Moon landing vs. vrigin birth!

[R_Daneel]

Ok, it is definitely time to put an end to this nonsense. Our resident villager, WSP, keeps on asserting that the evidence for virgin birth (a virgin giving birth to a male offspring) is exactly as valid and convincing as the evidence for the moon landing. He **never **gives any details, just keeps on repeating it, over and over again, whether it is applicable to the thread, or not, thus attempting to derail every thread.

So, come up to the plate, and vote on this issue, if you are so inclined.

 

[coolduude]

Protovangelium of James? That’s some good evidence right there.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Well, the big difference is that the Virgin Birth actually happened…

 

[Sarpedon]

They are two totally different types of knowledge. One involves epistemological naturalism, the other epistemological metaphysics. The only evidence for the virgin birth is based on the authority of the revelation, which is rooted in the authority of the Church. The validity of the virgin birth rises and falls with the validity of the Church itself, which is something that can be examined using epistemology.

How about a different poll- Are there sufficient reasons for believing that epistemological naturalism is a valid epistemological method while other types of metaphysics and epistemology are not?

A common response to this is that naturalism is more “practical,” but that appeals to pragmatism as a truth standard! That’s philosophy, and a far cry from the evidence for the moon landing. Science is part of philosophy, and science is necessarily justified by philosophy, and there is no way around that.

 

[R_Daneel]

They are two totally different types of knowledge. One involves epistemological naturalism, the other epistemological metaphysics. The only evidence for the virgin birth is based on the authority of the revelation, which is rooted in the authority of the Church. The validity of the virgin birth rises and falls with the validity of the Church itself, which is something that can be examined using epistemology.

How about a different poll- Are there sufficient reasons for believing that epistemological naturalism is a valid epistemological method while other types of metaphysics and epistemology are not?

A common response to this is that naturalism is more “practical,” but that appeals to pragmatism as a truth standard! That’s philosophy, and a far cry from the evidence for the moon landing. Science is part of philosophy, and science is necessarily justified by philosophy, and there is no way around that.

In general terms your remarks are correct. However, the question at hand is different. This whole problem came out of the epistemology for historical claims, which cannot be verified in a direct fashion. WSP assested (far too) many times, that the available evidence for the moon landing and the available evidence for virgin birth are “identical”. He keeps saying that it is irrational to accept the claim for the actual happening of the moon landing, while discarding the evidence for virgin birth. That is the topic for this thread.

 

[Think_About_It]

Let’s determine whether landing on the moon violates any universal laws. No? Let’s determine whether landing in a virgin’s womb violates any universal laws. Yes? Obviously we’re going to need more compelling evidence than second/third hand fairytales of this happening. One of the best ways we determine the validity of something in the modern world is testing it against rigid scientific demands. The question then becomes, not a historical one (did it happen?) as WSP would have you believe, but a question of possibility (can it happen?). We’ll construct an experiment to try and put a person on the moon and try to get a virgin pregnant. I think the results, however, will be rather unsurprising. .

 

[tonyrey]

Ok, it is definitely time to put an end to this nonsense. Our resident villager, WSP, keeps on asserting that the evidence for virgin birth (a virgin giving birth to a male offspring) is exactly as valid and convincing as the evidence for the moon landing. He **never **gives any details, just keeps on repeating it, over and over again, whether it is applicable to the thread, or not, thus attempting to derail every thread.

Ok, it is definitely time to put an end to this nonsense. Our resident atheist, RD, keeps on asserting that the evidence for virgin birth (a virgin giving birth to a male offspring) is far less valid and convincing than the evidence for the moon landing.

The first flaw in his argument is that he regards empirical evidence as the sole and most important form of evidence. He fails to realise that all evidence presupposes the existence of the mind which interprets perceptions and constructs a mental image from them. The interpretation - and therefore **the interpreter **- is more important than what is perceived. We would not even know that the moon exists if we did not use our power of reason. The most important, valid and convincing evidence is to be found within ourselves…

The second flaw in his argument is that he ignores the **context **of the empirical evidence. The context of the moon landing is human activity - in the wider context of an unexplained physical universe which has no apparent value or purpose or raison d’etre. The context of the Virgin Birth is divine activity - in the context of the evidence for Design, the noblest moral teaching the world has known, the life and death of Jesus and the history of the Church which has survived for over two thousand years, extended all over the world and comprises one third of the total population.

The most significant difference is that the astronauts’ mission to the moon was not necessary whereas the mission of Christ was essential. One was for the exploration of space while the other was for the liberation of mankind from the hideous injustice, violence, bloodshed and suffering which afflict so many innocent people. This is the only evidence that really matters in the long run: not what we discover about the moon but what we discover about ourselves… and the need for Christian love in an inhuman society…

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s determine whether landing on the moon violates any universal laws. No? Let’s determine whether landing in a virgin’s womb violates any universal laws. Yes? Obviously we’re going to need more compelling evidence than second/third hand fairytales of this happening. One of the best ways we determine the validity of something in the modern world is testing it against rigid scientific demands. The question then becomes, not a historical one (did it happen?) as WSP would have you believe, but a question of possibility (can it happen?). We’ll construct an experiment to try and put a person on the moon and try to get a virgin pregnant. I think the results, however, will be rather unsurprising. .

Why don’t you try to perform an experiment on yourself? To see how much injustice, violence, bloodshed and suffering **you **can eliminate? I don’t only think, I know the results - given your obsession with scientific as opposed to moral evidence… Your cynicism is merely destructive and increases rather than reduces the misery of mankind. What do you have to offer them - apart from negativity and despair?

 

[R_Daneel]

The first flaw in his argument is that he regards empirical evidence as the sole and most important form of evidence. He fails to realise that all evidence presupposes the existence of the mind which interprets perceptions and constructs a mental image from them. The interpretation - and therefore **the interpreter **- is more important than what is perceived. We would not even know that the moon exists if we did not use our power of reason. The most important, valid and convincing evidence is to be found within ourselves…

This is trivial.

The second flaw in his argument is that he ignores the **context **of the empirical evidence. The context of the moon landing is human activity - in the wider context of an unexplained physical universe which has no apparent value or purpose or raison d’etre. The context of the Virgin Birth is divine activity - in the context of the evidence for Design, the noblest moral teaching the world has known, the life and death of Jesus and the history of the Church which has survived for over two thousand years, extended all over the world and comprises one third of the total population.

The alleged virgin birth event was a **human **event, was it not? As such, the same level of evidence is required to accept it. The number of believers is irrelevant - argument from numbers is a common fallacy.

The most significant difference is that the astronauts’ mission to the moon was not necessary whereas the mission of Christ was essential. One was for the exploration of space while the other was for the liberation of mankind from the hideous injustice, violence, bloodshed and suffering which afflict so many innocent people. This is the only evidence that really matters in the long run: not what we discover about the moon but what we discover about ourselves… and the need for Christian love in an inhuman society…

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Just concentrate on the actual question: how does one decide if a claim which is not witnessed by us directly is true or false? The first level is to find out if the claim is sensible or not. If the claim passes the first test, then we can decide if the witnesses are reliable or not. The virgin birth already fails the first test. Biology tells us that a virgin birth can only produce a genetic equivalent of the mother (barring some mutation - which cannot produce the missing “Y”-chromosomes). Also the idea that the mother stays a virgin with an unruptured hymen during the birthing process is another ludicrous claim. Where does it leave you? If you have blind, unquestioning faith, it would not matter to you (as it obviously does not). If someone is skeptical, you can try to offer some evidence - actual evidence for an alleged human event. But no evidence is forthcoming. Tough luck…

 

[Think_About_It]

Why don’t you try to perform an experiment on yourself? To see how much injustice, violence, bloodshed and suffering **you **can eliminate? I don’t only think, I know the results - given your obsession with scientific as opposed to moral evidence… Your cynicism is merely destructive and increases rather than reduces the misery of mankind. What do you have to offer them - apart from negativity and despair?

Not really sure if this has anything to do with my reply. You’re free to respond to the particular claims that I made in my reply though

 

[tonyrey]

Not really sure if this has anything to do with my reply. You’re free to respond to the particular claims that I made in my reply though

It has everything to do with it> Why don’t you deal with the points I made regarding evidence?
For a start what is the basis of all your knowledge? What you see, hear, touch, taste and smell? If that’s what you think you are miserably mistaken…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok, it is definitely time to put an end to this nonsense.

a poll wont do it, thats a fallacy called argumentum ad populum. i would think for a guy that keeps intimating that im uneducated or a moron, would know some of the basics.

Our resident villager, WSP, keeps on asserting that the evidence for virgin birth (a virgin giving birth to a male offspring) is exactly as valid and convincing as the evidence for the moon landing.

actually, the claim is that you cannot deny the veracity of Biblical events on the basis of scientific credibility.

virgin birth an was an event picked by albertball to demonstrate that Biblical events arent scientifically credible, it actually applies to any Biblical event, not just the virgin birth.

albertball also chose to defend the moonlanding when i pointed out that we have essentially the same evidence for any historical event we did not witness.

my point being, of course, that there is no rational basis to deny the claims made in Scripture. ergo, being an atheist requires one to hold a hypocritical double standard of evidence. one standard for events they wish to believe are true, and another for events they hope are not true.

and considering you felt the need to create a poll. i must be doing a pretty good job.

He **never **gives any details,

actually i did, several times. i demonstrated how even by current technology a male virgin birth is concievable. you never adressed the specifics.

i did so because i do not believe in magic. i believe that everything has a rational explanation. just as you should. therefore i apply clarkes 3rd law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

we may not know how the virgin birth was accomplished, but that doesnt say anything about the truth of the event. further, i can demonstrate that it is concievable with technology that we currently understand.

as the famous physicist, michio kaku talks about in this article, we can currently teleport particles. we expect to be able to teleport DNA within a decade or so.

discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/teleportation-very-possible-next-up-time-travel/article_view?searchterm=quantum+entanglement&b_start:int=2

we also know that DNA can be synthesized because nature already has. however here is a current success in doing so in the lab.

thefutureofthings.com/news/1212/scientists-create-synthesized-dna.html

given current technology, we can see that directly teleporting DNA and related chemical structures, into a womans egg is conceivable therefore the virgin birth of a male is conceivable. it may seem far fetched, but you cannot deny it is conceivable by current scientific understanding, much less any extrememly advanced process.

no magic needed

just keeps on repeating it, over and over again, whether it is applicable to the thread, or not, thus attempting to derail every thread.

this is false. please post the thread and post where i brought this up in an unrelated conversation.

So, come up to the plate, and vote on this issue, if you are so inclined.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The alleged virgin birth event was a **human **event, was it not? As such, the same level of evidence is required to accept it. The number of believers is irrelevant - argument from numbers is a common fallacy.

yet you just posted a poll, seeking strength in numbers.

Just concentrate on the actual question: how does one decide if a claim which is not witnessed by us directly is true or false? The first level is to find out if the claim is sensible or not. If the claim passes the first test, then we can decide if the witnesses are reliable or not. The virgin birth already fails the first test. Biology tells us that a virgin birth can only produce a genetic equivalent of the mother (barring some mutation - which cannot produce the missing “Y”-chromosomes).

thats completely false. see post 12 where i destroy that silly idea.

Also the idea that the mother stays a virgin with an unruptured hymen during the birthing process is another ludicrous claim.

wrong again. here is the definition of a virgin. funny, but they actually use the Blessed Mother as an example.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/virgin

vir·gin (vûrjn) KEY

NOUN:

**A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse. **
A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden.
An unmarried woman who has taken religious vows of chastity.
Virgin The Virgin Mary.
Zoology A female insect or other arthropod that produces fertile eggs without copulating

 

[tonyrey]

The first flaw in his argument is that he regards empirical evidence as the sole and most important form of evidence. He fails to realise that all evidence presupposes the existence of the mind which interprets perceptions and constructs a mental image from them. We would not even know that the moon exists if we did not use our power of reason. The most important, valid and convincing evidence is to be found within ourselves…

Trivial! What a ridiculous response! You think you can evade the issue with an adjective!
It merely reveals your lack of insight into the process of reasoning. Try again…

The second flaw in his argument is that he ignores the context of the empirical evidence. The context of the moon landing is human activity - in the wider context of an unexplained physical universe which has no apparent value or purpose or raison d’etre. The context of the Virgin Birth is divine activity - in the context of the evidence for Design, the noblest moral teaching the world has known, the life and death of Jesus and the history of the Church which has survived for over two thousand years, extended all over the world and comprises one third of the total population.

The alleged virgin birth event was a human event, was it not?

No! It was an event caused by the same power that enables you to think and exist…
Your dogmatic assumption that everything has a human or natural cause is blatantly false.

As such, the same level of evidence is required to accept it.

Your notion of evidence is defective from start to finish. You obviously take it for granted that evidence is based **solely **on what you see, hear, touch, taste and smell… Think again…

The number of believers is irrelevant - argument from numbers is a common fallacy.

It is not only the number, but the fact that they belong to an international organization which has survived for 2000 years, based on the noblest moral teaching known to the world which is reflected in the life and death of Jesus…

The most significant difference is that the astronauts’ mission to the moon was not necessary whereas the mission of Christ was essential. One was for the exploration of space while the other was for the liberation of mankind from the hideous injustice, violence, bloodshed and suffering which afflict so many innocent people. This is the only evidence that really matters in the long run: not what we discover about the moon but what we discover about ourselves… and the need for Christian love in an inhuman society…

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Of course it doesn’t - for some one who regards existence as meaningless, valueless and purposeless. You ignore anything that does not fit into your preconceived scheme of** things** - in which persons are insignificant accidents and freaks of nature.

Just concentrate on the actual question: how does one decide if a claim which is not witnessed by us directly is true or false? The first level is to find out if the claim is sensible or not.

How do you judge whether a claim is sensible or not? By applying scientific criteria? Is that your** sole** criterion of truth? If I claim that your mind doesn’t exist how can you prove it does? What evidence can you produce?

If the claim passes the first test, then we can decide if the witnesses are reliable or not. The virgin birth already fails the first test. Biology tells us that a virgin birth can only produce a genetic equivalent of the mother (barring some mutation - which cannot produce the missing “Y”-chromosomes)

.
You are obviously unaware of the limitations of induction. The fact that an event has never occurred does not prove that it cannot nor will ever occur. Not only that. There is overwhelming medical evidence that miracles have occurred. Obviously such a suggestion will be rejected by a person trapped in the self-imposed prison of the “Nothing exists but physical objects” hypothesis… It does not pay to have a closed mind…

Also the idea that the mother stays a virgin with an unruptured hymen during the birthing process is another ludicrous claim.

Ludicrous to your way of thinking because you reject supernatural events on principle. You who cannot even create life presume to legislate on the limits of possibility as if you have privileged insight into the nature of reality. Your dogmatism knows no bounds…

Where does it leave you? If you have blind, unquestioning faith it would not matter to you (as it obviously does not).

You are merely exhibiting your own blind, unquestioning faith in the power of blind, inanimate, purposeless processes to create rational, purposeful beings - the most colossal metaphysical conjuring trick ever performed… It is a case of the blind being led by the blind - which takes you precisely nowhere! Of course, the more absurd a hypothesis is, the more difficult it is to refute… But in this case it is quite simple. You are cutting your own throat by making the ludicrous claim that reason is ultimately unreasonable - which implies your conclusions are worthless. A dead man tells no tales, at least not in this world…

If someone is skeptical, you can try to offer some evidence - actual evidence for an alleged human event. But no evidence is forthcoming. Tough luck…

If someone is skeptical you are wasting your time and energy. He will only believe what he wants to believe. If his mental horizon is restricted to the things that have no meaning, value or purpose he will never accept any other reality. Tough luck… but there you are - we get precisely what we deserve… whether we like it or not… Believe in cosmic dust and that is all you will ever have… or are…

 

[Think_About_It]

It has everything to do with it> Why don’t you deal with the points I made regarding evidence?

No no, I insist, you first.

 

[Thing]

It does’nt matter. In WSPs’ poll result from Britain 29% of people disbelieved the moon-landing. Equally if the Virgin Birth happened in 1969 and was witnessed and confirmed by NASA scientists one could say 29% of British people would still not believe it happened.

exactly as valid and convincing

And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It does’nt matter. In WSPs’ poll result from Britain 29% of people disbelieved the moon-landing. Equally **if the Virgin Birth happened in 1969 **and was witnessed and confirmed by NASA scientists one could say 29% of British people would still not believe it happened.

thats really about the size of it. there is this implication that events that are closer in time to the present are somehow more likely than events that happened farther out from now. i think this is really just another stab at trying to use scientific credibility as a standard of truth, even though our understanding of science has invalidatd every previous scientific theory. as demonstrated in this link of superseded scientific theories. essentially its the idea that now we have such a complete understanding of science, that we realy have a good idea of what is scientifically credible and what isnt. but as the poster ‘image of G-d’ likes to point out, scientific credibility is all a matter of opinion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

imagine if atheists 200 years ago had made the same claims about scientific credibility? they would be laughed out of the history books. yet nothing has changed. we still change our fundamental understanding of the universe every time we fire up a particle accelerator.

 

[R_Daneel]

Trivial! What a ridiculous response! You think you can evade the issue with an adjective!

Actually I agreed with that portion. Maybe I should have said that “true, but trivial”.

No! It was an event caused by the same power that enables you to think and exist…
Your dogmatic assumption that everything has a human or natural cause is blatantly false.

All you need is a teeny little proof now. It is your dogmatic assertion that there is this Big Daddy up there.

Your notion of evidence is defective from start to finish. You obviously take it for granted that evidence is based **solely **on what you see, hear, touch, taste and smell… Think again…

Not in the cases of past events. And I already stated that, many times.

It is not only the number, but the fact that they belong to an international organization which has survived for 2000 years, based on the noblest moral teaching known to the world which is reflected in the life and death of Jesus…

What does that prove?

How do you judge whether a claim is sensible or not? By applying scientific criteria? Is that your** sole** criterion of truth?

When the event is an actual physical event, yes. Do you have a better method?

You are obviously unaware of the limitations of induction. The fact that an event has never occurred does not prove that it cannot nor will ever occur.

Correct. It does not “prove” it. However, it makes it very unlikely. It has never happened that the same person won the lottery jackpot 100 consecutive times. Such an event is not impossible. At the very least it is not a scientific nonsense. But if you assert that such an event actually happened (and your Biblical claims are much more unlikely than that), you had better come up with evidence, not just your word. I am afraid, you are not that credible.

Ludicrous to your way of thinking because you reject supernatural events on principle.

Give me a convincing evidence, and I will change my mind.

 

[R_Daneel]

I would really like to see the list of all those people who examined Mary’s hymen both before and after the birth of Jesus took place. If I am not mistaken it is a Catholic dogma that Mary stayed a “virgo intacta” during her whole life. Were they the 12 apostles, who became Jesus’s companions even before he was born? That would be a “miracle”! Or who were they? Doctors? Mid-wives?

 

[Think_About_It]

I would really like to see the list of all those people who examined Mary’s hymen both before and after the birth of Jesus took place. If I am not mistaken it is a Catholic dogma that Mary stayed a “virgo intacta” during her whole life. Were they the 12 apostles, who became Jesus’s companions even before he was born? That would be a “miracle”! Or who were they? Doctors? Mid-wives?

You’ve got a double standard for things you consider evidence! Mut-em-ua, Tammuz, Zoroaster, Tukulti-Ninurta II, Ashurbanipal, Ra, Krishna, Karna, Attis, Auge, Dionysus, Horus, Melanippe, and Mithras’ mother’s hymens weren’t examined and we believe those stories as historical fact! If you disblieve one historical event (like Jesus’ virgin birth) and not other virgin births, you’re just pickin’n’choosin’!