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.
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.
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.
"[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.