?
Besides, there is zero scientific evidence that a human can be dead for four days and be brought back to life by the command of someone's voice.
first flight demonstrated a human can fly in a heavier than air machine. the fact that it only lasted a short while doesn't follow that a longer flight is impossible, simply that the process needs to be refined.
similar to resurrection, a dog was brought back from the dead after 3 hours of being clinically dead. prior to that it was believed impossible to bring someone from being dead for 2 hours. can you say with a straight face it is impossible to refine that process to bring him back after 4 hours?
Originally posted by ZahlanziShow me some scientific evidence that a human can be brought back to life, four days after dying, by the command of someone's voice.
it is hard to follow, is it?
first flight demonstrated a human can fly in a heavier than air machine. the fact that it only lasted a short while doesn't follow that a longer flight is impossible, simply that the process needs to be refined.
similar to resurrection, a dog was brought back from the dead after 3 hours of being clinically dead. prior to ...[text shortened]... y with a straight face it is impossible to refine that process to bring him back after 4 hours?
Originally posted by googlefudgeyou believe that pretty strongly, huh.
I think that his point was the two examples are not in any way analogous.
Flight was a technological challenge that was never scientifically impossible
(birds could do it for starters) but technically difficult to achieve.
Reversing death is a totally different kettle of fish.
After several days of actually being dead (as opposed to being in a ...[text shortened]... their personality no longer exists.
No technological advance is ever going to overcome that.
interesting. seems almost irrational to say something is impossible.
i choose to allow for the possibility to be surprised.
Originally posted by Proper Knobheh, seems we are adjusting our stance now? i thought you said resurrection is impossible, period. now we are working with specific conditions, huh?
Show me some scientific evidence that a human can be brought back to life, four days after dying, by the command of someone's voice.
no, i merely pointed out that a simpler, similar experiment with more lax conditions was already successfully performed by human scientists. that is HUMANS, not someone who supposedly is the supreme being, maker of all that is. and as i have shown in the first flight analogy, something you apparently missed, there is no reason to assume improvement is impossible.