inference of a multiverse more plausible now: dark flow (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 07, 2011, 15:33 (5067 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > In the case of christianity, we have no evidence that resurrection is possible. But it turns out that that the entire religion turns upon that single claim being true. It defies reason and experience. It is in THIS kind of claim that a scientist can ask, "What is you evidence for this claim?"
> > 
> > But note the semantical difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' and you should understand the nuance of my thinking more clearly...
> 
> 
> Modern medical science brings people back from the dead every day. So, I think we can certainly say that resurrection is a likely scenario, without delving into the realm of mysticism. What the finite limits are on that, though, we really do not know at this point. 
> -Feel free to search PubMed for "decedent spontaneously awoke after three days in the morgue."
It is safe to conclude that the reurrection didn't happen simply based on the fact that modern resurrection stories usually do not reference "blood flow had stopped for three days." It does allow us to frame the resurrection this way: Semantically. Not as a literally true event. Again, anyone who has studied the bible learns that the material world (what science studies) is clearly not the point of that book.-> As for the other, it seems that the classification of evidence is often in the eye of the beholder. What one scientist sees as evidence for the big bang, another sees as evidence for the plasma universe model, what one sees as evidence for creation, another sees as evidence for evolution.-And this is (again) where you run into my stipulation that the arguments are over normative epistemology and not about events. Two parties must agree on at least these points:-1. What is acceptable material evidence.
2. What is acceptable word of mouth evidence.
3. The role of rhetoric.-After you have this, you need to agree on an interpretive framework.-Disagrements are due to these things and not at all over the actual material.-You can of course disagree once all these criterion are met, but at that point its about making the best case for your position.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"