I don't know about lightning. I know that theologians today will make predictions based on facts. Verifiable facts. So it might be different than lightning. Like the scientists when they put down the theory of the existence of the HB when we didn't know if it existed. Theologians don't need to base their predictions on the existence of God.Would you stop trying to bring the Higgs boson into this?
No. Unless you have another scientific experiment that involve something similar (hard to detect and visible only by it's interaction with other things)
Anyway, the problem with "theological predictions" is that they don't actually predict anything useful. For example, take the sample prediction "God uses miracles to heal supplicants at Lourdes". Yet this doesn't actually tell us anything meaningful, such as who will be healed, a method by which they can gain healing, or anything else. It doesn't even give the odds that a person will be healed at Lourdes (probably because the odds are lower than the chances of winning the jackpot in a Powerball lottery drawing). Theological predictions are like astrological predictions, so general that they can 'predict' anything, which ultimately means that they don't actually predict anything; they simply count the hits and ignore the misses.
1. I'll ask you to read reply #809 or #667. You'll understand (I hope) why your counter argument doesn't stand.
2. The sample you took is not the kind of prediction made by theologians. Their kind of prediction is more along the line "if the event happening correspond to known criteria then it is God who caused the event" Just like scientist with the Higgs Boson "if the event happening correspond to known criteria then it is the HB who caused the event"
They agree on what God is doing it. That's what peer reviewed papers are for.No, they don't. Some theologians agree that your god is doing it; other theologians disagree and promote other gods instead.
1. How do you know that. Maybe you've read their papers? Source please.
2. I really doubt that you investigated one particular miracle and read the peer reviewed paper that stipulate it was their gods and not Catholic God who did it.
3. I asked already for a miracle recognized by some other religion that has similar scrutiny imposed by the Vatican. I don't think that such thing exist. It goes to prove that the work put in before declaring a miracle is so precise that you cannot find it anywhere else. It goes to prove that no mistake were made and it is with the most certitude available at the time that the Catholic Church declare the event as a miracle.
And as you have said, atheist theologians argue that no god is doing it at all. Or are you suggesting that atheist theologians "agree on what God is doing it"? Or Hindu theologians? Or Buddhist theologians? Or Shinto theologians? Or Christian theologians who consider Catholics to be devil-worshipers?
Atheists can argue that no god is causing the event and produce a paper to prove their point. This paper will then be reviewed by it's peers and if he made a mistake that mistake will be revealed. If he did not make any mistake, the event won't be considered as a miracle.
I compare Atheists with people who don't believe that we found the Higgs Boson. They are few but they are here.
If they have sufficient knowledge, they can produce a paper proving that it is not the Higgs Boson that had been found. This paper will then be reviewed by it's peers and if he made a mistake that mistake will be revealed. If he did not make any mistake, the event won't be considered as proof of the existence of the HB.
I don't know what kind of prediction you are talking about. But if the sheer number of wrong prediction were to invalidate the whole thing, where would that leave science? Did scientists ever made a wrong prediction? A wrong theory? Why give science the benefit of the doubt and not theology?I didn't say that it invalidated the whole thing, I said that it was no longer reasonable to give theologians the benefit of the doubt. As for why I'm still willing to give scientists the benefit of the doubt, it's because scientists admit when they get things wrong (or when other scientists show that they're wrong). For example, those scientists who thought they had found out that neutrinos could travel faster than light, and then retracted it once they found out that it was instrument error. [...] Theologians don't do that, as far as I know.
So, you know for a fact that Theologian never admit they are wrong? Could you present us with such a case? Like a paper were the theologian was wrong and the review proving him wrong.
I shouldn't then be able to find some kind of retraction on his part. (Like this one? http://retractionwatch.com/2013/09/16/thou-shalt-not-plagiarize-seventh-commandment-violation-results-in-retraction/#more-15653
If you can't provide us with that It will prove that
most of your claims
this claim is coming from your imagination.
That's how you can counter my accusation that you're comparing apples and oranges - show that you understand the 'apples' and 'oranges' well enough to talk meaningfully about them. But just claiming that you don't think you are won't accomplish anything - because I do know a lot about science, and all that knowledge is telling me that you really don't know much of anything about it.
And you don't seem to able to underline what I said that doesn't make sense. Maybe, if you underlined it and explain why it doesn't make sense, I would then be able to explain to you how it makes sense. Apparently, it's the second time I ask you to underline what makes you think that I don't know the difference and each time you dodge. Continuing to assert it without support. I'm starting to doubt the fact that you even know what you are talking about. Or maybe that your belief is based on a mistake that I made in one phrase. I am not immune to mistakes in formulating my ideas you know. Wouldn't it be more productive to underline that mistake than accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about?
"My own descriptions" include a book, at least one theologian, a myriad of paper created by theologians, a miracle expert and more. Don't tell me you read them all. I'm pretty sure that if you did, you wouldn't be able to affirm such things because you would've learn that they are lies/wrong.Of course I didn't read them all. Your descriptions are what you've put in this thread, not the sources you used, and I assure you, I've read everything you've written in this thread. If you cannot accurately describe and summarize those things you've read, then you have no business presenting them as if you did. If you can, then other people should not need to go read your sources to make sure you got it right.
Then quote me each time you make such assumptions. If you make you claims based on what I summarized there should be somewhere I summarized something along the line of your claims. I doubt you will find such things since I believe they are lies.
Nevertheless, maybe I shared the wrong idea, you quoting me to support your claim will allow me to correct it then.
What do you understand that I'm saying? I might not be conveying the message I want to, correctly.What I understand that you're saying is that theology and science work basically the same way. That theology is a science because theologians agree on things by majority rules, and both utilize a form of peer review. That something which has no known scientific explanation can be adequately explained by a supernatural one, even though there is no direct evidence of this supernatural cause. That when theologians declare that something is a miracle, it stands as evidence of the supernatural being who they claim caused it. And that the process by which the Higgs boson was found is essentially the same as the one by which your church validates whether something is miraculous or not - that every other possible cause was ruled out, and only then was the Higgs boson declared to be responsible.
I pretty much disagree 100% with every single one of these statements.
Yeah...I kinda too.
1. "theology and science work basically the same way" you understand me correctly.
2. "theology is a science because theologians agree on things by majority rules" No, I mean that the majority agrees, not that because the majority agrees that it is true. "The majority agree" is just an observation.
3. "and both utilize a form of peer review." Yes, you understand me correctly.
4. "something which has no known scientific explanation can be adequately explained by a supernatural one" Nope, never wanted to go into the natural vs supernatural debate. This part is from your own imagination, not my saying.
5. "even though there is no direct evidence of this supernatural cause" Not supernatural. The idea I want to convey here is that there is direct evidence of this natural cause. Theology allows you to "spot" those evidence. Tell, me what is the "direct evidence" in the analogy with the HB? I might be able to find its counterpart.
6. "when theologians declare that something is a miracle, it stands as evidence of the supernatural being who they claim caused it" They don't declare a miracle they declare which god caused the event. They make sure that the event was indeed caused by God and not some other deity.
7. "the process by which the Higgs boson was found is essentially the same as the one by which your church validates whether something is miraculous or not" I would make a slight correction here the idea is that "the process by which the Higgs boson was found is essentially the same as the one by which my church validates whether a proof of the existence of God was found "
8. "every other possible cause was ruled out, and only then was the Higgs boson declared to be responsible." No. I wanted to make the same comparison. The reason(s) why the HB was declared to be responsible (whatever the reason(s) is/are) is/are the same that God was declared to be responsible.
I hope these corrections will allow us to understand each other.