Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:I'm not applying the same standards of evidence. Nobody ever does. There are several factors that lead towards a conclusion, some related to the evidence for it, and some related to the value of the conclusion. The exact nature of the Resurrection is not very important to the value of Christianity, so I'm not kept awake at night by it. The rationality of the Universe is crucial to my understanding of it, so I would require very strong evidence before I was convinced that the Universe, including the Resurrection, was not rational. That being so, I think that the Shroud was created within the laws of physics, and would require very strong evidence to convince me that it was not. However, that has little bearing on whether it's authentic or not, which is not very important one way or the other.

WHAT ??


and as for this:

I think that the Shroud was created within the laws of physics, and would require very strong evidence to convince me that it was not.

Yes, the shroud can be explained by the laws of physics as the closest that anyone has gotten to reproducing the image with ALL its' characteristic is via radiation.
That does NOT address the very real issue that the process used was NOT available UNTIL the 20th century.
See, to me it's simple:
If it is a forgery or a medieval piece then it should be easy ( or at least possible) to reproduce it with all the characteristics.
No one has been able to.

"Natural" is a very suspicious term.

Kurieuo wrote:"Natural" is a very suspicious term.

Only to those that try to redefine things:

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Natural | Define Natural at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/natural
existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural. : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature. : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial. : usual or expected.

Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural. : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature. : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial. : usual or expected.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:"Natural" is a very suspicious term.

Only to those that try to redefine things:

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Natural | Define Natural at Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/natural
existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural. : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature. : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial. : usual or expected.

Natural | Definition of Natural by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Simple Definition of natural. : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature. : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial. : usual or expected.

Those definitions are less suspicious.

Kurieuo wrote:"Natural" is a very suspicious term.

Maybe you know when lightning became demiraculated?

Paul thinks it is silly to question his miracles.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:I think a miracle is something that has no natural explanation. Miracles can have a logical explanation.

Miracles are things that didnt actually happen.

You just mean miracles are non-things right, I mean if they don't actually happen then they're not anything.

No, I generally say what I mean.

Audie,

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say, coming from someone who espouses reason, logic and science.

You do realize you just asserted something and there's no way to prove your assertion.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:I think a miracle is something that has no natural explanation. Miracles can have a logical explanation.

Miracles are things that didnt actually happen.

You just mean miracles are non-things right, I mean if they don't actually happen then they're not anything.

No, I generally say what I mean.

Audie,

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say, coming from someone who espouses reason, logic and science.

You do realize you just asserted something and there's no way to prove your assertion.

Its not ignorant to say I generally mean what I say.

Nobody seems to know when lightning got demiraculated, or whether there is some ceremony to mark the occasion when another miracle goes down, so they are ignorant.

Of course it is an assertion of my opinion. So>

Lightning actually happens of course.

Jesus on a biscuit is a matter of opinion, so did that miracle actually happen?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:"Natural" is a very suspicious term.

Maybe you know when lightning became demiraculated?

Paul thinks it is silly to question his miracles.

I think it is silly to create a strawman argument, yes.

Can someone please explain to me where "Jesus on a biscuit" came from ??

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:"Natural" is a very suspicious term.

Maybe you know when lightning became demiraculated?

Paul thinks it is silly to question his miracles.

I think it is silly to create a strawman argument, yes.

Anything to get out of the question, so, yeah, whatevs.

PaulSacramento wrote:Can someone please explain to me where "Jesus on a biscuit" came from ??

Oh, so solly. It is pancake. That makes all the difference, no?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/8100659/

Why is it Apatheists seem to think they're smart when they use polytheism i.e., gods to take shots at Theism i.e., God. It shows a lack of understanding imho.

PaulSacramento wrote:

hughfarey wrote:The exact nature of the Resurrection is not very important to the value of Christianity,

WHAT ??

If there something you disagree with about that statement, please explain.

If it is a forgery or a medieval piece then it should be easy (or at least possible) to reproduce it with all the characteristics. No one has been able to.

It probably is easy to reproduce it with all its characteristics, once you know how. Only a few people have tried, and often come quite close, but had insufficient time, funds or inclination to pursue the matter. I think it will probably be achieved eventually, either by the natural processes of an unusual 1st century burial or by simple medieval techniques.

hughfarey wrote:It probably is easy to reproduce it with all its characteristics, once you know how. Only a few people have tried, and often come quite close, but had insufficient time, funds or inclination to pursue the matter. I think it will probably be achieved eventually, either by the natural processes of an unusual 1st century burial or by simple medieval techniques.

In other words, I don't have any evidence that it can be reproduced, but because I know it is a forgery, I expect that it will be reproduced.

So that's a perfectly logical argument. All you have to do to sustain it is prove the minor premise--that it's a forgery. Because unless and until you prove that, far from being a logical argument, you're begging the question.

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

hughfarey wrote:The exact nature of the Resurrection is not very important to the value of Christianity,

WHAT ??

If there something you disagree with about that statement, please explain.

If it is a forgery or a medieval piece then it should be easy (or at least possible) to reproduce it with all the characteristics. No one has been able to.

It probably is easy to reproduce it with all its characteristics, once you know how. Only a few people have tried, and often come quite close, but had insufficient time, funds or inclination to pursue the matter. I think it will probably be achieved eventually, either by the natural processes of an unusual 1st century burial or by simple medieval techniques.

I am not sure how you can state that the nature of the resurrection is NOT important to Christianity when ALL of CHristianity hinges on the resurrection.

And NO, no one has come close to replicating the shroud at all ( regardless of what some have SAID, the evidence is not there), even with 21st century technology and the closest has been with radiation, so...