Re: Peterson's Death Sentence
From: Willem (willem_at_stack.nl)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: John Fields: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Previous message: John Fields: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: John Fields: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: Parse Tree: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:40:53 +0000 (UTC)
John wrote:
) On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:29:50 +0000 (UTC), Willem <willem@stack.nl>
) wrote:
)>The person *has* very clearly interpreted what they saw.
) ---
) But, because the person can't differentiate between a parlor trick and
) a supernatural event, their interpretation of what _either_ event was
) would be worthless. Read the sentence before your last again; I said
) the same thing there.
So why did you respond in disagreement when someone said that a person
who can't see the difference has no credibility ?
I should note also that if a person interprets an event, his description
of that event will very probably be influenced by that interpretation.
)>) However, even if they _could_ tell the difference, their credibility
)>) would be suspect because of the nature of the claim. For instance,
)>) so-called "miracles" are supposed to have happened from time to time,
)>) and even when "verified" by those who can allegedly tell the
)>) difference, their credibility is denied by those who simply don't
)>) believe in the existence of supernatural events. You, for instance?
)>
)>This is a very bold assertion. Basically, you are accusing people who
)>don't believe in miracles of dismissing any evidence contrary to their
)>belief. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim ?
)
) ---
) Well, first things first. Since you seem to be so intent on
) procedure, I suggest that if you expect an answer to your question,
) you answer my earlier one; specifically, "Do you believe in miracles?"
I'm mostly an agnostic, although I do have some things that I take on
faith. I do that mostly because otherwise life would be unreasonably
difficult. One of the things I take on faith is that everything in the
universe is bound by the laws of nature.
This means that I believe anything that can be classified as a miracle
is an indication that our understanding of the laws of nature is not
complete enough.
I also believe that our understanding of the laws of the universe is not
complete, so yes, I do believe in miracles, but I don't believe these
miracles actually defy the laws of nature.
And finally, I believe that
)>Any examples of such miracles ?
)
) ---
) Yes, but first answer the question.
) ---
)
)>By the way, your black-and-white thinking show up clearly here.
)>You seem to be assuming that people either can or cannot distinguish
)>between parlor tricks and supernatural events. Has it ever occurred
)>to you that people can usually identify some but not all parlor tricks
)>as such, and that some people can distinguish more than others ?
)
) ---
) Geez, no, that _never_ crossed my mind... Neither did the possibility
) that visiting extraterrestrials could perform parlor tricks which none
) of us would be able to explain as other than miracles...
But which _are_ parlor tricks. Bound by the laws of nature.
No proof of the supernatural whatsoever.
In other words, you're saying that *everything* that could be considered
a miracle could very well be a parlor trick. That would indicate that
you think no miracle is proof for the existence of the supernatural.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
- Next message: John Fields: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Previous message: John Fields: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: John Fields: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: Parse Tree: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
