Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 14039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1314
  • Darwins +46/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #406 on: July 02, 2014, 09:42:48 PM »
^ Bad move on the hits and miss thing. Remember how the higgs bison is a higgs boson only if it is a higgs boson and if it isn't then its not. same as miracles.... boom god exists.
Signature goes here...

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 #407 on: July 03, 2014, 04:51:39 AM »
So (just like your Catholic "experts" want us to believe that these cases are in fact miracles from Yahweh) you would actually believe (if told by Scientologist "experts") that their claims validate their religion as true?? Is this what you are saying - because this sounds exactly like the implication you just made.
I'm not sure I follow where you want to go with that line of question. If I asked a Scientologist expert about Scientology, I will believe his answer.
If a Scientologist expert tells me that a miracle (recognized by the church) is not really one, I won't believe him. That is not what he is expert in.
If that does not answer your question, please use an example so I could answer it more properly.

That isn't what I asked you, and furthermore you haven't demonstrated that these alleged people are "experts at miracles". Like every other claim you have made on this forum you merely asserted that they were experts but you provided absolutely ZERO good reason for us to think such a thing is the case. The question regarding Scientology was in a similar vein. Would you accept the mere assertions of Scientologist "experts" (similar to your alleged "experts") who say that some extraordinary events which took place in their buildings was proof that their religion is true and accurate?? Sure, you could reject that they are experts on "the miracles of Scientology" (just as I am doing with your claims) but that just proves my point even further - that you wouldn't take the Scientologists word for it (unlike you are doing with your religion). So you are a hypocrite - applying a double standard to suit your assumptions.

Luk, the difference here is in how you are approaching the quest for knowledge (i.e. - you are believing hear-say by people who you claim are "experts" at determining whether a miracle occurred). However, when we look beneath the surface all we find is an irrational argument from ignorance. Scientists and medical doctors (who do not claim to be "experts" at miracles) state that they do not have an explanation as to why a particular rare event occurred (which is where it should stop and you should have admitted ignorance). But then your theologians (the ones who want it to be a miracle and claim to be experts on miracles) ASSERT that a miracle must have occurred since there is "no other natural explanation". But just because there is no natural explanation for something does not mean it was supernatural! Did you get that?

The Argument from Ignorance fallacy is still irrational regardless of how many times you use it.

Quote
Why don't these alleged "experts" on miracles conclude that a different deity than the one they personally believe in did it?
They can conclude it is from another deity than the one they believe. All events are not miracles. I thought you understood that already.

You just missed the point. I didn't state what they could do. I stated what they actually do - which is, they assert that a miracle from Yahweh happened which further confirms their already believed theology. Do you not see the tremendous potential for confirmation bias here? There is no independent and disinterested verification that is possible here (unlike in science). Just because a group of people get together and make assertions does not mean their assertions are rational our sound. As others have noted, neither you nor they have any reliable method for determining 1) that a "God" is the cause of said event, 2) that said event was in fact a divine "miracle" and 3) that any one particular deity was the cause. It's merely an assertion out of ignorance. Since correlation does not equal causation you cannot assert that b/c people prayed, and then others got better, that it was a miracle - b/c it could have NOT been a miracle too.

Quote
There is no way to independently verify if any one of the thousands of proposed "gods" was the actual cause of an unexplained occurrence. If you think so, then please demonstrate how exactly that would be done (without using an irrational argument from ignorance fallacy).
That is what Reply #203 is about. Scientific method.
If you want to know more about how miracles are "stuff of science" I recommend you "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World" from Jacalyn Duffin.
You have seen her testimony on Video already in this thread.

I have already responded to this and you ignored it. Jacalyn uses an argument from ignorance fallacy, just as you are doing, and she caters to her confirmation bias by using irrational arguments to prop up non-science. Her mere assertions (just like yours) are neither rational nor backed up by the evidence. Again, saying, "We don't have a natural explanation. So it must be supernatural." is a logical fallacy.

Here's a quote from your cherished "expert" on miracles.

Quote
"[In the face of medical miracles] medical scientists are not prepared to attribute the unknown to God . . . their discomfort also arises from a kind of faith - the absolute belief in the nontranscendence of earthly events. Like those who believe in God, they believe in the existence of a natural explanation, as yet unknown but open for discovery . . . But as Mark Corner wrote, 'there can be no certainty (since we obviously cannot anticipate what medical science will know in a century's time) that a miracle has taken place. At the same time, however, there is no certainty that a miracle has not taken place.' . . . only another form of belief sustains that interpretation" (page 189).

Notice her outright assumption from the outset (that these unexplained occurrences MUST be "miracles"). More importantly, she presents an irrational false dichotomy. That medical scientists must either believe the events are "miracles" or they must have "the absolute belief in the nontranscendence of earthly events". This is an epic fucking fail because these are not the only options. The third and most honest position is to admit (please repeat after me): WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! and leave it there. It is to admit ignorance instead of making assertions based upon logical fallacious reasoning. There is no "faith" there! So I'm sorry Luke, but just as I suspected your "experts" are not experts at all and what your argument amounts to is a rationalization of belief without evidence or good reasons (just like the ancients who said, "Hey! We don't know how that lightening and thunder stuff works. So Zeus did it!")

But you aren't comfortable with admitting ignorance on this, are you? You aren't happy admitting your own ignorance when it comes to claims by your church. Instead, you take the extremely arrogant approach by merely pretending to know what you in fact do not know. Well, I'm sorry, but an irrational argument is still an irrational argument regardless of how many times you try it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4595
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #408 on: July 03, 2014, 08:53:07 AM »
They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.

This sounds like a cop out. Would you mind actually presenting those "strict rules"? From what I have seen so far their "rules" amount to nothing but a God of the Gaps fallacy (an argument from ignorance).

This article explains the rigorous procedures involved:

Quote
”There has been talk of the Vatican having a kind of ’CIA’, which investigates alleged miracles. This may be true to a certain extent,” says Niels Christian Hvidt, an associate professor of theology at the University of Southern Denmark, who is also the director of the Danish Center for Research in Faith and Health... ...

"The miracle commission canonises saints in the Catholic Church. It’s sent out to investigate whether or not a person qualifies as a saint. Since saints are a central element of Catholicism, they need to be examined using the latest scientific methods".

To determine whether it’s really a miracle, the commission collects evidence and examines the healed person. These assessments are made in accordance with scientific methodology.

”The miracle commission consists of doctors who use the latest equipment to find an explanation to why a person has been healed,” he says.

”If, for instance, a brain tumour suddenly disappears after prayer, the doctors check the patient’s medical record and brain scans from before and after the tumour disappeared.”

A total of 80-90 physicians are affiliated with the Vatican’s miracle commission. They are all competent scientists and not all of them are necessarily Catholics.

When a potential miracle is reported to the Vatican, the report includes testimonies from astounded doctors who cannot find a natural explanation for the phenomenon in question.

The cardinals then pass these testimonies on to the miracle commission, which then sends a delegation to the location where the unexplainable event took place. If the delegates fail to find a satisfactory scientific explanation for the strange phenomenon, they can call in external experts.

“They do everything they can to find an explanation. At some point they may give up, and then the case is handed over to the Vatican’s theologians,” says the researcher.

“The theologians then examine the doctors’ testimonies for specific religious issues – e.g. trust and prayer. If such issues are present in the testimonies, they, together with the inexplicable nature of the incident, constitute the miracle.”

Could those rules be any more strict?
a spontaneous remission =a miracle? Hardly,these panels main goals are to uphold the theologies in their church....no saints= no miracles= no dogma

 Has there been a double blind study,where spontaneous remission where no prayer was involved? How about those who were prayed over and died anyways
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 08:56:35 AM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #409 on: July 03, 2014, 09:20:55 AM »
^ Bad move on the hits and miss thing. Remember how the higgs bison is a higgs boson only if it is a higgs boson and if it isn't then its not. same as miracles.... boom god exists.
Do you always have to comment on everything?  Especially when you don't seem to have understood the point I was trying to make?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #410 on: July 03, 2014, 09:55:04 AM »
Regarding Jacalyn DuffinWiki, here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia page about her tesimony on a 'miracle'.

Quote
Upon her return to Canada, Duffin settled in Ottawa where she took on a contract to review a set of slides, which she assumed were to be used in a malpractice suit.[2] She was given no information about the patient, but identified the young woman as suffering from acute myeloblastic leukemia, “the most aggressive leukemia known.”[2] As the slides were from some 5+ years earlier, she assumed the patient as deceased, as that form of leukemia kills usually within two years. Instead, she found that the patient had, after a relapse, gone into remission and was doing well some five years on. Duffin's testimony was to be used by the Vatican to determine whether Marie-Marguerite d'Youville (1701 – 1771) had performed a miracle and was worthy of canonization. According to Duffin, “They never asked me to say this was a miracle. They wanted to know if I had a scientific explanation for why this patient was still alive. I realized they weren’t asking me to endorse their beliefs. They didn’t care if I was a believer or not, they cared about the science.”[2]
So, first off, she was not told the actual reason why they wanted her to review those slides until after she had reviewed them.  This may have been intended to avoid prejudicing her, but it was misleading at the very least.  In a situation like this, full disclosure from the outset is the best course of action.

Second, this seriously begs the question of how a dead woman, no matter how she might have acted in her life, could have performed any miracle at all on someone from the modern day.

Third, knowing the Vatican's procedure for vetting miracles does not leave me with any confidence that they truly are any sort of experts in it.

Finally, as I and others have stated repeatedly, not having a scientific explanation for something simply means that there's no known explanation for it.  It is incorrect to go from "unexplained" to "supernatural", as that begs the question of, if we do not know how to explain it, how do we know it's supernatural?

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • 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 #411 on: July 03, 2014, 10:12:49 AM »
... not having a scientific explanation for something simply means that there's no known explanation for it.  It is incorrect to go from "unexplained" to "supernatural", as that begs the question of, if we do not know how to explain it, how do we know it's supernatural?

Not only that, but pasting over an unexplained healing event with a "Miracle!" sticker does a grave disservice to other people afflicted with the same condition.  If persons A, B and C have a disease and person B gets better spontaneously, you do *not* call in a flashmob of Catholic priests.  What you do is analyze all three patients in more detail and try to identify what's different about person B -- And maybe find something that cures all three, not just the one who happened to pray to St. Bronchiectasia of Wheeze.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #412 on: July 03, 2014, 11:57:52 AM »
^If nothing else, even if it was a miracle (which I am not conceding), it would still be possible to figure out what actually happened and thus be able to reproduce it using science, since it's a thing that happened in the natural world.

Instead, we get people spending tons of money yearly to go to places like Lourdes, hoping against hope that they'll be one of the lucky few to be blessed with miraculous healing.  If even a tenth of the total money they spent was funneled to causes which sought to find cures for their ailments, who knows how many of the people who visit there wouldn't have to because science could treat them?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6519
  • Darwins +851/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #413 on: July 03, 2014, 11:59:35 AM »
^^^^Excellent point there.

Calling something a "miracle healing from god" is scientifically, the same as saying "we don't have any real idea how the person got better". That is useless to the person who got the miracle, as well as to the people who did not get the miracle. Because all the people did the same stuff and only one got a miracle from god, and nobody knows why.

Miracles from god are not predictable or repeatable, because, as Lukvance has told us, god alone decides, randomly, to grant miracles in some, but by no means all, cases. Miracles, by definition, then, are not scientific.

Lukvance, the scientific method means that anyone who performs the experiment will get the same result. Not only Catholics. Not only priests. Anyone. A mixed group of JW's, atheists, pagans, Hindus and Baptists who perform the right rituals should be able to get the same number of miracle healings from god as a group of Catholics. That is science. Anyone can play.

Religious miracles are the opposite of that. Only Catholics who pray to the correct deity, or people who believe in the correct deity, or who have gotten this deity's special attention somehow will get the result. Asking a priest after the fact if their god did a miracle is not a scientific way to investigate something.

However, all phenomena can be easily examined scientifically to see if they are really happening or not. All you have to do to examine miracles scientifically is to be able to count accurately.

If miracles are going to be analyzed scientifically, you should be able to correlate x number of prayers by y number of people in z location = 1 miracle healing. Or you would find that prayers by people baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church are x times more likely to result in a miracle healing than prayers by atheists. Scientifically, there should be some sign that believing in god,  or being at Lourdes, or having a priest around increases the likelihood of a miracle healing.

Instead, scientifically, we find that the number of healings attributed to god at the most popular shrine in Christianity is below the level of statistical probability. That means that at least as many people will get healed "miraculously" by doing nothing at all! God indeed works in mysterious ways. Considering that some people will get worse by traveling to the shrine, we would probably find that there are actually more "miracle healings" by people who stay home and don't do anything different. I am not just dissing on Catholics-- I am willing to bet money that the same is true of every religious holy site in every religion.[1]

That information should be publicized outside of the shrine at Lourdes, if the Catholics are honest and are really being scientific. But they do not do this. Wonder why that would be?

The sign at Lourdes should say this:

"Attention All Sick Catholic People! Please stop coming to Lourdes.  If you are due for a miracle, God can find you wherever you are. If you are not due for a miracle, coming here will not help you. It may even make you worse off. Stay home. Spend the money you would have used to come here in your local community. Sincerely, The Catholic Church." 

Since there is no sign like that, what can we conclude? Maybe the Catholic Church and the city of Lourdes are not really scientific. Maybe they want people to keep coming there, even though the overwhelming majority will not get any miracles. Many will even be worse off.

What could possibly be the reason there is no sign telling the truth?
 1. Seriously ill Hindus who travel to bathe in the sacred Ganges River will probably have a lower rate of miracle healings than those who just stay home and do nothing, once you control for the higher income of the pilgrims, contact with the contaminated germ-filled water in the river, etc.
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 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 #414 on: July 03, 2014, 01:51:03 PM »
But then your theologians (the ones who want it to be a miracle and claim to be experts on miracles) ASSERT that a miracle must have occurred since there is "no other natural explanation". But just because there is no natural explanation for something does not mean it was supernatural! Did you get that?
Yes.
You're worth more than my time

Offline 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 #415 on: July 03, 2014, 02:05:57 PM »
You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.

Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.
If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.
You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?
If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".

The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body.
And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)
You're worth more than my time

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 #416 on: July 03, 2014, 02:09:38 PM »
You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.

You just committed another logical fallacy, called Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are the one making the claims that these events were "miracles". So the burden of proof is on YOU. We do not just believe everything until proven false. That would be absurd and lead to contradictions and irrational beliefs. Instead (in science) we disbelieve claims until demonstrated to be true. You have not demonstrated your claims. You have merely CLAIMED them over and over. So stop pretending that you are being scientific (or rational) when you keep making these irrational arguments.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

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 #417 on: July 03, 2014, 02:26:21 PM »
Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.
If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.
You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?
If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".

First, you are using an appeal to emotion fallacy by saying we are "spitting" on peoples lives. That is irrational (once again). It doesn't matter if a response hurts someones feelings b/c that is irrelevant to the argument. Second, we didn't say their "opinion is worth nothing". We said they (like you) are using irrational arguments and are therefore in error. Muslims spend their lives dedicated to their beliefs. SO WHAT! It doesn't make it true just because you dedicate your life to something. Again, the burden of proof is on you (and them) and so far that burden has not been met.

Second, you have misrepresented what the argument from ignorance fallacy actually is. So you should start there. Go research what the fallacy actually states because you keep trying to use it and it fails every time. It makes no difference whatsoever if we haven't talked to one of these alleged "scholars". We can read their statements and articles online and evaluate their arguments (as we have already done). Arguments stand or fall on their own merits and the ones you keep presenting are fallacious. They therefore should be corrected.

Again, if you don't know how something happened (and there is no explanation) then you don't get to just ASSERT that it was a miracle - because that would be pretending to know something that you do not know. And that method is unreliable for separating fact from fiction (which is what we've been saying all along).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/


The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body.
And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)

What you are showing here is that you know absolutely NOTHING about how science works and how experiments are reproduced (or you are suppressing it). You cannot reproduce an alleged "miracle" because the things that are taking place (such as someone getting better) is all the evidence you have!!! The fallacious conclusion you keep trying to draw (that a miracle occurred) is the thing in error. You simply cannot get to the conclusion that something was a "miracle" by trying to equate causation from correlation. Do you not know this? CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION! Just because two events happen near each other does NOT mean that one caused the other. You do not know what caused a certain person to get better - and as others here have noted, if there is no current explanation then there is no current explanation! Your ASSERTION of "miracle" doesn't make it so, regardless of how much you WANT it to be a miracle to confirm your religious assumptions. 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 02:31:23 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4595
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #418 on: July 03, 2014, 03:19:25 PM »
Somebody who wants to see a "miracle", will see it that way. It is in any Priests own self interest to find a miracle,where a science observation will come up with " I don't know" or a "not enough evidence to figure out all the variables".

 Take out the priest or religious article or interest and the theologists will come up with a similar answer.  "Goddidit" is the answer they seek,and the answer they will inevitably find.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1734
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #419 on: July 03, 2014, 03:21:04 PM »
To support median's point, I submi the following, for lukvance's edification.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27022.msg622182.html#msg622182

My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6519
  • Darwins +851/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #420 on: July 03, 2014, 04:00:24 PM »
Can you understand, Lukvance, that science is about investigating things that happen? A hand was paralyzed. Now it is healed. How did it get healed? That is all that the scientific investigation would be about.

After investigating everything that scientists know, and finding nothing that could have caused the hand to be healed, that is the end of the scientific investigation. Period. Science is done.

If a religion wants to take over at that point and declare that god healed the hand through invisible magic godly miracle juice, that it the business (and I use the term intentionally) of the religion.

But there is no way you can go back and retrofit the situation and call what the religious people have done (said that the hand was healed by god and that it was a miracle) as scientific. Period. They have done religion, not science.

If you want to have a scientific investigation into the existence of miracles, that would be very different from what you have described. Because science has not yet established that miracle healings by a particular god are real.[1]

1) Science requires a control group that did not get whatever miracle, especially when you are dealing with human subjects and medical phenomena. That is basic investigative protocol.

2) Science requires a hypothesis to be tested that compares a miracle group with that non-miracle control group, where the hypothesis is designed to show that the miracle did not happen

3) only when you have overcome 1) and 2) can you even begin to call what happened scientific.

It is really important to understand 2) above. you have to have people who are willing to follow the evidence, even if it shows that miracles do not exist. Remember, whether or not miracles exist is the question that you are trying to scientifically investigate. You cannot call a miracle investigation scientific if the people who are investigating already believe in the existence of miracles![2]

The final scientific designation has to be made by independent investigators who are equally willing to say:
a) "According to our statistical analysis, miracles apparently do not exist," or

b) "According to our statistical analysis, miracles apparently do exist, and we need to further investigate the phenomena of apparent miracles."

I can't imagine that a group of Catholic priests are willing to say a) no matter what the evidence shows. They already believe in miracles, before they even start the investigation. So of course they are willing to say that a given healing was a miracle. That is most definitely not scientific.

Don't ignore the procedures commonly used in basic medical research (does this treatment work or not) and try to change the subject by introducing advanced discoveries in theoretical physics (does the Higgs Boson exist or not). That is only a way to confuse the issue. I get so irritated when religious folks try to go all physics on a topic when they can't shoehorn their god into a situation any other way.
 1. Science has not even established that gods are real, which is why there are atheists! ;D
 2. That would be like having a Sasquatch investigation program, but the team of people who make the final decision about whether x, y or z indicates a Sasquatch are all members of the either the "We Love You, Bigfoot Club", or the "Sasquatch Is Real Fan Club".
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 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 #421 on: July 03, 2014, 04:57:25 PM »
All of your arguments are based on your beliefs.

I used the scientific method presented to me. I am still waiting for one flaw to be underlined on that method that I presented in Reply #203.
You can claim that you already "proven" it flawed. But you only did it in your head. Not on paper.

Mostly what makes your claims useless is that they are based on your beliefs and not on reality. Mine are supported by countless papers and people that are involved each year in miracles.
That is why I proposed to you that you talked directly to people involved with the miracle process, so you can educate yourself on the subject before saying that it is not science.

I am pretty sure that I can find the same flaws in the method that has been presented by Graybeard about gravity that you find about the one I presented about the action of God in the world.
You're worth more than my time

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4595
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #422 on: July 03, 2014, 05:58:59 PM »
You are catching up to Skeptic with these stupid statements,you need to expand your horizons.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #423 on: July 03, 2014, 06:53:08 PM »
You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.
We get it, Lukvance.  The problem is that their (meaning the Catholic theologians who apparently decide whether it's a miracle) standards are still arbitrary and not scientific.  That is to say, they're ignoring every single person who was healed through some known means or who was not healed, and therefore are sabotaging their own process.

Quote from: Lukvance
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.
No, we're rejecting your unsupported conclusion that you can find 'miracles' via science by ruling out all known conclusions and then passing it over to some theologians to get their opinion of the matter.  And when it comes right down to it, they don't actually know if it is a miracle.  They're simply saying that they think it is one, but someone else who reviews it (especially someone else of a different religion, or even a different Christian sect) might well come to a different conclusion.  That means they're relying on subjective reasoning, and the whole point of science is to not have to use subjective reasoning in the first place.

Quote from: Lukvance
Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.
I did not ever say their opinions were worth nothing; don't presume to put words in my mouth.  What I am saying is that their opinions are not scientific, but subjective.  Subjective opinions are often still worthwhile for various things, but they're no more scientific than someone dressed up in a lab coat is a scientist.

Quote from: Lukvance
If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.
Once again you're demonstrating that you don't really understand how the scientific method works.  The only thing that was demonstrated scientifically (at least as far as that goes) is that we don't know how to explain what happened.  The moment your church hands this off to a group of its theologians, it stops being scientific, because they're looking at subjective factors rather than objective ones.  What they're doing is a lot like if someone tried to do a study on what some unknown food tasted like; you couldn't scientifically prove what it tasted like because it would be subjective.  Are you starting to understand the problem here?  You can call this scientific all you want, but it won't actually make it scientific.

Quote from: Lukvance
You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?
If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".
We don't have to interview them or read their books to determine whether their methods are scientific or not.  Now, if we simply dismissed everything they said, then you might have a point, but I for one have no problem with their opinion that those are miracles from God.  I just have a problem with you or anyone stating that those opinions are scientific when the determining factors of those opinions were subjective.

Quote from: Lukvance
The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
Any experiment which doesn't take so-called 'unrelated' things into account (and not by looking at them long enough to tell that they aren't what the experiments are looking for) is not scientific.  How can you have been discussing this for more than a month with people who have been repeatedly trying to explain it to you and still not grasp this?  Scientists have to control for the things they aren't investigating to make sure that those things don't actually have some influence on what they are investigating.  That's why your method isn't scientific - because it makes no effort to actually control most of the variables.  The only people who are investigated are those who are presumably healed, and if there ends up being a scientific explanation for it, they're excluded and not investigated any further.

What your method does is act as a sorting method to exclude every case except for the ones that are unexplainable.  And then your theologians get in on the act, and do some further sorting.  But that very sorting is what prevents it from being scientific - in an experiment, scientists don't arbitrarily exclude all the instances where they didn't find what they were looking for, as you seem to think.  That's not what controlling the variables is about.  It's about making sure that nothing influences the experiment except what scientists want to influence it.  You can't do that by excluding everything except where you found what you were looking for, because one of those exclusions could have some of the data you need to explain things scientifically, even if they don't seem to.  Science is full of examples where a scientist found a clue somewhere they weren't expecting and made a breakthrough because of it.

Quote from: Lukvance
That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body.
It makes it just as valid as any opinion - no more and no less.  And it proves nothing, because science cannot prove that something is so, only that something is not so.

Quote from: Lukvance
And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)
If you take nothing else away from this discussion, Lukvance, then at least understand that you're dealing with some highly intelligent people here.  I'll bet that's why you're having so much trouble - you're probably quite a bit smarter than most people you argue with, so you're not used to dealing with people who are on or above your level.  The tactics you can use on people who aren't as smart as you don't work very well when the person has enough intellect to recognize where you're trying to go and acts to preempt it to avoid wasting time.

Honestly, you seem fairly smart to me, but there's a problem that a lot of smart people have.  If someone disagrees with you, the tendency is to think that person is stupid, or at least didn't understand.  I've done that on quite a few occasions myself, and one thing I've had to learn the hard way is that smart people usually do understand what you're trying to get across; if they don't agree, it isn't because they didn't understand, but because there's some assumption you're making that you can't see but they can.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4595
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #424 on: July 03, 2014, 07:08:15 PM »
Luk,how does a cut on a body part heal?,Miracle? Thousands of years of evolution has helped us cope with things as severe as a broken limb healing itself......now if only your God would heal an amputee.
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: 2999
  • 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 #425 on: July 04, 2014, 12:31:15 AM »
I'd like to point out that a "miracle" is what's known as a "diagnosis of exclusion."  In other words, it's a working hypothesis that's used after other possibilities have been ruled out.

As soon as one starts trawling for miracles in a sea of unexplained events, one has sailed out of the scientific realm and into the world of faith.  It is by faith, not science, that one  gives the credit to one's own god and not to another.  For instance, if three people of different beliefs have an amazing and unlikely escape from a burning building, I'd surmise that they would thank the god(s) of their own religions.  Can they all be right?  Possible, but unlikely.  Can they all be wrong?  Yes.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #426 on: July 04, 2014, 12:39:21 AM »
All of your arguments are based on your beliefs.
Actually, all arguments are based on beliefs.  Yours are no exception.

Quote from: Lukvance
I used the scientific method presented to me. I am still waiting for one flaw to be underlined on that method that I presented in Reply #203.
You can claim that you already "proven" it flawed. But you only did it in your head. Not on paper.
The method you concocted in #203 depends on circular reasoning.  You stated your hypothesis was that God had something to do with the force that cured people from illnesses, and in your conclusion, you stated that the force that cured people from illnesses was God.  Specifically[1], you stated that "some people just pray and get cured without medical assistance", and asked "what is the force that cured them?"  Then, you stated your hypothesis, that "it is something to do with God".  After going through your reasoning, you concluded, "there is a force curing people from illness; that force is God".

Classical circular reasoningWiki - you assumed that your conclusion (that some force cured people from illness) was true as part of your premise (that some force cured people from illness).  Understand that this logical fallacy, by itself, disqualifies your entire method.  Until you correct this flawed reasoning, there is no point to going further into your argument.  That doesn't even touch upon the whole "magical healing" thing, which is another big problem - in fact, it's begging the question, since you don't actually know that they were magically healed.  You just know that they healed without apparent medical intervention.

I'm going to give you a freebie.  Your initial question should not be "why do some people magically heal?", as that presupposes that there was magical healing involved (and thus causes the circular reasoning fallacy).  It should be something like, "why do some people heal from incurable diseases or conditions without medical intervention?"  The reason it's important to specify incurable diseases and conditions is because people naturally heal; the fact that something is considered incurable by medical science generally means that it doesn't heal naturally.

Quote from: Lukvance
Mostly what makes your claims useless is that they are based on your beliefs and not on reality. Mine are supported by countless papers and people that are involved each year in miracles.
That is why I proposed to you that you talked directly to people involved with the miracle process, so you can educate yourself on the subject before saying that it is not science.
There are plenty of studies showing that praying for someone who's ill has no more effect than not praying for them, and if they know people are praying for them, there's even a negative effect.  And to be blunt, it is not the scientists and doctors who investigate these things that I have an issue with.  It is the theologians and priests who apparently think it's safe to give their god the credit if science can't explain it, and thus are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Quote from: Lukvance
I am pretty sure that I can find the same flaws in the method that has been presented by Graybeard about gravity that you find about the one I presented about the action of God in the world.
Don't make claims like this before you actually try, as I am quite certain that you will not be able to apply the circular reasoning fallacy to Graybeard's post on gravity.
 1. I am paraphrasing slightly, since the way you originally wrote it is not conducive to easy quoting, and I fixed a couple of minor errors too.

Offline 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 #427 on: July 07, 2014, 01:55:55 AM »
Once again you're demonstrating that you don't really understand how the scientific method works.  The only thing that was demonstrated scientifically (at least as far as that goes) is that we don't know how to explain what happened.  The moment your church hands this off to a group of its theologians, it stops being scientific, because they're looking at subjective factors rather than objective ones.  What they're doing is a lot like if someone tried to do a study on what some unknown food tasted like; you couldn't scientifically prove what it tasted like because it would be subjective.  Are you starting to understand the problem here?  You can call this scientific all you want, but it won't actually make it scientific.
You don't have to hand it to the theologians. You, yourself, alone could follow the sames rules these theologians follow and discern by yourself if it is from God or from some other deity. You could learn how these rules came by even if it takes a lifetime to do so, but ultimately you could learn them and use them to discern. When you have your answer you MUST present it to other theologians who will agree with your conclusion... or not. That's how science work, that's how miracles work too.
You're worth more than my time

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1314
  • Darwins +46/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #428 on: July 07, 2014, 02:01:14 AM »
What rules? miracles sometimes happen to some people.


theologians can neither say when why or how. they just say it was their god.

how is that science?
Signature goes here...

Offline 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 #429 on: July 07, 2014, 02:07:51 AM »
The method you concocted in #203 depends on circular reasoning.  You stated your hypothesis was that God had something to do with the force that cured people from illnesses, and in your conclusion, you stated that the force that cured people from illnesses was God.  Specifically[1], you stated that "some people just pray and get cured without medical assistance", and asked "what is the force that cured them?"  Then, you stated your hypothesis, that "it is something to do with God".  After going through your reasoning, you concluded, "there is a force curing people from illness; that force is God".
Apparently, The method concocted in #199 by Graybeard also depends on circular reasoning.  His stated hypothesis was that It is something to do with relative masses, and in his conclusion, he stated that the force was Gravity (which is something that has to do with relative masses). 
He assumed that his conclusion (that it is something that has to do with relative masses) was true as part of his premise (that it is something that has to do with relative masses)
I don't understand how his is not circular reasoning and mine is.
You're worth more than my time

Offline 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 #430 on: July 07, 2014, 02:12:27 AM »
There are plenty of studies showing that praying for someone who's ill has no more effect than not praying for them, and if they know people are praying for them, there's even a negative effect.  And to be blunt, it is not the scientists and doctors who investigate these things that I have an issue with.  It is the theologians and priests who apparently think it's safe to give their god the credit if science can't explain it, and thus are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy.
Could you give me some of these "many studies"? I don't seem to be able to find any beside that one who is saying quite the opposite of what you are telling us.
You're worth more than my time

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1314
  • Darwins +46/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #431 on: July 07, 2014, 03:10:50 AM »
Let him do his own research for a change instead of getting people to answer his own questions for him.
Signature goes here...

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6621
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #432 on: July 07, 2014, 04:55:13 AM »
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process.
I think you mean that you believe that the investigation of a miracle is a genuine investigation, although any conclusion that "God did it." is open to question as (a) some other deity or supernatural being might have done it (ii) there is a natural but undiscovered cause.

If you accept the above amendment, I think we could progress.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #433 on: July 07, 2014, 08:42:51 AM »
You don't have to hand it to the theologians. You, yourself, alone could follow the sames rules these theologians follow and discern by yourself if it is from God or from some other deity. You could learn how these rules came by even if it takes a lifetime to do so, but ultimately you could learn them and use them to discern. When you have your answer you MUST present it to other theologians who will agree with your conclusion... or not. That's how science work, that's how miracles work too.
Miracles are not science, as I've been trying to tell you for weeks now.  Science is about trying to understand how things work, and declaring that something is a miracle from God is the antithesis of that, because what you're essentially saying - as you have admitted repeatedly - is that scientists can't explain these things, and therefore it's 'reasonable' to hand them off to theologians instead.  But no theologians actually attempt to explain how the 'miracle' works.  They're simply giving credit for it to a god.  If you can't explain how something works, even hypothetically, then you have no business trying to pass it off as science.

Let me put it this way.  Even if you were correct and your god was actually responsible, that would still not explain how the healings worked, which is necessary for something to be a scientific explanation.  For example, Higgs hypothesized[1] that there was a field (now called the Higgs field in his honor) which caused certain particles to have mass, and his hypothesis predicted that there would be a particle - the Higgs boson - which was part of that field and would thus have certain properties which could be identified.  So when the scientists were able to detect the Higgs boson in 2012, they weren't simply saying, "Oh, hey, here's a particle we've never seen before.  Let's call it a Higgs boson", which is what you've been suggesting that they did.  No, they identified it from the predictions that Peter Higgs made forty years ago as to the properties it would have.  The point is that the Higgs boson is evidence for the Higgs field, which explains how particles have mass, and thus is scientific.  Miracles, as you've described them, not only are not scientific, they cannot be, because there's not even the slightest attempt to predict or explain how it works.

Instead, you seem satisfied that if your theologians say it's God's doing, then it must be God's doing.  Even though by definition there's no explanation for how it worked; how your god actually did the healings.  Frankly, I don't think you can produce such an explanation, and therefore your belief cannot be scientific.
 1. this is a very simplified version of it

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #434 on: July 07, 2014, 10:16:02 AM »
Apparently, The method concocted in #199 by Graybeard also depends on circular reasoning.
I expected you might try this.  "If mine was circular, his has to be too!"  Basically, all that you're concerned with is making your argument seem as plausible as the scientific one.  If you can't, then you try to make the scientific one seem less plausible, to get the same result.  This is a dishonest approach, akin to a failed athlete who can't compete taking drugs to improve his own performance, or trying to sabotage the other athletes to reduce their own.

Quote from: Lukvance
His stated hypothesis was that It is something to do with relative masses, and in his conclusion, he stated that the force was Gravity (which is something that has to do with relative masses).
As reference, #199.

Graybeard's argument is an attempt to explain why things fall.  His hypothesis is indeed that it has something to do with relative masses, since this explains observed facts (such as planetary motion and the reason that people don't float off into space).  He cited an experiment where test masses is allowed to fall in a vacuum, and its position and acceleration are known very precisely, which allows us to directly measure the apparent force that attracts masses.

I will cite other experiments in support of him.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ - NASA put a spinning gyroscope[1] in orbit, pointed at a distant star as a reference point, and measured the perturbations to the direction the gyroscope was pointing, predicted to be caused by Earth's rotation affecting its gravity.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Cavendish-and-the-Value-of-G - Otherwise known as the Cavendish experiment, this was an ingenious method developed by Lord Henry Cavendish to measure the degree of attraction between two masses on Earth.  It worked by using torsion to counteract Earth's gravity, thus putting  the objects thus suspended in a state akin to free fall.  Using it, he was able to measure the attraction between relative masses (in this case, lead spheres of different sizes), and was thus able to calculate the gravitational constant.

Quote from: Lukvance
He assumed that his conclusion (that it is something that has to do with relative masses) was true as part of his premise (that it is something that has to do with relative masses)
The thing is, he didn't actually assume as part of his premise that the reason things fell was due to relative masses.  He simply observed that things fell and tried to explain why using only experiments which could be (and have been) reproduced by other people.

Quote from: Lukvance
I don't understand how his is not circular reasoning and mine is.
The reason yours is circular reasoning is that you're asserting that people healed by magic in your initial question, and further assuming that this magic is caused by a being you call "God" (which you state in your hypothesis).  Therefore, when you conclude that people are healed by "God", you are essentially assuming your premise (that people are healed by magic, caused by God) is true, and thus sabotaging the whole thing through the fallacy of circular logic.  In order to remove the fallacy, you must remove the assumption (that magic causes the healings), as I already advised you in #426.  I know you read it because you responded to part of it, so I am not sure why you are still having trouble here.

I explained why Graybeard's argument is not circular earlier in this post.  But what it boils down to is that he isn't making an assumption as to what is causing things to fall.  He hypothesized something that could cause this phenomenon, and cited experiments that had been done which supported his hypothesis.  The mere fact that he suggests relative masses as a cause in his hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning.
 1. a fantastically precise one, using technologies which kept the gyroscope from being disturbed by everything from brushes with residual atmosphere to the magnetic field even to measuring the gyroscope itself