Another go at miracles, responding to Sisyphusredeemed and Tooltime9901

Either I will upload my series on Metaphysics next for my DoC series, or I will respond to HonestDiscussioner

Sisyphusredeemed's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30xTjoJ8YMQ

Tooltime's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb42IkkB6qM

Category:

Education

Tags:

• miracles
• tooltime9901
• sisyphusredeemed
• david
• hume

[domatron42]

Doesn't the peer review process kind of put the testimony of science above ordinary testimony?

[migkillertwo]

so testimony+testimony=/= testimony?

[urbster1]

goddamnit you're an idiot!

[migkillertwo]

seriously, why should I not block you for such inflammatory, and substance-less comments?

[domatron42]

No, testimony+a crapload of scrutiny from a group qualified experts on a particular area+independent testing/verification=/=testimo­ny

[AtheismandSkepticism]

The difference between scientific testimony is that we are also told the method and how to observe it ourself.

You must see the difference between a scientific paper in which the abstract was "The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 ms^-2, because it was revealed to me in private by god and you just got to trust me on this".

and: "The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 ms^-2, Here's the method, the calculations and you can go and observe it yourself if you want."

[SN0vvM4N8]

ok you say science comes from testimony which is true but its also able to be seen right before you. That is what makes science so powerful is that you can see a reaction according to a catalyst that u have induced to whatever process you're viewing. Testimony proves nothing anyways. This is like the allegory of the cave by Plato. One should believe another only because he has not seen or experienced what the other is telling him. Faulty at best

[archon88]

You seem to have confused science with law - "testimony" sensu stricto plays no part in the former (or at any rate I've yet to read a paper that simply asserts that certain observations were made, and asks for the readers' credulity on this point).

[Savagery34]

Equating "science" to "testimony" has got to be one the silliest things I've ever seen a christian do on youtube.

Saying Dawkins implied the state should remove children from their homes for being labeled Catholic is pretty silly too.

[VyckRo]

Science can only claim, that one day can explain everything.

[JetpackNinjaDinosaur]

Peer reviewed scientific journals beat hearsay and poorly developed arguments any day.

[JetpackNinjaDinosaur]

Is it fair to assume you are a christian? If what you say is true then you sir should be an atheist since you cannot know either way.

[JetpackNinjaDinosaur]

The default position of everything that you have no evidence for is disbelief because if you held a belief in everything that can't be proven to not exist then you would believe in every god and every superstition ever conceived.

Is that good enough or do you want more?

WRONG. If you claim there is an invisible toaster in your pants and I say "prove it" why is it fair to make me prove that you don't when it is you who asserts the claim. This all boils down to the burden of proof.