|
|
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:12:23 GMT, "Daniel T." <daniel_t@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Daniel T." <daniel_t@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything
>> > > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula.
>> > > Does that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The
>> > > existance of microscopic organisms was not recognized for
>> > > centuries before the invention of the microscope. Does that
>> > > mean they did not exist before they were discovered?
>> >
>> > These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic
>> > organisms until after they were discovered.
>> >
>> They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless,
>> they were very real.
>
>Right.
And unlike God, they weren't plucked out of thin air, but were
announced after they had been observed under a primitive microscope,
Why do so many of them use this kind of invalid analogy?
What do they imagine it tells us?
>> > Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural?
>>
>> A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by
>> supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye
>> etc. But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye)
>> microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has changed
>> except our understanding and our ability to incorporate our
>> knowledge into prevention and cures.
And the knowledge was acquired through a process of observation and
investigation.
Perhaps the poster would like to explain the process of observation
and investigation that led to the conclusion of God, without any
presumptions about it.
>> An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time might see
>> this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent Americans have
>> absolutely no idea how TVs works, but would feel highly superior to
>> the superstitious primitive who might think it works by magic, but
>> has only a slightly better understanding of its workings. The fact
>> that science doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could
>> possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present time.
But demonstrate a TV to them and they will accept it.
Perhaps the poster should demonstrate this thing he calls "God" in the
same way. Point to it.
>Exactly. So many times, things that we thought were supernatural turned
>out to have natural explanations. Are you sure you want to assert that
>the things you currently think are supernatural will never have any sort
>of natural explanation? Are you like that "out of touch" TV watcher?
>
>> > > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which
>> > > come true.
>> >
>> > People win the lottery too.
>>
>> Sure, but this proves only good luck.
>
>That's all intuition is...
|
|