This is not miraculous. Religions and other cultural phenomenon spread out naturally , not just Christianity, but all religions sufficiently old enough. But so many more would testify that they have never witneseds such a thing. Contrary testimony happens all the time in the courtroom. People lie and are mistaken frequently. Make your case. Be specific.
I'll take this as a resignation. You have stopped being reasonable. You accuse us of making up definitions when we only cite definitions that are widely recognized. You deny science as "full of chit" even though you have lost every scientific argument that you have attempted here. And you are trying to change the subject, too. I've already made the point that we can know science and we can believe faith, but not vice-versa. I accept your beliefs. But you still maintain that your faith must be somehow scientifically acceptable and if not then "Science is full of chit". Good luck with that.
in more than one instance, all 4 gospels contradict one another. all four guys were ther, and witnessed this stuff yet at times, all 4 saw things completely different from each other. so your eye witness testimony in this instance would really suck in a court of law. suck so bad, that your lawyer would probably try to avoid letting at least 3 testify.
Red: No resignation here. Just have made my point as best I can up until now. I think we both understand the other's argument. I cannot continue with the line of argument I was making until I get some sort of a decision based on that fictional court case. It would be pointless. Red: I don't think you made the definitions up...I just think the definition of science (and I will accept it for arguments sake at the moment) results in a flawed understanding of life on this planet. That's what I meant with asinine definitions. Science has been a blessing to mankind as far as it goes. I said "scientists" are full of chit. Nothing personal....not saying you are necessarily one of them. Some of them certainly are though.....some bishops are "full of chit" too. Welcome to the human race. As far as me losing every scientific argument....I don't agree with that. Climate Change has had it's problems so that one is still debatable. The subject of evolution I conceded your point based on the definition of science. I obviously contend that the flawed definition of science (in my opinion) has resulted in a massive "blind spot" for scientists regarding the origin of life and species. This is obviously why I was trying to demonstrate that the scientific method is not the sole method we use to make conclusions about life on this planet. Red: Did not mean to imply it was miraculous. Just that it indicates something did take place....the events in the Gospels, specifically. That Jesus did exist and the Apostles, etc. You can dismiss the accuracy of the events as told in the Bible and you may be right. But that is a different argument. Red: You are better than I am at the formal definitions of flawed logic in an argument so I'm sure you can spot that one. Just because most people haven't experienced a miracle doesn't mean they don't happen. People can die of starvation but it doens't mean that food doesn't exist. It just means they didn't have access to it for whatever reason. If you want to discuss Biblical accuracy then start another thread on it. I was only pointing out that there is reasonable evidence that the events in the Bible did happen. (Obviously I don't expect you to believe all the miracles with the mindset you have....I mean that the characters did exist. It is not a myth. Christ is not a mythological figure. But that is another topic. The point of this thread and the lawyer stuff was in regard to a modern, recent, still living breathing expert in psychology who reported a documented case of possession. This would indicate that the supernatural exists. That was the point of the thread and the courtroom scenario.
again: 1. i am stunned you have such a poor understanding of witnesses and our legal system. 2. i am stunned you would think it made a difference if some stupid court decided something obviously stupid, which they would never decide anyways, not in a billion years. it continually amazes me how incredibly eager people are to believe something, not because of a lack of evidence, but seemingly because of the lack of evidence. as if they havent wrapped their heads around the concept of reality, like a child.
Nothing personal? So are you calling me full of chit or saying that I'm not qualified to be full of chit. What you mean "we", Kemo Sabe? OK, then let's have no more of you maintaining that just because a small number of people say a miracle happened is proof that it did. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. To say that it exists because I can't prove that it doesn't is another logical fallacy. It only indicates that A BELIEF in the supernatural exists. Psychologists can only document mental illness and emotional stability. They do not study demonic possession in Psychiatry and no psychiatrist that I'm aware of has established any "documentation" concerning "posession"/
Short answer, In the mind is the intellectual and emotional side of our thinking. You can easily guess at which aspect is most dominant. To suggest that science speaks with one voice is not only dogmatic but a conspiracy to deceive. Lots of emotion, very little logic.There are thousands of different religious points of view, each one with their own doctrines and their own brand of salvation. Truly an emotional conclusion, based on the idea that often, people cannot even agree on who to pray to. People are very happy making these types of decisions. Perhaps to a less degree, but none the less valid, is our choice of favorite college football team. Now, what really went into that, so that such a choice stirs up such heart felt emotion and raw fervor?. Often not much more than your geographical location, or family culture. How often does our emotions decide the course we take in all aspects of our lives? How do you know every time you comment, your feelings are not dominating your conclusions to such a degree it is wrong?
exactly. i wish everyone could see how arbitrary this is. i like lsu not because they are the one real truth, but because i grew up baton rouge. when people realize this is why they are christian, then we will have something.
martin: I wish I had a clearer understanding of our legal system so I could make it clear to you that the court would, in all likelihood, rule in favor of the psychiatrist. But I don't so I have to defer to an attorney. I can't believe you guys aren't aware of a poster here who is an attorney. Are you holding out on me, martin? Red: Neither....just pointing out that scientists are not exempt from Original Sin and all the problems that come with it. Again, welcome to the human race. And that was in no way meant to disparage scientists especially, just the notion that scientist are the chosen people with a monopoly on truth. I assume you are a capable and sincere professional...I have no other reason to think otherwise. I am not maintaining that it is proof. Only that it is evidence. Evidence that in this case would be admissable in a court of law. Expert evidence that the court would clearly accept and in the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary the court would be compelled to rule in the psychiatrist favor. I am only illustrating the difficulty in applying the scientific method to every situation. Clearly, every event that takes place is not observable and repeatable. Most eye witness testimony will not fit into this neat little box. A lot of life is a "one-time" affair.....human beings are not mindless machines or lifeless molecules....anything involving human beings is going to contain some element of uncertainty.
