I can see, touch and listen to people who have watched Star Trek, does that mean Star Trek is real?
No. In my example I am not talking about someone who saw a miracle on TV. Why do you compare it with people who saw something on TV?
I know you are talking about someone who claims to have experienced or “lived” a miracle. I may have failed to fully explain my thought process. I’m glad you have responded the way you have, I was wondering if you would.
Miracles can also be read about, correct? They are written about in the Bible or other books, I think one of your sources also lists the 67 miracles at Lourdes. You are correct there is a difference between reading about miracles and experiencing a miracle just like there is in watching Star Trek and experiencing a miracle. But what difference would there be from experiencing Star Trek and experiencing a miracle?
From my perspective, all I see are people claiming they’ve experienced a miracle and other people claiming that those people did experience a miracle. This is not enough for me. If it were enough for me to believe that a miracle happened then I would also have to believe that Star Trek was real in the event that people start claiming they were beamed up to the Enterprise and Star Trek experts claiming that those people did beam up to the Enterprise.
That is the problem with relying on testimony and using the appeal to authority logical fallacy. If all it takes is testimony and claimed authority to believe something, then belief in falsehoods is increasingly likely.
If you could touch, see, and listen to a Vulcan or at least people who have been into the Enterprise or Klingon space, that would be different. Wouldn't it?
If I could touch, see and listen to a Vulcan, then I would be experiencing Star Trek, which would be like experiencing a miracle. But how would I know I’m actually experiencing Star Trek, I should attempt to prove that I am actually interacting with a Vulcan. Does being healed without any known natural explanation after I had been diagnosed with a 0% chance of being cured mean that I actually interacted with a Vulcan? No it does not. I need to test the Vulcan, not use a “Vulcan of the Gaps” argument which means I can’t just assume I’m interacting with a Vulcan just because I don’t know how I was cured.
I have access to all of the work that has been done around each flat Earth theory through books and people who study the theories, does that mean the Earth is flat?
No. In my example I am talking about a repetitive event why do you compare it with something that is not repetitive? That is not even an event?
I’m sorry, where to you speak about “a repetitive event” in the following sentence that I was replying to:
You also have access to all the work that has been done around each miracle through books and people that have worked on the case.
From what you said, you are talking about review of medical opinions and research .
When you say event, do you mean the event of someone being healed without any known explanation? And by repetitive, do you mean such events as someone being healed without any known explanation has occurred multiple times?
If your answer is yes to those last two questions, then I agree. We both agree that a number of people have healed without any known natural explanation AND we can both agree that the Earth exists.
That is as far as we walk down the path of agreement together though. On the path of someone being healed without any known natural explanation, YOU then take a route which uses illogical methods to claim that “God” interacted and healed the person which is called a miracle (I stop and do not follow you as I do not see any evidence to support such a claim, all I see are assertions from claimed “experts”, there is no scientific data or research anymore). The question then becomes if I take that route and follow you, why also shouldn’t I take the route regarding the shape of the Earth which uses illogical methods to claim that the Earth is flat (which also has no evidence to support such a claim and only has assertions from claimed “experts”).
I’m sorry, this must seem very insulting because to you, miracles and the methods used are legitimate. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m only trying to explain to you that to me, the methods used to verify miracles are not legitimate.
I hope you can understand that if someone was trying to convince you of believing something using illegitimate methods or illogical methods, you would question them and tell them you have no reason to believe what they say. Sure you might be nice and listen to what they have to say, but if all they do is repeat the same incorrect methods over and over which you identify as illogical, why would you believe them? If you believe them, then why not believe everyone about anything?
Why should I believe a logical fallacy? Logical fallacies lead to errors and mistakes which can lead to believing falsehoods are true.
You keep repeating that it is a logical fallacy without telling us what would make it not a fallacy.
I wasn’t sure if you were actually reading my posts and comprehending what I was informing you.
Maybe this will help the discussion, and explain the problem.
Currently, from what I can see:
Medical Scientists verify that someone was healed without an known natural explanation which means that “God” healed the person (AKA a miracle occurred).
SO, what that means is, we don’t know the cause of something = “God” is the cause. OR to put it another way: Cause of “A” is unknown = “X” is the cause. In science, “X” is considered a hypothesis until it can be verified or falsified. If it is verified, then it is tested again, and again, different tests are run, data is recorded and verified and eventually it graduates to a theory which is the best explaination for the cause of “A”. If “X” hypothesis is falsified then it has to be reviewed/modified or rejected and a new hypothesis has to be developed.
What makes a “God of the gaps” argument a logical fallacy is that no verification has taken place, “God” is assumed if the cause is unknown.
Some examples of this logic failing include discovering the cause of lightning. Before we knew the cause of lightning, ancient Greeks thought the god Zeus caused lightning. Ancient Greeks didn’t know the cause so therefore a god was the cause. Ancient Greeks didn’t bother looking for evidence of the existence of Zeus.
Another example would be the nature of the Earth revolving around the Sun. Before we knew the nature of our solar system, ancient Egyptians thought the god Amun-Ra caused the Sun to rise and fall from the sky. Ancient Egyptians didn’t know the cause of planetary motion so therefore a god was the cause. Ancient Egyptians didn’t bother looking for evidence of the existence of Amun-Ra.
The same is being done regarding Catholic Church miracles. How someone was healed is unknown so therefore a god was the cause. The Catholic Church and you Lukvance are not bothering to look for evidence of the existence of “God”.
If you want to stop using the logical fallacy, then you must use the scientific method to detect “God” and then determine if “God” was involved NOT determine that no cause is known and then declare “God” was involved.
I mean, if God were to exist and to act upon this world, how differently would you proceed to detect his actions?
Let me answer for you, you will do exactly what is being done right now.
No, I wouldn’t do things how the Catholic Church is doing it. As I’ve already said, reviewing your sources and the sources I linked to reveals that the Catholic Church is using the “God of the gaps” logical fallacy. They are not determining if “God” was actually involved, only that no known cause can be provided, and then assuming “God” was the cause.
Right now, from what I can see, “God” is a hypothesis to explain the cause. We need to detect “God” first, find verifiable evidence of “God”, make predictions about “God’s” nature and behavior which can be verified or falsified and then determine if “God” was the cause of the healings.
Look for reasons that it is not God.
Well, looking for reasons that is not “God” might save time that might be wasted in trying to prove that it is “God” but that wouldn’t do anything to actually prove that it is “God”. Also, without actually being able to detect “God” and with no evidence of “God” or verified predictions regarding the nature / behavior of “God”, how do we know that “the reasons that it is not God” are actually reasons? Without an ability to detect “God” how do we know “God” doesn’t heal people through natural means which are known?
Once all options has been eliminated, look for reasons why it is God, then conclude.
Look for reason why it is “God”. Okay, THAT is where I’d like to see some information. What are the reasons why it is “God”? Where is that data showing that?
Currently, all I see is medical scientists saying “we don’t know the cause” and then the Catholic Church saying “Oh really, I guess God did it then”.
Where is the evidence that “God” is responsible?
EDIT: Okay well, I've been reading a number of posts in this thread, my appologies for not doing so already, but it seems I'm just repeating a lot of the same problems that others have already raised regarding Lukvance's claims.