tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post2042203155559844806..comments2024-03-16T23:22:45.187+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: Challenge to Christians (Reissued)Rosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-18271804530212081722013-08-08T20:58:59.818+01:002013-08-08T20:58:59.818+01:00I'm afraid 'miracles', by definition, ...I'm afraid 'miracles', by definition, can never be proved, and are therefore never proof of anything. See <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/impossible-miracles.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Impossible Miracles</i></a>.<br /><br />I appreciate this may be a disappointment for people who like to think their superstition is supported by miracles. It just means their superstition is just that - an evidence-free superstition.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-36181053111634577462013-08-08T17:01:10.633+01:002013-08-08T17:01:10.633+01:00What I'm really after is--would proving such a...What I'm really after is--would proving such a thing as a Eucharist miracle even count as proof?James Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769318381507181566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-10921036750364488162013-08-08T16:46:05.528+01:002013-08-08T16:46:05.528+01:00By no means proof, but food for thought (no pun in...By no means proof, but food for thought (no pun intended).<br />http://www.catholiccompany.com/blog/pope-francis-eucharistic-miracle-in-argentinaJames Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769318381507181566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-36298282937801191862013-06-22T21:28:40.877+01:002013-06-22T21:28:40.877+01:00If they were intelligent they could detect changes...If they were intelligent they could detect changes you make and so infer that something is operating from outside. They could even eventually work out how the central processing unit and associated architecture works, how the program is encoded and read, and how to change it because computers work according to material rules. <br /><br />Quite simply, it is impossible to operate a computer without bringing about detectable changes to it.<br /><br />Your argument is thus nothing more than the argument from incredulity and a logical non sequitur - because you can't understand how things work it must be your favourite deity doing it. <br /><br />Would you like to have a go at the challenge rather than making elaborate excuses for not being able to?<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-17436512255279543092013-06-22T15:52:22.361+01:002013-06-22T15:52:22.361+01:00Imagine this, I generate a closed virtual world in...Imagine this, I generate a closed virtual world inside a computer. I set it up with its own laws for how the world operates and put in a race of ai that are bound by these laws, unless of course I the creator intervene in world which I have complete control over. They are in my world. What they can do and observe is subject to the laws of the world which I am not subject to. Can they prove I exist? Can they prove I do not? No, because I exist outside the confines of their world. Can I reveal myself to them? Yes. Can I do it in a way that is outside the scope of what their science can measure or define? Yes. Can I see and hear everything they do? Yes. Can I answer their requests? Yes. Does this prove God exists? No. But I think all the beings in my world would be stupid to try and say I don't exist because I am beyond the scope of what they can prove using their laws I am not subject to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-63911169948053935882013-06-22T10:08:12.127+01:002013-06-22T10:08:12.127+01:00So did he say yes or no?
I love the way you hold ...So did he say yes or no?<br /><br />I love the way you hold two mutually exclusive views simultaneously - the sure sign of a delusion. You simultaneously believe:<br /><br />1. God is outside reality and so can't be detected therefore can't interact with or be exerting a measurable effect on anything.<br /><br />2. God hears your prayers, can detect and be influenced by your words and thoughts, causes everything to happen inside reality and knows what's going on.<br /><br />For the purpose of your excuse in this instance you seem to have picked the first belief.<br /><br />Of course, normal logic dictates that anything outside reality is indistinguishable from a nonexistent, purely imaginary thing whilst anything which can interact with reality is part of reality and so can't be outside it and can be detected by measuring its effect on other things.<br /><br />Intellectually dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof duly noted, by the way. (See <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/06/shifting-burden.html" rel="nofollow">Shifting The Burden.</a>)<br /><br />Is there is any risk of <b>you</b> attempting the challenge, at all?<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-53819671582180846712013-06-22T01:30:31.811+01:002013-06-22T01:30:31.811+01:00Actually he gave you a perfectly straight answer. ...Actually he gave you a perfectly straight answer. If god exists, it is outside of the confines of the physical world. Science tells us about the order and the function of our physical world, it is inept at proving or disproving the existance of something outside of it. Logic, in the form of philosophy, would be a much better setting for this type of debate. You are proposing something you know can't be proved. In contrast though, if you were asked to prove that God does not exist using science I would bet that you cannot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-929529659441458352013-06-04T22:21:54.721+01:002013-06-04T22:21:54.721+01:00If you can't detect your god how do you know a...If you can't detect your god how do you know about it? <br /><br />If you can detect it, you should be able to produce the evidence.<br /><br />I'm afraid, even if you conveniently define your god as out of the reach of science, you can't remove yourself nor the Universe you claim it control from it.<br /><br />Without believing two mutually exclusive things at the same time I'm afraid you can't argue that your god is outside the Universe and undetectable by science, yet inside it and making things happen - and therefore accessible to science.<br /><br />But your excuse is duly noted. I'll take it as declining the simple challenge.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-61998283812704943682013-06-04T20:17:05.274+01:002013-06-04T20:17:05.274+01:00Too much confirmation bias to bring out fruitful r...Too much confirmation bias to bring out fruitful reasonable argument. God cannot possibly be a provable entity. You're wasting your time and mine (a Christian) in even asking the question and setting the rules the way you did. If you consider that 'conceding', you've preclosed the argument to the benefit of your thesis way before it even started. <br /><br />To start with, we must ask the question what or who God is. If He is the all powerful being who existed before all time, how do you expect to even understand what or who he is by predefining that process. Everything that makes you think so is only a proportion of all of that. The only rational scientific way (unless you want to base your own argument on confirmation bias) is to go and see and then collate what you may find. That's what you do when you don't know what you will find but you want to go and see what's there. Who/what put the small little hot body that was supposed to burst open to create what we see now? It just existed and had a mind of its own to create itself? Or is that too scientific a question to answer?Sunil Noronhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580231546472133921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-21742211671804747972013-06-04T18:32:51.434+01:002013-06-04T18:32:51.434+01:00People like John B use phrases like "beyond p...People like John B use phrases like "beyond physical" without thinking through what that might actually mean... Just saying god is beyond physical proves/means nothing.SaFhttp://spaceandflow.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-85114188688016284552013-06-03T19:47:37.333+01:002013-06-03T19:47:37.333+01:00Always amuses me when Theists have to present thei...Always amuses me when Theists have to present their god to a special needs god or a god of low standards to allow it to compete with science and normal logic.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-14982264618153429902013-06-03T19:34:17.869+01:002013-06-03T19:34:17.869+01:00John B is Im afraid using classic 'Special Ple...John B is Im afraid using classic 'Special Pleading'. He may as well just come out and state that old chestnut, 'God is beyond understanding' which is of course the biggest intellectual cop out you can have!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08210765753644878744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-35450682817008946962013-06-02T20:06:41.394+01:002013-06-02T20:06:41.394+01:00Was that a yes or a no? Or are you just too embarr...Was that a yes or a no? Or are you just too embarrassed to give straight answers?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-73220618138370088802013-06-02T19:36:04.139+01:002013-06-02T19:36:04.139+01:00Again, you are asking someone to use tools which c...Again, you are asking someone to use tools which can only measure the physical, to try and measure the non-physical. Its a category error.<br /><br />There exists philosophical arguments for God's existence, and there exists historical evidences for Christianity being true.John Bhttp://siftingreality.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-49885233178007473772013-06-02T19:19:46.354+01:002013-06-02T19:19:46.354+01:00Can we take it that you can't defend your fait...Can we take it that you can't defend your faith, or are you saying there is no evidential reason for it yet you still believe it?<br /><br />If the latter, what else do you believe without reason? How does that differ from an unreasonable belief?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-47570471700834608462013-06-02T18:43:18.493+01:002013-06-02T18:43:18.493+01:00Science deals with the physical. The God of Chris...Science deals with the physical. The God of Christianity is a non-physical entity. You have offered either 1) a knowingly dishonest challenge or, 2) a challenge of ignorance, i.e., you didn't think it through.John Bhttp://siftingreality.comnoreply@blogger.com