Also I would please like to follow up on this. In Part 2 you propose @9:38 [that] “Since no event has ever been definitively identified as a chance event it would seem appropriate to assign a non-naturalistic power or agent as the cause of event that we are now consider abstract”
Yet in Part 3 you invoke quantum mechanics to show that chance events/random sampling are natural scientific explanations for some events that naturally occur in nature. How do you reconcile these 2 positions?
Telemantros, please tell me, how you reconcile Part 3 with your proposition that miracles are a specific event that would not have happened if only the natural order had been operating? @06:09 of part 3 you list several reasons why Spinoza is wrong and yet each of these reasons/interpretations of ‘natural law’ used in your refutation appear to be claiming that ‘miracles’ are in fact natural. In refuting Spinoza have you not also refuted your original proposition? If not, why not? Thank you.
Telemontros excellent video as always. I have one question though, how is the first definition of miracles differ from the fourth definition? Also the faith I happen to believe in (I am not Christian...but hey...we still can be friends :D) state that miracle is something that happens outside the capacity of nature. Do you think this definition fits into either first or fourth definition?
@ahmarsidd Sorry for the very long wait in response. The difference: the fourth definition does not necessarily classify miracles as violations, whereas the first definition does. As for your definition of a miracle, 'outside the capacity of nature' could mean a few things to me: e.g. violates laws, exceptions to the laws, etc. In either case, your definition could fit into definition four, you would just have to explain what a miracle is a little more as I've tried to do in parts 1 and 2.
@Hexdoll I'll provide one in the next video ... and the definition I'm using is in the literature. I don't see how, “…a specific event that would not have happened if only the natural order had been operating, where the natural order is understood to involve physical entities, their interactions, and the actions and interactions of animals, humans, and beings with powers much like ours,” is biased. Extrapolate a little if you want as to how it is?
I only meant that the definition is incorrect. it should be "the appearance of" or we could go to any mental hospital and hear a lot of stories about "Miracles".
I just want you to know that this is very much appreciated. One thing I think most of your long time followers would agree on, please, please, please, lower the volume on your intro, it is often times unbearable
This has been flagged as spam show
Affirming the Antecedent (valid)
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
If there is more than one KOSMOS (P), than God may be finite to one but infinite (unbound) to ours.(Q)
Multiverse theory is NOT FALSE (P) (former conclusion)
Therefore, God may be finite to one (KOSMOS) but infinite (unbound) to ours.
PrinceWalter 4 months ago
Now I understand. I think. Please disregard previous posts.
Hawking Explains Multiverse
watch?v=oFUgMXVj0js
Denying the Consequent (valid)
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P
IF multiverse theory is FALSE (P), THEN the Lord's Kingdom EXISTS FINITELY in THIS KOSMOS. (Q)
John 18:36. "My kingdom is NOT of THIS (Gr.) KOSMOS." (Not Q)
Therefore, multiverse theory is NOT FALSE. (Not P).
PrinceWalter 4 months ago
Comment removed
PrinceWalter 4 months ago
Comment removed
PrinceWalter 4 months ago
Also I would please like to follow up on this. In Part 2 you propose @9:38 [that] “Since no event has ever been definitively identified as a chance event it would seem appropriate to assign a non-naturalistic power or agent as the cause of event that we are now consider abstract”
Yet in Part 3 you invoke quantum mechanics to show that chance events/random sampling are natural scientific explanations for some events that naturally occur in nature. How do you reconcile these 2 positions?
f0xfree 7 months ago
Telemantros, please tell me, how you reconcile Part 3 with your proposition that miracles are a specific event that would not have happened if only the natural order had been operating? @06:09 of part 3 you list several reasons why Spinoza is wrong and yet each of these reasons/interpretations of ‘natural law’ used in your refutation appear to be claiming that ‘miracles’ are in fact natural. In refuting Spinoza have you not also refuted your original proposition? If not, why not? Thank you.
f0xfree 7 months ago
Do you have your script available online somewhere?
BalladoftheWindfish 8 months ago
Telemontros excellent video as always. I have one question though, how is the first definition of miracles differ from the fourth definition? Also the faith I happen to believe in (I am not Christian...but hey...we still can be friends :D) state that miracle is something that happens outside the capacity of nature. Do you think this definition fits into either first or fourth definition?
ahmarsidd 1 year ago
@ahmarsidd Sorry for the very long wait in response. The difference: the fourth definition does not necessarily classify miracles as violations, whereas the first definition does. As for your definition of a miracle, 'outside the capacity of nature' could mean a few things to me: e.g. violates laws, exceptions to the laws, etc. In either case, your definition could fit into definition four, you would just have to explain what a miracle is a little more as I've tried to do in parts 1 and 2.
telemantros 1 year ago
Good vid, looking forward to your analysis.
I hope you will address some particulars:
what biblical miracles to you consider "in play" so to speak.
Are there any that you find compelling?
Are there any that you find the evidence unconvincing?
What extra-biblical miracles do you consider
and broadly how do you find their credibility?
Cheers,
j
jokidder 1 year ago
Great ..I had what I call a miracle myself and made me become christian !
mvp111MCA 1 year ago
I would be more convinced by case example, not a biased reworking of definitions.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
@Hexdoll I'll provide one in the next video ... and the definition I'm using is in the literature. I don't see how, “…a specific event that would not have happened if only the natural order had been operating, where the natural order is understood to involve physical entities, their interactions, and the actions and interactions of animals, humans, and beings with powers much like ours,” is biased. Extrapolate a little if you want as to how it is?
telemantros 1 year ago
@telemantros
I only meant that the definition is incorrect. it should be "the appearance of" or we could go to any mental hospital and hear a lot of stories about "Miracles".
Hexdoll 1 year ago
You should write a book.
TheFaithHunter 1 year ago
Ok you've got my attention, go on...
leawardseif 1 year ago
new subscriber compliments of dasamericanatheist, and you don't disappoint, you make good shit
rphamning 1 year ago
@rphamning Thank you, and thanks for your subscription
telemantros 1 year ago
Why doesn't God heal amputees? :P
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 cause amputees suck....
Graffight 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Grrrrrr : D
telemantros 1 year ago
I just want you to know that this is very much appreciated. One thing I think most of your long time followers would agree on, please, please, please, lower the volume on your intro, it is often times unbearable
simsimaz2 1 year ago 4
@simsimaz2 I'll have to fix that, thanks for the fyi
telemantros 1 year ago
..fluke... I love it!
ZenCross1 1 year ago
@ZenCross1 : )
telemantros 1 year ago