Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 13819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1218 on: August 20, 2014, 04:52:45 PM »
With all due respect, Lukvance, when I read the reasons given on that website, you know what the first thing that popped into my head was?  "Mountain climbers".  If you ask a mountain climber why they go to climb a mountain, they'll give you various different reasons, but ultimately, the most basic reason is because they want to do it, and succeeding at something you want to do (especially if it's difficult) is a very enjoyable experience.  I don't see people who do something out of faith as being any different than that.  Whatever reasons they give, the basic reason is because they want to do it, and succeeding in it is enjoyable.
I agree with you. It's nogodsforme who seems to have trouble letting go the fact that miracles are not a cure and are not seen as such by most people.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1219 on: August 20, 2014, 05:20:47 PM »
I have a friend who is walking "The Camino de Santiago" because he wanted to live his faith more fully.
I bet he did not watch the Luis Buñuel film, "La voie lactée" before he left: The Milky Way (1969 film)Wiki

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6502
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1220 on: August 20, 2014, 09:43:03 PM »
With all due respect, Lukvance, when I read the reasons given on that website, you know what the first thing that popped into my head was?  "Mountain climbers".  If you ask a mountain climber why they go to climb a mountain, they'll give you various different reasons, but ultimately, the most basic reason is because they want to do it, and succeeding at something you want to do (especially if it's difficult) is a very enjoyable experience.  I don't see people who do something out of faith as being any different than that.  Whatever reasons they give, the basic reason is because they want to do it, and succeeding in it is enjoyable.
I agree with you. It's nogodsforme who seems to have trouble letting go the fact that miracles are not a cure and are not seen as such by most people.

People go on treks in the Grand Canyon, climb Mt. Everest, save their money and travel to see the great pyramids for similar reasons. People want to be part of something larger, to enjoy having accomplished something important, to cherish their memories of the event. Some people experience physical and "spiritual" healings as a result of their undertakings. Very fine and nothing supernatural involved. 

I understand very well why people go on pilgrimages, whether it is to Lourdes, to bathe in the Ganges River or to the hajj in Mecca. It is because of religious faith, plus the various reasons listed above. Feeling wonderful and rejuvenated after seeing the Grand Canyon has nothing to do with supernatural miracles or any gods, since it happens to people of all religions and no religion.

But I am being very hard-headed and practical here. When people with contagious diseases travel, they are more likely to make other people sick. When people with serious illnesses travel, they can make their conditions worse.

But do religious sites tell sick people not to come, to stay home and seek their spiritual healing there? No. And the fact that occasionally someone does get a miracle only makes more people likely to visit. If the religious sites really cared about sick people, they would never publicize any miracle healing. Ever. Tell people nobody ever gets healed there and shut the site down--since as you say, miracles are not a cure. If people want to visit someplace for spiritual reasons, that is fine, go to a nearby forest or lake or mountain. But anybody who is sick should go to a doctor. That would be far more honest and caring.

I would tell anyone with ebola or TB or bird flu not to go to any sacred or secular public site until they are no longer contagious. It has nothing to do with them not getting healed or cured. It has everything to do with not infecting others. I would also tell anyone who was seriously ill and who had limited funds not to go on any pilgrimages, but to go to a doctor. 

You are reluctant to say this. Why? Are you saying that people with serious contagious diseases should go on pilgrimages to sacred sites in search of spiritual healing? If people can be healed miraculously closer to home, why even have sites like Lourdes as destinations?  If I was queen of the world, I would ban all long-distance travel to sacred sites. I would make people donate the funds they would have used on a pilgrimage to fund practical solutions for their problems. Clearly, nobody religious would vote for me as queen of the world.  :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1221 on: August 26, 2014, 04:30:26 PM »
"Are you saying that people with serious contagious diseases should go on pilgrimages to sacred sites in search of spiritual healing? "
I am saying that miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body. What people should do or don't with their time is not my business here.
"If people can be healed miraculously closer to home, why even have sites like Lourdes as destinations?" That's a good question. Why not ask it somewhere it matters? There is no relation between the existence of God and why should people create sites like Lourdes as destinations.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1222 on: August 26, 2014, 04:51:23 PM »
"Are you saying that people with serious contagious diseases should go on pilgrimages to sacred sites in search of spiritual healing? "
I am saying that miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body. What people should do or don't with their time is not my business here.

Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1728
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1223 on: August 26, 2014, 06:10:59 PM »
If people can be healed miraculously closer to home, why even have sites like Lourdes as destinations?

Ooh, oohooh, I know this one, cause lukvance already told us: it's because that's where they keep the miracle measuring equipment.

Granted, that post was some 20+ pages ago, so his answer may have changed a few times since then. Where are the goal posts now? I've lost track.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1224 on: August 26, 2014, 06:53:09 PM »
Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?
I know because he left clues.
How do you know that someone is the culprit of a crime? Because they left clues.
You're worth more than my time

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1225 on: August 26, 2014, 07:03:13 PM »
Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?
I know because he left clues.
How do you know that someone is the culprit of a crime? Because they left clues.

An appropriate analogy, since, according to you, performing miracles can destroy all of reality, and there's nothing that your god (a supposedly omnipotent being) can do to change or prevent that from happening... Wait...
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1226 on: August 26, 2014, 07:32:07 PM »
Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?
I know because he left clues.
How do you know that someone is the culprit of a crime? Because they left clues.
does leaving clues interfere with free will ?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6502
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1227 on: August 27, 2014, 12:02:32 AM »
Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?
I know because he left clues.
How do you know that someone is the culprit of a crime? Because they left clues.
does leaving clues interfere with free will ?

Not if the clues are ambiguous enough to be a) signs of anything, or b) signs of nothing at all, as well as c) signs of god. God wiggles out of the free will trap again!
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1228 on: August 27, 2014, 08:57:51 AM »
Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?
I know because he left clues.
How do you know that someone is the culprit of a crime? Because they left clues.

We have prior evidence and knowledge about crimes and people who commit them. We know about killers and murderes, thus that leave us with enough information to backtrack a crime through clues.

Again, how do you know miracles are proof of God without having previous information about him? In order for your analogy to work, you need to first have enough information about God existing and performing miracles before you can actually backtrack an specific miracle to attribute it to your god.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1229 on: August 27, 2014, 10:13:06 AM »
Begs the question. How do you know miracles are proof of his existence?
I know because he left clues.
How do you know that someone is the culprit of a crime? Because they left clues.
does leaving clues interfere with free will ?

Not if the clues are ambiguous enough to be a) signs of anything, or b) signs of nothing at all, as well as c) signs of god. God wiggles out of the free will trap again!
SOOO if I interpret the clue wrong,and the theist sees God,,,,,,my bad?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2997
  • Darwins +264/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1230 on: August 27, 2014, 10:33:49 AM »
I really don't get this association between clear evidence trails and free will.  Of all the ways a hypothetical god could interfere in the physical world, claiming credit for work it's already done seems rather inobtrusive indeed.  If a "miracle" actually did interfere with a mortal's ability to dictate his own destiny, would it not be the actual meddling with the physical universe that caused the interference?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1231 on: August 27, 2014, 11:02:49 AM »
I really don't get this association between clear evidence trails and free will.  Of all the ways a hypothetical god could interfere in the physical world, claiming credit for work it's already done seems rather inobtrusive indeed.  If a "miracle" actually did interfere with a mortal's ability to dictate his own destiny, would it not be the actual meddling with the physical universe that caused the interference?
if a person knows(AND FEARS)his God,he has the freedom to choose against the will of his God(Sin),but here is the kicker,,,, no punishment. So I guess his free-will to choose against his God is not disrupted,because his Jesus-get-out-of-hell-free-card. You see,without fear of punishment(or consequence)for your actions how can be held accountable for doing something you know would anger the OT god?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1232 on: August 27, 2014, 01:38:46 PM »
We have prior evidence and knowledge about crimes and people who commit them. We know about killers and murderes, thus that leave us with enough information to backtrack a crime through clues.

Again, how do you know miracles are proof of God without having previous information about him? In order for your analogy to work, you need to first have enough information about God existing and performing miracles before you can actually backtrack an specific miracle to attribute it to your god.
You are right we have prior evidence and knowledge about crimes, we also have prior evidence and knowledge about God. We know about him. That leave us with enough information to backtrack him through clues.
You can learn (have knowledge about) about God during the Theology courses.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1233 on: August 27, 2014, 01:41:58 PM »
I really don't get this association between clear evidence trails and free will.  Of all the ways a hypothetical god could interfere in the physical world, claiming credit for work it's already done seems rather inobtrusive indeed.  If a "miracle" actually did interfere with a mortal's ability to dictate his own destiny, would it not be the actual meddling with the physical universe that caused the interference?
We disagree on the "claiming credit for work it's already done" part. Does a murderer "claims credit" for a murder? Or is he simply the culprit?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1234 on: August 27, 2014, 01:57:50 PM »
We have prior evidence and knowledge about crimes and people who commit them. We know about killers and murderes, thus that leave us with enough information to backtrack a crime through clues.

Again, how do you know miracles are proof of God without having previous information about him? In order for your analogy to work, you need to first have enough information about God existing and performing miracles before you can actually backtrack an specific miracle to attribute it to your god.
You are right we have prior evidence and knowledge about crimes, we also have prior evidence and knowledge about God. We know about him. That leave us with enough information to backtrack him through clues.
You can learn (have knowledge about) about God during the Theology courses.

Doesn't work this way. We can backtrack a crime using the knowledge we've used in previous crimes. It's not the other way around. You cannot possibly use an event (miracle) to prove a deity existence without having evidence of this deity in the first place. You cannot say "this event is proof of God". If that was the case, I could tell you lightningts are evidence of Thor. You can learn about Thor in ancient mythology (the same you use theology in your example).

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2997
  • Darwins +264/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1235 on: August 27, 2014, 02:21:04 PM »
We disagree on the "claiming credit for work it's already done" part. Does a murderer "claims credit" for a murder? Or is he simply the culprit?

I don't think it matters either way, frankly.  Whether a murderer boasts of killing someone or is identified through forensics, the actual violation of free will occurred when the murderer killed.

When something "miraculous" happens, therefore, the skeptics among us are effectively doing forensics to determine if a crime against causality was actually committed.  If no gods are standing on Their chairs and waving and calling out "It's Me!  I did it!" there is no way to determine if the miraculous event is the work of a god.

I think it's far beyond the current abilities of humans to exhaust every possible explanation for an unlikely event, and that is why I do not accept miracles as evidence for a god -- Any god.

Speaking specifically on the topic of medical miracles, I think that far too much time and effort is put into building a case for saintly intervention.  If the RCC put comparable resources into legitimate medical research instead, it would do some actual good in the world rather than patting itself on the back for connecting a few dots in the The Giant Vatican Coloring Book of Saints.  >:(
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1236 on: August 27, 2014, 03:42:09 PM »
Whats the difference between the sin of murder and other sins.....belief in Jesus trumps ALL sin or none
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1237 on: August 28, 2014, 04:33:20 PM »
Doesn't work this way. We can backtrack a crime using the knowledge we've used in previous crimes. It's not the other way around. You cannot possibly use an event (miracle) to prove a deity existence without having evidence of this deity in the first place. You cannot say "this event is proof of God". If that was the case, I could tell you lightningts are evidence of Thor. You can learn about Thor in ancient mythology (the same you use theology in your example).
Ok then it doesn't work for backtracking a crime neither. As you might know some theories like the auras theories or the psychic imprint left on a dead body has been proposed as ways to backtrack a crime. We made mistakes before when backtracking crimes and we made mistakes before when backtracking the source of a miracle.
As much as you could tell me that lightnings are evidence of Thor, I could tell you that ou are the culprit because I saw it in a dream. You can learn about dreams in the library too.
The point is, you counter argument is not valid because it doesn't take account of the fact that humans can make mistake and have the capacity to not reproduce their previous mistake.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1238 on: August 28, 2014, 04:40:08 PM »
the skeptics among us are effectively doing forensics to determine if a crime against causality was actually committed.
There is no crime against causality. It is a crime only if you don't believe. Let's say that I present you all the proof that it was this man who was responsible for the crime and your answer is "we don't have enough concrete proof that it wasn't this other man, it could still be this other man, we just don't know" How would you look then? A little silly right?
It doesn't mean you are wrong, it just mean that everything points towards the fact that you are wrong by saying that the miracle is not God's doing/the culprit is not the culprit.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1239 on: August 28, 2014, 04:55:25 PM »
I am saying that miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body.
Do you understand that this is an assertion that you keep making, and not something that you've established as being the reality?  A person who does not believe in your god will not see something you call a miracle as being 'proof', or more accurately evidence, that your god's existence is independent of human existence, because at best all you're doing is pointing to is something that's hard for us to explain and stating that your church's theologians have proved to your satisfaction that this thing is the work of your god.  It takes more than theological arguments to convince a skeptic of anything, because we demand evidence to support what those theological arguments say.  And that evidence cannot be the event(s) that the theological arguments are used to explain.

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1240 on: August 28, 2014, 05:07:29 PM »
Doesn't work this way. We can backtrack a crime using the knowledge we've used in previous crimes. It's not the other way around. You cannot possibly use an event (miracle) to prove a deity existence without having evidence of this deity in the first place. You cannot say "this event is proof of God". If that was the case, I could tell you lightningts are evidence of Thor. You can learn about Thor in ancient mythology (the same you use theology in your example).
Ok then it doesn't work for backtracking a crime neither. As you might know some theories like the auras theories or the psychic imprint left on a dead body has been proposed as ways to backtrack a crime. We made mistakes before when backtracking crimes and we made mistakes before when backtracking the source of a miracle.
As much as you could tell me that lightnings are evidence of Thor, I could tell you that ou are the culprit because I saw it in a dream. You can learn about dreams in the library too.
The point is, you counter argument is not valid because it doesn't take account of the fact that humans can make mistake and have the capacity to not reproduce their previous mistake.

I don't know where auras or psychic is used in crime scenes. At least not with serious detectives.
Dreams are something we humans denominated to the state of which we experience things in our minds while we sleep. Using that definition of a dream, we can conclude that when you have a similar experience while you sleep, then dreams are real (the phenomenon, not the evens in the dream) Therefore we can use dreams as something real for psychology studies, personality, etc.
I don't know what made you think that you refuted my Thor analogy. It still stands that way with your God. Unless you can refute it, you cannot possibly continue with your theory that God is something other than a figment of your imagination.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 05:09:58 PM by Don_Quixote »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1241 on: August 28, 2014, 05:13:45 PM »
There is no crime against causality. It is a crime only if you don't believe.
When your argument depends on someone believing as you do in order to accept that something isn't a 'crime', it isn't really a very good argument.  Imagine if you had a religion which required a human sacrifice, and when they were confronted by the police, they tried to claim that sacrificing a human was a crime only if you didn't believe, and since they did believe, they had committed no crime.  I don't think anyone would accept that argument as justification for letting them go free so they could sacrifice more people.

Quote from: Lukvance
Let's say that I present you all the proof that it was this man who was responsible for the crime and your answer is "we don't have enough concrete proof that it wasn't this other man, it could still be this other man, we just don't know" How would you look then? A little silly right?
If your evidence included things which concretely pointed to that particular man being responsible, such as the murder weapon having the blood of the victim and the man's fingerprints on it, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the man was guilty.  But what we've been trying to tell you for a while now is that your evidence (that miracles are evidence doesn't include anything like that.  Your 'evidence' boils down to not being able to explain an event using human knowledge, and having theological justifications for why that event was caused by your god.  This is the equivalent of finding a dead body somewhere, and when nobody's able to determine a specific cause of death (aside from something generic like heart failure), claiming that a demon killed the man by stopping his heart, because of theological justifications for why demons act in that way.

Quote from: Lukvance
It doesn't mean you are wrong, it just mean that everything points towards the fact that you are wrong by saying that the miracle is not God's doing/the culprit is not the culprit.
The problem is, none of the actual evidence points towards that.  The evidence is inconclusive.  What you're using are theological proofs to interpret the evidence in a certain way.  But people like Astreja (and myself) don't accept your theological proofs as evidence.  It's the same reason I wouldn't accept an argument from Plato (such as his idea of "eternal and unchanging forms") as evidence of something.

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1242 on: August 28, 2014, 06:28:53 PM »
I am saying that miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body.
Do you understand that this is an assertion that you keep making, and not something that you've established as being the reality?  A person who does not believe in your god will not see something you call a miracle as being 'proof', or more accurately evidence, that your god's existence is independent of human existence, because at best all you're doing is pointing to is something that's hard for us to explain and stating that your church's theologians have proved to your satisfaction that this thing is the work of your god.  It takes more than theological arguments to convince a skeptic of anything, because we demand evidence to support what those theological arguments say.  And that evidence cannot be the event(s) that the theological arguments are used to explain.
I understand that once presented with evidence of for example your son being the culprit of a crime, you might want to say that you do not believe that he did it. It doesn't mean that it is not established as being the reality.
Let's play a little game : Suppose that my friend shot someone else in the leg. You are here to present me with evidence that he did it.
If I were to use the same excuse you are giving me it would be something along the line :
"Do you understand that this is an assertion that you keep making, and not something that you've established as being the reality?  A person who does not believe in your claim will not see something you call evidences as being 'proof', that my friend shot someone else in the leg, because at best all you're doing is pointing to is something that's hard for us to explain and stating that your detectives have proved to your satisfaction that my friend is the culprit.  It takes more than detectives arguments to convince a skeptic of anything, because we demand evidence to support what those detectives arguments say.  And that evidence cannot be the event(s) that the detectives arguments are used to explain."
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
That is why I cannot accept what you say as a counter argument to the fact that "Miracles are proof of the existence of God."
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1243 on: August 28, 2014, 06:32:40 PM »
Doesn't work this way. We can backtrack a crime using the knowledge we've used in previous crimes. It's not the other way around. You cannot possibly use an event (miracle) to prove a deity existence without having evidence of this deity in the first place. You cannot say "this event is proof of God". If that was the case, I could tell you lightningts are evidence of Thor. You can learn about Thor in ancient mythology (the same you use theology in your example).
Ok then it doesn't work for backtracking a crime neither. As you might know some theories like the auras theories or the psychic imprint left on a dead body has been proposed as ways to backtrack a crime. We made mistakes before when backtracking crimes and we made mistakes before when backtracking the source of a miracle.
As much as you could tell me that lightnings are evidence of Thor, I could tell you that ou are the culprit because I saw it in a dream. You can learn about dreams in the library too.
The point is, you counter argument is not valid because it doesn't take account of the fact that humans can make mistake and have the capacity to not reproduce their previous mistake.

I don't know where auras or psychic is used in crime scenes. At least not with serious detectives.
Dreams are something we humans denominated to the state of which we experience things in our minds while we sleep. Using that definition of a dream, we can conclude that when you have a similar experience while you sleep, then dreams are real (the phenomenon, not the evens in the dream) Therefore we can use dreams as something real for psychology studies, personality, etc.
I don't know what made you think that you refuted my Thor analogy. It still stands that way with your God. Unless you can refute it, you cannot possibly continue with your theory that God is something other than a figment of your imagination.
Do you want me to explain to you what Thor and thinder is like you explain to me what dreams and psychic are? Is this how I would refute your analogy? You see you refuted my analogy using definition. But it doesn't mean that you refuted my analogy
My point is that your counter argument ("If that was the case, I could tell you lightningts are evidence of Thor") is not valid because it doesn't take account of the fact that humans can make mistake and have the capacity to not reproduce their previous mistake.
You're worth more than my time

Online Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1244 on: August 28, 2014, 06:48:44 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
Let's say that I present you all the proof that it was this man who was responsible for the crime and your answer is "we don't have enough concrete proof that it wasn't this other man, it could still be this other man, we just don't know" How would you look then? A little silly right?
If your evidence included things which concretely pointed to that particular man being responsible, such as the murder weapon having the blood of the victim and the man's fingerprints on it, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the man was guilty.  But what we've been trying to tell you for a while now is that your evidence (that miracles are evidence doesn't include anything like that.  Your 'evidence' boils down to not being able to explain an event using human knowledge, and having theological justifications for why that event was caused by your god.  This is the equivalent of finding a dead body somewhere, and when nobody's able to determine a specific cause of death (aside from something generic like heart failure), claiming that a demon killed the man by stopping his heart, because of theological justifications for why demons act in that way.

Quote from: Lukvance
It doesn't mean you are wrong, it just mean that everything points towards the fact that you are wrong by saying that the miracle is not God's doing/the culprit is not the culprit.
The problem is, none of the actual evidence points towards that.  The evidence is inconclusive.  What you're using are theological proofs to interpret the evidence in a certain way.  But people like Astreja (and myself) don't accept your theological proofs as evidence.  It's the same reason I wouldn't accept an argument from Plato (such as his idea of "eternal and unchanging forms") as evidence of something.
YES, exactly! Hehe this is funny for me because you keep saying that it is not enough when I say it is enough. One of us must be right!

I believe that you keep saying that it is not enough evidence because you don't want it to be true. Not because there is indeed not enough evidence.
Have you read about all the evidences presented for one particular miracle?

I believe that the clues/evidences left by God after the miracle are more than enough to be able to claim that he is indeed a being living outside our body.

When you say that you don't want to listen to the Theologian. I hear you say that you don't want to listen to the detectives.
They are the "experts" on the subject. They hold all the evidence needed to conclude. They (the theologians) presented their proof in papers just like the detectives gave reports. Theses papers can be access by certain people who will make sure that no mistake have been made before putting someone into jail or claiming that it is God who is responsible.
I believe that there is only one way to prove that miracles are not proof of the existence of God. It involves a lot of studies on the subject of miracles and God and reading about that particular miracle that you want to dismiss.
Each miracle is one case.
You would have to dismiss one case then another one then...all the cases to be able to rightfully claim that miracles are not the proof of the existence of God.

Personally, I have so much confidence in theses miracles recognized by the Vatican that dismissing only one of them would be enough to make me doubt all the other ones.
You're worth more than my time

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +46/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1245 on: August 28, 2014, 07:34:54 PM »
my request to luk from another thread;

luk could wrap this thread up and the miracles thread nicely and quiet all the doubters in two easy steps;

step: 1. luk get in front of a web cam and cut off your own hand at the wrist with an axe;

step: 2. pray to god to both stop the bleeding and re-attach the hand live in front of the world via internet.




if things don't work out would you rather we pray for you or call the paramedics??
Signature goes here...

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6502
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1246 on: August 28, 2014, 08:08:07 PM »
Wait a minute--Lukvance, you think we don't want miracles to be true? We are just disagreeing to be difficult?

First of all, that is not why we don't believe in miracles--because we "don't want" them to be real or true.  Whyever would we not want miracles to be real?  Who would not want there to be magic? Everyone wants there to be magic!

If magic and miracles were real and actually helped sick people better than medicine, that would mean that we atheists, for some strange reason, don't want people who are sick to get well. Not even ourselves and our own loved ones. That is ridiculous. Of course we want people to get well. That is why we support what works--medical science. It works way better than praying for miracles from supernatural beings. Praying does not work at all--people who pray have identical health to people who do not pray. So, we don't want people to waste time and money doing stuff that does not work at all. You have told us that miracles are not cures, Lukvance. I agree with you there. Prayers are not cures either.[1]

I believe in what works and what is proven to be real. If praying to god worked as well as medicine, I would be the first person on my knees. I have had many health problems, including a high-risk pregnancy. I have never prayed and I got well-- through medical science.

I have known many seriously ill people in poor countries.  Nobody prayed more than they did-- and most of the folks were devout Catholics. Praying to the right god and everything. And they still suffered and died. Their babies suffered and died.  They prayed and got zilch.

If god answered their prayers, then everyone was praying to god for death and for god to make their babies die. Because that is the answer god gave them--the same answer most everyone has gotten all through human history without medical science. Death. Early, painful, death.

Hell, if prayer worked, the illness and death toll among religious folks would be almost non-existent. And the illness and death toll around the world among atheists who never pray would be off the charts. (Isn't that strange? Wonder why we atheists who never pray-- and even blaspheme-- are as healthy and live just as long as our religious relatives and friends?)

Praying clearly does not save lives or heal disease as well as medicine, or we would not need medicine. Praying, ie, doing something that does not work, is clearly stupid. I try (often failing) to avoid knowingly doing as many stupid things as possible.

But let's say for the sake of argument that we don't want miracles to be true. And that is why we don't believe the clear and obviously true evidence. Why would that even matter?  Do miracles and magic only happen because people believe in them?  What people want to be true has zero effect on reality.[2]

It would make no difference in the world if every last person on the planet thought that miracles were real. God would have to keep track of how many people believe in miracles and then adjust his behavior accordingly. If so, he is not god. God presumably does the number of miracles he wants to do, less than 1% or however many, no matter what people think.

It does not matter what people believe about god.  If god has to wait for people to believe in miracles before he can do a miracle, he would be like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, becoming stronger and more effective as more people believe.

Is god truly that dependent on human belief? It certainly seems that way, since he has to wait around for people to pray to him in just the right way. And then he does a miracle or not (mostly not) anyway, regardless of the prayers.

If nobody ever prayed to god the right way, if there were no Catholics on earth, would there be then no more miracles? Or would god just suck it up and keep on plugging away, doing his less than 1% quota for the Hindus and Muslims instead of the Catholics, like a worker going through the motions at a job they hate?
 1. It is the religious people who disagree with both of us-- they are going to shrines when they are sick, spending time and money, praying for a miracle cure that they will never get ....
 2. I want a live unicorn to ride to work. I want to hang out with Thor, Mr. Spock and Glinda the Good Witch. I want to magically instantly cure all African children with AIDS, malaria and ebola. I want to time travel. I want everyone in the Middle East to have peace. I want my addicted young relative to quit using drugs and drinking, forever, starting today. I want a pet panda bear. I want to meet Gandhi, Isaac Asimov and Gregory Peck. I want to be a famous writer, making millions. I want to look like Halle Berry. However, reality don't give a sh!t what I want.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.