Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 14261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #638 on: July 15, 2014, 05:32:26 PM »
This article explains in very simple terms why a control group is needed to see whether a particular miracle healing actually happened or was just a coincidence. No control group means no conclusive evidence. The healing would have happened anyway. No god required.
http://www.livescience.com/909-medical-miracles-supported-evidence.html
Isn't that the case of SOMEONE claiming to have the power to heal. There is nothing about miracles recognize by the church. And you still have to present to us how you would imagine a control group in the case of a miracle (pick one you like). How would it be different than what is already being done?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #639 on: July 15, 2014, 05:47:12 PM »
jaimehlers about the vaccination process and the fact that people cannot choose for themselves.
I really don't see why the fact that 20% of the population chose not to get vaccinated prove that ALL PEOPLE must not be allowed to chose for themselves when it comes to vaccination. You should really look how much of the population must be vaccinated before it works. Or maybe chose some other subject to support your claim that decision must not be made by people because they cannot choose for themselves. Up till now the statistics you've showed me prove me that they can and should. Do you know of a vaccination that "worked"? what was the percentage of the population who received the vaccine?

Anyway all is this to allow us to discuss without trying to impose our judgement on one another. Let us use arguments (or counter argument) and let the arguments (or counter argument) play their role. Using hurtful words and diminishing the intellect of the one countered or insulting him diminish the power of your argument. It's like saying that the argument (or counter argument) alone is not strong enough. it must be supported by some kind of bashing or it will be easily dismissed.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #640 on: July 15, 2014, 06:37:05 PM »
Anyway all is this to allow us to discuss without trying to impose our judgement on one another. Let us use arguments (or counter argument) and let the arguments (or counter argument) play their role. Using hurtful words and diminishing the intellect of the one countered or insulting him diminish the power of your argument. It's like saying that the argument (or counter argument) alone is not strong enough. it must be supported by some kind of bashing or it will be easily dismissed.
No dice.  If you make a stupid argument, I am going to call it as such.  If you keep making stupid arguments, then I pretty much have to conclude that you are stupid, or at least not very smart, and adjust my tactics accordingly.  It does neither of us any good for me to simply let such things pass simply because it hurts your feelings.  This isn't some feel-good society, Lukvance.  I won't go out of my way to be spiteful or rude, but you've already blown every chance I've tried to give you, and that means I won't pull my punches simply because you complain that it's painful.

If you don't like it, I suggest you take a long hard look at the way you've conducted yourself here and figure out what you're doing wrong.  I'm already pretty much sick of trying to deal with you, and I'm long past the point where I'm willing to politely ignore it for the sake of having a conversation.  The only reason I'm still talking to you is because I can't sit around and watch you keep playing these games you evidently love so much with other people without doing something about it.  Honestly, the best thing for you to do at this point is to accept that what convinces you isn't sufficient to convince us, and focus on discussing other things instead.

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 #641 on: July 15, 2014, 06:58:47 PM »
Nogods we have 6 in our family 2 adults4 kids ALL Immunized(whooping cough) 2 out of the 6 of us came down with the ailment.....a 33% failure rate ,immunizations reduce but don't eliminate 100% the chance of contracting something because of immunization.  One in four of my kids got chicken pox despite immunization,the severity and symptoms were greatly reduced as a result of immunization(IMHO) as when I was a kid whith chicken pox,I had the freakin things on my tounge and throat
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

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 #642 on: July 15, 2014, 07:08:04 PM »
Btw that was not an anti vaccine rant
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #643 on: July 15, 2014, 07:42:11 PM »
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.  As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
Source: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html

Thank you for the definition. How does this relate to what I am presenting as proof?

You’re welcome.  It describes your behavior and what you are suffering from.  You’re selectively remembering the discussion so far, ignoring the points.  I suppose though you could honestly be missing the responses, but they’ve been brought up in many different ways to attempt to help you understand yet without any success.  Additionally, you selectively believe things as long as it confirms your preconceptions.  For instance, you believe miracles are proof of god, yet the same quality of evidence for Big Foot or Ancient Aliens you would dismiss based on your own personal reasons rather than based on inaccurate or inconsequential evidence.

One thing you don’t seem to understand is that in the same way you don’t believe in Ancient Aliens for example is the same way I don’t believe miracles are an act of “God”.  I am consistent in my standards for sufficient evidence, you are not.  Your standards change based on your confirmation bias.

Miracles are the proof of existence of God outside our body.

Based on the conclusions I have reached, your claim is circular logic (this is based on your  own sources).  You see Lukvance, the Catholic Church concludes that “God” was involved and thus a miracle has occurred.  You then claim that miracles are the proof of existence of “God”.   This is called “begging the question” logical fallacy. 

The Vatican says “God” caused the miracle.  You say the miracle is proof of “God”.  A=B  B=A.  There is no evidence for either.  Miracles cannot be the proof of the existence of “God” outside our body because there is no evidence for the miracle.  In effect you are saying no evidence is the proof of existence of “God” outside our body.

We need to identify the evidence for either.  Since a miracle is an act of “God”, then we need to find evidence for “God”.  Hmmm…. I think I see now where your mistake is, you think an act of “God” (aka a miracle) is evidence of “God”.  LUKVANCE!  Read this:  The way in which the Catholic Church determines if a miracle has occurred is the problem.  What they are doing is only determining what is unknown and thus declaring “God” responsible (“God of the gaps” logical fallacy).  I’ve explained this already, apparently you missed it.  There is no evidence provided that actually determines that “God” was responsible.  SO, if we don’t actually know if “God” was involved, then we can’t determine if a miracle has actually occurred. 

This is where I’m trying to help you in your thought process.  If we want to actually prove that a miracle has occurred, then we need to detect “God” (yes I know, you keep asking me how to detect “God”, I’ll get into that later in this post).

Any pictures?  Any "God" rocks?  Any reflective mirrors on the surface of "God" that we can use to bounce lasers off of?

Yes we call them miracles. You can take look up pictures of people that has been touch by God, you can even touch them.


As I’ve said, the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown.  You are claiming if we don’t know something, that is evidence for “God”.  Yes, yes, I know it has to be a really amazing good thing to happen.  It doesn’t matter, scientists say, we don’t know the cause, the Vatican then declares miracle.  Unknown = Miracle. 

I’ve already explained the problems with this logic.  See: Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians.  See any ancient culture for that matter. 

You can claim miracles are evidence of “God” all day long, it won’t make a difference because I’ve identified miracles as merely being something having occurred which the cause is unknown.  Not knowing the cause does not prove “God” was the cause.

If you say we do know the cause and that cause was “God” then THAT is the evidence I would like to review.  I would like to examine the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracle.

You can look at the Miracle of LancianoWiki and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes. It is God's flesh and blood.

I have no doubt that there is human flesh and blood in a Church located in Lanciano, Italy.  That much has been proven, that there is really old human flesh and blood in a Church.  Is the story legit though?  Did a Basillian hieromonk say a prayer with doubt in his heart, at which point “God” turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?  I don’t know, there is no evidence to prove that the story happened.  All we have is some old human flesh and old blood and a story attached to it.

I have no more reason to believe the Miracle of Lanciano is true than I do to believe that Thor went fishing for the serpent Jormungandr.  You can go to Altuna, Sweeden to see the Altuna Runestone and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes.  It is Thor’s own carvings. 


Not sure why you are asking me, the "God" exists hypothesis isn't mine.  Without any means of detecting "God" we have no way of knowing if "God" interacted with reality or if some other unknown variable was involved.
I really don't understand why that is a complicated concept for you.
That is because You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God You say :
I do know what would make me accept that miracles are an act from “God” as a fact.
So I ask :
What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use?
And you answer : 
Quote
Without any means of detecting "God" we have no way of knowing if "God" interacted with reality or if some other unknown variable was involved. 
How does that answer the question? You stated something that we both agree on and think that you answered the question? Is this how you answer a question?
Let me ask you again : What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use?
You can answer "I don't know" and then I will have prove that "you don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God"
And then we can move the discussion.

Me not knowing how to detect “God” does not mean I don’t know what would make me accept that a miracle was an act from “God”.  This is non sequitur logic.

“God” existing is not my hypothesis.  If I form a  hypothesis, then I will figure out how to detect it and verify that it exists.  You are basically asking me to prove that “God” exists because you can’t prove that “God” exists.  Any means to detect “God” are, as long as it can be verified objectively (as opposed to subjectively), acceptable and would be the first step making me accept that miracles are an act from “God”.   

If you’re asking me if I know how to detect “God”, then no, I do not know how to detect “God”, if I did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and I would be working on a scientific paper showing everyone how to detect “God”. 

If someone (anyone) were to inform the world how to detect “God” and then ascertain “God’s” behavior and verify that “God” was the cause of certain events for which the cause was unknown (aka miracles), then I would be able to accept the fact that a miracle is an act from “God”.  How is that not answering your question?  That IS the situation.  Your claim that I don’t know is false (unless you mean something else).

Whoever has formed the hypothesis will make the predictions based on their research and detection of "God".  Those predictions will be able to be verified or falsified by anyone (assuming they have the means) using the necessary test procedures.
This is called the scientific method.  How can you claim that the Vatican has used the scientific method if you can't recognize the basic steps of the scientific method?

I know the basic steps of the scientific method. What could be the test procedures? Aren't them already in place?
I keep coming back to my first question that you cleverly avoided.

No they are not and I’ve explained to you several times now why they are not, that is what YOU are ignoring and cleverly avoiding.  You are becoming boring.

I’ll explain it again (based on the sources you have provided and that I have found).

Steps that the Catholic Church does:

1.   Scientifically determine that the cause is unknown
2.   Determine if “God” was prayed to
3.   Declare “God” was the cause.

Steps that would be using the Scientific method:

1.   Propose a means to detect “God”
2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God”
3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God”.
4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” is the cause of any events with known causes.



Your question completely ignores the prior two steps.  Once you've detected "God" and verified that "God" exists, and understand the behavior of "God" THEN .... you ..... can  ...... identify ...... when ........."God".......has......interacted ..... with ....... reality.
So, you mean *I* will determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”? Or *You* will?

Anyone would be able to make the determination because it would be scientifically verifiable.  Perhaps like verifying the rate at which objects fall to the surface of the Earth.

Let me ask you another question : Who will determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”? How is this different from what is already in place?

Anyone should be able to verify that “God” was actually involved In these “miracles” assuming they have the means to perform the experiments and testing procedures.  Currently the Catholic Church is the only body that makes the determination, and I cannot find any information on their methods In actually making the determination.  I can only find the methods relating to determining if the cause is known or unknown. 

Unless the Catholic Church makes their methods known, I have no reason to accept their claims as true.  Now, perhaps I’m not qualified to review their methods, which might be the case, and if so I could inquire in regards to who could verify the methods for me.  If however only the Catholic Church can verify their own claims then we are left with potential cognitive biases being introduced (namely a conflict of interest) and the claims would be considered unverifiable until a neutral party could verify the methods.


This [the peer-review process] is not being done by the Catholic Church as only those within the Catholic Church review their claims.

What is preventing you, SevenPatch, to review their claims? Isn't the claim reviewed by non catholic before submitted to the church?

I need to know the methods used by the Catholic Church to actually determine that “God” was the cause.  The claim is never reviewed by non-Catholic parties.  Non-Catholic parties only make the determination that the cause is unknown which in no way verifies that “God” was the cause.

So what if I was taught something different and what I was taught is what I've experienced so far?
I've been taught that there is no god or gods and what I've been taught fits exactly with the reality I've experienced so far.  If your logic is rational then we are both right.

Yes, indeed.

LOL, so you think that there is a “God” and there is no “God” at the same time?

Yeah a few times. What makes you think it is impossible?

I agree my question wasn't correctly formed.
I meant : Did you ever follow your conscience and then something bad happens BECAUSE of it? (not something outside your control) Did your conscience ever LIED to you? If so could we have an example? If not, can I conclude it's impossible that such a thing happen?

Who says the conscience is lying?  What if it didn't lie?  What If "God" was involved and initiated the test to see how you handle the situation?

For me God = Conscience. To put me to a test, God must lie to me. For example : I ask him, should I pull the trigger? Then he answers "yes" to test me. He then lied to me since he knows I shouldn't pull the trigger.

I think the topic of conscience would be better left to another discussion for another time and we would be better served to stick to the topic of miracles.   Unless of course you feel conscience is relevant to this discussion, then I would be glad to respond to your points regarding conscience.

How would you know it's impossible if you have no means of detecting or predicting the nature of "God"? [...] Look, the point is, how do you know anything about "God" if you have no supporting evidence regarding "God"?
I have means of detecting God and learning about his nature. Catechism, and miracles.

Unfortunately your means don’t actually detect “God” and are not supporting evidence for the existence of “God” outside our bodies.  Miracles are unsupported claims, and Catechism appears to be brainwashing material.  Your confirmation bias however is what leads you to believe miracles and catechism are means of detecting “God”.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6529
  • Darwins +854/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #644 on: July 15, 2014, 09:56:17 PM »
Nogods we have 6 in our family 2 adults4 kids ALL Immunized(whooping cough) 2 out of the 6 of us came down with the ailment.....a 33% failure rate ,immunizations reduce but don't eliminate 100% the chance of contracting something because of immunization.  One in four of my kids got chicken pox despite immunization,the severity and symptoms were greatly reduced as a result of immunization(IMHO) as when I was a kid whith chicken pox,I had the freakin things on my tounge and throat

People still sometimes get a disease even after being vaccinated against it. That is not a failure. Vaccines are not intended to be a 100% barrier to a disease. A vaccination is not the same as a cure. Vaccination is to reduce the incidence of a disease enough to prevent a it from becoming widespread among a population.

As a native person, you especially should appreciate the global vaccination campaign that has eliminated smallpox from the planet.
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 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 #645 on: July 15, 2014, 10:44:18 PM »
Ya I appreciate a vaccine that came after smallpox KILLED 90%  of my particular group in 1862..... deliberately spread by church and government.  My point was just that vaccines are not 100%  effective.  In my family the two vaccines were 66% and 75% effective
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6529
  • Darwins +854/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #646 on: July 16, 2014, 12:53:53 AM »
It is not the fault of vaccines that European bastards infected our ancestors with smallpox. My point about smallpox was exactly that; before there were vaccines, that disease killed up to 90% of the native people of the Americas because they had no immunity. Before that, smallpox had been killing Africans, Asians and Europeans for thousands of years, leaving alive only the people whose immune systems resisted the disease.

Nowadays, nobody has to deal with the horror of smallpox. And that is a very good thing that vaccines have done.

It took 10,000 years, until 1800, for the world population to reach 1 billion. In 1950, global population was at 3 billion. The world population, for better or for worse, is now at 7 billion and counting because of two things: public sanitation (sewers, clean food and water) and vaccines.[1]

Before those two innovations were widespread, too many babies and children died before they were old enough to reproduce. Overpopulation due to too many babies not dying is a problem I am happy to struggle with.

BTW The above stats clearly show the goodness and power of the loving god who waited until the 1950's to start saving babies in large numbers..... &)
 1. And to some extent, antibiotics.
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 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 #647 on: July 16, 2014, 01:16:38 AM »
My point was just that vaccines are not 100%  effective.  In my family the two vaccines were 66% and 75% effective.

That's actually quite interesting, medically-speaking, and it might be worthwhile for members of your family to consult with an Immunologist.  There are disorders in which the body doesn't produce enough of one or more immune system components to create an immunity, which might be a problem in dealing with certain diseases.  Failure rates of 25%-33% are definitely statistically significant, and I suspect it might also be an inherited trait. </derail>
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6529
  • Darwins +854/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #648 on: July 16, 2014, 11:27:09 AM »
^^^Thanks for that info.

Also, I am thinking about the public health aspects, since the outbreak happened among members of the same family who presumably got the same batch of vaccine.  A) that could have been a faulty batch of vaccine, or B) it was not properly stored, refrigerated, etc. and had lost its potency. Both have been known to happen, unfortunately.

12 monkeys, I am sympathetic-- having sick kids is no fun. But your experience seems to be an outlier, not at all the norm. Were you living in a isolated area where the vaccines had to be flown in from the nearest city?
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 #649 on: July 16, 2014, 01:34:23 PM »
Yet you have provided no basis for such conclusions except one big argument from ignorance. Got anything better?
I have lots. Once you are ready to share/discuss we might start. Right now, you are saying "NO! Because... NO! and i won't support my claims because the burden of proof is on you, not me" So... whenever you are ready to discuss. And saying that something is a fallacy does not make it so. You have to prove it but as you say " the burden of proof is on you - not me. So stop trying to turn the tables b/c that is called the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof." So we are stuck in the discussion since you don't seem to be able to support your counter argument(s).

Are you really that idiotic so as to completely ignore the reasons I cited regarding your continued citations of alleged "experts" who are merely using argument from ignorance fallacies to claim "miracle"?? Maybe you ought to go research what that fallacy is, and then stop citing people that use it as their excuse for calling something a miracle. The only one stuck here is you b/c you simply cannot demonstrate what you keep claiming. All you have is a CLAIM that something was a miracle. But your saying it was a miracle (or claiming something is a real field of study) doesn't make it so.

Quote
If you do not have "the answers" for which you have claimed that these alleged experts have, then how can you merely assert that they have the answers??
Because I've met with one and he confirmed that. Contrary to you who just say things without supporting them , I have support for my claims.

You seem to have this delusion that I have to "support" something, when I don't. You are asserting these occurrences are miracles. So the burden of proof lies upon you to demonstrate it. I don't care who you have asked. That isn't sufficient evidence for me, and neither would it be for you if a Muslim "expert" claimed Allah or Mohammed did a "miracle" which validated Islam as the true religion. "I've met with this guy and he said so" is just pure gullibility on extraordinary supernatural claims. We are asking YOU, not anyone else, to demonstrate the exact evidence and argument that you think supports the claim of "It was a miracle from God".

Do you need the alleged Higgs Boson to exist before finding proof of it's existence? Was it's existence proved real BEFORE finding it? Non sense. It was theoretical and so is God's existence until you find proof (what we call miracle)
Do you need the alleged God to exist before finding proof of it's existence?

The Higgs Boson is a false analogy because it is not a supernatural claim. Furthermore, I could admit agnosticism about the HB right now. I could admit that I don't know much about it and that I don't know whether it is real. Are you willing to do the same with your alleged "miracles"? Are you willing to admit that you don't know if they are miracles? Your claim isn't tentative. Second, merely labeling something a "miracle" doesn't make it a miracle, since you haven't eliminated other possibilities within the natural world (and thus you and your alleged "experts" are violating Occam's Razor by claiming a miracle when no such assertion is needed and we see unlikely things happen all the time). This is another false analogy you are attempting as well, since the cause of an occurrence is NOT the same thing as discovering the existence of a particle. Finally, the term "miracle" has no explanatory power and is useless for determining the actual cause of something. It is an attempt to explain an mystery by appealing to yet another mystery. We might as well look to the clouds and say Zeus did it.

About the expert. I explained to you that I was not the one deeming them expert it was their peers. People opinion that you don't seem to respect at all. People who focus their lives in the understanding of miracles. Do you really think you know more than they do!? Do you have that much ego? Did you ask your questions to one before drawing conclusion on their work? (conclusion like using them "it's meaningless" or they can't "independently verify that said experts actually have expertise in a given field")

I don't give a flying fuck if their "peers" labeled them anything. It means nothing to me because you haven't demonstrated that this is a real field of study. As far as I'm concerned it is akin to "Boogy Monster Researchers". Do I think I know more than they do about a subject that has not been demonstrated as pertaining to anything real? YEP! Their arguments are irrational (which clearly they don't know). Their criteria are not scientific (as others have already demonstrated here). And they literally have nothing to "research". The research is done BEFORE the file gets to them (i.e. - doctors don't have a current explanation), and then they merely assert it was a miracle out of ignorance. Are you really that irrational that you can't see the logically fallacious reasoning within your own camp? It is blindingly arrogant of you to merely assert that a supernatural "miracle" happened when you have nothing more than irrational arguments and assertions from people who are self proclaiming "experts". And how dare you attempt to compare this to science which has independent verification, the capacity of falsification, skepticism, and the dis-allowance of confirmation bias. Do you have a "College of Miracles" at the "University of the Supernatural or Paranormal" where anyone, of any faith or worldview, can test your claims? You don't, do you? So don't pretend that these methods are the same when they are nowhere near the same.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #650 on: July 16, 2014, 02:15:15 PM »
You’re welcome.  It describes your behavior and what you are suffering from.  You’re selectively remembering the discussion so far, ignoring the points.  I suppose though you could honestly be missing the responses, but they’ve been brought up in many different ways to attempt to help you understand yet without any success.  Additionally, you selectively believe things as long as it confirms your preconceptions.  For instance, you believe miracles are proof of god, yet the same quality of evidence for Big Foot or Ancient Aliens you would dismiss based on your own personal reasons rather than based on inaccurate or inconsequential evidence.
One thing you don’t seem to understand is that in the same way you don’t believe in Ancient Aliens for example is the same way I don’t believe miracles are an act of “God”.  I am consistent in my standards for sufficient evidence, you are not.  Your standards change based on your confirmation bias.
That is your opinion about me. You are allowed to share it with us but it doesn't make it true. The truth is that my standards do not change much. (of course, I will believe what my mother tells me over someone I've never met and I hope, so would you.)

Quote
We need to identify the evidence for either.  Since a miracle is an act of “God”, then we need to find evidence for “God”.  Hmmm…. I think I see now where your mistake is, you think an act of “God” (aka a miracle) is evidence of “God”.
Now, you understand :)

Quote
If we want to actually prove that a miracle has occurred, then we need to detect “God” (yes I know, you keep asking me how to detect “God”, I’ll get into that later in this post).
Great. I hope you will then compare the way you think we could detect him and how we actually proceed to detect him today.

Quote
As I’ve said, the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown.  You are claiming if we don’t know something, that is evidence for “God”.  Yes, yes, I know it has to be a really amazing good thing to happen.  It doesn’t matter, scientists say, we don’t know the cause, the Vatican then declares miracle.  Unknown = Miracle.
No.

Quote
I’ve already explained the problems with this logic.  See: Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians.  See any ancient culture for that matter.
No need to explain it again, it is not the logic I use. It is only the logic you want people to believe I use. But it is not. That's why I don't want you to judge me, let your counter argument speak for itself. Up until now, the way I understand your counter argument is the following phrase : "the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown" and that is not true. The cause is known. The cause is God as predicted by the theory.

Quote
I’ve identified miracles as merely being something having occurred which the cause is unknown.  Not knowing the cause does not prove “God” was the cause.
There. This does not make sense. Let's say that according to Higgs Boson theory you should be able to "see" his effect but when you see it I tell you that what you see is "merely something having occurred which the cause is unknown". What would your reaction be? How is your reaction different than mine?

Quote
If you say we do know the cause and that cause was “God” then THAT is the evidence I would like to review.  I would like to examine the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracle.
You are looking at it. The evidence is the miracle. Again, with the Higgs boson, If I tell you "If you say we do know the cause (of what you see) and that cause was the Higgs Boson then THAT is the evidence I would like to review. I would like to examine the evidence that the Higgs Boson  was the cause of what you are looking at." What would your reaction be? How is your reaction different than mine?

Quote
Is the story legit though?  Did a Basillian hieromonk say a prayer with doubt in his heart, at which point “God” turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?
Yes, it has yet to be proven wrong.

Quote
I have no more reason to believe the Miracle of Lanciano is true than I do to believe that Thor went fishing for the serpent Jormungandr.  You can go to Altuna, Sweeden to see the Altuna Runestone and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes. It is Thor’s own carvings.
Is the Altuna Runestone presented as proof of the existence of Thor? The miracle of Lanciano is presented as proof of the existence of God. If not, why comparing the two?

Quote
Me not knowing how to detect “God” does not mean I don’t know what would make me accept that a miracle was an act from “God”.  This is non sequitur logic.
Why? If say you don't know "how this planet surface looks" and then someone tells you how this planet surface looks. How could you say "that's not the way!" if you have no idea what would make you accept "how this planet surface looks"? You must have something to compare it to or accept the new information that is given to you.

Quote
Any means to detect “God” are, as long as it can be verified objectively (as opposed to subjectively), acceptable and would be the first step making me accept that miracles are an act from “God”.
What means are you thinking of when you write this down? How are they different than the ones already in place?

Quote
If you’re asking me if I know how to detect “God”, then no, I do not know how to detect “God”, if I did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and I would be working on a scientific paper showing everyone how to detect “God”.
Then allow yourself to learn how to detect God. People already wrote the paper for you.

Quote
If someone (anyone) were to inform the world how to detect “God” and then ascertain “God’s” behavior and verify that “God” was the cause of certain events for which the cause was unknown (aka miracles), then I would be able to accept the fact that a miracle is an act from “God”.  How is that not answering your question?
Because my question is in two parts. The second part being "How is that different to what is already in place?" Someone already informed the world how to detect God and ascertain his behavior and verify that he is the cause of the event and this is the process used to determine if an event is a miracle.

Quote
I’ll explain it again (based on the sources you have provided and that I have found).
Steps that the Catholic Church does:
1.   Scientifically determine that the cause is unknown
2.   Determine if “God” was prayed to
3.   Declare “God” was the cause.
Steps that would be using the Scientific method:
1.   Propose a means to detect “God”
2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God”
3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God”.
4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” is the cause of any events with known causes.
The steps that the Catholic church takes are also the same than the scientific method. I think you voluntary "skipped" some of them. It looks like the 3 steps that the Catholic Church use are only step 1 of the scientific method.

Here is how Miracles fit in the Scientific method :
1.   Propose a means to detect “God” : You can find how to detect a miracle. (the 3 steps you talked about are a good start then there are others)
2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God” : We know what a miracle might look like and how it should behave. (for example, the cure must be permanent)
3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God” : We do compare the event to what has been predicted.
I'm not sure I get 4 and 5
4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” is the cause of any events with known causes.
To understand them better let's compare the scientific method you proposed and apply it to the Higgs Boson :
1.   Propose a means to detect the Higgs Boson
2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of the Higgs Boson
3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect the Higgs Boson.
4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if the Higgs Boson was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5.   Use the verified information/data to determine if the Higgs Boson is the cause of any events with known causes.

Could you give us examples of the equivalent for the Higgs Boson? (for step 4 and 5)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #651 on: July 16, 2014, 02:32:01 PM »
Let me ask you another question : Who will determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”? How is this different from what is already in place?
Anyone should be able to verify that “God” was actually involved In these “miracles” assuming they have the means to perform the experiments and testing procedures.  Currently the Catholic Church is the only body that makes the determination, and I cannot find any information on their methods In actually making the determination.  I can only find the methods relating to determining if the cause is known or unknown.
  I see. You didn't have the following information : You and anyone are able to verify that God is involved in these miracles. They just have to study the subject (become theologians)
As you can see there are no difference between what you expect and what is already in place.

Quote
I need to know the methods used by the Catholic Church to actually determine that “God” was the cause.  The claim is never reviewed by non-Catholic parties.  Non-Catholic parties only make the determination that the cause is unknown which in no way verifies that “God” was the cause.
The claim is reviewed by non Catholic parties. What are you talking about? Everyone on earth have the capacity to review the claim. You understand that before you can claim that God is the cause, you have to know who God is (and isn't), right? For that there are schools where you can study God. Not all theologians are Catholics.

Quote
LOL, so you think that there is a “God” and there is no “God” at the same time?
No, I think There is a God and you think that there is no God at the same time. No problemo.

Quote
I think the topic of conscience would be better left to another discussion for another time and we would be better served to stick to the topic of miracles.   Unless of course you feel conscience is relevant to this discussion, then I would be glad to respond to your points regarding conscience.
We agree.

Quote
Miracles are unsupported claims, and Catechism appears to be brainwashing material.
Well...that are strong claims. Let's our counter arguments speak from themselves, no need to support them with such claims :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6529
  • Darwins +854/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #652 on: July 16, 2014, 02:55:30 PM »
See my response #599 for why I say that the Catholic Church is not following the scientific method for medical research. I have no comment on research methods used in theoretical physics, because, unlike Lukvance, the Higgs Boson expert,  I don't know enough about it. But for general science, social science, and health related fields, I am qualified to comment. Astreja and others on this site also have real world expertise in these areas. Medical healings thus fall under my area.

According to what Lukvance himself has posted and the links he has provided, the Catholic Church is deficient in at least these ways:

1) No control groups for comparison

2) Sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)

3) No parameters or statistical tests set in advance

4) Supernatural consultation to verify results

5) No allowance for incorrect initial assumptions

6) No peer review process or external oversight

7) The study is not "blind" ie identity of control and treatment groups kept secret from researchers

The unexamined assumptions alone render the process unscientific. So many unfounded and unproven assumptions have to be correct in order for a researcher to say that "the Catholic God healed this woman's paralyzed hand".

The assumptions for which there is no objective support include:
there is a Catholic God,
this Catholic God interacts with human beings
this Catholic God's behavior can be detected by prayer,
this Catholic God's behavior can be influenced by prayer,
there are special humans who can detect and/or influence this Catholic God
this Catholic God does healings of human beings,
healings not currently understood by science are due to a supernatural cause,
the supernatural cause could not possibly be another being-- demon or alien or different god, etc.

I have asked many specific questions related to the above that Lukvance either fails to understand, or pretends not to understand.

I will just ask Lukvance one final question related to points 1 and 2 above.

Lukvance, why do medical researchers generally use large sample sizes and control groups

Please do me the favor of answering directly without mentioning theoretical physics, which I do not understand.
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 jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1975
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #653 on: July 16, 2014, 03:56:40 PM »
Quote
Is the story legit though?  Did a Basillian hieromonk say a prayer with doubt in his heart, at which point “God” turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?
Yes, it has yet to be proven wrong.

You haven't proven wrong skeptic54768's claim that your Catholic church is led by Satan.  Guess that makes that legit, right?

Or are you going to eventually figure out that assuming all claims are right until proven wrong is an inefficient, error prone, and idiotic way of seeking truth?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #654 on: July 16, 2014, 04:41:32 PM »
See my response #599 for why I say that the Catholic Church is not following the scientific method for medical research. I have no comment on research methods used in theoretical physics, because, unlike Lukvance, the Higgs Boson expert,  I don't know enough about it. But for general science, social science, and health related fields, I am qualified to comment. Astreja and others on this site also have real world expertise in these areas. Medical healings thus fall under my area.

According to what Lukvance himself has posted and the links he has provided, the Catholic Church is deficient in at least these ways:

1) No control groups for comparison

2) Sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)

3) No parameters or statistical tests set in advance

4) Supernatural consultation to verify results

5) No allowance for incorrect initial assumptions

6) No peer review process or external oversight

7) The study is not "blind" ie identity of control and treatment groups kept secret from researchers

The unexamined assumptions alone render the process unscientific. So many unfounded and unproven assumptions have to be correct in order for a researcher to say that "the Catholic God healed this woman's paralyzed hand".

The assumptions for which there is no objective support include:
there is a Catholic God,
this Catholic God interacts with human beings
this Catholic God's behavior can be detected by prayer,
this Catholic God's behavior can be influenced by prayer,
there are special humans who can detect and/or influence this Catholic God
this Catholic God does healings of human beings,
healings not currently understood by science are due to a supernatural cause,
the supernatural cause could not possibly be another being-- demon or alien or different god, etc.

I have asked many specific questions related to the above that Lukvance either fails to understand, or pretends not to understand.

I will just ask Lukvance one final question related to points 1 and 2 above.

Lukvance, why do medical researchers generally use large sample sizes and control groups

Please do me the favor of answering directly without mentioning theoretical physics, which I do not understand.
Ok. You understand about research in the medical field. It is not very different.
1) Do we use control groups for comparison? Yes we do. We compare the sick person to another person with the same sickness.
2) Are the sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)? There is only one who is cured indeed. What were you expecting? Many people cured? If I misunderstand, there are many people with the same disease than the cured person so no the sample size is huge.

I will stop here. I guess you can find the answer to the other questions by asking an expert in miracles. I strongly suggest that you do that before claiming things based on your ignorance on the subject like you have been doing until now.
BTW one of the source I cited is a book, I'm pretty sure you did not read it. The doctor answers your question pretty fast into the book.
So "According to what Lukvance himself has posted and the links he has provided" and "the Catholic Church is deficient in at least these ways" are not yet compatible. I posted that you should talk to an expert. Did you talk to one?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #655 on: July 16, 2014, 04:57:23 PM »
You haven't proven wrong skeptic54768's claim that your Catholic church is led by Satan.  Guess that makes that legit, right?
You are in a hurry for some reason? Wait long enough and I (or someone else) will prove him wrong.

Quote
Or are you going to eventually figure out that assuming all claims are right until proven wrong is an inefficient, error prone, and idiotic way of seeking truth?
Oh I already know that about ALL claims.But, isn't scientists claim that they have found the Higgs Boson right until proven otherwise?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is banned from postingMuted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #656 on: July 16, 2014, 05:06:28 PM »
Do you have a "College of Miracles" at the "University of the Supernatural or Paranormal" where anyone, of any faith or worldview, can test your claims? You don't, do you? So don't pretend that these methods are the same when they are nowhere near the same.
I will let the insults slide as it goes towards proving that indeed your counter arguments fail by themselves.
There is a field of study called theologyWiki. Ever heard of it? If so, how can you claim that "there are no "College of Miracles" at the "University of the Supernatural or Paranormal" where anyone, of any faith or worldview, can test your claims." Many schools like this one propose degrees in theologyWiki.
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 #657 on: July 16, 2014, 06:14:10 PM »
^^^Thanks for that info.

Also, I am thinking about the public health aspects, since the outbreak happened among members of the same family who presumably got the same batch of vaccine.  A) that could have been a faulty batch of vaccine, or B) it was not properly stored, refrigerated, etc. and had lost its potency. Both have been known to happen, unfortunately.

12 monkeys, I am sympathetic-- having sick kids is no fun. But your experience seems to be an outlier, not at all the norm. Were you living in a isolated area where the vaccines had to be flown in from the nearest city?
my only point was that they are not always effective,I am not angry. Just a point
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: 4852
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #658 on: July 16, 2014, 06:16:53 PM »
1) Do we use control groups for comparison? Yes we do. We compare the sick person to another person with the same sickness.
No, you don't.  You are, at best, an observer who doesn't really understand the subject very well, even though you're very impressed with the way it looks to you.  As such, you are not in a position to comment as if you were involved in it, or know anything about it.  Any claims you make about the subject are not believable for the simple reason that you don't understand it.

This is clearly evidenced by your attempt to dismiss NGFM's criticism; you stated that the Catholic church did in fact use control groups even though you were not involved in the process and don't fully understand what control groups are and how they work.  Because of this, any statements you make about them are not believable, and you will get called out on them.

Quote from: Lukvance
2) Are the sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)? There is only one who is cured indeed. What were you expecting? Many people cured? If I misunderstand, there are many people with the same disease than the cured person so no the sample size is huge.
On top of the problem I just mentioned (that you do not understand the subject well enough to make credible claims regarding it), this statement demonstrates a far more fundamental problem.  If doctors were running a clinical trial where they were testing a new medicine, and it cured one person out of the thousands (or millions) who underwent the trial, the medicine would not be hailed as a miracle; it would be considered a failure.  Indeed, it would be entirely possible that the cure happened because of something totally unrelated to the medicine; perhaps they spontaneously recovered due to regression to the mean, or something else that the doctors involved weren't even aware they should look for.

Quote from: Lukvance
I will stop here. I guess you can find the answer to the other questions by asking an expert in miracles. I strongly suggest that you do that before claiming things based on your ignorance on the subject like you have been doing until now.
BTW one of the source I cited is a book, I'm pretty sure you did not read it. The doctor answers your question pretty fast into the book.
So "According to what Lukvance himself has posted and the links he has provided" and "the Catholic Church is deficient in at least these ways" are not yet compatible. I posted that you should talk to an expert. Did you talk to one?
You are the one making claims about miracles.  That means it's your job to go talk to an expert, or bring the expert here.  Because the burden of proof lies on you, the one making the claims.  It is irresponsible of you to expect other people to do your work for you.  Especially when you're trying to get the people who are critical of your claims to do it.

According to all the information you've actually provided, the Catholic church is indeed deficient in the ways that NGFM described.  Indeed, your attempts to answer her first two points were completely unconvincing because of your lack of knowledge, never mind understanding, of the subject that you introduced and are trying to prove is true.

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 #659 on: July 16, 2014, 06:19:00 PM »
 >:( there is no such thing as an expert in miracles....It is a priest or a church group finding what they are looking for even if it does not exist. If I tell you that the Shaman of my particular group can heal,see the future,protect combatants during war and other mystic things,you would  do the same thing as I am doing to you,mock you and ask you for VERIFIABLE proof.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6529
  • Darwins +854/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #660 on: July 16, 2014, 06:27:29 PM »
See my response #599 for why I say that the Catholic Church is not following the scientific method for medical research. I have no comment on research methods used in theoretical physics, because, unlike Lukvance, the Higgs Boson expert,  I don't know enough about it. But for general science, social science, and health related fields, I am qualified to comment. Astreja and others on this site also have real world expertise in these areas. Medical healings thus fall under my area.

According to what Lukvance himself has posted and the links he has provided, the Catholic Church is deficient in at least these ways:

1) No control groups for comparison

2) Sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)

3) No parameters or statistical tests set in advance

4) Supernatural consultation to verify results

5) No allowance for incorrect initial assumptions

6) No peer review process or external oversight

7) The study is not "blind" ie identity of control and treatment groups kept secret from researchers

The unexamined assumptions alone render the process unscientific. So many unfounded and unproven assumptions have to be correct in order for a researcher to say that "the Catholic God healed this woman's paralyzed hand".

The assumptions for which there is no objective support include:
there is a Catholic God,
this Catholic God interacts with human beings
this Catholic God's behavior can be detected by prayer,
this Catholic God's behavior can be influenced by prayer,
there are special humans who can detect and/or influence this Catholic God
this Catholic God does healings of human beings,
healings not currently understood by science are due to a supernatural cause,
the supernatural cause could not possibly be another being-- demon or alien or different god, etc.

I have asked many specific questions related to the above that Lukvance either fails to understand, or pretends not to understand.

I will just ask Lukvance one final question related to points 1 and 2 above.

Lukvance, why do medical researchers generally use large sample sizes and control groups

Please do me the favor of answering directly without mentioning theoretical physics, which I do not understand.
Ok. You understand about research in the medical field. It is not very different.
1) Do we use control groups for comparison? Yes we do. We compare the sick person to another person with the same sickness. [That is not a control group. That is not even a group.]
2) Are the sample sizes too small (sometimes using a sample of one individual!)? There is only one who is cured indeed. What were you expecting? Many people cured? If I misunderstand, there are many people with the same disease than the cured person so no the sample size is huge. [The people who have the same disease are not the sample.]


Lukvance, have you ever taken a basic statistics or research methods class? You do not seem to have the most rudimentary idea of what I am talking about in terms of how a study should be designed to reduce bias, etc. You are describing the kinds of things that you learn not to do in the first week of research methods. Like comparing one person with a disease to one other person with a disease, or assuming that everyone with a disease is your sample.

A control group is a randomly selected group of people who will not have the treatment, in this case, prayer or other religious activity, so you can compare the baseline rate of improvement (people who would have gotten well anyway no matter what) to the rate of improvement from the treatment.

Astreja, can you help? I am at a loss.
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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #661 on: July 16, 2014, 06:39:53 PM »
I recommend to everyone that they disregard any attempt Lukvance makes to bring up the Higgs boson, until such time as he actually demonstrates that he has enough knowledge about it to be worth discussing.

Oh I already know that about ALL claims.But, isn't scientists claim that they have found the Higgs Boson right until proven otherwise?
You don't actually know if that's what scientists claim?  Maybe instead of trying to fish for answers to questions like this, you should actually state what you think is the case and provide support for it.  You know, what you keep demanding that other people do.

That, in fact, is why I asked you repeatedly to explain what the Higgs boson was - to provide support for the assertions you made about it.  You refused (tried to change the subject, dodged the question, and even told me to go look it up myself if I wanted to know so badly), and are now in the position of having made multiple claims regarding the Higgs boson which you actually refused to provide support for.  In short, every single thing you have said and will say about the Higgs boson is unsupported, and will stay that way until you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

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 #662 on: July 17, 2014, 11:22:41 AM »
Do you have a "College of Miracles" at the "University of the Supernatural or Paranormal" where anyone, of any faith or worldview, can test your claims? You don't, do you? So don't pretend that these methods are the same when they are nowhere near the same.
I will let the insults slide as it goes towards proving that indeed your counter arguments fail by themselves.
There is a field of study called theologyWiki. Ever heard of it? If so, how can you claim that "there are no "College of Miracles" at the "University of the Supernatural or Paranormal" where anyone, of any faith or worldview, can test your claims." Many schools like this one propose degrees in theologyWiki.

You just tried to change the subject again. We are not talking about the study of religious doctrines (as written in religious texts which claim the miraculous). We are talking about whether or not you can actually DEMONSTRATE that a particular phenomena is/was a "miracle from God". If you think theology is "the study of God" as opposed to "the study of religious doctrines" then you are assuming the very thing you need to prove (i.e. - that there is such a thing as "God") and thus you are being irrational again b/c you are using the fallacy of begging the question. Remember what the OP is about? In essence, we are asking to you to demonstrate that a "God" did something. This would require the following, in this order:

1. Define the term "God" in a logically coherent fashion (i.e. - in positive, not negative terms)
2. Demonstrate that such an alleged being is actually real outside the brain (without assuming it)
3. Define "miracle" in a coherent fashion (i.e. - in such a fashion that does not use the argument from ignorance fallacy)
4. Demonstrate that this alleged "God" actually caused a miracle (again without appealing to an argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy)

Thus far you have continually presented a viciously circular argument (which is logically fallacious). You have attempted to assume that your God exists (and can do miracles) in order to then ASSERT that it did a "miracle" when a sick person got better after medical practitioners could not explain why. This is (again) also an argument from ignorance because when there is no reasonable explanation for how or why a specific phenomena occurred the answer is "I don't know what happened" not "God did it" because that exemplifies the very definition of the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy.

Again, "theology" has nothing to do with my example of a "College of Miracles" b/c in theology it is ASSUMED that the deity is real, and it cannot be independently verified or checked out by disinterested or disagreeing parties. Conversely, science CAN be independently verified by disinterested parties. That is the difference you need to deal with in this false analogy you keep trying to draw.

P.s. - Do not bring up the Higgs Boson again until you have actually studied the science and can sufficiently demonstrate that you understand the scientific reasoning behind it.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 11:33:57 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1975
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #663 on: July 17, 2014, 02:58:05 PM »
You haven't proven wrong skeptic54768's claim that your Catholic church is led by Satan.  Guess that makes that legit, right?
You are in a hurry for some reason? Wait long enough and I (or someone else) will prove him wrong.
So...you do accept the claim that the Catholic church is led by Satan?  What in seven hells are you doing still being Catholic then?  I'm confused.

Quote
Quote
Or are you going to eventually figure out that assuming all claims are right until proven wrong is an inefficient, error prone, and idiotic way of seeking truth?
Oh I already know that about ALL claims.But, isn't scientists claim that they have found the Higgs Boson right until proven otherwise?
Yeah I'm with jaimehlers on this.  You kinda need to shut up about the Higgs Boson.  It's pretty clear that the only thing you know regarding it is the spelling.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #664 on: July 17, 2014, 03:02:37 PM »
That is your opinion about me. You are allowed to share it with us but it doesn't make it true. The truth is that my standards do not change much. (of course, I will believe what my mother tells me over someone I've never met and I hope, so would you.)

Your belief that “the truth is that your standards do not change much” is your opinion about yourself, your responses on these forums show that your opinion is inaccurate.

We need to identify the evidence for either.  Since a miracle is an act of “God”, then we need to find evidence for “God”.  Hmmm…. I think I see now where your mistake is, you think an act of “God” (aka a miracle) is evidence of “God”.

Now, you understand :)

I understand your error, unfortunately, you do not and seem to be refusing to, or are incapable of comprehending your error, which makes this discussion pointless as you have accepted beliefs based on logical fallacies and have no interest in correcting your errors.

Furthermore, don’t expect me to accept beliefs in the same way you do.  If “God” exists, I expect to have sufficient evidence before accepting “God’s” existence as opposed to mistakenly assuming “God’s” existence with insufficient logically fallacious evidence.


As I’ve said, the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown.  You are claiming if we don’t know something, that is evidence for “God”.  Yes, yes, I know it has to be a really amazing good thing to happen.  It doesn’t matter, scientists say, we don’t know the cause, the Vatican then declares miracle.  Unknown = Miracle.

No.

Well gee, thanks for the awesome response.  How about providing the information I’m looking for, namely how the Vatican determines that “God” was involved?  Seriously, how many times to I have to ask?  Oh wait , I know, I have to ask them right.  I have to do your work.  I’ve already looked and cannot find the information, and everything I have found leads me to the conclusion you are saying “No” to. 

Well …. I’m waiting ……  Anytime you want to support your assertions, be my guest and until then I have no choice but to conclude your responses are based on your confirmation bias.


I’ve already explained the problems with this logic.  See: Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians.  See any ancient culture for that matter.

No need to explain it again, it is not the logic I use. It is only the logic you want people to believe I use. But it is not. That's why I don't want you to judge me, let your counter argument speak for itself. Up until now, the way I understand your counter argument is the following phrase : "the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown" and that is not true. The cause is known. The cause is God as predicted by the theory.

Clearly you don’t understand my counter argument.  Your lack of understanding supports my earlier conclusions that you either can’t or won’t comprehend your errors. 

You continue to make claims without support, and I keep asking you to provide the source or evidence which supports the claim “God is the cause”. 

I think this will be my last reply to you regarding miracles. 

Okay, let’s review the evidence I have and what you seem to be implying you have regarding miracles.

SevenPatch has the following evidence:

A. Scientific evidence and conclusions that no known cause can explain the event that occurred.

Lukvance seems to be implying he has the following evidence:

A. Scientific evidence and conclusions that no known cause can explain the event that occurred.
B. Evidence that “God” is the cause of the event that occurred.

I don’t have evidence “B”, give me evidence “B”, show me where evidence “B” is.  My conclusions so far are based on not having “B”.  No “B” is the counter argument.  In order for you to refute the counter argument, all you have to do is provide “B”.

DO NOT tell me that miracles are “B”, or this discussion will end and you will have proved that my points are valid.

I’ve identified miracles as merely being something having occurred which the cause is unknown.  Not knowing the cause does not prove “God” was the cause.

There. This does not make sense. Let's say that according to Higgs Boson theory you should be able to "see" his effect but when you see it I tell you that what you see is "merely something having occurred which the cause is unknown". What would your reaction be? How is your reaction different than mine?

Of course it doesn’t make sense to you.  You lack any understanding of what impact the Higgs boson particle discovery has on particle physics and science in general.  Your attempts to equivocate the discovery of the Higgs boson particle with miracles and “God” while being completely ignorant of the science behind the Higgs boson particle only leads me to believe you are also completely ignorant regarding miracles.

I actually started to write up a few paragraphs explaining the science behind the Higgs boson particle but I will take jaimehlers’s advice and not provide you with the means to continue to falsely equivocate science with miracles. 

Who exactly do you think you are fooling by pretending to possess understanding of the science behind the Higgs boson particle, Lukvance? 

Your ignorance exposes you Lukvance as a fraud.  That is not an insult, nor is it merely my opinion.  It is a fact that you are ignorant of the science behind the Higgs boson particle, your own words demonstrate this for all to see.  The fact that you pretend to have knowledge that you do not makes you a fraud.  The definition of fraud is a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people.  Your methods may work on those as ignorant as you, but they will not work here.

DO NOT attempt to imply that I am doing the same regarding miracles, or this discussion will end and you will have proved that my points are valid.  I admit to only understand what I have learned from the sources I’ve provided, I’ve shown you the conclusions I have drawn from those sources and I’ve asked you for the information that leads you to your conclusions but you refuse to provide this information.  I am beginning to think you do not have the information which would mean that indeed you are exercising confirmation bias.

If you wish to not be a fraud, Lukvance, stop pretending to have knowledge that you do not.  Stop using the Higgs bosen particle as an equivalent to miracles unless you can demonstrate understanding of the science behind the Higgs boson particle.


If you say we do know the cause and that cause was “God” then THAT is the evidence I would like to review.  I would like to examine the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracle.
You are looking at it. The evidence is the miracle.

Wow, seriously dude? 

Let me get this straight.  Miracles are evidence that “God” was the cause of miracles which proves the existence of “God”.

Did you seriously just write “the evidence is the miracles”?   

I asked you for evidence  that “God” was the cause and you say “the evidence is the Miracles”.

SO

Miracles are the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracles.  You also claim that miracles are the evidence for the existence of “God” outside our minds.

SO

Miracles are the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracles which prove the existence of “God” outside of our minds.

I think you might want to rethink your response to my request.  I’ll give you one more chance to provide the evidence that allows us to know that “God” was the cause.

How do you not see that your logic is circular?

Again, with the Higgs boson, If I tell you "If you say we do know the cause (of what you see) and that cause was the Higgs Boson then THAT is the evidence I would like to review. I would like to examine the evidence that the Higgs Boson  was the cause of what you are looking at." What would your reaction be? How is your reaction different than mine?

Ha!  Very funny, you’ve accidently said something that kind of makes sense for once.  Funnily enough, you probably have no clue what you just said and were just trying to mimic what I said.

My response would be to provide you with background information, links to the scientific research, results and data which (so far) verify the predictions made regarding the Higgs boson particle.  Actually I was going to do all of this but then I realized it wouldn’t matter if I did, you’re playing games and you’re a fraud.  You don’t care about the Higgs boson particle, you are using it as a device to justify your belief in miracles.  In your warped mind, you think If I accept the science behind the Higgs boson particle then you are justified in accepting miracles as evidence for “God”.  No, you are not justified, if you knew anything about science, the Higgs boson particle and the scientific method you would understand why you are not justified.

Your response is to dodge and avoid having to provide background information or any research that shows how anyone would know that “God” was the cause of miracles.

I’m not the one making claims here, you are.  I don’t care if you accept the science behind the Higgs boson particle.  I don’t accept that miracles exist because I have no evidence that “God” exists, so therefore “God” cannot act if there is no “God”.

Do you care if I don’t accept that miracles exist?   If you do, then you need to provide the sources of evidence that show that “God” was the cause.

Stop dodging and provide the evidence.


Is the story legit though?  Did a Basillian hieromonk say a prayer with doubt in his heart, at which point “God” turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?
Yes, it has yet to be proven wrong.

How the fuck could it be proven wrong?  It can’t be proven wrong.  Do you have any idea how stupid your response is?  I’m going to assume you don’t, so let me explain.

I have a rock in my back yard that was put there by aliens from another planet.  What is that you say?  You question the legitimacy of my story?  Well of course it is true, it has yet to be proven wrong.  GO AHEAD, I DARE YOU to prove that aliens from another planet didn’t put the rock in my back yard.

Ah but for some reason, you don’t believe me right?  Why don’t you believe me but you believe the Miracle of Lanciano story? 

CONFIRMATION BIAS!

You’re not even trying anymore.  You’ve just willfully given yourself over to ignorance and stupidity just to hold onto your preconceived beliefs.

I have no more reason to believe the Miracle of Lanciano is true than I do to believe that Thor went fishing for the serpent Jormungandr.  You can go to Altuna, Sweeden to see the Altuna Runestone and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes. It is Thor’s own carvings.
Is the Altuna Runestone presented as proof of the existence of Thor? The miracle of Lanciano is presented as proof of the existence of God. If not, why comparing the two?

Come on!  Really?!?!?! Is something not being presented as evidence the only thing you have to conclude that it is not true?!?!?!?!?!  More evidence of your confirmation bias.

FYI, there are people who believe the Norse gods exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_neopaganism

Although, I can’t find that the Altuna Runestone is actually being presented as evidence.  Quite amazing though that if it were, would you then have to conclude that Thor exists?

I should send an e-mail to one of the groups who believe in the Norse gods, let them know all they got to do is start claiming things as evidence and they’ll have at least one person who will believe them.

There are over 900 footprints attributed to BigFoot and are presented as evidence for the existence of BigFoot.  You can look up the locations of where the mold imprints of these footprints are displayed, go there and see with your own eyes.  The footprints are evidence that BigFoot exists.


Me not knowing how to detect “God” does not mean I don’t know what would make me accept that a miracle was an act from “God”.  This is non sequitur logic.
Why? If say you don't know "how this planet surface looks" and then someone tells you how this planet surface looks. How could you say "that's not the way!" if you have no idea what would make you accept "how this planet surface looks"? You must have something to compare it to or accept the new information that is given to you.

Okay first of all, describing the surface of a planet would likely be an ordinary claim.  For instance someone could say the surface is sandy or rocky.  I only need ordinary evidence for ordinary claims.  “God” and miracles are extraordinary claims for which I need extraordinary evidence.  Evidence for how the planet surface looks could be provided.  You however continue to refuse to provide evidence regarding “God” and evidence that show’s “God” was the cause of what is claimed to be a miracle.

If someone claims that Thor was the cause of the Altuna Runestone then I want to see evidence which shows this is true.  The Altuna Runestone is not the evidence, it is the effect.  Thor is the claimed cause, I want to see the link between the claimed cause and the effect.

If someone claims that “God” was the cause of flesh and blood being present in a Catholic church then I want to see evidence which shows this is true.  The flesh and blood being present in a Catholic church is not the evidence, it is the effect.  “God” is the claimed cause, I want to see the link between the claimed cause and the effect.  Heck I want to see evidence that bread and wine actually changed to flesh and blood.  Where is the evidence for that?  At this point, it is more likely that Thor exists and carved the Altuna Runestone than this Miracle of Lanciano story.

Any means to detect “God” are, as long as it can be verified objectively (as opposed to subjectively), acceptable and would be the first step making me accept that miracles are an act from “God”.
What means are you thinking of when you write this down? How are they different than the ones already in place?

Why do you keep asking me for specific means of how to detect something I don’t know to exist?  Do I ask you what specific means you would use to detect the existence of leprechauns or Santa Clause?  You don’t have any reason to believe leprechauns or Santa Clause exist, so why would you know how to detect them?

Look, us humans are limited by our senses right?  So any determination we make is based on our senses and must be verified by our senses.  So, if “God” exists, and we are to verify that “God” actually exists, then the only way we could do that is through our senses right? 

This is the last time I’m going to say this, I DON”T KNOW HOW “GOD” WAS DETECTED!  I’M ASKING YOU HOW “GOD” WAS DETECTED!  YOU ARE DODGING MY REQUEST!

You see, the only thing I have is a claim that “God” was the cause.   If no one actually detects “God” then how do they know “God” was the cause?

Here is an example to help you understand my point of view:

My friend and I are sitting in the living room watching TV, when suddenly we hear a crash coming from the other room.  We are the only ones in the house so we are surprised by this loud noise.  We go to investigate and find that two books on a book shelf fell off the shelf onto the floor.  We wonder how this could have happened as no one was in the room and we cannot find any known reason why the books fell.  Since I don’t have any evidence to support any hypothesis I am left with not knowing the cause.  My friend however must know the cause, she cannot let it go until she knows the cause, so she proposes that a cat did it.  I tell her, “but there is no cat in the house, nor could a cat get into the house, also we did not see any cat in the area when we investigated the noise”.  Surprisingly she claims “The books having fell without any known cause is proof that a cat was the cause”.  I ask, “where is the evidence that this cat exists?”.  She answers “The books fell didn’t they?”  I respond “that makes no sense what-so-ever, just because we don’t know why or how the books fell doesn’t mean a cat was the cause.”  My friend responds “Of course we know why the books fell, the cat caused the books to fall”.  I ask again “what cat? Where is the evidence for this cat knocking over the books onto the floor?”  Again she responds “The books on the floor is the evidence”.  /facepalm


If you’re asking me if I know how to detect “God”, then no, I do not know how to detect “God”, if I did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and I would be working on a scientific paper showing everyone how to detect “God”.
Then allow yourself to learn how to detect God. People already wrote the paper for you.

AND YET AGAIN you fail to tell me how to detect “God”.  I swear, a discussion with you is worse than having teeth pulled.

SO, I should ALLOW myself to LEARN how to detect “God” huh. Sounds like you want me to believe without evidence, like you do.  No thanks, I’ll wait until I get the evidence.  Anytime you’d like to share any such evidence what-so-ever, be my guest.

If someone (anyone) were to inform the world how to detect “God” and then ascertain “God’s” behavior and verify that “God” was the cause of certain events for which the cause was unknown (aka miracles), then I would be able to accept the fact that a miracle is an act from “God”.  How is that not answering your question?
Because my question is in two parts. The second part being "How is that different to what is already in place?" Someone already informed the world how to detect God and ascertain his behavior and verify that he is the cause of the event and this is the process used to determine if an event is a miracle.

Source please.

The steps that the Catholic church takes are also the same than the scientific method.

Really dude?!?!  You took what I wrote and just claimed that is what happens without any justification for such a claim. 

I think you voluntary "skipped" some of them.

I did no such thing.  The 3 steps that I wrote down are what I have learned from reviewing the sources you provided and that I have found.  If you believe there are other steps that I have missed, please provide a quote from the sources that I missed or a new source which I have not seen yet.

It looks like the 3 steps that the Catholic Church use are only step 1 of the scientific method.

Here is how Miracles fit in the Scientific method :
1.   Propose a means to detect “God” : You can find how to detect a miracle. (the 3 steps you talked about are a good start then there are others)

Again, not knowing the cause of something is not the means to detect something.  It only means that we need to figure out the unknown.  That is the point of using the scientific method and step 1 of detecting that which is unknown.  The fact that you and the Catholic Church are not using the scientific method is the problem.  The Catholic Church is going from “A” (not knowing the cause) to “Z” (“God” is the cause) without showing “B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y”.  WHERE THE FUCK IS “B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y”!  I CAN”T FIND IT!

2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God” : We know what a miracle might look like and how it should behave. (for example, the cure must be permanent)

Since when do acts of “God” behave?  That is what a miracle is right?  An act of “God”? 

How do we know what an “act of God” might look like?  Source please.  Why must the cure be permanent?  How do we know that “God’s” intention wasn’t just to cure the person temporarily so they might achieve something before they die?  Source please.

3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God” : We do compare the event to what has been predicted.

The cause of the event is unknown, Lukvance.  We’re trying to prove that “God” is the cause of the event.  If we can prove that “God” is the cause of the event, then we will know the cause was “God” and thus we can declare that a miracle (act of “God”) has occurred.

What I’m not getting from you or any searches that I’ve done is how we would know that “God’ is the cause.  Comparing the event to what has been predicted would fall under step 4.

I'm not sure I get 4 and 5

I have no reason to believe you understand any of the steps or the scientific method.

4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” is the cause of any events with known causes.
To understand them better let's compare the scientific method you proposed and apply it to the Higgs Boson :
1.   Propose a means to detect the Higgs Boson
2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of the Higgs Boson
3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect the Higgs Boson.
4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if the Higgs Boson was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5.   Use the verified information/data to determine if the Higgs Boson is the cause of any events with known causes.

Could you give us examples of the equivalent for the Higgs Boson? (for step 4 and 5)

No, your understanding of the 5 steps is lacking.  How about you describe in your own words what impact the discovery of the Higgs boson particle means to science?  Then I’ll go into detail regarding the 5 steps.

Anyone should be able to verify that “God” was actually involved In these “miracles” assuming they have the means to perform the experiments and testing procedures.  Currently the Catholic Church is the only body that makes the determination, and I cannot find any information on their methods In actually making the determination.  I can only find the methods relating to determining if the cause is known or unknown.
  I see. You didn't have the following information : You and anyone are able to verify that God is involved in these miracles. They just have to study the subject (become theologians)
As you can see there are no difference between what you expect and what is already in place.

Why would I need to become a theologian just to read the information regarding their methods used to determine that “God” was the cause?  Is the information secret?  Why would the information be secret?  I’m not a particle physicist yet I can read the information regarding the methods used to discover the Higgs boson particle.  Information regarding the Higgs boson particle is free to all to review for themselves.

I need to know the methods used by the Catholic Church to actually determine that “God” was the cause.  The claim is never reviewed by non-Catholic parties.  Non-Catholic parties only make the determination that the cause is unknown which in no way verifies that “God” was the cause.
The claim is reviewed by non Catholic parties. What are you talking about? Everyone on earth have the capacity to review the claim. You understand that before you can claim that God is the cause, you have to know who God is (and isn't), right? For that there are schools where you can study God. Not all theologians are Catholics.

Source please that shows that non-Catholic Church personal reviewed the claims and also determined the cause to be “God” and that a miracle occurred.

LOL, so you think that there is a “God” and there is no “God” at the same time?

No, I think There is a God and you think that there is no God at the same time. No problemo.

Okay, fine.

Miracles are unsupported claims, and Catechism appears to be brainwashing material.
Well...that are strong claims. Let's our counter arguments speak from themselves, no need to support them with such claims :)

For fucks sake.  If you would provide any supporting evidence for even half, no a quarter, shit, any of your claims I wouldn’t have this fucked up desire to start pulling my own teeth out rather than interact with you.

Start providing sources or start retracting your claims.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 04:24:55 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #665 on: July 17, 2014, 03:55:46 PM »
But, isn't scientists claim that they have found the Higgs Boson right until proven otherwise?
No scientist ever claimed that he/she had found the Higgs Boson until he had proof that he/she had indeed found it.

Any man and his dog can say that they have proof of god and often do.

What's your point?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6529
  • Darwins +854/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #666 on: July 17, 2014, 04:05:34 PM »
But, isn't scientists claim that they have found the Higgs Boson right until proven otherwise?
No scientist ever claimed that he/she had found the Higgs Boson until he had proof that he/she had indeed found it.

Any man and his dog can say that they have proof of god and often do.

What's your point?

When scientists say they have found something, and don't have the proof, they get shot down PDQ. Remember cold fusion? Yeah, me neither. Because it didn't really work as advertised,  the scientists didn't have any proof, and they got shot down. That is the way science works. Put up, or shut up.

With religion, anything goes. No proof or evidence needed. All you have to do is have faith and feel that it is true and believe. If it doesn't work as advertised, it cannot be that the religion is not true. Something is wrong with your faith.

Imagine if scientists could get away with that sh!t. &)
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.