B is not miracles. Miracles are the proof of the existence of God. The evidence that God is the cause of the miracle comes from your knowledge of God and what he can do and what he would do if he was to prove his existence using a miracle. From that knowledge you can conclude that it is indeed God who caused the event, we then call the event miracle.
So the evidence that “God” (something which does not exist) is the cause of the miracle comes from knowledge of “God” (something that does not exist). So I need to know things about something that doesn’t exist in order to have the evidence that the something which doesn’t exist was the cause. Again, this is nothing more than a futile exercise in confirmation bias.
I note YET AGAIN, you don’t actually provide the source of the evidence which demonstrates that “God” was the cause.
Quit stonewalling and answer the questions.
I did answer. Here, I’ll shorten the discussion for you.
You asked generally what my reaction would be if you asked for evidence regarding the Higgs bosen particle and what different our reactions are.
My answer, I would provide you evidence regarding the Higgs bosen particle. The difference between our reactions is that you continue to NOT provide evidence showing that “God” was the cause.
Of course, now you are accusing me of stonewalling while not answering my requests, so who is the one stonewalling here? You are dude.
Sorry, with your explanation on evidence previously in this post, I realize that I should have written "the evidence is in the miracles" I understand that little word can make a whole lot of difference. Good thing you took time to explain further the bit about evidences.
Doesn’t matter what you should have written. Whether it is in the miracles or it is the miracles is the same result. Miracles are supposed to be an act of “God” and you have yet to show any evidence that a miracle is actually anything at all. Oh we know something happened for which we don’t know the cause, it is then the Catholic Church that declares it a miracle. I keep asking for evidence that allows them to make such a declaration. YOU, then insist that the evidence that the cause of the event was “God” is IN the “act of God”.
You’re down to two letters now buddy. I and N. You are hiding your lack of any evidence what-so-ever behind two letters. What the FUCK is the IN!?!?!?!
Miracles are not evidence that it is God who made them. Miracles are evidence of the existence of God outside your body.
Okay, that is your claim. I do not see any supporting evidence for your claim.
It would appear we are at an impasse. You think you’ve provided the evidence. I think what you’ve provided is not evidence.
I don’t see any way forward. From my perspective, you don’t seem willing to acknowledge the problems with your logic and evidence.
I can provide you links to theology courses and books and website if you want. You will then have the necessary background information to know it was indeed an act from God. See? Your reaction is not that different than mine.
Oh it wasn't so hard. You don't have to twist you mind that much. "allow yourself to learn how to detect God" simply means take some course in theology. Do you want me to redirect you to the University closest to you?
I hope this will help you :
Beside the stonewalling for step 4 and 5 I believe that your study in theology will answer your counter arguments for the other steps.
OMG! I had already told you about theologians. Look at that! I am smarter than I think I am haha. Since your post was so long I took time to answer each part when in fact the answer was already been given. Just maybe misunderstood.
What you might not have understood about theology is that it is where you learn how to determine that God is the cause. It is not a secret information, you can read books about theology and follow the courses that I've linked you.
Stories about a fictional character that cannot actually be shown to exist does not prove anything. Scientific test results based on reality prove something. Our reactions are polar opposites.
The problem here is you think our reactions are the same, that is your only goal is to equate reality with fiction. This is the only hope for your fiction, to get me to believe that it is the same as reality. Your hope is to trick me.
Give me enough time and I (or some rock expert or some alien expert) will prove you that the rock that you have was NOT put there by aliens from another planet.
No, you or any expert could not. I will just use your tactics. They have to prove that the rock was not placed there by aliens. They could give me all the scientific information imaginable regarding rocks, history and aliens, but none of it would ever be able to prove that aliens didn’t put the rock there. Why? Because, all I need to do is use your logic and the logic used by apologists and theologians. The logic is making a claim that can’t be falsified.
Of course, you don’t understand what falsifiable means, do you?
You can’t think of a way to prove the rock didn’t come from aliens can you? You think all you need is time, and if you can’t do it, someone else can. Your response is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of having to acknowledge that your claims and the claims of the Catholic Church can’t be falsified and thus do not follow the scientific method.
I understand that Altuna Runestone is not presented as proof of the existence of Thor. Now you shift to some other example. That's ok.
Big Foot footprints are presented as proof of the existence of Big foot? I remember reading an article about that and how these footprints where in fact made by kids with sticks and plastic feet. Are you sure you want to compare The miracle of Lanciano to Bigfoot footprints? Because I believe there are some trusty website that I can find that will convince you that they are not proof of anything.
Your link doesn’t falsify all 900 foot prints. Of course the footprints could be faked, just like the Miracle of Lanciano could be faked. Unfortunately, just because some kids with sticks and plastic feet could make the foot prints, doesn’t mean that they actually did. In the same way, some person could have put human tissue and blood in the church and made up the story. In the same way, someone could have carved the Altuna Runestone and then make up a story that Thor made the Runestone.
They’re all stories that can’t be proven true and can’t be proven false. That is the point you are going out of your way to miss.
Could any of the stories be true, sure, maybe “God” does exist and actually turned the bread to flesh and the wine to blood. Maybe Bigfoot does exist and some of those foot prints are actually Bigfoot footprints. Maybe Thor does exist and did actually carve the Altuna Runestone.
Unfortunately, there isn’t any solid evidence one way or the other for any of the stories. You however believe one and not the others because you’ve already decided that “God” exists and what the Catholic Church says is the truth. This is further evidence of your confirmation bias.
Explain to me how they are detected and hwy they are detected that way. I will then have a specific mean that I would use to detect the existence of leprechauns or Santa Clause BEFORE telling you that your means are not working.
Wait a second, when did I say that the methods used by the Catholic Church are not working? Can you quote when I said that? I’ve been saying that from what I can find, from your sources and my sources, that the methods used are illogical. They are a logical fallacy, “God of the gaps” and argument from ignorance to name a few. So because of this, there is no scientific method used.
I’ve explained to you what the steps are to determine if “God” was the cause. First you have to detect “God”. Regarding detecting “God”, I can find no means in which the Catholic Church has actually accomplished this. So again, I know of no method. There is no methods in either instance. So it isn’t that their method isn’t working, it’s that their method does not exist. So you continue to ask me for details on how to detect something which I don’t know to exist, it’s not my hypothesis.
You’re expecting me to give you something to review and compare when I have been given nothing to review and compare. Why do I have to give you information that you refuse to give me? You are asking me to do what neither you or the Catholic Church can do, and you guys believe “God’ exists while I do not. Wouldn’t that be an amazing story, Atheist does what Theists could not do, prove that “God” exists?
Stop dodging. Give me a source or evidence as to what there method is for determining that “God” is the cause. Once I am able to review the methods, then I’ll be able to tell you if I can find a problem or not and tell you what I think. If the methods are sound then I’ll need to reevaluate what I believe and don’t believe.
The best would be that you review it yourself. That way you will be sure that the reviewing has been done correctly. If you want to read about the others reviewing, I think you will have to read books or go to the Vatican archives. Maybe with luck you can find a theological review online for the miracle you want to investigate. Something along the lines of that book.
I have no reason to go on wild goose chases to support your claim. I’m not going to do your work for you. If you don’t have the evidence that I’m asking for, just say so and admit that you cannot support your claim that “Miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our minds”.
IMO, from what I’ve read about the Miracle of Lanciano, I have no reason what-so-ever to believe that it is true. It can easily be a hoax, and given the time period that it is said to occurred, it is almost likely that it is a hoax. Even if I believed that it was a miracle, I myself would have no way to prove that it is true, which is exactly the same boat you are in. Of course, your confirmation bias leads you to believe it is true just because it hasn’t been proven wrong yet. Problem is, it can’t be proven wrong any more than it can be proven right.
I’m sorry Lukvance, I don’t believe things I have no reason to believe are true. Hasn’t been proven wrong yet, isn’t good enough for me. Furthermore, you do your belief disservice by having such low standards. If you’re going to believe something, don’t you want it to be clear as a sunny cloudless day that it is true? I know I do, so until some clear evidence is found that the Miracle of Lanciano story is true, I have no reason to believe it is even though it hasn’t been proven wrong yet either.
As for your book, from what I can tell, it only proves that the flesh and blood exists, it does nothing to corroborate the story.
Wow, that was the longest reply I ever posted. I hope you will find your answers inside it.
Nope, you didn’t provide any evidence that “God” is the cause.