- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 May 15
Originally posted by moonbusRJHinds doesn't understand the concept of evidence in the first place, so trying to
An empty tomb proves that somebody was in there ?? Whoa nelly !!
explain to him why he's wrong gets nowhere.
Of course that joins other things he doesn't understand...
.
.
.
.
.
Actually that list is too long, I'll just list the things he does understand instead...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tumble-weed passes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... I'm sure their must be something...
12 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneLet me understand, are you stating an actual belief in flying saucers on your part or is this just an example where you are choosing something a priori implausible but a posteriori believable if they existed? If the latter a better example would be that no one would belief a liquid could climb up the side of its container and drain entirely out of it, unless they had witnessed creep by liquid helium [1].
And this is precisely why people tend to "poo-poo" the idea of "alien spacecraft" (UFOs).
Until they see one.
[1]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe bigger problem is that, given we have no credible evidence at all for Alien Spacecraft visiting us
Let me understand, are you stating an actual belief in flying saucers on your part or is this just an example where you are choosing something a priori implausible but a posteriori believable if they existed? If the latter a better example would be that no one would belief a liquid could climb up the side of its container and drain entirel ...[text shortened]... hey had witnessed creep by liquid helium [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI
and Alien Spacecraft secretly visiting us without being detected or leaving credible evidence is
unbelievably improbable. It is not rationally justifiable to believe that Alien Spacecraft are actually
visiting us.
And this is true even if Alien Spacecraft are actually visiting us.
The comparison between justifying beliefs the way Suzianne suggests with blind faith, and rationally
justifying beliefs based solely on logic and available evidence [scientific method ect] is analogous to
trying to make a living by playing the national lottery, or going to work and earning a wage.
One in a million [I'm being generous] might luck out and win enough to live on from the lottery [and not
then squander it away as so often happens].
Almost everyone can make enough to live on by working for money.
The best strategy doesn't [in real life] guarantee winning [being right, most successful, whatever].
What it guarantees is maximising the chances that you will win, and minimises the chances of losing.
Believing via blind faith is like expecting to make your money by winning the lottery.
You might just luck out and turn out to be correct.
But it's an epically stupid and irrational strategy that will fail vastly more often than it succeeds.
[the odds are actually much worse than the winning the lottery example, and the track record is
correspondingly worse]
Whereas beliefs based in rationality and science is like expecting to making your money by working.
Which generally works for most people and is generally the best option people have.
[And this time the analogy is lass flattering than reality. Where science and rationality have an
amazing track record for success that far exceeds the success rate of people earning a living
through working]
Originally posted by googlefudgeTo my mild pride I worked out what the Americans were up to with UFO's before they admitted to it. They officially denied and unofficially encouraged flying saucer stories in order to cover up their stealth bomber program. Which is a ruse I have great admiration for, that one was quite clever.
The bigger problem is that, given we have no credible evidence at all for Alien Spacecraft visiting us
and Alien Spacecraft secretly visiting us without being detected or leaving credible evidence is
unbelievably improbable. It is not rationally justifiable to believe that Alien Spacecraft are actually
visiting us.
And this is true even if Alien ...[text shortened]... cord for success that far exceeds the success rate of people earning a living
through working]
It's that Alien spacecraft can get here at all that is implausible, if they could then I find the notion that they are undetectable entirely reasonable, as if their technology were good enough to get them here it would be good enough to hide them from us. Although I agree with the basic point you are making, I don't think Suzianne advocates blind faith, it's just that the evidence she accepts would be insufficient for either of us.
Total aside and forgive me for pointing this out, but you consistently get this wrong - et cetera is abbreviated etc. not ect..
Edit: In another thread I just looked at RJ mentioned that Suzianne does claim blind faith, although I don't get that from most of her posts.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThought
To my mild pride I worked out what the Americans were up to with UFO's before they admitted to it. They officially denied and unofficially encouraged flying saucer stories in order to cover up their stealth bomber program. Which is a ruse I have great admiration for, that one was quite clever.
It's that Alien spacecraft can get here at all that is i ...[text shortened]... g this out, but you consistently get this wrong - et cetera is abbreviated etc. not ect..
Total aside and forgive me for pointing this out, but you consistently get this wrong - et cetera is
abbreviated etc. not ect..
Huh... My spell checker seems to accept both... :/ not sure how that happened.
Trouble is I read what supposed to be there, not what is actually there.
It's that Alien spacecraft can get here at all that is implausible, if they could then I find the notion that
they are undetectable entirely reasonable, as if their technology were good enough to get them here it would
be good enough to hide them from us.
Hmmm.
If they are basically limited to the laws of physics as we know them, and don't have currently impossible
reaction-less drives/anti-gravity/FTL etc. Then they cannot in any practical way sneak up on us.
If they have reaction drives capable of accelerating a space craft up to any significant fraction of light speed
and they fired those engine up to slow down they would be naked eye visible from outside the solar system
and set of every nuclear bomb detection system and sensitive astronomical equipment we have.
If they come in slower and accelerate only very gently, they are still likely to get spotted in infra-red full sky
surveys long before they actually get here. If they are in orbit, they would struggle not to be naked eye visible
like all the actual satellites up there. And find it even harder to evade all the radars and other detection systems
we have for orbiting objects.
And then they have to re-enter the atmosphere.
if they use their engines to slow down to avoid compressive heating then we are back to setting off all our detection
systems as the atmosphere scintillates to their nuclear drive system.
If they use a heat shield and drag to slow down then they are dumping small to medium nuclear bomb yield levels
of kinetic energy into the atmosphere... which is, again, hard to miss.
They then have to fly their spacecraft around in the atmosphere without being detected by radar, or photographed,
or creating any sound...
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth
Now you can get around these problems by inventing new technologies that require new physics that is different
from our current best theories but still agrees with all the currently made observations...
But such technologies are only possibly possible, and are by definition highly implausible given our current knowledge.
Which leaves you with invisible undetectable alien space ships either being impossible. Or possibly possible but
exceptionally improbable.
And that's before you even start trying to figure out WHY aliens might make the trip all the way here just to secretly
pop in and anally-probe some Alabama farmer... 😉
Originally posted by moonbusYou apparently don't know much about the specific empty tomb and the giant rolling stone in Jerusalem that I am referring to.
An empty tomb proves that somebody was in there ?? Whoa nelly !!
But it is not that alone, but the fact that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo offer collaborating evidence for the proof of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. That is because no other person is recorded in history or myth that was put to death in the same manner and came out of the grave like is described in the New Testament scriptures and is depicted by the image on the Shroud.
HalleluYaHshua ! Praise the LORD!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOh, she absolutely claims blind faith [or what I term blind faith] as a necessity and a virtue and
Edit: In another thread I just looked at RJ mentioned that Suzianne does claim blind faith, although I don't get that from most of her posts.
basis for her beliefs. [that plus some unspecified? 'personal experience']
Most of our arguments have been over [directly or indirectly] that point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsNot true on any level.
You apparently don't know much about the specific empty tomb and the giant rolling stone in Jerusalem that I am referring to.
But it is not that alone, but the fact that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo offer collaborating evidence for the proof of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. That is because no other person is recorded in his ...[text shortened]... ment scriptures and is depicted by the image on the Shroud.
HalleluYaHshua ! Praise the LORD!
Resurrection myths were commonplace at the time.
And none of those 'artefacts' are evidence, let alone proof, of JC's existence, let alone
divinity.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you had read on you would have seen that I said she thinks of her blind faith as a badge of honor. Then in a couple of posts later i correct my first sentence indicating I left out the word "NOT" because of my faulty keyboard. 😏
Oh, she absolutely claims blind faith [or what I term blind faith] as a necessity and a virtue and
basis for her beliefs. [that plus some unspecified? 'personal experience']
Most of our arguments have been over [directly or indirectly] that point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsFirstly I didn't read your post, DT did. I read and responded to DT's post.
If you had read on you would have seen that I said she thinks of her blind faith as a badge of honor. Then in a couple of posts later i correct my first sentence indicating I left out the word "NOT" because of my faulty keyboard. 😏
Secondly, even if I had read your post, what you just posted is irrelevant to
what we were talking about.
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut show me the reference to a myth that describes the person resurrected was put to death in the same manner as Jesus in the Gospels and is also accurately shown of the image of the Shroud of Turin.
Not true on any level.
Resurrection myths were commonplace at the time.
And none of those 'artefacts' are evidence, let alone proof, of JC's existence, let alone
divinity.
13 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is an admission that you have no credibility and are spouting nonsense again as I have warned other about. You are definitely a self admitted atheist numbnuts.
Firstly I didn't read your post, DT did. I read and responded to DT's post.
Secondly, even if I had read your post, what you just posted is irrelevant to
what we were talking about.
13 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou stopped reading too soon.
To my mild pride I worked out what the Americans were up to with UFO's before they admitted to it. They officially denied and unofficially encouraged flying saucer stories in order to cover up their stealth bomber program. Which is a ruse I have great admiration for, that one was quite clever.
It's that Alien spacecraft can get here at all that is i ...[text shortened]... entioned that Suzianne does claim blind faith, although I don't get that from most of her posts.
13 May 15
gf: " We, today, have evidence of various sorts from the period in question [the foundation of Christianity] and we want to determine what that evidence tells us. We want to know what it is we can say, and with how
much confidence, based upon the evidence we actually have.
The way to do this [the only valid way to do this] is to do a Bayesian analysis of the available evidence to determine what [if anything] we can probabilistically conclude from that evidence.
In a wider sense, when dealing with religious claims, the [first] question is "are they true/valid?"
In seeking the answer to that question you can only go on the evidence that you actually have, and you should use the best, most reliable logically justified method to analyse that evidence to come to the best possible
answer available to us. That's Bayesian analysis/reasoning."
So, what's the Bayesian 'verdict' on the probable existence or non-existence of Zoroastor, Arjuna, Buddha, Mani, Socrates, and Mohammed?
Incidentally, I would dispute the claim that the first question is, "are the claims true?" I suppose that some ancient Greek or Roman mountaineer must have climbed up Mt. Olympus and discovered that Zeus did not live there. Did that destroy the pagan religion or pagans' 'faith' (for want of a better word) in the Olympian gods? No.
Originally posted by moonbusWhether or not it is the first question, it is the question being discussed in this thread. What questions would you put first and why?
Incidentally, I would dispute the claim that the first question is, "are the claims true?" I suppose that some ancient Greek or Roman mountaineer must have climbed up Mt. Olympus and discovered that Zeus did not live there. Did that destroy the pagan religion or pagans' 'faith' (for want of a better word) in the Olympian gods? No.