Why? Do you know what Christian means?
What do you think, isn't life a miracle? OR can you explain how life became?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge: I'm willing to convert if.......
- Thread starter Madsaac
- Start date
What do you think, isn't life a miracle? OR can you explain how life became?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
"Michael Levin, director of the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts University—who wrote in an academic review of Tucker’s first book that it presented a “first-rate piece of research”—said that’s because current scientific research models have no way to prove or debunk Tucker’s findings."
The quote above is in the link you have provided.
It is a simple fact that there is no such thing as proof for anything subjective of the nature of religions.
It is therefore an empty front loaded meaningless challenge where your decision was made beforehand.
Selectively quoting an article is bad form. Here is the full quote.
While his work might be expected to garner fierce debate within the scientific community, Tucker’s research, based in part on the cases accumulated all over the world by his predecessor, Ian Stevenson, who died in 2007, has caused little stir.
Michael Levin, director of the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts University—who wrote in an academic review of Tucker’s first book that it presented a “first-rate piece of research”—said that’s because current scientific research models have no way to prove or debunk Tucker’s findings.
“When you fish with a net with a certain size of holes, you will never catch any fish smaller than those holes,” Levin says. “What you find is limited by how you are searching for it. Our current methods and concepts have no way of dealing with these data.”
Levin is explaining why the research has not caused heated debates or controversies. He is saying that the reason is because
1) The work is first rate and hence cannot be methodologically debunked.
2) No scientific model currently exists that can provide an explanation for the data presented in the work.
So scientific community can do nothing with the data. It points to a limitation of current scientific theories and models...not of the work itself. Science works within methodological naturalism. Any phenomena, however well recorded, that does not have an explanation within methodological naturalism, cannot be taken up by science by definition. Here we have one example of such a phenomenon.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Why was it bad form?
Did I misrepresent his position? I don't think so.
And also impossible to be reproduced, and therefore impossible to determine whether it involves any fabrication.
But there are multiple possible explanations within methodological naturalism. The actual problem, if the data is truly reliable, is that the data would support multiple different explanations.
Who said it's impossible to reproduce?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I mean that it is necessary to find new people, and those new cases can not confirm that past researches were legit (rather than fabricated).
Why must it be mutually exclusive to you?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I didn't say it it is mutually exclusive. It just doesn't constitute proof of divine intervention.
It was the person's experience, which cannot be proved nor disproved. If he views it that way, that's good enough.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I am not disputing his experience. It is essential to distinguish between experience and interpretation though.
What do you even mean by that?
This is ridiculous.
One interprets one's own experience however one will.
I'm not playing words games. The sentence is clear.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I will pass the wishful thinking, thanks.
Not at all. What does it mean to say that it is good enough for someone to view something some given way? I have no idea.
That's some bias you have there.
I guess next time you tell me you find a sunrise beautiful I'll just **** all over your wishful thinking.
After all, everyone knows the sun doesn't actually rise.
That's a problem you're having, then.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What does that have to do with what I have just said?
Or maybe it is a sentence that doesn't mean anything in particular and more like a random pat in the back to show support?
The criteria of Methodological Naturalism to falsify hypothesis,
PureX
Veteran Member
You apparently have no idea what evidence is.
I believe @Madsaac criteria for "objective verifiable evidence" is correct. I just object to his meaningless argument for "proof."
If you appeal to subjective evidence you are only appealing to those that believe.
PureX
Veteran Member
What anyone believes is irrelevant, as belief does not determine truthfulness. Evidence and logical reasoning does. And that means we should be including as much and as many kinds of evidence as there is. NOT just choosing according to our own bias while we play the judge, the prosecution, and the jury in our own private kangaroo courtrooms.
This whole kangaroo court thing has taken over the minds of so many self-proclaimed atheists these days that they now think they get to determine the definitions of all the words we use to even discuss the subject: "evidence", "atheism", "religion", "theism", "supernatural", "miracle" and anything else that is even remotely related to the idea of God's existence.
And they really believe they have this right, just because they say so and it suits their bias. And apparently I'm the only one around here willing to tell them "no", they do not have that right and we do not have to put up with their idiotic reasoning or their kangaroo court mentality.
Why don't you ask God why He heals some people and not others?
Here are three clues...
"Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”" Luke 8:48
"Then he said to the man, “Get up and go your way. Your faith has made you well.” Luke 17:19
And it gets even better...
"Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” " Mark 2:3-5