--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > >
> > > > I've heard it all before actually, levitation, sea serpents, > > UFOs from venus, they all disappear once understanding > > increases to the point that the objects of faith can't even > > fit into the way we now see the world as being. > > You're using "faith" here in the generic sense--i.e., not > just religious faith. (There are still Nessie and similar > sightings, by the way, so maybe "sea serpents" isn't the > best example here.) Sea serpents are a great example as they used to be reported all over the world. They either died out (unlikely without good reason) or, most likely, they got reclassified as whales when man got interested in *actually* knowing what was out there. The descriptions people gave prior to that were seen as exaggerations of half-glimpsed features. No sea serpents have ever popped up, alive, dead or even fossilized to defend themselves. That people still see Nessie is funny more than anything else, there isn't enough food to support a breeding population of large predators in Loch Ness and the whole place has been mapped with sonar many times. Try telling that to the locals though... > > UFOs are a particular favourite subject of mine, the speed at > > which the angelic beings from Venus stopped visiting us once > > we discovered that it rains flouro-sulphuric acid on their > > home world is amazing. All of a sudden the aliens came from > > much further away. > > And this isn't a very good example either, because the > aliens are still coming (or still being reported), despite > the knowledge that they're unlikely to be coming from > Venus. Venus was a perfectly reasonable guess at first > since it's the closest planet to us. It wasn't a guess, it's where they said they were coming from to the contactees of the 50's. > There are good cases to be made as to why alien visitation > in general is unlikely, but that Venus is inhospitable to > life ain't one of them. > > For that matter, we keep discovering that life can exist > on earth in more and more apparently inhospitable places > (not just more and more places, but places that are more > and more inhospitable). Sure life can *adapt* to bizarre conditions but I was talking about humanoid life, breathing air, speaking English that claimed to come from somewhere that turns out has a surface temperature that would melt lead. Nowadays they all come from other dimensions or the Pleidaes, which actually have their own entertainingly serious problems preventing life like ours from evolving. The channellers should have researched it first methinks. What life needs to get going is another story. What it might need to be able to bypass the physical laws that underpin its existence is another one again. > > Levitation might have been a poetic way of saying saints can > > get close to god or be drawn to heaven but once the four > > fundamental forces were nailed down and realised to be *not* > > optional without the universe falling apart the saints were > > seen as mere flesh after all and the miracles stopped. > > What's the specific chronology?--of "once the four > forces were nailed down" etc. and "the miracles > stopped"? > My intention here is not to disagree with you but > rather to get you to tighten up your case. Why bother? My case is that times change and people are more versed in science and the way things really are and demand better evidence than the word of a dead religious person. A lot of people anyway, plenty still take the holy word for it but it has to be said miracles are a bit thin on the ground since we've had ways of recording them. > To paraphrase Robin's comment on reports of saintly > levitation: > > There is an argument to be made for the veracity of > certain apparently miraculous phenomena that is > "dramatically more complex and multi-layered and > interesting" than most skeptics are willing to take > into account. > That's unfortunate, IMHO. We learn much more about a > controversial issue when each side addresses its > opponent's best case. Well I'm going to take my foot off the paradigm clutch if that was the best case for levitation.
