ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_richardMdBorn]

Before claiming supernatural miracles, folks should understand that, in the natural world, the supernatural cannot, and does not, exist (pretty much by definition).

No.

I agree with you Robert about this. DrW cannot win the argument about the supernatural "by definition".

[_Milesius]

Again, why should I trust what is the tradition of one set of illiterate nomads versus the next set of illiterate nomads?

Did you obtain your degree in physics from a crackerjack box? The authors of the Bible were literate. That's how they, you know, wrote the books.

Biblically speaking ... who the hell cares what the goat rapers that wrote it thought about science?

Your inability to get laid is manifesting itself in disturbing ways. (No doubt your transparent social ineptitude has something to do with this.)

[_DrW]

Ockham's Razor is a heuristic; it does not prove anything.

I did not claim that Occam's razor proved anything. I stated earlier in this thread, and on other threads, that it was a guiding principle that can be beneficially applied in decision making and hypothesis selection.

Before claiming supernatural miracles, folks should understand that, in the natural world, the supernatural cannot, and does not, exist (pretty much by definition).

No.

What?? Let me get this straight.

You are going to claim that, by definition, the "natural world" includes some imagined "supernatural world"?

If so, then you are equating supernatural with natural. It should be obvious that they are not the same, or even equivalent.

One might describe or define natural, physical, and real worlds, for example.

Few would confuse these descriptions with supernatural, spiritual, and fantasy worlds, respectively.

[_DrW]

No.

I agree with you Robert about this. DrW cannot win the argument about the supernatural "by definition".

So, you would also claim that the set of the "natural" includes the "supernatural"?

Think about it.

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

The exact details about CERN don't matter. The issue was if an anomaly was found and would this cause a rethink of Einstein's relativity. That was obvious from my statement. This back and forth over things that don't matter may make you feel good about yourself but from here you seem pretty small.

Just because a group of guys got together and declared that supernatural events don't happen in the natural world does not make it so. Miracles happen every day. Now you may not feel that way. Maybe you think you know how the world works. Now tell me how the brain functions so we have creativity. If you can not let me suggest it is a miracle. Prove me wrong.

[_keithb]

DrW,

The exact details about CERN don't matter. The issue was if an anomaly was found and would this cause a rethink of Einstein's relativity. That was obvious from my statement. This back and forth over things that don't matter may make you feel good about yourself but from here you seem pretty small.

Just because a group of guys got together and declared that supernatural events don't happen in the natural world does not make it so. Miracles happen every day. Now you may not feel that way. Maybe you think you know how the world works. Now tell me how the brain functions so we have creativity. If you can not let me suggest it is a miracle. Prove me wrong.

Nobody is rethinking Einstein's Theory of Relativity. They are simply looking at whether modifications are needed in some very limited circumstances.

I am still amazed that you can't understand this. I don't know how the posters on this board could make this any simpler for you.

[_richardMdBorn]

So, you would also claim that the set of the "natural" includes the "supernatural"?

Think about it.

No, I'm claiming that you can't choose a definition that excludes the supernatural and have it be evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is similar to what Sagan did when he asserted that

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

This may be the atheist equivalent of the ontological argument for the existence of God.

[_SteelHead]

Sorry Frank, but just because we currently do not have a complete understanding of something, does not make it a miracle. An aboriginal encountering an airplane for the first time might be inclined to attribute it to the supernatural, when it actually operates under understood principles.

In your example it may be something we do not fully understand but it is not solely attributable to the supernatural.

[_Hoops]

No meat eating before the flood...... Wait, what?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/21/paleo-csi-early-hunters-left-mastodon-murder-weapon-behind/

Nope. You're right. I miswrote and I am mistaken. I am wrong and ask for your indulgence (I know what the answer is already, so don't bother) I often make this mistake - thinking I'm writing "before the fall" when I'm writing "before the flood."

Might be because, in my view, the stories are inextricably linked. But excuses aside, I am wrong.

[_Hoops]

Empty of content.

The one destroys planets, countries, cities and peoples in fits of anger. The other teaches turn the other cheek, love your enemy, grace, and forgiveness.

For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.

Anachronism at its best.