Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 14617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1276 on: September 04, 2014, 02:16:19 PM »
jaimehlers Your argumentation against theologian and their faith fails because there are Theologians that are atheists. There are theologians without faith.
Which proves nothing, except that you don't have an actual rebuttal for my argument.  When you say "but there are atheist theologians, so your argument is wrong", this does not actually do anything to my argument.  It is an attempt to dismiss my argument without showing that it is fallacious.  Furthermore, my post was not just about theologians who base their arguments on faith, which means you didn't even so much as acknowledge the other parts of my post.  Did you think that by mentioning atheist theologians, that you would negate my whole post?  If you did, you were engaging in wishful thinking.

The problem with your attempt at rebuttal is that a theologian can refer to two things; someone who engages in theology, and someone who studies it.  I was referring to the former in my post, whereas you were clearly referring to the latter.  I have no problems acknowledging that there are people who study a theology who do not believe in it, but that does not have any relevance to the point I made about people who engage in and promote the theology they follow through faith.

Therefore, the points I made in my previous post stand.

Quote from: Lukvance
Do you doubt your parents? Do you have confidence in them? Is it possible to have the 2?
What you fail to recognize here is that my opinions about my parents, whether positive or negative, are subjective and thus only apply to me.  If I tell other people about them, they are anecdotal in nature - one cannot make judgments about them based just on what I say.  To do that, I would need to provide reliable data that could be independently checked by others.

Quote from: Lukvance
That's how I feel about the miracle recognize by the Vatican. I have confidence in them.
Good for you.  However, this does not necessarily make them or their judgments reliable.  In fact, it weakens your argument, because subjective opinions are not reliable in and of themselves.

Quote from: Lukvance
There are proofs given by them (people working all their lives on miracles).
Proofs are not evidence.  The only thing that you've proved with this statement is that you cannot properly distinguish between the two.  A proof is something, usually a logical statement, that is used to show whether something is true or false; evidence is used to demonstrate something else.  In certain fields, such as law, they are closely related; in other fields, such as science, proof is a meaningless concept (you cannot prove that something is true or false in science).

That is a serious problem with the Vatican's procedure for determining whether something is a miracle.  They study an event to determine if it can be explained by science, and if there is no known explanation, they then study it through theology in order to try to prove that it is or isn't a miracle.  However, whether something has a scientific explanation or not has no relevance at all to whether it is a miracle, and the Vatican's sorting mechanism is therefore arbitrary, because it excludes every event that can possibly be explained, as if your god can only be responsible for things which humans cannot understand.  That is the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Another serious problem with the Vatican's procedure is that the final parts of it are subjective factors, not objective ones.  It is ultimately about whether the people reviewing it believe that it is a miracle - there is no way to objectively test that it is.  Someone else who goes through the review process later on may well come up with a different answer, which means that the review process is also unreliable.  In short, the Vatican's procedures are arbitrary and unreliable, so it does not matter how many people study miracles, or for how long.

Quote from: Lukvance
I am willing to change my mind or have doubt if some of the evidence presented is false. Just like I am willing to change my mind/have some doubt on the culprit of a murder if some of the evidence presented is false.
While I can believe that, I wonder if you have realized the implications when it comes to things like miracles.  You see, in the final stage of reviewing an event to see if it is a miracle, there is no evidence involved.  It is all subjective - how people felt about it, how it changed their lives, and so on.  Those are anecdotes and thus cannot stand as evidence.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1277 on: September 04, 2014, 02:18:09 PM »
Jesus was Catholic? Was he the first pope? ;)
-Nam
Jesus was Jew. He did not have to believe in Christ, he was Christ. The first pope is Saint Peter.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1278 on: September 04, 2014, 02:24:20 PM »
The first pope is Saint Peter.
I have to point out that this is Catholic tradition, not something that is provable.  I am not saying that it is true, and I am not saying that it is false.  I am saying that it's a belief based on tradition, and thus cannot be shown to be correct based on that.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1279 on: September 04, 2014, 02:27:06 PM »
What? you are now saying is that miracles DO NOT leave physical evidences?!?

That is correct.  There is no traceable physical linkage between the "miracle" and any gods.  None.  None at all.  A "miracle" is a diagnosis of exclusion (and not very stringent exclusion, at that), not a positive diagnosis with a 1:1 cause/effect relationship.

Quote
And that because it is not traceable to a physical entity there is no one responsible?

The only ones "responsible" are the person who benefited from the event, plus any other people or events that contributed (for example, a patient's doctor; a dietary change; change of venue from a stressful household to a quiet mountain retreat).  You can't just say "Oh, a god must have done it!" just because you can't find the explanation.

Quote
Please answer the question : Do you think that murder cases have "peer-reviewed science journals detailing each investigation with raw data, experimentation, and statistical analysis"?

The answer is No, because a murder case has physical evidence and doesn't need to be conducted like a double-blind experiment.

As there is no physical evidence for your god, I see no reason to believe that it's there.

As the RCC's methodology for supporting "miracles" is so weak, I see no reason to believe that there's even a possibility of your god being there.
Thank you for answering the question.
You should learn that there are physical evidences for miracles. Documentations, pictures, papers. They are not something that is invented. It really happened in the world today.
A miracle has physical evidence and doesn't need to be conducted like a double-blind experiment.[/b]
The miracle IS the physical evidence of God.
You should also learn that it is not because you don't want to believe that there isn't a culprit that there are no one responsible for the event. You beliefs doesn't change the facts. The event happened and there was someone responsible to make it happen. That someone is God.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1280 on: September 04, 2014, 02:32:49 PM »
Lukvance, what you're referring to as evidence of miracles is no such thing.  All that it shows is that something unexpected happened.  There is no physical evidence tying that unexpected event to a god, or anything else for that matter.  It's the equivalent of someone praying to God, getting a perfect score on a test, and then claiming that it was a miracle from God.  Where is the evidence tying the event to God?

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2200
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1281 on: September 04, 2014, 03:55:05 PM »
The event happened and there was someone responsible to make it happen.

You know this how?

Quote
That someone is God.

You know this how?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1282 on: September 04, 2014, 04:45:58 PM »
What? you are now saying is that miracles DO NOT leave physical evidences?!?

You have yet to establish that 'miracles' exist.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1587
  • Darwins +59/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1283 on: September 04, 2014, 05:02:33 PM »
^ he has yet to establish that "god" exists.


oh wait, the Higgs boson....
Signature goes here...

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1284 on: September 04, 2014, 05:27:25 PM »
jaimehlers Your argumentation against theologian and their faith fails because there are Theologians that are atheists. There are theologians without faith.
Which proves nothing, except that you don't have an actual rebuttal for my argument.  When you say "but there are atheist theologians, so your argument is wrong", this does not actually do anything to my argument.  It is an attempt to dismiss my argument without showing that it is fallacious.  Furthermore, my post was not just about theologians who base their arguments on faith, which means you didn't even so much as acknowledge the other parts of my post.  Did you think that by mentioning atheist theologians, that you would negate my whole post?  If you did, you were engaging in wishful thinking.

The problem with your attempt at rebuttal is that a theologian can refer to two things; someone who engages in theology, and someone who studies it.  I was referring to the former in my post, whereas you were clearly referring to the latter.  I have no problems acknowledging that there are people who study a theology who do not believe in it, but that does not have any relevance to the point I made about people who engage in and promote the theology they follow through faith.

Therefore, the points I made in my previous post stand.
They stand but not as counter arguments. They do not diminish the value of miracles as proof of the existence of God.
I did read the other points you made, they might be right but I did not understand how they could diminish the value of miracles.
The fact that there are Theologians who are working on miracles and do not believe in God allow the value of miracle to not be tainted by the faith. Making them reliable proof of the existence of God.

Proofs are not evidence.  The only thing that you've proved with this statement is that you cannot properly distinguish between the two.
That is totally true. I cannot properly distinguish  between the two. But it shouldn't matter since :
In certain fields, such as law, they are closely related;
And I am using the miracle as evidence/proof of the existence of God. I am condemning God as responsible for the events based on all the clues he left.

That is a serious problem with the Vatican's procedure for determining whether something is a miracle.  They study an event to determine if it can be explained by science, and if there is no known explanation, they then study it through theology in order to try to prove that it is or isn't a miracle.
You keep repeating that. I am not sure that it is true. I believe that some miracles didn't made the "miracle recognized by the Vatican" group even before they received word from scientists. I also believe that some made the group but the Vatican waited for the results from scientists...just to be more sure of their claim.

However, whether something has a scientific explanation or not has no relevance at all to whether it is a miracle, and the Vatican's sorting mechanism is therefore arbitrary, because it excludes every event that can possibly be explained, as if your god can only be responsible for things which humans cannot understand.  That is the God of the Gaps fallacy.
That would be true if some miracle were to be dismissed by science after they were claimed miracles. But that is not the case.
You argument here, as I understand it, is that Miracles are not proof because they are excuses for something we don't understand.
I would argue that we understand miracle. You are the one saying that you don't understand it, that you can't explain it. We explained it before even you did.
It is true that often we are wrong and the reason for a supposed miracle is not God. But we are not wrong when it comes to miracles recognized by the Vatican.

Someone else who goes through the review process later on may well come up with a different answer, which means that the review process is also unreliable.
There is yet to have such a person to come forward. The evidence are so "flawless" that no respected theologian would come up with a different answer. Which means, contrary to what you propose, that the review process is extremely reliable.

You see, in the final stage of reviewing an event to see if it is a miracle, there is no evidence involved.  It is all subjective - how people felt about it, how it changed their lives, and so on.  Those are anecdotes and thus cannot stand as evidence.
Maybe but you forget all the evidence reaped before the final stage. These evidences suffice.
You understand that sometime we condemn people to prison based only on testimony from other people, right? We don't need that much evidence.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1285 on: September 04, 2014, 05:29:30 PM »
Lukvance, what you're referring to as evidence of miracles is no such thing.  All that it shows is that something unexpected happened.  There is no physical evidence tying that unexpected event to a god, or anything else for that matter.  It's the equivalent of someone praying to God, getting a perfect score on a test, and then claiming that it was a miracle from God.  Where is the evidence tying the event to God?
Alright. I don't want to be rude, but read a little about miracles before claiming such things. Miracles recognized by the Vatican are full of physical evidences. Pick one, read about it then come back with counter arguments based on what you read about it.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1286 on: September 04, 2014, 05:31:18 PM »
The event happened and there was someone responsible to make it happen.
You know this how?
Because everything (but God) has a cause. You should know that by now.
Quote
That someone is God.
You know this how?
Because this is what the Vatican claimed at the end of the investigation. And I trust the Vatican in their findings.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1287 on: September 04, 2014, 05:34:39 PM »
What? you are now saying is that miracles DO NOT leave physical evidences?!?
You have yet to establish that 'miracles' exist.
No, I don't. If you don't believe that there are extraordinary events happening around you and that some of these events are recognized by the Vatican as miracle then you are not of this world.
You're worth more than my time

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1587
  • Darwins +59/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1288 on: September 04, 2014, 05:49:43 PM »
yes extraordinary events do happen all the time is true

that the Vatican recognises some of these events as miracles is true

that extraordinary events that happen are proof of gods existence or that extraordinary events are caused by god - there is no evidence provided, so a false conclusion = non sequiter I believe.
Signature goes here...

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-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 #1289 on: September 04, 2014, 06:00:19 PM »
You should learn that there are physical evidences for miracles.

I reject that so-called evidence.  I reject it absolutely, and I reject the people and the organizations that are deceiving others into thinking that it ever -was- evidence. 

Quote
You should also learn that it is not because you don't want to believe ...

(Springy G's breath quickens as She reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BANG SMASH CRUNCH WHAM SPLINTER*

I will not forgive the lie that you just told about Me, Lukvance.

Ever.

Perhaps we shall meet one day in the empty shell of Vatican City as all of its ill-gotten gains are restored to their rightful owners worldwide.  I'll be the one with the smirk and the glass of Prosecco.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1290 on: September 04, 2014, 06:01:46 PM »
Perhaps we shall meet one day in the empty shell of Vatican City as all of its ill-gotten gains are restored to their rightful owners worldwide.  I'll be the one with the smirk and the glass of Prosecco.

Dammit, now I'll have to have another face and drink something else. :'(
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 Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-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 #1291 on: September 04, 2014, 06:06:14 PM »
Dammit, now I'll have to have another face and drink something else. :'(
Hey, we can take turns smirking.  I also do a very good malicious giggle.  (orders a magnum of Italian sparkling wine and an extra glass)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1292 on: September 04, 2014, 07:21:41 PM »

I don't know how much I can stress the fact that the clues received from miracles all pointed toward God. By this, proving his existence without a doubt.
In other words : Miracles are the proof of the existence of God outside our body. I don't want to talk about which God as long as this is not accepted.

No matter how many times you regurgitate this mantra it is still logically fallacious (and false). You've already admitted that your definition for "miracle" is "God interacting with the world". So any attempt you make to say that miracles are proof of "God" is completely CIRCULAR REASONING. You cannot start with the assumption of "God interacting with the world is proof of God" because you have not demonstrated that there is any such thing as a "God" thing that did anything. You haven't shown that God is a "being", a "he", a "thing", and you haven't shown what it is made of, what its essence is, or how you can demonstrate (present) it to anyone so that they can check it out independently of your saying so.


ONCE AGAIN...STOP USING THIS FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT!

P1 - God interacts with the world
C - Therefore God exists outside your body

(Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning)

-You still have not presented a sound definition of what "God" is made of (i.e. - what God actually IS - and what 'thing' is doing the interacting)
-You still have not demonstrated that this alleged "thing" is interacting with anything (for that you would need to actually present the thing!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1293 on: September 04, 2014, 07:27:51 PM »
They stand but not as counter arguments. They do not diminish the value of miracles as proof of the existence of God.
I did read the other points you made, they might be right but I did not understand how they could diminish the value of miracles.
The fact that there are Theologians who are working on miracles and do not believe in God allow the value of miracle to not be tainted by the faith. Making them reliable proof of the existence of God.
First off, thank you for acknowledging the validity of my previous statements.  It is a lot less frustrating for you to say, "these are (or might be) correct but I don't see their relevance" than to effectively dismiss them, whether that was your intention or not.  That's one of the reasons I try to acknowledge every point someone else makes; if I leave something out, it's usually because it's been worked out to my satisfaction.

So, now I can properly address your argument, that there are atheists studying theology and miracles, and that their lack of faith makes the miracles reliable proof that your god exists.  I do not agree with this.  Your argument appears to hinge on the idea that since these atheists cannot disprove your church's conclusion that such-and-such is a miracle, that this makes it into proof of your god's existence.  However, that is a flawed idea, as someone's inability to disprove something does not have any bearing on whether that thing actually exists.

For example, take Russell's TeapotWiki.  If someone were to assert that there was an invisible teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars, the fact that other people could not disprove that assertion would not have any bearing on whether it was correct.  It is up to the person making the assertion to prove it by showing that the teapot exists; nobody has any obligation to accept that it does exist without evidence.

How does this apply to miracles?  I think we can both agree that things the Catholic Church considers miracles are, at the least, unexplained by human knowledge.  However, to go from "I cannot explain how this happened" to "it is proof of God's existence" is not a valid proposition without evidence.  But that is exactly what you are proposing - that because your church has concluded that it is a miracle, that it must be evidence of your god's existence.  Yet this is a flawed approach; it is like arguing that gravity is caused by invisible beings that lurk within matter, even though you have no evidence of their existence.  You cannot say that gravity is the evidence, because that becomes a circular argument (you must presuppose that these invisible beings exist because gravity exists, which then proves that these invisible beings exist); you must have other evidence of their existence besides gravity for your argument to be convincing.

Similarly, if you want to convince other people that miracles are the work of a god, you must be able to show that this god exists without relying on miracles to stand as your evidence.  Otherwise you'll just go around in circles without convincing anyone.

Quote from: Lukvance
That is totally true. I cannot properly distinguish  between the two. But it shouldn't matter since :
In certain fields, such as law, they are closely related;
And I am using the miracle as evidence/proof of the existence of God. I am condemning God as responsible for the events based on all the clues he left.
On the contrary, it matters very much if you cannot distinguish the difference between the two in any given field.  That's called conflation, meaning to confuse one thing for another.  For example, in the law, evidence establishes a possible connection between something, while proof represents a conclusive, unassailable argument fully supported by evidence.  Philosophy (and thus theology) work in a similar manner; therefore you cannot afford to conflate the two terms.

That aside, the point I am trying to make, and have been trying to make for quite a while now, is that you cannot use miracles as evidence of the existence of your god.  The reason is because in order to make the claim that miracles stand as evidence that your god exists, you must presuppose that your god exists, which makes the argument circular.  A circular argument is very far from unassailable.  Logically, you must establish that your god exists through some other means; then you can use miracles as corroborating evidence of your god's existence.

Quote from: Lukvance
You keep repeating that. I am not sure that it is true. I believe that some miracles didn't made the "miracle recognized by the Vatican" group even before they received word from scientists. I also believe that some made the group but the Vatican waited for the results from scientists...just to be more sure of their claim.
Many possible miracles are excluded because they do not meet certain guidelines established by the Vatican (such as being immediate, complete, and permanent).  As for the latter one, it wouldn't surprise me to find that priests have already privately come to a conclusion on whether something is a miracle or not long before scientists finish reviewing it.  However, neither of these make any real difference here; they certainly do not make the "is this a miracle" process any more reliable.

Quote from: Lukvance
That would be true if some miracle were to be dismissed by science after they were claimed miracles. But that is not the case.
It is true regardless of that, because of the advancement of scientific knowledge.  Things that would once have been considered miracles are now scientifically explainable, and thus are no longer considered to be possible miracles.  This is precisely what I was referring to by "God of the Gaps".

Quote from: Lukvance
You argument here, as I understand it, is that Miracles are not proof because they are excuses for something we don't understand.
That is more or less correct.

Quote from: Lukvance
I would argue that we understand miracle. You are the one saying that you don't understand it, that you can't explain it. We explained it before even you did.
No.  You claim to understand miracles, but your claim amounts to the statement that God was responsible for them (at least as far as I can tell).  You are confusing "knowing who is responsible" with "understanding how they did it"; they are not the same thing, and you cannot logically progress from the former to the latter.  Unless you can explain how God performed a miracle, any claims you make to understand it are false.

Quote from: Lukvance
It is true that often we are wrong and the reason for a supposed miracle is not God. But we are not wrong when it comes to miracles recognized by the Vatican.
This is essentially special pleading.  You are stating that Catholics have been wrong about various things, but the Vatican is not wrong about miracles, without giving any reason to support why this is the case.  Why do you say that the Vatican is not wrong about miracles?

Quote from: Lukvance
There is yet to have such a person to come forward. The evidence are so "flawless" that no respected theologian would come up with a different answer. Which means, contrary to what you propose, that the review process is extremely reliable.
This is a horrible, horrible argument, Lukvance.  The fact that nobody has come forward has no relevance, because it only reflects on what has already happened, not what might happen in the future, and as far as arguing that the evidence is 'flawless'...really?  The only 'evidence' used to state that something is a miracle is subjective.  Subjective evidence is anything but flawless.  I will acknowledge that so far as I know, nobody has contested these supposed miracles on theological grounds, but that does not make the review process reliable.  If anything, it makes it quite unreliable, because it means nobody is reviewing past conclusions for validity, something that happens in science all the time.

Quote from: Lukvance
You understand that sometime we condemn people to prison based only on testimony from other people, right? We don't need that much evidence.
You mean like the false convictions listed in this article?  I don't know about you, but I don't consider testimony reliable enough by itself to convict anyone on.

Alright. I don't want to be rude, but read a little about miracles before claiming such things. Miracles recognized by the Vatican are full of physical evidences. Pick one, read about it then come back with counter arguments based on what you read about it.
I read through the whole list of Lourdes healing miracles on that "miracle hunter" website you linked a while back.  Not a single one of them had any physical evidence that any supernatural being was responsible, never mind your god.  So that means that I contest your assertion that "miracles recognized by the Vatican are full of physical evidence" that links them to your god.

Here's a suggestion for you; find one of these recognized miracles, and explain exactly what the physical evidence tying the event to your god was.  The reason you need to look is because you're the one convinced that it was your god, so you need to point out exactly what convinced you.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1294 on: September 04, 2014, 07:54:36 PM »
Hey, I prayed for rain and then rain came. It must have been Zeus!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1295 on: September 04, 2014, 08:27:44 PM »
The connection between a) an unusual event with no scientific explanation and b) the Catholic god and only the Catholic god has not been established.

There would have to be 1) physical evidence that only points to the Catholic god, as in DNA, fingerprints, blood or hair or some other thing that could only come from one being in the universe. And once you have that physical evidence, you would have to 2) establish that the evidence came from the Catholic god and only him. You would have to have a set of fingerprints, DNA samples, etc. already on file as coming from the Catholic god and only from him.

Once you have 1) and 2) you don't need to trust the Vatican or special miracle theologians  with special miracle detecting equipment to examine the evidence. Anyone with the skills of matching evidence could do it. Trust would not even enter into it, just analytical skills. And everyone would be able to accept it as valid.

The part about "atheist theologians" who assert that the Catholic god did miracles, yet who do not believe that the Catholic god exists? That sounds bogus. How could anyone say a god did something if they don't believe in that god? That makes no sense. That would be like the Vatican certifying Muslim miracles performed by Allah, or Muslims certifying Hindu miracles performed by Lakshmi. Maybe in one of those alternate universes Lukvance thinks exist out there, but not on this planet.

Remember, the fact that I really want something to be true, like miracles, has not a whit of bearing on miracles being real. Similarly, the fact that someone does not want miracles to be true doesn't matter, either. The Catholic god is real and does miracles, or he is not real and does not do miracles. What we wish was the case has nothing to do with the facts.

I would be deliriously happy if miracles were real! I know a lot of folks who could really use some miracles right now. Like the people in Liberia suffering from ebola...If there was a god who could do miracles, he could instantly eliminate ebola from West Africa. If a god did that and we knew which god it was, I would worship it like nobody's business. Who wouldn't?

But reality don't give a sh!t how much we want miracles to happen. Reality says there aren't any miracles. Sometimes good things happen unexpectedly by random chance. Impossibly miraculous things, like all children getting the miracle of no cancer? Nope. Catholic god don't roll that way. But he will, once in a while, eliminate one kid's cancer. How do I know? I just do.

Therefore, the Catholic god is not going to miraculously eliminate the ebola virus from West Africa, either.[1] Just like the Catholic god never miraculously eliminated smallpox or malaria. Just like the Catholic god never miraculously eliminated any disease from anywhere. Millions suffer and die, but the Catholic god prefers to help one Catholic person and the people who personally know them bolster their faith. The Catholic god just wants to do tiny little miracles here and there, disguised as random chance. And only for Catholics. He doesn't want to spread the miracles around to other religions.

He's shy.
 1. The Catholic god might randomly heal one person in all of West Africa of ebola. Not necessarily even a nice, pious mother of five who prays every day. God will just heal some random guy. Everyone else can keep on bleeding to death from their eyeballs.
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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1296 on: September 04, 2014, 11:18:26 PM »
I find it funny too that Luk thinks that whether or not a specific occurrence was immediate, complete, and/or permanent has any bearing on determining whether or not some alleged divine/supernatural "God" thing 'interacted' with the world. How do ANY of those things prove such an assertion? Let's say someone gets better immediately. Does that prove causation? NOPE. Let's say they have a full recovery. Does THAT prove what the cause was? NOPE! And let's say their recovery lasts the rest of their life. Does THAT prove some "God" thing did anything to them? NOPE! NOPE! NOPE! There are any number of simpler explanations that could be given (ones with less assumptions) for why a person got better quickly, had a full recovery, and had it last a long time. Absolutely NONE of that proves that some alleged invisible 'person' did anything.

Luk, the very foundation of your assertions are based upon a God of the Gaps fallacy (the argument from ignorance and incredulity). SORRY!

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 11:21:14 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1297 on: September 05, 2014, 12:09:11 AM »
The Vatican does not, to my knowledge conduct lifetime longitudinal follow-up studies of the people who supposedly received miracle healings. Does the Catholic Church send out physicians or do surveys every year for the rest of the person's life to see if the condition returned? Does the Vatican arrange for an autopsy to see if the person died a natural death?

If not,  how can they even say that the results were "permanent"? there have been many cases of placebo effects where being in a really religious environment makes a person emotionally uplifted and they think they are cured of whatever. And when they are not around all that hoopla, they are sicker than ever. The person who was healed of their cancer could have the cancer return and drop dead as soon as they get home and how would the Vatican know?
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 eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1587
  • Darwins +59/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1298 on: September 05, 2014, 12:43:29 AM »
.....and drop dead as soon as they get home and how would the Vatican know?


more importantly (for the Vatican) why would they want to know that?
Signature goes here...

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1299 on: September 05, 2014, 04:40:22 AM »
Hey, we can take turns smirking.

It's just not the same. :(

I also do a very good malicious giggle.

I can do a poor giggle to the point that it's hilarious.

(orders a magnum of Italian sparkling wine and an extra glass)

Everyone knows wine tastes better with the bottle.
*Eats bottle of wine*
Yum! Glass! :D
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 Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2200
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1300 on: September 05, 2014, 08:25:12 AM »
The event happened and there was someone responsible to make it happen.
You know this how?
Because everything (but God) has a cause. You should know that by now.

Ah. Special pleading. That's logical.   &)

Quote
That someone is God.
You know this how?
Because this is what the Vatican claimed at the end of the investigation. And I trust the Vatican in their findings.

And they wouldn't[1] have any ulterior motives, would they?  &)

I know you're so brainwashed that you cannot even perceive another position, let alone empathize with one, so you'll completely disregard anything anyone says about your beliefs. And that's ok. The world needs ditchdiggers too, Luk.
 1. yes, yes they would
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1301 on: September 05, 2014, 11:02:23 AM »
Lukvance, how about those lifetime follow-up medical studies or surveys? Does the Vatican check to see if the condition that was healed by a miracle ever returned? I doubt that any religious organization that believes in miracle healings would dare keep those kind of records--and make them available to researchers.

Of course, if they do follow up and the condition has worsened, they can switch seamlessly into "it was really a spiritual healing all along" mode. Meaning there was no miracle, really. Yeah, they died in horrible pain from the illness we said was healed. But they died firmly in the arms of the lord, secure in their faith,  so we still win.

Anyone see those goal posts? Anyone?

Why not leave the medical stuff to medical science and stick to the spiritual? I guess nobody with cancer will spend thousands of dollars to go to Lourdes for an ordinary non-miraculous spiritual healing that they can get at home..... :P
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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1302 on: September 05, 2014, 11:08:53 AM »
Anyone see those goal posts? Anyone?

It's like Tantalus... :'(
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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1303 on: September 05, 2014, 12:41:41 PM »
Yep. The answer is always juuuuuust out of reach.  &)
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 jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1304 on: September 05, 2014, 02:33:22 PM »
No, I don't.

Uh...Yes. You do. Just because you make a claim does not automagically make it true (No matter how much you believe it or wish it to be true).

Quote
If you don't believe that there are extraordinary events happening around you

I openly accept that extraordinary events occur.

Quote
...and that some of these events are recognized by the Vatican as miracle...

Which is absolutely meaningless. Just because some wrinkly old men in dresses dance around and perform incantations doesn't change the fact that it still is their subjective opinion that these events are miracles (as in supernatural events caused by a deity).

Quote
... then you are not of this world.

Derp, what? If you are talking about the fantasy world in your mind then, yes, I am certainly not of that world. I live in reality. Please join me.