Again, one time or rare unrepeatable occurrences happen all the time. I showed you here and in the first section where consciousness or thought seems to be the ground of being in the quantum state. I earlier spent a great bit of time discussing the quantum eraser. I am not going to revisit that now except to say that things like chaos theory note the influence of the smallest things on what happens. If there is a God, then the resurrection is possible. If not then you are forced to come up with your own faith denying the resurrection. But science did not, and is incapable of, denying miracles. Over again, science is a process not a position.
The Higgs did not show the evidence for miracles were insignificant! What utter nonsense. Wrong tools again for the subject under consideration. You have a severe case of scientism, not science.
You brought the computer up and now you say its irrelevant! What is this gobligoop!
You claim to have bolded where I committed a straw man fallacy but I fail to see any bold of anything I said. It is not there.
"scientific method: science is done by repeatability and by repetitive experiment," you say. Any idiot knows that and I never questioned it. But there are things that do not lend themselves to repeatability. That is why you cant do a double blind study of many non repetitive things. This is like arguing with someone with a thought disorder. That is what I have said over and over.
Finally you bring up the pope! Talk about a straw man.
AN example of my position, the pope, cannot be a strawman LOL, because it's not about your argument. Do you know what a strawman is? That was to show you the fallacy of accepting a single data point as good evidence. Again, your use of the fallacy fallacy is extremely prevalent.
"Again, one time or rare unrepeatable occurrences happen all the time."
A rare unrepeatable occurance is a contradiction. If something is rare it means it has a low probability of occuring, but that doesn't mean it can't occur again.Show me good evidence that relies on one data point of hearsay please. That is your burden of proof.
Assuming miracles do exist, there's no reason why they shouldn't occur through a physical mechanism, which means if they do exist, they would be repeatable. Saying "God magic" is pointless and an intellectual cop out. For example, the resurrection might have some evidence if medical studies showed that some cells could sometimes spontaneously regenerate after necrosis. THat would be repeatable evidence that could be scientifically verified.
"You brought the computer up and now you say its irrelevant! What is this gobligoop!"
This is actually a strawman. I said your argument about ID creating computers was irrelevant, not that my computer example was irrelevant. Please read my argument before responding.
"The Higgs did not show the evidence for miracles were insignificant!"
Another strawman. I never claimed this. I'd recommend re reading my arguments to gain a better understanding. I said the amount of evidence used to prove the higgs, which is a rare occurance, shows that an equivalent amount of evidence would be required to prove that miracles occured. This is because, again, religions are extremely biased. Thousands of religions claim miracles, and thousands have alleged evidence.
For example, miracles from islam--
http://www.miraclesofislam.com/
By your logic, we should accept miracles of Islam and all the other religions as well, since you make the preposterous claim that evidence of one data point is good enough since "one time occurrences happen all the time." Just because one time occurrences happen all the time does not mean there is good evidence for them, particularly for something as biased as religion. I showed you islam miracles; Perhaps you should convert.
"You claim to have bolded where I committed a straw man fallacy but I fail to see any bold of anything I said. It is not there."
Ok, short term memory seems to be an issue here, but let me cite it. You say:
"Now it appears you are going to misuse the higgs boson in a case against miracles. You want to use the hadron collider to prove or disprove the resurrection and demand the same kind of evidence. "
Now I say:
Now this is a complete mischaracterization. I never claimed that I wanted the LHC to prove resurrection (you're putting words in my mouth again)
"You have a severe case of scientism, not science."
A red herring plain and simple.
" If there is a God, then the resurrection is possible. "
Resurrection is not necessarily possible if there is a God, since God decides what is possible and what is not, or maybe he is actually not all powerful. That would depend on your definition of God. The fact that you think you know God's mind is based in no evidence at all.
" If not then you are forced to come up with your own faith denying the resurrection."
You don't need faith to deny santa clause, or leprechauns, or the celestial teapot. Denial does not require faith LOL. Let me cite your continued use of:
"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. "
This topic is locked
