Moon landing vs. vrigin birth!

[warpspeedpetey]

This entire discussion is absurd. The moon landing and virgin birth are not comparable!

There is no scientific evidence that a virgin birth “could happen” and there never will be because it can’t happen natrually. It never has and never will. However, it can happen supernatrually i.e. by a miracle. If a virgin birth could happen, then why was Mary so shocked to hear she was pregnant? Of course there is no evidence for a virgin birth, so why should we be looking for any? Christians believe in the virgin birth not because science allows it but because we trust in God’s ability to break physical laws and we trust in the Bible.

The moon landing has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

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…&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/12…sized-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

 

[R_Daneel]

if thats the case, the fact that the sun has risen billions of times makes it highly unlikely it wont, but we know that it one day will not.

No, you don’t know that. Using the current example, the sun will not “come up”, when the whole Solar system will be destroyed as the sun will go nova. But, up until that point, the rotation of the Earth (which is expressed as: “the sun is rising”) will keep happening. The rotation of the Earth will NOT stop suddenly.

induction doesnt mean anything with quadrillions of experiments, because they can all be shown false with just one observation.

So where is your one observation? As I offered to you and syntax before, put your money where your mouth is. Pluck down the money and make your bet. I bet that the “sun will rise tomorrow” and I am willing to bet ten thousand dollars on it. Are you willing to bet your ten thousand dollars that it will not? Words are cheap, money talks.

 

[R_Daneel]

so let me get this straight, instead of admitting im right, a male virgin birth is conceivable. you just think of the most inflammatory thing to say, hoping to distract from the fact that your postion is wrong?

Why would it be inflammatory? You said that ANY magic WILL be repeatable by a sufficiently advances science. Are you backpedaling again?

 

[R_Daneel]

There’s a missing poll option here. You only have two choices.

You forgot:

• The evidence for virgin birth is more valid and certain than the evidence for the moon landing, because God Himself testifies to it rather than man.

Where does God testify for it? Do you have evidence for this testmony?

 

[R_Daneel]

This entire discussion is absurd. The moon landing and virgin birth are not comparable!

There is no scientific evidence that a virgin birth “could happen” and there never will be because it can’t happen natrually. It never has and never will. However, it can happen supernatrually i.e. by a miracle. If a virgin birth could happen, then why was Mary so shocked to hear she was pregnant? Of course there is no evidence for a virgin birth, so why should we be looking for any? Christians believe in the virgin birth not because science allows it but because we trust in God’s ability to break physical laws and we trust in the Bible.

The moon landing has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

Thank you! At last a voice of correct thinking.

 

[Thing]

No, you don’t know that. Using the current example, the sun will not “come up”, when the whole Solar system will be destroyed as the sun will go nova. But, up until that point, the rotation of the Earth (which is expressed as: “the sun is rising”) will keep happening. The rotation of the Earth will NOT stop suddenly.

So where is your one observation? As I offered to you and syntax before, put your money where your mouth is. Pluck down the money and make your bet. I bet that the “sun will rise tomorrow” and I am willing to bet ten thousand dollars on it. Are you willing to bet your ten thousand dollars that it will not? Words are cheap, money talks.

“Once inside the Sun’s atmosphere, the Earth will collide with particles of gas. Its orbit will decay, and it will spiral inward” - here

…I think the earth will stop spining before the sun is destroyed totally.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, you don’t know that. Using the current example, the sun will not “come up”, when the whole Solar system will be destroyed as the sun will go nova. But, up until that point, the rotation of the Earth (which is expressed as: “the sun is rising”) will keep happening. The rotation of the Earth will NOT stop suddenly.

no one said the rotation of the earth will stop, i said the sun wont come up. which, one day we know it will not. the sun will evetually burn out and there will be no sunrise, give it a few more cosmological decades and protons will decay and matter will literally evaporate.

yes, even the bare rotation of the earth will stop.

So where is your one observation? As I offered to you and syntax before, put your money where your mouth is. Pluck down the money and make your bet. I bet that the “sun will rise tomorrow” and I am willing to bet ten thousand dollars on it. Are you willing to bet your ten thousand dollars that it will not? Words are cheap, money talks.

why would i bet against any one observation occuring at a specific time? just because it probably wont happen tomorrow says nothing about its eventuality.

here is a real bet. you bet the sun will always rise, as you are implying, and i will bet that is not the case. see who wins. or is does money not talk anymore?

see, you are just trying to bet the observation will not occur tomorrow as an implication that it will never occur. that implication is obviously false

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why would it be inflammatory?

because you are saying things that are intentionally blasphemous to Catholics. in order to distract from your demonstrably incorrect assertion.

You said that ANY magic WILL be repeatable by a sufficiently advances science.

there is no such thing as magic. there are only processes we dont understand yet. you may not like it but you cant deny it, and it puts a huge hole in your cherished belief.

**Clarke’s Third Law

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”**

Are you backpedaling again?

what do you mean again? that word requires it to have happened in the first place.

 

[R_Daneel]

because you are saying things that are intentionally blasphemous to Catholics.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I do not accept the concept of “blasphemy”. Thank the Good Lord, the Dark Ages now over, and “blasphemy” is not a crime any more.

there is no such thing as magic. there are only processes we dont understand yet. you may not like it but you cant deny it, and it puts a huge hole in your cherished belief.

We don’t understand God’s DNA yet? So one day we shall understand it… and then we can create our own “messiahs” at will. That is what you say.

Clarke’s Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

First, this is not a law of nature, it is but a cute phrase - without any significance. Second, it does not imply that its reverse is true: “Any magic is the result of a sufficiently advanced technology”. What is so hard about this that keeps evading you?

what do you mean again? that word requires it to have happened in the first place.

All the time. You were backpedaling in the challenge I issued to you, and you are not willing to substantiate your claim. Anyone can see that.

 

[R_Daneel]

why would i bet against any one observation occuring at a specific time? just because it probably wont happen tomorrow says nothing about its eventuality.

You said that past observations do not give any assurance that the same process will happen again. So put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, just shut up.

here is a real bet. you bet the sun will always rise, as you are implying, and i will bet that is not the case. see who wins. or is does money not talk anymore?

You don’t understand anything at all. Sure, eventually the Sun will go nova, or burn out… but we can predict with an **almost **100% probability that this event will **NOT **happen tomorrow - contrary to what you imply.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I do not accept the concept of “blasphemy”. Thank the Good Lord, the Dark Ages now over, and “blasphemy” is not a crime any more.

it illustrates your cognitive dissonance. you dont like being proven wrong. your reaction isnt to admit it but to try to distract by saying inflammatory things hoping it will go away. but it wont. you

We don’t understand God’s DNA yet? So one day we shall understand it… and then we can create our own “messiahs” at will. That is what you say.

again with the false statements. please post where i said those exact words. more cognitive dissonance.

First, this is not a law of nature, it is but a cute phrase - without any significance

.

actually historical contact between advanced civilizations and stone age cultures show si to be true.

Second, it does not imply that its reverse is true: “Any magic is the result of a sufficiently advanced technology”. What is so hard about this that keeps evading you?

since there is no such thing as magic, thats a meaningless statment, unless you have some evidence that magic exists.

(this is so sweet, i just put an atheist in the position of proving magic exists)

All the time. You were backpedaling in the challenge I issued to you, and you are not willing to substantiate your claim. Anyone can see that.

no i didnt. you arent willing to agree to a simple fair playing field, which every one can see. you didnt really think that calling impossible standrds reasonable was going to work did you?

any time you want to argue the epistemological issues or agree to the fix i suggested im willing to debate it. but you have refused to do either one, so its clear, you are refusing fair debate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You said that past observations do not give any assurance that the same process will happen again.

and there is no assurance that it will happen again. its still the problem of induction.

So put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, just shut up.

i am, if i won there would be no way to collect. after all if the sun goes out, we will all be dead shortly.

You don’t understand anything at all. Sure, eventually the Sun will go nova, or burn out… but we can predict with an **almost **100% probability that this event will **NOT **happen tomorrow - contrary to what you imply.

where did i imply that?, i said.

if thats the case, the fact that the sun has risen billions of times makes it highly unlikely it wont, but we know that it one day will not.

as you can plainly see, i didnt imply ‘tomorrow’. but even if i had, there is still no gauruntee that the sun will rise tomorrow. none.

silly attempts to bet on it aside, there is not gauruntee to induction.

 

[kepha1]

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.

Well said, Sarp. That’s why I didn’t vote.
I remember watching the moon landing in 1969, on a remoteless black and white TV on a school night. I did not watch the life of Our Blessed Mom on TV, but I have no problem believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary than anything else I have not directly investigated for myself.

Religious faith in the reasonable and Catholic sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible. This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man knocked down by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the evening paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others. If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say. We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth’s surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our perambulations through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

Now, who will say that such faith, such willingness to accept testimony, is unscientific, or unworthy of a rational being? Who will suggest that it is not based on sound intellectual principles? It may not be easy for you to trace the process whereby you have come to believe without any doubt in the existence of Jupiter’s satellites, or of icebergs in the Antarctic, or of Hitler or Mussolini. The evidence has come through many almost imperceptible channels, but is such that it excludes all doubt from your mind. If you analyze the process, it comes to this: You convince yourself by direct examination or reasoning of the reliability of the witness; then you accept his testimony as true. Two things must be clear to you about the witness -
(1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts;
(2) that he is telling the truth.

In other words, that he is not deceived himself, nor wants to deceive you. In a court of law, the judge and jury must test these two points:
-Is the witness truthful?
-Has he knowledge of the facts?
Once they are convinced of these two things, then they accept his evidence, and believe his statements to be true.

To a Catholic believer Faith is just this process. It is not conjecture, nor is it credulity. It means assenting to the truth of certain facts on the evidence of a reliable witness, the witness in this case being God Himself. That the facts (e.g., the Trinity, Incarnation, the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ) are beyond our ken and cannot be directly tested by us is no more a difficulty to our accepting them (when the evidence is sufficient) than my inability to investigate directly the murder of Julius Caesar or the execution of Mary Queen of Scots militates against my belief that these two eminent persons met with violent deaths.

 

[R_Daneel]

and there is no assurance that it will happen again. its still the problem of induction.

Maybe you don’t know what “assurance” is.

i am, if i won there would be no way to collect. after all if the sun goes out, we will all be dead shortly.

The first sensible thing I have **ever **read from you.

as you can plainly see, i didnt imply ‘tomorrow’. but even if i had, there is still no gauruntee that the sun will rise tomorrow. none.

Who speaks of guarantee? I said there is an almost 100% probability. Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance if you are unable to see the difference.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well said, Sarp. That’s why I didn’t vote.
I remember watching the moon landing in 1969, on a remoteless black and white TV on a school night. I did not watch the life of Our Blessed Mom on TV, but I have no problem believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary than anything else I have not directly investigated for myself.

Religious faith in the reasonable and Catholic sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible. This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man knocked down by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the evening paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others. If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say. We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth’s surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our perambulations through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

Now, who will say that such faith, such willingness to accept testimony, is unscientific, or unworthy of a rational being? Who will suggest that it is not based on sound intellectual principles? It may not be easy for you to trace the process whereby you have come to believe without any doubt in the existence of Jupiter’s satellites, or of icebergs in the Antarctic, or of Hitler or Mussolini. The evidence has come through many almost imperceptible channels, but is such that it excludes all doubt from your mind. If you analyze the process, it comes to this: You convince yourself by direct examination or reasoning of the reliability of the witness; then you accept his testimony as true. Two things must be clear to you about the witness -
(1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts;
(2) that he is telling the truth.

In other words, that he is not deceived himself, nor wants to deceive you. In a court of law, the judge and jury must test these two points:
-Is the witness truthful?
-Has he knowledge of the facts?
Once they are convinced of these two things, then they accept his evidence, and believe his statements to be true.

To a Catholic believer Faith is just this process. It is not conjecture, nor is it credulity. It means assenting to the truth of certain facts on the evidence of a reliable witness, the witness in this case being God Himself. That the facts (e.g., the Trinity, Incarnation, the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ) are beyond our ken and cannot be directly tested by us is no more a difficulty to our accepting them (when the evidence is sufficient) than my inability to investigate directly the murder of Julius Caesar or the execution of Mary Queen of Scots militates against my belief that these two eminent persons met with violent deaths.

This is all very nice. But there is a deeper problem. How do you decide if that witness really saw what he claims to have seen? And how do you decide if the witness is telling the truth? Next, we all know about the “whisper story” problem. The orally transmitted stories get distorted while being told over and over again. There is no conscious intent to distort, it is just a fact. And there are no first-hand witnesses reporting what they allegedly saw. All the biblical stories were orally transmited for decades.

To use your observation about the legal system, only first hand witness testimonies are ever allowed, all the others (I heard, that he heard, that she heard…) are excluded from the process. Guess why? Because we all know (or should know) that hearsay testimony is very dubious.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe you don’t know what “assurance” is.

play word games if you like, but there is still no guaruntee of the next inductive observation conforming to the previous.

The first sensible thing I have **ever **read from you.

you here sense from me all the time, it just doesnt usually comport with your worldview.

Who speaks of guarantee? I said there is an almost 100% probability. Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance if you are unable to see the difference.

if you really feel this way, then why are you arguing with me about induction?

 

[R_Daneel]

play word games if you like, but there is still no guaruntee of the next inductive observation conforming to the previous.

Guarantee and assurance are not synonyms.

if you really feel this way, then why are you arguing with me about induction?

I am not arguing with you, you argue with me. We all count on the unifomity of nature, we all count on the fact that the floor under our feet will not suddenly disappear (though it minght - in an Earthquake). We all count on the fact that our past experiences give a good assurance that the next event will conform with our experiences. You, do it, too. It is a fact that it is not a 100% guarantee. So what? There is not 100% guarantee in nature. However, there are assumptions which are better established than others. And that is what you have been denying all along. The moon landing is established with a plethora of physical and first-hand testimonial evidence. The virgin birth is just a legend, and it rests solely and only on hearsay evidence. You attempt to argue away the difference, which proves (with 100% guarantee) that you are irrational.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is all very nice. But there is a deeper problem. How do you decide if that witness really saw what he claims to have seen? And how do you decide if the witness is telling the truth?

as in absolutely every historical event, you simply have to trust them. from the moonlanding, to the Virgin Birth.

Next, we all know about the “whisper story” problem. The orally transmitted stories get distorted while being told over and over again. There is no conscious intent to distort, it is just a fact.

we have all played the whisper game. but this isnt the same situation. not just a series of individuals, but entire communities transmitted what the Jesus and the Apostels had taught. those people and communities were easily alive through the recording of the Gospels. simply being oral tradition, does not mean there is any flaw in that transmission. especially considering the short time periods involved.

And there are no first-hand witnesses reporting what they allegedly saw. All the biblical stories were orally transmited for decades.

Matthew, Mark and John are eyewitness works. Luke is a contemporary historian.

the idea that there were no eyewitnesses is entirely false.

To use your observation about the legal system, only first hand witness testimonies are ever allowed, all the others (I heard, that he heard, that she heard…) are excluded from the process. Guess why? Because we all know (or should know) that hearsay testimony is very dubious.

hearsay testimony is not false simply because it is hearsay. for instance, when we have witness statement as to what a suspect said, and we have another 2 or 3 that agree with that, we have a case.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Guarantee and assurance are not synonyms.

and what does that have to do with the problem of induction? nothing. you have no gauruntee, assurance, knowledge, or any other similar adjective that the next inductive observaqtion will comport with the previous.

I am not arguing with you, you argue with me. We all count on the unifomity of nature, we all count on the fact that the floor under our feet will not suddenly disappear (though it minght - in an Earthquake). We all count on the fact that our past experiences give a good assurance that the next event will conform with our experiences. You, do it, too. It is a fact that it is not a 100% guarantee. So what?There is not 100% guarantee in nature.

the ‘so what’ is the problem of induction. you cant escape it. it is simply inherent to the inductive process

However, there are assumptions which are better established than others. And that is what you have been denying all along.

not at all. im denying that the basis for rejection of Biblical claims is rational.

The moon landing is established with a plethora of physical and first-hand testimonial evidence.

no its not. there is no indisputable physical evidence. we can show ways that it might well have been faked.

there are only 12 first hand witnesses who walked on the moon, and only 27 people orbited the moon.

but here is where your double standard kicks in.

for you the thousands who watched a rocket launch and the millions who watched the moonlanding on TV are eyewitnesses. yet clearly they didnt witenss the actual moonlanding at all.

The virgin birth is just a legend,

on what do you base this assertion?

and it rests solely and only on hearsay evidence.

hardly, it relies on the Blessed Mothers testimony.

You attempt to argue away the difference, which proves (with 100% guarantee) that you are irrational.

and the fact that you think there is a significant difference shows the same of you

 

[Ancient_Magicks]

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.

Metaphysics? In other words an aspect of philosophy that’s constantly being criticized for being structured to give theologians references to when attempting to rationalize occurences that are unscientific, with a claim that they are supposedly above phyics.

For that evidence to even be admitted one has to accept metaphysics as valid.