| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:14 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Not correct everywhere Dean, in USA and I believe in UK the only two veredicts are Guilty and Not Guilty, there's no innocent veredict
| Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."
Hugh Duval
|
I believe only in Scottland they have a Non Proven verdict.
Don't know about the rest of Europe.
|
At least you now acknowledge (in this thread) the difference between not guilty and innocent - which was the point Mike was making. |
Dean, I'm saying that each and every case is a guess in certain degree, almost never a judge or a jury can have 100% of evidence of the guilt or innocence of a person, no matter what science does.
Iván
|
That's so far away from the original point that Mike was making as to put it in an entirely different country on an entirely different planet in an entirely different solar system in an entirely different galaxy in some entirely different universe in someone's badly written fantasy novel that lies unread and forgotten in a remainders bin of long lost books in some tiny backstreet bookstore in an entirely fictitious town in an imaginary country on a non-existent planet circling some dreamt-up sun in a galaxy far far away.
But in essence you agree with the point he was making, so that's okay. 
|
|
What?
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:27 |
Dean wrote:
That's so far away from the original point that Mike was making as to put it in an entirely different country on an entirely different planet in an entirely different solar system in an entirely different galaxy in some entirely different universe in someone's badly written fantasy novel that lies unread and forgotten in a remainders bin of long lost books in some tiny backstreet bookstore in an entirely fictitious town in an imaginary country on a non-existent planet circling some dreamt-up sun in a galaxy far far away.
But in essence you agree with the point he was making, so that's okay. |
Now you're getting all prog on him... 
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:28 |
Dean wrote:
That's so far away from the original point that Mike was making as to put it in an entirely different country on an entirely different planet in an entirely different solar system in an entirely different galaxy in some entirely different universe in someone's badly written fantasy novel that lies unread and forgotten in a remainders bin of long lost books in some tiny backstreet bookstore in an entirely fictitious town in an imaginary country on a non-existent planet circling some dreamt-up sun in a galaxy far far away.
But in essence you agree with the point he was making, so that's okay. |
Dean, seems you haven't followed the thread.
The one who made a point was me not by Mike:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
[The difference between you and me is that for you, science is everything, for us, science is a tool.
As a lawyer I defend people that I don't know with 100% of certitude if they are innocent or not, we use scientific methods to reach an approach, but at the end, not even with all the scientific evidence we know if X guy killed Y guy (in most of the cases) or if "A" raped "B".
Science tells us that a bullet killed "Y" and that "X" is has powder in his hands, or that "B" had violent sex, but nothing can tell us if "X" was acting in legitimate defense or if "A" and "B" had violent CONSENSUAL sex, but still the courts convict or declare people innocent every day, and the system can't stop because we can't prove beyond any doubt.
Iván |
And my original point was that almost never a judge or a jury can have 100% of evidence of the guilt or innocence of a person, no matter what science does, as we don't have 100% of scientific evidence if a miracle is a miracle or not, but we learn to live with this.
Mike is the one that has changed the subject several times,
My quoted post was the first one in which a comparison between a miracle process and a court of law was made, so if somebody has changed the point it's not me..
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 09 2010 at 12:31
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:34 |
thellama73 wrote:
Paravion wrote:
It would be a disaster to assert and accept that all unexplainable phenomena is ' a miracle'. Surely we need curiosity and further investigation.
In linguistics, explanations are in many cases impossible. (theorist speak of theories with varying degrees of explanatory force)
There's no explanation as to why English allows
Peter loves Mary
but not
*Peter love Mary
We can't explain why Greenlandic has only 3 phonemic vowels and Danish 9.
But it's highly likely that it's not because God wants it that way. A lot of 'phenomena' just has no reason - so it currently seems.
Also, it's presumptious to think that humanity (at present and future stages) is capable of explaining and grasping all the complexities of the world. But it's stupid, lazy and far worse to invent some fairy-tale like explanations involving Gods and miracles in order to make sense of the world. |
This is (in a roundabout way) basically the point I was trying to make a few pages back. I've never asserted that unexplained phenomena are divine miracles. I only claim that unexplained phenomena happen. All too often I see atheists employing the logic that something can't have happened if we don't have an explanation for it. Pat quite rightly pointed out (although it was tongue in cheek) that it is foolish to say that something has happened which is impossible. I think in many cases it would be wiser to say "X is not impossible" rather than "X didn't happen."
Let's take the original example of the coworker whose wife had a vision of Jesus. If one of my loved ones who I trust completely swore that they had seen something like this, I would tend to believe them, rather than laugh at them and call them delusional or a liar. That doesn't mean that I would believe what they saw was a divine message, but I would believe they saw something. When this point was brought up here, those on the atheist side had a good chuckle at the poor ignorant people and their impossible beliefs. They instantly concluded that nothing extraordinary had happened.
You can admit the possibility of extraordinary events without being a theist. I hear the complaint that such claims cannot be verified in laboratory settings, which is fair enough, but if the vision was what it appeared to be, then wouldn't you expect it not to repeat itself on command? By it's very nature, such a vision would be reluctant to manifest itself on command.
Also, there was a time when many of the phenomena we now take for granted couldn't be verified in labs and had to be believed as hearsay. Would it be irrational for a stone age man living in the tropics to believe in snow, even if he;d never seen it, just taking the word of travelers he encountered? Such a person wouldn't possess the science to verify the claim.
|
I cannot imagine any scientist ever saying that something cannot have happened if we don't have an explanation for it. A very thick atheist may have said it, but he was not being scientific or even rational, it's nonsensical and stupid - unfortunately not all atheists are smart, but I wouldn't hold them up as typical examples any more than I would an unintelligent theist - for the sake of these debates we have to credit each side with equal levels of intelligence and education.
If in the case of the co-worker's wife who had a vision I would say that for her it happened, but would look for much more rational explanations than a divine visitation, of which there are literally dozens that do not require supernatural explanations.
A stone age man living in the tropics would have no concept of snow and would not have the language or vocabulary to understand it, however the existence of snow would be verifiable by the tropical caveman retracing the route of the temperate-climate visitor so the experiment to prove its existence is perfectly possible.
|
|
What?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:35 |
Dean wrote:
A stone age man living in the tropics would have no concept of snow and would not have the language or vocabulary to understand it, however the existence of snow would be verifiable by the tropical caveman retracing the route of the temperate-climate visitor so the experiment to prove its existence is perfectly possible. |
No, he doesn't have a boat.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:50 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
That's so far away from the original point that Mike was making as to put it in an entirely different country on an entirely different planet in an entirely different solar system in an entirely different galaxy in some entirely different universe in someone's badly written fantasy novel that lies unread and forgotten in a remainders bin of long lost books in some tiny backstreet bookstore in an entirely fictitious town in an imaginary country on a non-existent planet circling some dreamt-up sun in a galaxy far far away.
But in essence you agree with the point he was making, so that's okay. |
Dean, seems you haven't followed the thread.
|
I'm perfectly capable of following this thread, however it you want to break it down into small words and short sentences without the use of BOLD text so I can better understand it please go ahead.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The one who made a point was me not by Mike:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
[
The difference between you and me is that for you, science is everything, for us, science is a tool.
As a lawyer I defend people that I don't know with 100% of certitude if they are innocent or not, we use scientific methods to reach an approach, but at the end, not even with all the scientific evidence we know if X guy killed Y guy (in most of the cases) or if "A" raped "B".
Science tells us that a bullet killed "Y" and that "X" is has powder in his hands, or that "B" had violent sex, but nothing can tell us if "X" was acting in legitimate defense or if "A" and "B" had violent CONSENSUAL sex, but still the courts convict or declare people innocent every day, and the system can't stop because we can't prove beyond any doubt.
Iván |
And my original point was that almost never a judge or a jury can have 100% of evidence of the guilt or innocence of a person, no matter what science does, as we don't have 100% of scientific evidence if a miracle is a miracle or not, but we learn to live with this.
Mike is the one that has changed the subject several times,
My quoted post was the first one in which a comparison between a miracle process and a court of law was made, so if somebody has changed the point it's not me..
Iván |
The comparison is a fallacious one, which is the point Mike made.
A court finds a defendant "not guilty" which is the same verdict as a doctor saying "we don't know what cured this person"
The church declares this (doctor's) verdict as proof that "God did it", which is the same as saying the defendant is innocent because the court could not prove he was guilty.
You have now acknowledged that a court cannot find a defendant as innocent, we are saying the church cannot prove a miracle.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 12:52 |
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
A stone age man living in the tropics would have no concept of snow and would not have the language or vocabulary to understand it, however the existence of snow would be verifiable by the tropical caveman retracing the route of the temperate-climate visitor so the experiment to prove its existence is perfectly possible. |
No, he doesn't have a boat.
|
He can use the visitor's boat (or climb a mountain).
|
|
What?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:00 |
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Dean wrote:
A stone age man living in the tropics would have no concept of snow and would not have the language or vocabulary to understand it, however the existence of snow would be verifiable by the tropical caveman retracing the route of the temperate-climate visitor so the experiment to prove its existence is perfectly possible. |
No, he doesn't have a boat.
|
He can use the visitor's boat (or climb a mountain). |
The visitor left already, and there are no mountains on the island high enough to have snow.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:13 |
Dean wrote:
The comparison is a fallacious one, which is the point Mike made.
A court finds a defendant "not guilty" which is the same verdict as a doctor saying "we don't know what cured this person"
The church declares this (doctor's) verdict as proof that "God did it", which is the same as saying the defendant is innocent because the court could not prove he was guilty.
You have now acknowledged that a court cannot find a defendant as innocent, we are saying the church cannot prove a miracle. |
No Dean, that would be fallacious, but that's not my point
My point is that both processes can be based in opinions exclusively - The doctor says he/she is cured
- The doctor verifies after some time that the cure is permanent
- The doctor says I can't explain this
- The Church after a process says it's a miracle.
But that's what we do in a court of law:
- Mike Tyson was seen with the Desiree Washington (18 years old, enough age to give consent)
- They ate together in a restaurant.
- They went to Mike Tyson's room.
- She said she was raped
- He said it was consensual sex
- The forensic doctor said that she had violent sex.
- As part of its case, the prosecution documented Tyson's history of problems with attractive young women.
- The court decided to send him to jail with no evidence except her word.
Aren't both cases exact?
So, we do in a court of law, exactly what the Church does, even without 100% scientific evidence, somebody can be declared guilty because of his fame as violent.
In both cases science only gave some aid, but defined nothing......Despite this fact, we have to take a position, and on the case of a coutr, a decision that can kill somebody.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 09 2010 at 13:46
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:25 |
Then the idea of snow has no value to him - it was a nice fireside story that entertained him while the visitor was there, but now he's gone it has no further use, so he does not need to believe or disbelieve it, nor prove or disprove.
|
|
What?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:30 |
Dean wrote:
Then the idea of snow has no value to him - it was a nice fireside story that entertained him while the visitor was there, but now he's gone it has no further use, so he does not need to believe or disbelieve it, nor prove or disprove. |
Until eventually Harrison Ford brings a rapidly melting block of ice to his ancestors.
Anyway, he's seen a boat, he can make another one. Or he could walk......unless he is on an island. You didn't say either way.
Edited by Snow Dog - December 09 2010 at 13:32
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:37 |
|
What if he's blind? What if the visitor recited Vogon poetry? WHAT THEN??!!
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:38 |
Padraic wrote:
What if he's blind? What if the visitor recited Vogon poetry? WHAT THEN??!! |
He could stick his head in a pig.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:46 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
The comparison is a fallacious one, which is the point Mike made.
A court finds a defendant "not guilty" which is the same verdict as a doctor saying "we don't know what cured this person"
The church declares this (doctor's) verdict as proof that "God did it", which is the same as saying the defendant is innocent because the court could not prove he was guilty.
You have now acknowledged that a court cannot find a defendant as innocent, we are saying the church cannot prove a miracle. |
No Dean, that would be fallacious, but that's not my point
My point is that both processes can be based in opinions exclusively
- The doctor says he/she is cured
- The doctor verifies after some time that the cure is permanent
- The doctor says I can't explain this
- The Church after a process says it's a miracle.
But that's what we do in a court of law:
- Mike Tyson was seen with the Desiree Washington (18 years old, enough age to give consent)
- They ate together in a restaurant.
- They went to Mike Tyson's room.
- She said she was raped
- He said it was consensual sex
- The forensic doctor said that she had violent sex.
- As part of its case, the prosecution documented Tyson's history of problems with attractive young women.
- The court decided to send him to jail with no evidence except her word.
Aren't both cases exact?
So, we do in a court of law, exactly what the Church does, even without 100% scientific evidence, somebody can be declared guilty because of his fame as violent.
In both cases science only gave some aid, but defined nothing.
Iván |
Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:50 |
Dean wrote:
Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument. |
You have been contradicting me all the time, so please tell me why both cases are not exact?
In both cases the Church or the Law, has to take a decision without scientific evidence or the certitude of anything, but you can live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence but not with a Church deciding something is a miracle.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:55 |
|
I don't think any of us care what the church decides.
Edited by Snow Dog - December 09 2010 at 13:57
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 13:59 |
Snow Dog wrote:
I don't think any of us care what the church decides.
|
That's not the point, the point is that you ask us what you don't ask to a court of law, you ask us 100% of scientific evidence to believe in something, but you are ready to send a person to the gas chamber or jail with the same lack of scientific evidence.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 09 2010 at 14:02
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 14:04 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
I don't think any of us care what the church decides.
|
That's not the point, the point is that you ask us what you don't ask to a court of law, you ask us 100% of scientific evidence to believe in something, but you are ready to send a person to the gas chamber or jail with the same lack of scientific evidence.
Iván
|
Personally I ask nothing. You believe,I don't. I'm happy to leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 14:05 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument. |
You have been contradicting me all the time, so please tell me why both cases are not exact?
In both cases the Church or the Law, has to take a decision without scientific evidence or the certitude of anything, but you can live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence but not with a Church deciding something is a miracle.
Iván |
I think that's putting words in my mouth - I never said I could live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence, nor would I ever say that. That's not what any of this is about anyway. Sometimes your conclusions are just too bizarre to give credence to anything.
Just because a jury can convict someone on scant evidence and inconclusive scientific results it has absolutely nothing to do with the Church assuming that since science cannot produce an irrefutable explanation for a paranormal event then it must be a miracle. The two are not parallel or similar in any way. Stating that one is analogous of the other is a specious argument - it sounds right but it isn't.
|
|
What?
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 09 2010 at 14:06 |
Good thing is, if the court of law decides something, it affects pretty much everybody (specially in systems like UK or US in the way of jurisprudence for future cases). If the church decides something's a miracle, only those who believe in the church will believe such explanation. For the rest, it will still be something unexplainable.
So the church has no general authority. They might have restricted authority for their people. Other people don't have to recognize the church's authority in miracles... But we all have to accept, whether we agree with it or not, a court's authority on the law.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
