Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:21 pm
A self-fulfilling prophecy is NOT a miracle. It's a bunch of people who believe a book thousands of years old and then takeover and push residents out of a piece of land because their "God" wants them to (according to them).
Can you explain it scientifically? No you can't.
Does it have agency beyond the laws of physics? Yes it does.
It's a miracle. By definition.
Do you even know what logic is?
I do. I also know what constraint satisfaction is.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:23 pm
Can you explain it scientifically? No you can't.
Does it have agency beyond the laws of physics? Yes it does.
It's a miracle. By definition.
Do you even know what logic is?
I do. I also know what constraint satisfaction is.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:40 pm
People are not machines. Stop trying to use machine language to explain us. You're conflating two different things into one.
I am using Mathematics to explain the idea of "constraint satisfaction".
Mathematics is not "machine language" - it's as human as any other human language.
If you learn to speak it.
No conflation happening.
There is the Oxford definition of "miracle".
There are real-world phenomena which are not understood or explained by science which satisfy the Oxford definition of "miracle"; which means those phenomena can be reasonably characterised using the English word "miracles".
So miracles exist. The end.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 2:54 pm
Nothing will. The point is that it's always possible to invent an alternate explanation for anything. One can even go to lengths of appealing to the miraculous in order to deny the miraculous: as when Atheists say that this universe happened by accident.
The sort of explaining one chooses for a given case is sometimes more a reflection of one's moral disposition than of the facts.
This is the trick of all Evolutionary reasoning.
If you pluralize the context enough then luck explains everything.
Yes. And if you keep stretching the timespan, then even the absurd starts to look possible.
If a fish became a man yesterday, that's absurd. If a fish became a man over a million years, then that becomes "science"?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:40 pm
People are not machines. Stop trying to use machine language to explain us. You're conflating two different things into one.
I am using Mathematics to explain the idea of "constraint satisfaction".
Mathematics is not "machine language" - it's as human as any other human language.
If you learn to speak it.
No conflation happening.
There is the Oxford definition of "miracle".
There are real-world phenomena which are not understood or explained by science which satisfy the Oxford definition of "miracle".
So miracles exist. The end.
Fair enough. The Bible is the one true book. Go read it before you lose your soul. Happy?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 2:54 pm
One can even go to lengths of appealing to the miraculous in order to deny the miraculous: as when Atheists say that this universe happened by accident.
The ultimate origin of the universe, and the processes that enabled it to come into being, are unknown to all of us, so anyone who says it happened this way or that way, or it came about by accident or was deliberate, are either speculating or lying; unless their explanation is religious, in which case they are victims of deceit.
Or, the possibility you didn't include: that the Creator tells them what He did. But I'm sure you're not even going to entertain that one...
That's your problem. You'd rather choose "whatever" than make your own life better. You're stabbing yourself in the back, constantly, and then blaming the God you claim you don't believe in.
Everybody here sees it. Only you don't.
And every other person on here sees your lying conniving and fallacious twisting of the English language to "prove" that your book is the "one truth".
Let's say that's so. It won't fix your life. And for you, it's your life that is always the problem, Gary.
Stop blaming everybody else, and fix yourself. If you can't, get help until you can. That's the very kindest advice I can possibly give you. Whatever you think you're getting out of spending all your time here, it's the opposite of what you claim you really want for your life, and it's taking up all the time and energy you need in order to make your own life better.
Get off the computer and into therapy. You'll thank me later.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:40 pm
People are not machines. Stop trying to use machine language to explain us. You're conflating two different things into one.
I am using Mathematics to explain the idea of "constraint satisfaction".
Mathematics is not "machine language" - it's as human as any other human language.
If you learn to speak it.
No conflation happening.
There is the Oxford definition of "miracle".
There are real-world phenomena which are not understood or explained by science which satisfy the Oxford definition of "miracle".
So miracles exist. The end.
Fair enough. The Bible is the one true book. Go read it before you lose your soul. Happy?
Funny you should mention truth...
It's one of those constraint satisfaction things again.
If a book satisfies your constraints for whatever it is you call "true" then the book is true.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:47 pm
I am using Mathematics to explain the idea of "constraint satisfaction".
Mathematics is not "machine language" - it's as human as any other human language.
If you learn to speak it.
No conflation happening.
There is the Oxford definition of "miracle".
There are real-world phenomena which are not understood or explained by science which satisfy the Oxford definition of "miracle".
So miracles exist. The end.
Fair enough. The Bible is the one true book. Go read it before you lose your soul. Happy?
Funny you should mention truth...
It's one of those constraint satisfaction things again.
If a book satisfies your constraints for whatever it is you call "true" then the book is true.
Is "constraint satisfaction" an example of "constraint satisfaction"?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 2:54 pm
One can even go to lengths of appealing to the miraculous in order to deny the miraculous: as when Atheists say that this universe happened by accident.
The ultimate origin of the universe, and the processes that enabled it to come into being, are unknown to all of us, so anyone who says it happened this way or that way, or it came about by accident or was deliberate, are either speculating or lying; unless their explanation is religious, in which case they are victims of deceit.
Or, the possibility you didn't include: that the Creator tells them what He did. But I'm sure you're not even going to entertain that one...
Yes, IC. God picks a few people that he likes, the rest of us are scum and "unbelievers".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 2:54 pm
One can even go to lengths of appealing to the miraculous in order to deny the miraculous: as when Atheists say that this universe happened by accident.
The ultimate origin of the universe, and the processes that enabled it to come into being, are unknown to all of us, so anyone who says it happened this way or that way, or it came about by accident or was deliberate, are either speculating or lying; unless their explanation is religious, in which case they are victims of deceit.
Or, the possibility you didn't include: that the Creator tells them what He did. But I'm sure you're not even going to entertain that one...
When the creator tells them how he did it, I will entertain it.
