Upload
Login or register

kingnicholas

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:1/24/2011
Last Login:12/08/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#15482
Highest Content Rank:#25249
Highest Comment Rank:#12062
Content Thumbs: 36 total,  58 ,  22
Comment Thumbs: 326 total,  456 ,  130
Content Level Progress: 67.79% (40/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 131 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 132 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:3239
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:232
FJ Points:343

latest user's comments

#49 - You are correct about empirical being measured. Sorry I'm real…  [+] (2 replies) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... +1
User avatar
#51 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
If you day that something is outside natural law you still have the burden of proof to show that claim to be true.
#50 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I got to get up in 4 hours so I need to sleep. This was a great conversation. If you want to continue tomorrow I'm game. Of not let's just agree to disagree.
#46 - I fully accept the possibility that what my friend has related…  [+] (4 replies) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... +1
User avatar
#48 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
No, empirical means 'measured' not 'experienced'. Anecdotes are not evidence. Experiments can be done multiple times independently to verify if their outcomes are really true. Anyone can make up a story.

At Lourdes there have been fewer people to be cured of their illnesses than would have happened by random natural chance.
#49 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
You are correct about empirical being measured. Sorry I'm really tired. Anyways while it doesn't fit with empirical evidence anecdotes are still a form of evidence. Anecdotes are used all the time as evidence in our day to day beliefs. Evidence is just something that supports a claim. Now I fully recognize that not all evidence is created equal. And I don't base my faith on my friends testimony. But it is still something that supports my claim. I don't put forward this evidence to convince you that my claim is true, but merely that evidence exists.
While not on official miracle I find the testimony of Alexis Carrol at Lourdes to be too fantastical, in my limited medical knowledge, to be of a natural explanation.
As well, in regards to using empirical methods in miracles, one is going to come against many obstacles. Firstly, the supernatural cannot actually be measured since all instruments are meant to measure natural things. Secondly, empirical measurements are premised by the idea that the universe follows certain "laws". Supernatural is by definition outside these laws. So it is true we can never prove miracles exist by empirical standards that is not based upon miracles not existing but the limits of the empirical method.
User avatar
#51 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
If you day that something is outside natural law you still have the burden of proof to show that claim to be true.
#50 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I got to get up in 4 hours so I need to sleep. This was a great conversation. If you want to continue tomorrow I'm game. Of not let's just agree to disagree.
#43 - Sorry I should have replied on this comment.  [+] (1 reply) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... 0
User avatar
#45 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Lol. It's cool matey.
#42 - One example of evidence is personal. My friend has experienced…  [+] (6 replies) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... +1
User avatar
#44 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Personal anecdotes are NOT evidence. These 'demonic' sorts of events always have ration explanations behind them. The 'miracles' at Lourdes are non-existent as well.

#46 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I fully accept the possibility that what my friend has related to me is either bullshit or natural explanation, it is still nevertheless evidence. All empirical evidence must be anecdotal by virtue of the fact that empirical means experienced. Someone must of experienced it and related it. Sometimes the evidence is very well done as in the profession of science but it is not by necessity so.
In regards to the Lourdes miracles it is true that they are not scientifically proven to be miracles since science cannot prove anything but all possible (theoretically) natural explanations have been eliminated thus the null hypothesis may be reasonably be rejected. As well the board of doctors at Lourdes is not only Christian but many faiths ( technically that is a fallacious argument but still good to point out)
User avatar
#48 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
No, empirical means 'measured' not 'experienced'. Anecdotes are not evidence. Experiments can be done multiple times independently to verify if their outcomes are really true. Anyone can make up a story.

At Lourdes there have been fewer people to be cured of their illnesses than would have happened by random natural chance.
#49 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
You are correct about empirical being measured. Sorry I'm really tired. Anyways while it doesn't fit with empirical evidence anecdotes are still a form of evidence. Anecdotes are used all the time as evidence in our day to day beliefs. Evidence is just something that supports a claim. Now I fully recognize that not all evidence is created equal. And I don't base my faith on my friends testimony. But it is still something that supports my claim. I don't put forward this evidence to convince you that my claim is true, but merely that evidence exists.
While not on official miracle I find the testimony of Alexis Carrol at Lourdes to be too fantastical, in my limited medical knowledge, to be of a natural explanation.
As well, in regards to using empirical methods in miracles, one is going to come against many obstacles. Firstly, the supernatural cannot actually be measured since all instruments are meant to measure natural things. Secondly, empirical measurements are premised by the idea that the universe follows certain "laws". Supernatural is by definition outside these laws. So it is true we can never prove miracles exist by empirical standards that is not based upon miracles not existing but the limits of the empirical method.
User avatar
#51 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
If you day that something is outside natural law you still have the burden of proof to show that claim to be true.
#50 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I got to get up in 4 hours so I need to sleep. This was a great conversation. If you want to continue tomorrow I'm game. Of not let's just agree to disagree.
#39 - Well I disagree with that statement  [+] (3 replies) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... +1
User avatar
#40 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
You said there's plenty of evidence for the supernatural. Where is it?
#43 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
Sorry I should have replied on this comment.
User avatar
#45 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Lol. It's cool matey.
#37 - Well attempting to use science to prove the supernatural is ju…  [+] (12 replies) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... +1
User avatar
#38 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
The point is there is no evidence for the supernatural: it's just make-believe.
#42 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
One example of evidence is personal. My friend has experienced several instances of what may be attributed to daemonic activity at his satanic cousins house. All the good things such as guitar strings being played, things getting thrown, screeching. Rather nicely collaborated with another witness on one occasion.
If you would prefer something more official there is always the miracles at Our Lady of Lourdes.
User avatar
#44 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Personal anecdotes are NOT evidence. These 'demonic' sorts of events always have ration explanations behind them. The 'miracles' at Lourdes are non-existent as well.

#46 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I fully accept the possibility that what my friend has related to me is either bullshit or natural explanation, it is still nevertheless evidence. All empirical evidence must be anecdotal by virtue of the fact that empirical means experienced. Someone must of experienced it and related it. Sometimes the evidence is very well done as in the profession of science but it is not by necessity so.
In regards to the Lourdes miracles it is true that they are not scientifically proven to be miracles since science cannot prove anything but all possible (theoretically) natural explanations have been eliminated thus the null hypothesis may be reasonably be rejected. As well the board of doctors at Lourdes is not only Christian but many faiths ( technically that is a fallacious argument but still good to point out)
User avatar
#48 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
No, empirical means 'measured' not 'experienced'. Anecdotes are not evidence. Experiments can be done multiple times independently to verify if their outcomes are really true. Anyone can make up a story.

At Lourdes there have been fewer people to be cured of their illnesses than would have happened by random natural chance.
#49 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
You are correct about empirical being measured. Sorry I'm really tired. Anyways while it doesn't fit with empirical evidence anecdotes are still a form of evidence. Anecdotes are used all the time as evidence in our day to day beliefs. Evidence is just something that supports a claim. Now I fully recognize that not all evidence is created equal. And I don't base my faith on my friends testimony. But it is still something that supports my claim. I don't put forward this evidence to convince you that my claim is true, but merely that evidence exists.
While not on official miracle I find the testimony of Alexis Carrol at Lourdes to be too fantastical, in my limited medical knowledge, to be of a natural explanation.
As well, in regards to using empirical methods in miracles, one is going to come against many obstacles. Firstly, the supernatural cannot actually be measured since all instruments are meant to measure natural things. Secondly, empirical measurements are premised by the idea that the universe follows certain "laws". Supernatural is by definition outside these laws. So it is true we can never prove miracles exist by empirical standards that is not based upon miracles not existing but the limits of the empirical method.
User avatar
#51 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
If you day that something is outside natural law you still have the burden of proof to show that claim to be true.
#50 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I got to get up in 4 hours so I need to sleep. This was a great conversation. If you want to continue tomorrow I'm game. Of not let's just agree to disagree.
#39 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
Well I disagree with that statement
User avatar
#40 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
You said there's plenty of evidence for the supernatural. Where is it?
#43 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
Sorry I should have replied on this comment.
User avatar
#45 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Lol. It's cool matey.
#35 - Only if you dogmatically adhere to a materialist view of the universe.  [+] (14 replies) 11/22/2016 on Pope on Abortion "Okay With... +1
User avatar
#36 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Not if you adhere to scientific principles like empirical evidence. There's no evidence for any god's or magic powers anywhere. The Bible is a collection of myths like 100s of other throughout human civilization.
#37 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
Well attempting to use science to prove the supernatural is just folly and belies a misunderstanding of science. Science is the study and understanding of the natural world. And it's limits are the natural world. The supernatural is by its definition not natural. And there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural (ascribing it directly to God or Jesus is more difficult of a proposition)
User avatar
#38 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
The point is there is no evidence for the supernatural: it's just make-believe.
#42 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
One example of evidence is personal. My friend has experienced several instances of what may be attributed to daemonic activity at his satanic cousins house. All the good things such as guitar strings being played, things getting thrown, screeching. Rather nicely collaborated with another witness on one occasion.
If you would prefer something more official there is always the miracles at Our Lady of Lourdes.
User avatar
#44 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Personal anecdotes are NOT evidence. These 'demonic' sorts of events always have ration explanations behind them. The 'miracles' at Lourdes are non-existent as well.

#46 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I fully accept the possibility that what my friend has related to me is either bullshit or natural explanation, it is still nevertheless evidence. All empirical evidence must be anecdotal by virtue of the fact that empirical means experienced. Someone must of experienced it and related it. Sometimes the evidence is very well done as in the profession of science but it is not by necessity so.
In regards to the Lourdes miracles it is true that they are not scientifically proven to be miracles since science cannot prove anything but all possible (theoretically) natural explanations have been eliminated thus the null hypothesis may be reasonably be rejected. As well the board of doctors at Lourdes is not only Christian but many faiths ( technically that is a fallacious argument but still good to point out)
User avatar
#48 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
No, empirical means 'measured' not 'experienced'. Anecdotes are not evidence. Experiments can be done multiple times independently to verify if their outcomes are really true. Anyone can make up a story.

At Lourdes there have been fewer people to be cured of their illnesses than would have happened by random natural chance.
#49 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
You are correct about empirical being measured. Sorry I'm really tired. Anyways while it doesn't fit with empirical evidence anecdotes are still a form of evidence. Anecdotes are used all the time as evidence in our day to day beliefs. Evidence is just something that supports a claim. Now I fully recognize that not all evidence is created equal. And I don't base my faith on my friends testimony. But it is still something that supports my claim. I don't put forward this evidence to convince you that my claim is true, but merely that evidence exists.
While not on official miracle I find the testimony of Alexis Carrol at Lourdes to be too fantastical, in my limited medical knowledge, to be of a natural explanation.
As well, in regards to using empirical methods in miracles, one is going to come against many obstacles. Firstly, the supernatural cannot actually be measured since all instruments are meant to measure natural things. Secondly, empirical measurements are premised by the idea that the universe follows certain "laws". Supernatural is by definition outside these laws. So it is true we can never prove miracles exist by empirical standards that is not based upon miracles not existing but the limits of the empirical method.
User avatar
#51 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
If you day that something is outside natural law you still have the burden of proof to show that claim to be true.
#50 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
I got to get up in 4 hours so I need to sleep. This was a great conversation. If you want to continue tomorrow I'm game. Of not let's just agree to disagree.
#39 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
Well I disagree with that statement
User avatar
#40 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
You said there's plenty of evidence for the supernatural. Where is it?
#43 - kingnicholas (11/22/2016) [-]
Sorry I should have replied on this comment.
User avatar
#45 - popeflatus (11/22/2016) [-]
Lol. It's cool matey.
[ 228 Total ]