This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Please elaborate.
Because if anyone in the human race evolved at all at the present, they'd be hunted down and shot for being a monster. Society spurns those who are different. There's enough evidence in sociology and animal psychology to suggest that there would need to be some pretty radical changes happening all at the same time for a new species to be able to propogate without being shunned as outcasts and not being in a position to breed. If some guy is born with a tail, can you imagine any women running to him going "SQUEEE I WANT YOUR BABIES!"?
There's an argument against evolution, not based on religious grounds.
There have been claims of faith-based healing in the past
Indeed, they are claims. But said claims disproved the science (said patient lived, contrary to scientific expectations). So, by definition, they weren't science-based healing.
The pope then thanked Our Lady of Fátima for his survival. I'd like to see this evidence that proves that the pope was saved by our lady and not those surgeons.
Without knowing more about it, that event doesn't sound like it was a test for canonisation. That would be the equivalent of a person saying "thank God you're here!". Look up the list of saints, and read up on the events relating to their eventual canonisation. The Vatican takes its evidence rules fairly seriously, as far as I'm aware. So to your response, I'm just going to have to say, 'strawman', in this case.
Because the theory of evolution can be demonstrated.
Demonstrate it for me. Evolve something. I'll be here waiting. Historical evidencial support =/= demonstration.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
For the second; your soul is your core essence, when your tortured in Hell, it's your soul that's being attacked, tormented and torn apart. When your in Heaven, it's like living the best day of your life for all eternity.
You've failed to answer my question. No matter how my soul is torn apart, without a nervous system I can only imagine I won't feel the slightest thing.
Without dopamine, my body won't be able to feel happy, no matter what events transpire.
Not all pain is physical. Have you ever had a bad day? Take that day and multiply it by infinity.
Post by
Orranis
For the second; your soul is your core essence, when your tortured in Hell, it's your soul that's being attacked, tormented and torn apart. When your in Heaven, it's like living the best day of your life for all eternity.
You've failed to answer my question. No matter how my soul is torn apart, without a nervous system I can only imagine I won't feel the slightest thing.
Without dopamine, my body won't be able to feel happy, no matter what events transpire.
Not all pain is physical. Have you ever had a bad day? Take that day and multiply it by infinity.
What if I told you that having a bad day was caused by a chemical reaction as well..?
Post by
Adamsm
For the second; your soul is your core essence, when your tortured in Hell, it's your soul that's being attacked, tormented and torn apart. When your in Heaven, it's like living the best day of your life for all eternity.
You've failed to answer my question. No matter how my soul is torn apart, without a nervous system I can only imagine I won't feel the slightest thing.
Without dopamine, my body won't be able to feel happy, no matter what events transpire.
In other words, your Soul is just like your body once your dead; so whatever you felt in life, you'll feel while burning in Hell, or relaxing in Heaven.
Post by
Monday
For the second; your soul is your core essence, when your tortured in Hell, it's your soul that's being attacked, tormented and torn apart. When your in Heaven, it's like living the best day of your life for all eternity.
You've failed to answer my question. No matter how my soul is torn apart, without a nervous system I can only imagine I won't feel the slightest thing.
Without dopamine, my body won't be able to feel happy, no matter what events transpire.
Not all pain is physical. Have you ever had a bad day? Take that day and multiply it by infinity.
What if I told you that having a bad day was caused by a chemical reaction as well..?
/shrug
I know, but still. Perhaps He grants you a nonphysical nervous system, after all he is all powerful >:)
Post by
Orranis
For the second; your soul is your core essence, when your tortured in Hell, it's your soul that's being attacked, tormented and torn apart. When your in Heaven, it's like living the best day of your life for all eternity.
You've failed to answer my question. No matter how my soul is torn apart, without a nervous system I can only imagine I won't feel the slightest thing.
Without dopamine, my body won't be able to feel happy, no matter what events transpire.
In other words, your Soul is just like your body once your dead; so whatever you felt in life, you'll feel while burning in Hell, or relaxing in Heaven.
So it's just like your body, except that it has no physical substance, is not made of matter, is utterly untraceable...
Come to think of it, it's not that much like my body.
Post by
Adamsm
So it's just like your body, except that it has no physical substance, is not made of matter, is utterly untraceable...
Come to think of it, it's not that much like my body.
You asked, we answered, simple as that.
Post by
Orranis
So it's just like your body, except that it has no physical substance, is not made of matter, is utterly untraceable...
Come to think of it, it's not that much like my body.
You asked, we answered, simple as that.
This is a discussion, not a Q&A.
I have a question. What do religious people think of
Schrodinger's Cat theory?
Post by
Adamsm
This is a discussion, not a Q&A. Meh, we could say whatever, but you don't believe, so it doesn't really matter does it?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't think you understand how evolution works. Nobody who does would say something like this.
I beg to differ. Evolution and selective breeding (which is what I think you're thinking of) are two very different things. Evolution in a society would require a fundamental change in a significant portion of the society for it to be carried forward. To the best of my knowledge, bacteria (in your link provided) don't form societies, though I'm happy to be proven wrong in that respect.
Science does not work on claims, eyewitness testimony is not empirical evidence and testimony especially does not "disprove" science.
I think you don't understand how canonisation claims of prayer-based healing are made. It's not just eyewitness testimony, teams of doctors and scientists are asked to provide evidence and demonstrate that there was no chance that the recovery could be medically driven. If that isn't enough empirical evidence for you, then nobody is going to be able to 'prove' to you that there is a God.
They don't seem to take anything seriously. The reasons given for the canonisation of Clelia Barbieri are laughable at best. Hell, it sounds as though one could wander around claiming #$%^, as long as it has Jesus it must be true.
Strawman. Atheists do some pretty stupid things too.
Do you not see the distinction between historical evidence and scientific evidence? Until you do, and until you stop redefining terms we won't get far.
For a start, here's some evolution done in the lab, in 2008.
Ok, fair enough. Now for you, take look at
this
then, the process by which Mary MacKillop's miracle was identified.
Twenty years previously a panel of doctors and others had looked at a number of such claims and selected the recovery in 1961 of an apparently dying woman. A Tribunal was set up in Sydney to examine the case, and the evidence of witnesses, together with hospital records, medical documents, x-rays and slides, was sent to Rome.
In 1992 the evidence was examined by medical and legal experts, and then by the Consulta Medica of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The verdict on 5 November 1992 was unanimous: that the diagnosis was correct, that the prognosis was totally negative, that the therapy was inadequate to produce a cure, that the recovery was full and permanent, and that there was no explanation in terms of medical science. The patient is strong and healthy now in 1995, 33 years after her illness.
Post by
382219
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I don't think you understand how evolution works. Nobody who does would say something like this.
I beg to differ. Evolution and selective breeding (which is what I think you're thinking of) are two very different things. Evolution in a society would require a fundamental change in a significant portion of the society for it to be carried forward. To the best of my knowledge, bacteria (in your link provided) don't form societies, though I'm happy to be proven wrong in that respect.Alright, it seems you're debating about the future of human evolution. I don't know why. You don't dispute the reality of evolution in the past, though, do you?
Science does not work on claims, eyewitness testimony is not empirical evidence and testimony especially does not "disprove" science.
I think you don't understand how canonisation claims of prayer-based healing are made. It's not just eyewitness testimony, teams of doctors and scientists are asked to provide evidence and demonstrate that there was no chance that the recovery could be medically driven. If that isn't enough empirical evidence for you, then nobody is going to be able to 'prove' to you that there is a God.Well, if that's true, I've never seen it. From what I've read, a great deal of peopel that have been "faith-healed" are actually recovering thanks to the
Placebo Effect
, and often eventually regress.
Do you not see the distinction between historical evidence and scientific evidence? Until you do, and until you stop redefining terms we won't get far.
For a start, here's some evolution done in the lab, in 2008.
Ok, fair enough. Now for you, take look at
this
then, the process by which Mary MacKillop's miracle was identified.
Twenty years previously a panel of doctors and others had looked at a number of such claims and selected the recovery in 1961 of an apparently dying woman. A Tribunal was set up in Sydney to examine the case, and the evidence of witnesses, together with hospital records, medical documents, x-rays and slides, was sent to Rome.
In 1992 the evidence was examined by medical and legal experts, and then by the Consulta Medica of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The verdict on 5 November 1992 was unanimous: that the diagnosis was correct, that the prognosis was totally negative, that the therapy was inadequate to produce a cure, that the recovery was full and permanent, and that there was no explanation in terms of medical science. The patient is strong and healthy now in 1995, 33 years after her illness.Well, the web site you linked was an evangelical site, not a scientific journal.
Can I have some more sources, please, perhaps some actual science, this time? That site doesn't even give the woman's name... Why should I believe it?
Post by
Squishalot
Alright, it seems you're debating about the future of human evolution. I don't know why. You don't dispute the reality of evolution in the past, though, do you?
Animals have societies too.
It's worth noting, just for clarity, that I don't necessarily believe that evolution didn't occur, I'm just positing it as a hypothetical challenge to the theory of evolution. Scientific method at its best.
Well, if that's true, I've never seen it. From what I've read, a great deal of peopel that have been "faith-healed" are actually recovering thanks to the Placebo Effect, and often eventually regress.
Everybody eventually regresses - that's the sad thing about mortality.
The problem is, from everything that you've read, any studies are almost definitely biased, as with the one that Lobstah linked. So to say that it's due to the placebo effect is just as statistically incorrect as to say that it's from faith. Unless you can demonstrate that there are no medical grounds for recovery...
Well, the web site you linked was an evangelical site, not a scientific journal.
Can I have some more sources, please, perhaps some actual science, this time? That site doesn't even give the woman's name... Why should I believe it?
Part of the problem is that you're expecting there to be public information on very personal details. Your medical records aren't open for public scrutiny, I don't see why any others should be either. I can link you newspaper articles instead, but they're all saying pretty much exactly the same thing - some general details about the patient and the process of examination.
All my point is, there is scrutiny by the Vatican on faith-based healing and intercession. They don't promote people to be saints willy nilly, they do take it fairly seriously, and they have a process in place to ensure that any said recovery is actually faith-based, and not as a result of modern medicine and science. I would personally love to meet a doctor who's been involved in a miracle investigation (both successful and failed), to get their perspective of what actually happens, and how they deal with it. But unfortunately, I don't know many doctors (luckily?), so I don't have the contacts to find out what you and I are both looking for.
Edit: Here's a book I located on Google / Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019533650X/bpo01-20
"For individual sufferers, healing and survival can be both spiritual and physical experiences. Dr. Duffin -- medical practitioner and historian -- boldly delves into a seldom-analyzed relationship between religion and medicine. Medically attested miracles are an unusual topic for research, often featured to praise or ridicule phenomena lacking scientific explanation. The author's meticulous and balanced analysis of past investigations into the miraculous coupled with her keen clinical eye will be widely read and discussed by skeptics and believers alike." --Guenter B. Risse, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of California, San Francisco
Post by
Skreeran
Well, honestly, I just don't believe it. Just because something does not seem immediately explainable in no way means that "God" is the only answer. Maybe aliens healed her. Or cosmic rays. Or little cancer-eating elves.
Just because we can't see a scientific explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.
Post by
Laihendi
So withouth reading most of this stuff, Laihendi is just going to jump in and say that science cannot be right or wrong, because one of the purposes of science is to make you question your beliefs, and come closer to learning the truth. No intelligent person has ever reached a point where he felt he knew everything he needed to know thanks to science. An intelligent person uses the scientific process to keep learning new things, breaking his old beliefs, and coming closer to learning how things work.
Also, there is no real evidence that the soul, heaven, or hell exist.
Post by
Monday
So withouth reading most of this stuff, Laihendi is just going to jump in and say that science cannot be right or wrong, because one of the purposes of science is to make you question your beliefs, and come closer to learning the truth. No intelligent person has ever reached a point where he felt he knew everything he needed to know thanks to science. An intelligent person uses the scientific process to keep learning new things, breaking his old beliefs, and coming closer to learning how things work.
Also, there is no real evidence that the soul, heaven, or hell exist.
Shocking. There is also no proof for half the scientific theories. What's your point?
Post by
Skreeran
So withouth reading most of this stuff, Laihendi is just going to jump in and say that science cannot be right or wrong, because one of the purposes of science is to make you question your beliefs, and come closer to learning the truth. No intelligent person has ever reached a point where he felt he knew everything he needed to know thanks to science. An intelligent person uses the scientific process to keep learning new things, breaking his old beliefs, and coming closer to learning how things work.
Also, there is no real evidence that the soul, heaven, or hell exist.
Shocking. There is also no proof for half the scientific theories. What's your point?Prove it. If you want to challenge the established science, then provide evidence to back up your claims.
Post by
Monday
So withouth reading most of this stuff, Laihendi is just going to jump in and say that science cannot be right or wrong, because one of the purposes of science is to make you question your beliefs, and come closer to learning the truth. No intelligent person has ever reached a point where he felt he knew everything he needed to know thanks to science. An intelligent person uses the scientific process to keep learning new things, breaking his old beliefs, and coming closer to learning how things work.
Also, there is no real evidence that the soul, heaven, or hell exist.
Shocking. There is also no proof for half the scientific
theories
. What's your point?Prove it. If you want to challenge the established science, then provide evidence to back up your claims.
Take a look at the bolded word first.
Second: Name me 10 theories you have absolute proof for, beyond a shadow of a doubt. All scientific.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.