Say I was arguing with somebody about how a glass of water got on a table and I pointed out 5/6 of a finger print that matched a guy named Mike and concluded that he probably did it but don't know for sure because I wasn't there. And some one else said the glass was put there magically let alone the finger print because he read a pamphlet that said it was so he knew it happened that way. When I ask how he proves this he say that I can't prove it didn't happen and the fingerprint was only 5/6 full. Who wo the argument? Don't talk about how the analogy isn't perfect, I know, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, just trying to inspire thought. By the way, I know not everyone is like this and thank you for that. So regardless of religion answer the question honestly, who won the argument?
2006-08-18 17:57:55 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
True John, it is more about having reason than winning, good point.
2006-08-18 18:05:50 · update #1
spindoccc, no it was a coincidence, I made this up as I was writing actually, I had a general idea of how I wanted it to sound.
2006-08-18 18:25:31 · update #2
Is drew sumners joking? I hope so, that's a little crazy. I can be absolutely certain about anything and still be ridiculously wrong, it's like the "How can so many
2006-08-19 19:21:33 · update #3
To jon d, ah, that would have been better to add in, you're right.
2006-08-19 19:23:02 · update #4
I like your question, I am religous, but I am also a realist, I believe in evolution, and other scientific things, the point is no one really won that argument because as ridiculous as it sounds, some people will side with him. I believe in God but I still respect other peoples beliefs and study the logic before I automatically label it as a miracle. Plus you can't convince the people who sided with the other guy because they refuse to listen to logic, it sucks, but that's the world.
2006-08-18 18:10:25 · answer #1 · answered by RainKid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, you never said you were 100% sure that Mike put the glass there, you said it was a good probability because there was 5/6 of a fingerprint. The other guy said that he read a pamphlet that said Mike didn't do it. You won the argument, because you had concrete evidence, while the other guy is relying on hearsay (the pamphlet).
2006-08-19 01:05:04 · answer #2 · answered by hop0409 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You lost the argument, because you can't say with 100% certainty that Mike put it there, but the other guy has absolutely no doubt that it was put there magically. It's up to you to prove beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that not only is there no such thing as magic, but that Mike put the glass there. If you can't prove it to the other guy's satisfaction, then you're just denying the existence of magic.
2006-08-19 01:06:52 · answer #3 · answered by Big_Drew 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well you. now i am an atheist putting this on the table. once again to provoke thought. we believe that the universe was always around. theists believe that their higher power was always around. yes we have proof that we are here, but do we have actual proof that were not here because of a god? no. the glass thing is perfect. but the flaw is where did the glass come from in the first place? where did mike get it from? did it in fact magically appear in the sink or did someone else put it there? the fact is is that with or without a god something goes infinitely backwards in time for us to exist now. the universe is perpetual, or a god is. i don't personally believe in god but in order to live a life spiritually or non spiritually you must carefully consider both sides.
2006-08-19 01:10:54 · answer #4 · answered by мΛІ€ҢΛр™ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one won the argument...it is still going on. The guy had the pamphlet copied and distributed it to the world. However, by taking the glass to a lab you could have disproven the pamphlet with science.
2006-08-19 01:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by Medusa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You did. That's as good an analogy for an agnosticism as any I've read around here. I like that your conclusion about Mike is stated only as a probabilty. Did you deliberately work in the Ockham's razor example? or was that a coincidence?
2006-08-19 01:12:45 · answer #6 · answered by spindoccc 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting analogy... I would not say this is a matter of winning or losing an argument -- rather it is a question of whether there is reasonable evidence for a claim or not.
--
Please be aware that there is scientific and intellectual evidence for the existence of God (e.g., see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/evidence.htm)
I used to be an atheist. Over a period of time however, I grew convinced of the existence of the Christian God, and ultimately committed my life to Christ (e.g., see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/testimony/seek.html ).
Cordially,
John
2006-08-19 01:03:23 · answer #7 · answered by John 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well said
there is no doubt thatt the one who saw the fingerrint explained it is right.
although, concerning the imperfect analogy thing, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the glass was in a somewhat hard to reach place
2006-08-19 01:06:25 · answer #8 · answered by kitty is ANGRY!™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well to be completely honest, I'm not a big believer in the 'pamphlet', so the scientific view would always win in my eyes......
2006-08-19 01:11:05 · answer #9 · answered by Mintjulip 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Huh?
2006-08-19 01:03:43 · answer #10 · answered by honest_funny_charlie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋