Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: John Fields (jfields_at_austininstruments.com)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:26:57 -0600

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:40:53 +0000 (UTC), Willem <willem@stack.nl>
wrote:

>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 ? 

---
That was an error. 
---
>I should note also that if a person interprets an event, his description
>of that event will very probably be influenced by that interpretation.
---
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, since the way you stated it
sounds pretty circular.
---
 
>)>) 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.
---
OK
---
>
>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. 
---
No, I'm saying that some parlor tricks might look like miracles
because we don't know enough, yet, to tell the difference between
them.  That doesn't preclude the possibility of genuine miracles
existing.
---
>That would indicate that
>you think no miracle is proof for the existence of the supernatural.
---
Well, no. I prefer to believe that until _all_ miracles are proven not
to be supernatural occurrences, the existence of a supernatural is
possible.   
-- 
John Fields

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1 in 4 dont enlist in army
    ... nature are not deterministic. ... over His physical universe, ... up the behavior of the laws. ... done to intervene without demonstrable miracles. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: DH Idiocy 1
    ... you assert that G-d can't violate nature if He chooses not to. ... If this were a list of miracles, ... But his point is that miracles do not defy nature. ... Rav Dessler speaks of being in a world ruled by laws like justice, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... of that event will very probably be influenced by that interpretation. ... )>) so-called "miracles" are supposed to have happened from time to time, ... )>) believe in the existence of supernatural events. ... )>between parlor tricks and supernatural events. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... of that event will very probably be influenced by that interpretation. ... )>) so-called "miracles" are supposed to have happened from time to time, ... )>) believe in the existence of supernatural events. ... )>between parlor tricks and supernatural events. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... >)>) would be suspect because of the nature of the claim. ... >)>) so-called "miracles" are supposed to have happened from time to time, ... >universe is bound by the laws of nature. ... >)>between parlor tricks and supernatural events. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)