Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're saying. That non-believers should not get involved unless invited to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

I said basically the opposite (gee, David said this to me once - scary thought or maybe I am getting smarter from this forum.)

The debate, discussion, challenge, whatever we want to call it was initiated from an original post from David.

I am saying an agnostic invited the believer to the discussion table. For the atheist to slam believers who are tying to hold a civilized discourse is disingenuous (sorry, I loathe that word but can’t think of a better one right now).

Certainly, the discussion should remain as logical as possible given the restraints of the subject matter.

RJT

p.s. Regarding other threads about ethics, etc: post ‘em. If they are interesting then they’ll recieve responses. The space on the forum is, figuratively speaking, infinite. I would suggest that the poster who suggested this to begin with, r2vbr, start first by reviewing David’s threads on dogs and babies and babies in Africa. He has some good points, especially his notion of “sins” of omission. Once up to speed, new ethical questions will not go unnoticed.

[lotus776]

It is true, Catholics are more accepting of scientific exploration than protestants.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
An analogy of how the debate should be:

Two blind people are standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that Jesus (or anyone: prophet, philosopher, certain text, one’s moral sense) told me the wall is white. Since I am blind I will go with whom/what I think may have a better grasp of the color of the wall.

Person B says I will wait until science or death can show me what color the wall is.

Person B then says - let’s talk about how you, Person A, have come to your decision.



[/ QUOTE ] Two blind people are standing. Person A comments that another blind person (jesus, other prophet, philosopher, certain text, one’s moral sense) told me the wall there is a wall and the wall is white.

Person B says It's EXTREMELY unlikey that there is a white wall. It's slightly LESS EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a wall. Person B says that this two things are fact, and wishes to help person A see that.

Person B then says - let’s talk about how you, Person A, have come to your decision.

Persons CDE join in. There is no wall. There is no white. There is a white wall that is also a door and a window. And you must believe in the door to pass go and collect 200$.

Person B say again It's EXTREMELY unlikey that there is a white wall. It's slightly LESS EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a wall.


I think this is slightly closer of an anology. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

[RJT]

Where you been doug? Haven’t seen you in a while.

Anyway, I will say that your analogy is definitely more like the discussion here than mine. I think though, yours has at least this one flaw when describing how the discussion should begin. Let’s talk about this one flaw first then we can analyze the rest.

[ QUOTE ]
It's slightly LESS EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a wall.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you come to this likelihood? I say we objectively should start at 50/50. (We might have to change the analogy from wall to say the wind and which direction it comes from if the blind don't know which direction they are facing - or some other type of movement - a wall isn't exact to the situation.)

RJT

p.s. We'll start a new thread on this if you agree it needs refining.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I say we objectively should start at 50/50. </font>

This is what completely amazes me. How can one be so indredibly presumptious to think that a reasonable starting point is to assume a 50% probablity of any one thing being in front of them if they are BLIND?!! Would there also be a 50/50 chance they are standing in front of a picture of the Mona Lisa? How about a duck? Or a vat of ice cream?

The chance that ANY ONE thing will be the thing you are standing in front of is EXTREMELY unlikely!! Albeit, less unlikely than the chances you managed to have nailed both the thing AND the color.

[RJT]

Stat,

Didn't you read my post? That is why I said the analogy really needs to be changed to something that has movement - i.e. the Universe got started or was always in motion.

We need to change the analogy, but have a similar one with 2 blind people.

RJT

[PrayingMantis]

Here is an analogy for you:

2 persons A and B stand in front of a wall. Person A says: "Here's a wall". Person B says: "Here's a wall that was created by a giant hypopothamus some 4000 years ago (the BOOK says so). Now we must not eat ants and fish so that the giant hypopothamus won't put us in his little stinky cave and fry us for ever and ever."

There's no meaning in even assigning a probability to what person B is saying. It's not even EXTREMELY unlikely. It is just as unlikely as any other crazy story you might want to believe with regard to that wall. There is an infinite number of such possible stories.

[RJT]

PM,

You switched around A and B – A was the believer, now B is – but that is ok. No harm done. I follow your order.

The analogy keeps changing – I don’t care what the analogy is. Let’s just first agree on an analogy and how to state it. I wasn’t trying to give a probability of Religion. My 50/50 was probability of God exists.

We need an analogy to this: The universe exists. It either got there or was always there. If it got there how did it get there. Different “myths” (to defer to what I assume is a word you would prefer) are given by one person. The other gives no opinion.

So the items in the analogy must correspond to God, the Universe, Religion and Man(person A and B, and C if we need him).

I am at work, so if you have the time (you certainly have the wherewithal to state it best) perhaps you can do this? I think it would be helpful to start a new thread. This will put the whole thing in perspective. All I am trying to do is get on track how the discussion should go instead of how it sometimes goes here on the forum.

RJT

[PrayingMantis]

RJT,

I suggest you do initiate a new thread. The idea should be to find the "best" analogy for the general situation/problem/issue discussed here. I think that if _you_ initiate it (rather then me), it might get somewhat less hostile replies... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[RJT]

PM,

Cool. I do think it is worth a new thread. I mean if we get a good analogy it will help keep things in perspective. Quick question - maybe this is something to be discussed in the new thread. But, I just started thinking that maybe my 50/50 is not viewed by others the same. Do we agree that God/no God (without getting into definition of God - call it prime mover , creator, whatever) should be viewed as 50/50? If you can answer this before I start the new thread I think it might save time there. If you disagree on 50/50 then we'll leave details to new thread. I'll work on it after work this evening.

RJT