Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 14736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #812 on: July 23, 2014, 02:05:35 PM »
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)

Quote
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"

Quote from: Lukvance
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Lukvance
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.

Quote
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?

Quote from: Lukvance
"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.

Quote from: Lukvance
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.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #813 on: July 23, 2014, 02:15:29 PM »
jaimehlers this is your proof that theologian work is subjective : "Theologians like to claim that they're actually just reporting on something which is objective to the entire universe and thus their positions are in no way subjective, even when those positions are dissonant or diametrically opposed with each other.  What they're actually presenting is their subjective opinion regarding this objective thing they believe in (despite the lack of solid evidence).  The fact that it's their subjective opinion doesn't actually make it bad, though.  What makes it bad is trying to present it as objective in order to make it look better and more convincing, even though it's subjective."
What do you think of it? Is it how proof of something should be presented? If I were to present proof that Science is subjective using your words, would you accept it? If not, why?
Also, if not, could you present us with real proof? or retract your claim.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #814 on: July 23, 2014, 02:40:51 PM »
You don't even understand that screwtape wasn't making counter-arguments in the post you're parodying; he was expressing his opinion in response to your questions.  That means your parody was of his opinion; by ridiculing his opinion, you were effectively ridiculing him.  How do I know they were his opinions?  Because they were based on his own personal experience and thus were subjective in nature.

Now you understand why this discussion is taking so much time. People, like him, want to express their opinion regardless of the subject at hand and don't really care about counter arguing the evidence that is presented to them. They will insult you, they will take things personal, they will go of topic as often as they can to avoid presenting their counter arguments.
Some present counter arguments for time to time... buried in a text were they express their opinion.
I don't really care if you guys want to run before a discussion like that, but don't make it my fault. It's not my fault that this discussion is so long.
I am not saying that I never express my opinions. For time to time I get sucked into the flow of opinions. Mostly because I don't want to leave any question asked to me unanswered.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #815 on: July 23, 2014, 02:52:22 PM »
I was in the middle of writing up a post, and realized that I was simply getting more and more furious with Lukvance every sentence I read.

I already lost my patience with him, and I just lost all interest in trying to get through to him, not even halfway through his latest worthless excuse for a post.  It isn't worth trying to be persistent when you're trying to talk a brick wall - feh, a brick wall would be less annoying, because it wouldn't talk back and keep insisting that it was right and dismissing all arguments that contradicted it.  So I'm done here.

Lukvance, until you figure out that your approach to subjects like this is needlessly pedantic, as well as highly annoying and almost totally worthless for actual communication, there's no point in talking to you.  I'll be happy to allow you the last word - after all, it's not as if you'll be saying anything meaningful with it.  So you got what you supposedly wanted - you'll get to see just how many people you can convince now that I'm no longer 'judging' you.  Too bad for you that to do it, you had to be so utterly banal and annoying that I simply couldn't stand reading another one of your ridiculous attempts at false equivocation.  You have totally lost any chance you ever would have had to convince me of anything.

You aren't worth any more of my time.  And, frankly, you don't consider anyone else worthy of your time; your focus is on proving yourself right and pretending you know things.  Your approach not only does not value other people, it actually devalues them because what you really want is for them to agree that you're right.  You don't care about anything they have to say or whether their viewpoint has any meaning - you just want them to think what you say and think is worth listening to, but your methods are at odds with your desire.

I only hope that you eventually figure out just how badly you've done and start making amends for it.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #816 on: July 23, 2014, 02:55:21 PM »
Lukvance maintains that miracles are evidence of god interacting with the physical world. That is why I asked if only good things are miracles. Because if a unexplained healing from an illness is evidence of god interacting with the physical world, how can you then turn around and conclude that contracting and unexplained rare illness or having a rare tragic accident are not evidence of god interacting with the physical world?

Lukvance responded that god is good, and therefore we can only attribute good unlikely and unexplained events to god. We cannot attribute bad unlikely and unexplained events to god. How do we know that god is good? Because of all the good things god does, of course!

I'll let you all deal with the logical fallacies in those statements.

I will just add this: we humans are judging the goodness of god based on things that we humans find good, ie helpful and useful. Like healing a disease. So, if god heals a disease, that is good because disease is bad. God heals disease=god is good. I hope you are following me here.

God's healings are rare events, that is what makes them miracles and not treatments or cures. Lukvance has asserted this. God presumably could cure everyone who goes to Lourdes, or just everyone who gets sick, no matter where they are. But god does not do this. He randomly picks a few people to cure. The rest he ignores. Some he even allows to get worse, suffer and die.

If it is good when god heals a disease, what should call it when god does not heal a disease, as in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases that go to Lourdes? All the possible miracles that god does not perform add up to what? God heals disease=god is good. God does not heal disease=?

A person goes to Lourdes and is not cured, which is expected. As Lukvance says, miracles are not treatments or cures. Nobody should ever expect a miracle. But god is still assumed to be good, even though the person goes home and dies a painful, protracted death from an incurable illness. Multiply that person by a few million and I am finding it hard to figure out how you get "good" out of that neglectful behavior on the part of god.

I am sure that Lukvance, our resident amateur miracle expert,  will figure it out and explain it to us, though.
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 SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #817 on: July 23, 2014, 03:25:58 PM »
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.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT DUDE!  Are you even reading what people post or just not comprehending what you’re reading?

It's a little hard to point out the specific deficiencies in your understanding when I don't know for sure just what you do or don't understand.  All I can go by is what you state here, and based on that, you don't understand science well enough to be able to use it in analogies.  And I've been trying to explain that for at least a couple weeks now.  If you won't present your knowledge, I can only go based on what you do present (which is analogies between the "Higgs boson"[1] and your claims about how 'God' manifests in the world).  The way for you to show otherwise is to present your actual knowledge so that I and others can evaluate it.

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.
 1. in quotes because I don't think you know what exactly it is

_______________________

The next two quotes were written while you were making your absurd request so you might have missed these two:

Quote from: Lukvance
So, from our perspective people who were specializing in the Higgs Boson particle before its discovery, specialized in something that didn't exist?
There were no specialists in the Higgs boson particle before it was discovered. 

So, from our perspective people who were specializing in the Higgs Boson particle before its discovery, specialized in something that didn't exist?
Was their expertise for nought?

No one specialized in the Higgs boson particle before it was discovered.  The Higgs boson particle was a prediction which either did or did not exist.  Particle physicists were trying to find out if it did or did not exist. 

_____________________________

The following quotes underline what you said that doesn’t make sense and asks you to explain your reasoning:

Pointing out your ignorance regarding the Higgs boson particle and the science behind it is not an insult.  It is merely an observation of the current discussion and all of the posts you’ve made regarding the Higgs boson particle showing said ignorance.   Ignorance just means a lack of knowledge.

If you think this is how the Higgs boson was decided to be 'real', then you are once again underscoring my point rather than countering it.  Scientists do not decide anything by majority vote.  Indeed, getting scientists to agree on anything is much like trying to herd cats.  At the end of the second paper I have linked in my signature, the writer (a neuroscientist with a PhD in that field) states that any two scientists will produce three scientific opinions on the same subject.  It's true that the research team which did the work on the Higgs boson submitted their paper to peer review, but that isn't a matter of other scientists agreeing or not agreeing with them; it is a matter of those scientists checking their work for errors and mistakes.  In short, it is nothing like the process by which Catholic theologians agree whether something is a miracle from God.

Quote from: Lukvance
I agree with you. The branch is not based on that.
Nevertheless, before finding the Higgs particle in the LHC, did this branch (in our case Particle Physics) study something that might exist (the Higgs Boson)? What were those study based on if it's not "things that do exist"?
The purpose of particle physics is to study what actually exists, not to study things that might exist.  Until the Higgs boson was shown to exist with actual physical evidence, it could not be studied via particle physics.  The purpose of the investigation into it was not to 'study' it, but to find evidence of it so that it could then be studied.  Statements like this demonstrate that you don't really understand the purpose of the Higgs boson investigations and thus that claims you make about it cannot be taken seriously.

It would be like proposing a biological study of unicorns or leprechauns when there are no specimens to actually study.  At best, such a 'study' would be speculative.  Now, there is a place for speculation in science, but you cannot perform a study on speculated data, because there is no way to verify whether the speculations are correct or not.  It is only when you find hard physical evidence on something that you can study it.

Do you think that the Higgs Boson exist?
There are studies that have been made before proving it's existence. Weren't the people studies made on "something that does not exist" at the time?
We call the field who studied the Higgs Boson. Physics.
We call the field who studied God. Theology.
Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what a Higgs Boson is and how it should behave, we found it at the LHC.
Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what God is and how he should behave, we found him at Lourdes.
What I think is that until such time as you show that you know what you're talking about, any statement you make about the Higgs boson will automatically be disregarded.  It is very simple; for a comparison to be meaningful, your knowledge about the two subjects must be sufficient for people to accept that you know what you're talking about.  Most of the people in this topic are no longer willing to accept that because you've wasted too much of your credibility with us making claims that are not believable.


Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what a Higgs Boson is and how it should behave, we found it at the LHC.
Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what God is and how he should behave, we found him at Lourdes.
I have not the faintest idea why you think that Physics and Theology are anything like each other.

Physics is a rigorous science based on mathematics.

Theology is as described in my signature below. In case you missed it:

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

Theology has not contributed anything useful to mankind, and never will. It is not a science, it can't be tested and it appears to be unfalsifiable. It is based on an assumption that there is an invisible being who can do magic.

Even claiming that Physics and Theology might, in some way, be similar is to admit that you are either trying to delude us or you are yourself delusional.

Worship your mystic deity as others throughout time have worshipped theirs, but do not try and convince yourself or anyone else that there is anything scientific, provable, testable about it.

Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist.
No, it isn't.  No branch of science whatsoever is based around the idea of studying things that might exist based on things that do exist.  Science is based on understanding things that have been demonstrated to exist.  So a scientific study of unexplained healings, say at Lourdes, would check to make sure that those healings were statistically significant, and then would attempt to find what caused them by demonstrating a clear and conclusive link.

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.

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.

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. [/font]

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.

But, isn't scientists claim that they have found the Higgs Boson right until proven otherwise?
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. &)

I asked you to explain what you thought the Higgs boson was, Lukvance.  Do not think you can dodge the issue by responding to only part of my post and leaving the question I have now asked you three times out.

Quote from: Lukvance
Like if you find proof of a Higgs Boson in your backyard, you wouldn't be 100% sure it is one as long as you don't submit your findings to experts.
I would ask if you were serious, but I'm unfortunately sure that you are.  This is why I'm virtually certain that you have no clue what the Higgs boson is, and thus why your attempts to use it to support your miracle rhetoric don't work.  There is no chance whatsoever of someone finding a Higgs boson by accident in their backyard, or even on purpose.  Finding one isn't like digging up a dinosaur fossil or a gold nugget or something like that, where it can be confused for certain other things and thus you have to be sure it's not one of those things.  The fact that you don't understand this yet persist in trying to use it as an example anyway demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to be taken seriously.

Quote from: Lukvance
What would be the scientific way?
I've tried to explain to you how science works, and you've only come back trying to claim that what you're doing is too scientific!  You've demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the Higgs boson, and yet you keep trying to use it to support your belief in miracles even though it's patently ridiculous to use something you don't know much about to justify something else you don't know much about.  All you've succeeded in demonstrating there is that you understand neither miracles nor the Higgs boson.

The problem is, the one way which would be scientific - which is to allow one's peers to review and repeat your method and procedures - wouldn't work here, because it would require your church to allow its peers - that is, other churches, both Christian and non-Christian - to review its claims of miracles in order to verify whether they were real or not.  Truthfully, if, say, Lutherans, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Hindus, were to go through this and concluded that they weren't actually miracles from God, would you be even slightly likely to listen to them?

Alright, Lukvance, since you have repeatedly refused to even attempt to explain what the Higgs boson is, so I can be sure that you know what you're talking about, and were not even willing to recant your ignorant attempts to compare it to miracles, I have no choice but to assume that you don't have the first idea of what it is.  Since you repeatedly insisted on trying to compare the Higgs boson to miracles, I therefore have no choice but to assume that you are just as ignorant of miracles as you are of the Higgs boson.  In short, your position regarding miracles is based on a complete lack of knowledge - that is, ignorance - and any statement you make regarding them is nothing more than your personal opinion and can be safely regarded as such.

Because of your ignorance of the subject, you are in no position to rate whether a person is an expert on miracles or not.  You are, quite simply, too credible and easy to fool regarding them, and thus your opinion on them cannot be trusted.  To make matters worse, you are inherently dishonest regarding your lack of knowledge.  When I confronted you about it, you repeatedly insisted that I should not be 'judgmental' and should simply lay out my argument and let people decide between the two.  However, this is a patently ridiculous attitude; as you yourself have demonstrated, over and over again, people are all too likely to allow themselves to be misled by someone pandering to their inherent beliefs.  It has been conclusively shown, over and over again, that when people are given a choice between alternatives, they pick the one that is the closest fit to what they already believe, not the one which is the most likely to be correct.

Even intelligent people who have trained themselves to be self-critical can fall prey to this fallacy.  How much more likely is it that someone like you, who never learned to be self-critical and therefore has an inflated opinion of his own attributes and such, will fall prey to it?  I realize it may be unpleasant to hear things like that, but I've tried being nice, and I've tried being reasonable, and plenty of other things.  None of it has worked because you never learned to doubt yourself and you apparently don't get subtlety.  So I'm pretty much down to being unsubtle and blunt, and the thing about being blunt is that it can be really painful.  Maybe if I figuratively whack you upside the head enough times, I'll shake loose some of that unreasonable certainty of yours.

Lukvance, I have told you what it would take for me to accept that a study of a miracle healing was done scientifically.

Basically, the scientific method only asks people to be really, really careful about:
1) identifying assumptions and defining terms,
2) accepting that any explanation is wrong until the data shows otherwise,
3) making observations, classifying or counting what they have observed,
4) having someone else check their work as objectively as possible, and
5) doing the same things over and over to see if you get the same results.

I have given very detailed and carefully worded guidelines explaining what a scientific examination of miracle healings would have to minimally entail, for the benefit of people who might be thinking that what you say about the Higgs Boson has any merit.[2]

I have described how and why studies use control groups and treatment groups, and why the study should be "blind" that is, the people involved in the study (researchers and group members) should not know what group is what until after examining the data and making conclusions. I even found you a study using control groups to give you a real life example. Control groups help keep the researchers honest; if they only look at the treatment group, they are more likely to count "hits" that are not really there. By comparing two groups, you can isolate the variable that made them different and see if it actually had an effect.[3]

But none of that seems to make any impact on you, Lukvance. You have not produced anything to show that the Catholic church is even minimally scientific: being as objective about what they might find as possible, making no unwarranted assumptions about who or what did the healing, using control groups for comparison, applying statistical testing to the outcomes, and having other people check the data. In fact, you do not even know that a sample size of one (a woman with a paralyzed hand can now move it) does not give you enough information and is therefore almost never used in real medical research.

The Catholic church cannot be an objective participant in such research, because by definition the existence of the Catholic god, who has healing powers and who manifests these powers at places like Lourdes must be assumed before any research is undertaken! Furthermore, the church uses supernatural methods (prayer) to ascertain whether a particular god did a miracle or not. In other words, the church asks the god they believe in if he did the miracle. This is about as far from the scientific method as it gets.[4]

If the Catholic church did objective research on healings overall, and found that aliens or other gods or demons were actually responsible for more miracle healings than the Catholic god, it would have to reassess its entire purpose. Such findings would certainly threaten the church and might destroy even it entirely. Many other religions have suffered that fate when people discovered that the major ideas supporting it were unfounded. It would make perfect sense for the church to hide or distort their results for that reason.

If, on the other hand, any objective scientific research found positive evidence that aliens, gods of any kind including the Catholic one, or demons were doing miracle healings, it would not destroy science. On the contrary, that would open up all kinds of new, exciting avenues of research. Scientists would not want to hide those findings from the world.  I can't imagine any scientist turning down the opportunity to be the first to prove the existence of aliens, gods or demons!
 2. Incidentally, every time you mention the Higgs Boson, an angel turns into a demon. And the entire planet's collective IQ drops 10 points.
 3. You can find many more studies with control groups in medical literature that discuss treatments for different illnesses. I have not come across any legitimate medical research concluding that gods or magic were explanations. And many of these researcher are as religious as the priests at the Vatican. If there was scientific evidence of miracle healings, researchers would not be hiding it from people!
 4. It would be like trying to find out who robbed a back by asking the suspected bank robber if he did it. And if he says he didn't you just let him go. That would be an incredibly stupid way to conduct a police investigation. But at least you have a real suspect to question.

Quote from: Lukvance
Your sentences are not true. I know about both, miracles and Higgs Boson. That is why I compared them to one another.
I highly doubt that, as so far you have completely failed to demonstrate that you know anything meaningful about the Higgs boson.  So why don't you tell me, in your own words, without looking it up, just what the Higgs boson is?

Quote from: Lukvance
You need to stop judging me and prove your points without posing judgement. Let people make their own conclusion.
If I know a subject (like the scientific method) reasonably well, and I can tell that you don't, then I am for sure going to call you on your lack of knowledge and keep calling you on it.  If you consider that 'judgmental', then so be it.  Either demonstrate that you really understand it or stop pretending that you do.

Quote from: Lukvance
That's hurtful.
I've tried to get through to you while being gentle, and it hasn't worked.  So now I have to be more forceful to get through your know-it-all armor.

Quote from: Lukvance
Don't worry, I know a lot about science, maybe as much as you do. I know also about philosophy and sometime I say things as if I was talking to someone with my experience in comparing two different things keeping only the similar points in common.
For me Higgs Boson is hearsay, most of science is hearsay because I don't have the capacity at the moment to test every theory that is presented to me. I trust these scientists to not lie to me. I trust the system in place that verify their claims.
You "know a lot of about science", because to you, "most of science is hearsay".  If that's your opinion, then I must disagree; you really don't know anything about science.  You don't even know how little you actually do know about science.

You would be in a better position if you had simply admitted at the start that you don't know very much about scientists but trust them to do their jobs.  You could hardly be in a worse one!

Quote from: Lukvance
Would it be about the Higgs Boson or about the Miracles.
I know it is in the interest of people for the Higgs Boson to not be true.
I also know it is in the interest of people for the miracles to not be true.
And I trust these people to have challenged enough the scientists to make sure that their claim was real.
You need to stop talking about the Higgs boson.  You don't know the first thing about it and you're making yourself look ignorant, stupid, and foolish by continuing to talk about it despite this evident fact.

Trust me, you've harmed your position far more than enough through ill-considered comparisons like this; you need to stop digging yourself even deeper.

Don't worry, I know a lot about science, maybe as much as you do.

WOW.  No, Lukvance, you know very little about science if anything at all.  You know science sounding words, which is not the same as actually knowing something, at all, about science.

The fact that you think you "know a lot about science" completely destroys any credibility you could ever hope to cling to. 

Lukvance,

Look, here are some sources for the Higgs Boson research and discovery:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200857X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312008581

___________________________

Now you provide the links for the research done by the Catholic Church regarding miracles.

In what way does a miracle expert differ from a Star Trek expert or flat earth theory expert?
I think, the same way a health expert or a string theory expert or a Higgs Boson expert differ from a Star Trek expert or flat earth theory expert. The field of expertise is simply different. What do you think?

So your answer to my question is to equate a health expert, string theory expert and a Higgs Boson expert with a miracle expert without providing any justification for such an equivocation.

Can you explain how they are different or not (without using the equivocation logical fallacy)?

_____________________________

Of course this might go back to Graybeard’s new thread about perception.   Lukvance, you must be completely oblivious to everything being said to you.  Like all of it is “blah blah blah” to you, Charlie Brown style.
"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 Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #818 on: July 23, 2014, 04:10:22 PM »
I am dismissing them [your proofs] because as far as I can tell from what you've been saying, they're not reasonable interpretations of the facts of the matter.
Basically, you disagree with my proofs. Your interpretation of the facts that is based on you and yourself alone is better than mine that is supported by millions of people. I'm not sure, is this how you picture a discussion?

For example, take the investigations at Lourdes.  In order to even be considered as a possible miracle, a committee of scientists must agree that they have no explanation for a given cure.  In effect, they are stating that they're ignorant of what the explanation might be.  What your church then does is take that statement of ignorance and state that if science can't explain it, and if it fulfills certain theological conditions, then it's a miracle from God.
That's one way to look at it. It's a twisted way, it is one nevertheless.
Imagine, if I was to say : "For example, take the research at the LHC. In order to even be considered as a possible Higgs Boson, a committee of scientists must agree that they have no explanation for a given event.  In effect, they are stating that they're ignorant of what the explanation might be. What the group of scientists then does is take that statement of ignorance and state that if it fulfills certain theoretical conditions, then it's a proof of the existence of the Higgs Boson." Would you disagree? Why? How is it different from my reaction to your counter argument?

Quote
If they examined other cures that were explainable by science, they would probably find that a large percentage of those people fulfilled those theological conditions.
What did I say that allows you to affirm that? (since you base your claims on what I said)
I disagree. If they examined other cures explainable by science, they'd find that God was involved simply by prayer and that he did not directly act upon this world.
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #819 on: July 23, 2014, 04:12:29 PM »
Now you understand why this discussion is taking so much time. People, like him, want to express their opinion regardless of the subject at hand and don't really care about counter arguing the evidence that is presented to them. They will insult you, they will take things personal, they will go of topic as often as they can to avoid presenting their counter arguments.
Some present counter arguments for time to time... buried in a text were they express their opinion.
I don't really care if you guys want to run before a discussion like that, but don't make it my fault. It's not my fault that this discussion is so long.
I am not saying that I never express my opinions. For time to time I get sucked into the flow of opinions. Mostly because I don't want to leave any question asked to me unanswered.

For fucks sake.  You just described yourself.

YOU, Lukvance, are the reason this discussion is taking so much time, by dodging points and counter arguments with mimicry, logical fallacies and sheer ineptitude.  YOU, Lukvance, do nothing but express your opinions regardless of the subject at hand and don’t show any signs of caring about actually addressing the valid points or evidence presented to you.  YOU insult us by taking us for fools.  YOU think someone pointing out your ignorance is personal.  YOU go off topic and ignore the points being made and try to divert the discussion somewhere different to avoid acknowledging the counter argument. 

YOU, Lukvance, offer nothing but opinions for which you fail to support with any evidence, documentation or scientific papers.  Every post you’ve made was your opinion.  Why do you think your opinions are evidence or facts?

To be fair, your tentative grasp of English words makes discussions difficult, you have on a few occasions tried to correct that.

Perhaps a meaningful discussion cannot be had due to the language barrier.  Although, this could be a ploy to try to redefine words until you’re right, which would be delusional behavior.  Your posting patterns and methods for discussion though make it more likely that you are just trying to redefine words until you’re right.
"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 SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #820 on: July 23, 2014, 04:27:01 PM »
For example, take the investigations at Lourdes.  In order to even be considered as a possible miracle, a committee of scientists must agree that they have no explanation for a given cure.  In effect, they are stating that they're ignorant of what the explanation might be.  What your church then does is take that statement of ignorance and state that if science can't explain it, and if it fulfills certain theological conditions, then it's a miracle from God.
That's one way to look at it. It's a twisted way, it is one nevertheless.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!   That is the way in which is described through your sources and the sources I myself have found!  How the FUCK is describing the way IT ACTUALLY IS, a twisted way of looking at it?

For FUCKS sake, you keep claiming aka GIVING YOUR OPINION that there is some other things that happen yet you do not provide evidence which supports your claim/opinion.

So you play your mimic game again?  Are you trying to make people think you're a total fucking moron?

Seriously, I'm not saying you are a total fucking moron, I'm saying the way you are behaving will make people think that.
"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 Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #821 on: July 23, 2014, 04:28:44 PM »
1. You need to understand that if you apply it to miracle, you have to apply it the same way to HB.
So, from our perspective people who were specializing in the Higgs Boson particle before its discovery, specialized in something that didn't exist?
Was their expertise for nought?
No one specialized in the Higgs boson particle before it was discovered. The Higgs boson particle was a prediction which either did or did not exist.  Particle physicists were trying to find out if it did or did not exist. 
What seriously? There must be a mistake in what I understand.
You say that no one researched the Higgs Boson before it was discovered? No one ever wrote a paper about the Higgs boson before it was discovered!?
Or you say that you don't have to be a specialist to write a paper on Higgs Boson particle and that every paper wrote on it before its discovery weren't made by specialists?
Maybe it's the word specializing that you don't like? you can change it for another one more appropriate. It doesn't matter you say no specialist in HB before one was discovered, I say no specialist in miracles before one was discovered.

Quote
Can you provide a link to the papers written by the Catholic Church or a theologian which detail what would show that “God” does not exist?
Why would I do that? How does it help proving the existence of God outside our body?

2. Again you are making the assertion that God does not exist without proving it. I understand that It can be hard/impossible to prove that something does not exist and this should be one of the reason why you shouldn't use the "non-existence" of something as an argument.
[...]Your assumptions and what you think are not good enough.
Of course they are not. We are in the process of making them good enough. That's the purpose of a discussion. Nevertheless, you can't use the "non-existence" of something as an argument against the existence of something. ("No! It doesn't exist so your proof doesn't prove that It does exist (your proof is not valid because it doesn't exist) ")
You're worth more than my time

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #822 on: July 23, 2014, 04:37:12 PM »
Seems to me that the Higgs Boson is your only defense mechanism. And ironically, it is not. There can't be specialists about something that doesn't exist or been discovered yet.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #823 on: July 23, 2014, 04:40:44 PM »
Can you provide a link to the papers written by the Catholic Church or a theologian which detail what would show that “God” does not exist?
Why would I do that? How does it help proving the existence of God outside our body?

If you had any clue about science then you would know why and how.

Your questions prove my point and the point of so many others in this thread.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 04:48:37 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

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #824 on: July 23, 2014, 05:16:22 PM »
Screwtape.
Could you please present a counter argument based on something other than yourself?
Screwtape probably can. He might already have done so.

However, I an curious as to why you have chosen this special time to humiliate yourself.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • 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 #825 on: July 23, 2014, 05:42:06 PM »
That's it.  I'm done.  I am *so* done.  No more Ms. Nice Goddess.  (Springy G sighs heavily as She unlurks and reaches for the Clue-By-Four™)

*BONK BONK BONK BONK BONK*

Shame on you, Luk! From this moment forward until the day you take your Catholic faith and throw it away with both hands, every time you pray the Rosary, your unconscious mind will be treated to a subliminal flash image of Mother Mary doing a striptease.

In front of an audience of well-heeled, cigar-smoking demons and scantily-clad succubi.

And a few angels on their day off.  In an attempt to fit in, a  couple of the newbies are wearing fake demon horns and cheap suits that don't quite fit, and are trying to figure out how cigars work.  St. Michael, on the other hand, is wearing a T-shirt and Bermuda shorts.  He has his feet up on a table and is arguing the fine points of association football with Asmodeus.

You're sitting near the stage, quite enjoying the show, and you idly reach for a snack bowl in the middle of the table.  There's something ... oddly familiar about the taste of the crackers.  You spit the host out into your hand and wipe it on your pants.

Jesus, who's tending the bar, lets go of the shot glass he was holding.  Both hands go to his throat, and he staggers a few steps and collapses.

A few moments later he stands up, laughing uproariously.

Your face flushes hot and red, but then you start laughing too.  You brush the remaining crumbs of sacramental wafer off your trousers and get up to dance with a comely demoness.

Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #826 on: July 23, 2014, 06:10:40 PM »
I'm not sure, is this how you picture a discussion?
I'm sure that jaimehlers never pictured discussing anything with anyone quite so obtuse.

Quote
That's one way to look at it. It's a twisted way, it is one nevertheless.
Imagine, if I was to say : "For example, take the research at the LHC.
That is as far as anyone would need to read. As you have no idea whatsoever about the LHC, you feel that you can substitute reality with any fairytale that suits your purpose.

The Higgs Boson and LHC are the new "science term" that Christians feel that they can throw into any discussion as an Argument from IgnoranceWiki. And no one does ignorance like Catholics.

Quote
What did I say that allows you to affirm that? (since you base your claims on what I said)
I disagree. If they examined other cures explainable by science, they'd find that God was involved simply by prayer and that he did not directly act upon this world.
No, because they are all high ranking Catholics and they get paid a fortune, and they like the money and the status, so they all say, "Yes, that was God." If they had all been Jains or Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, New Age, or atheists, do you think for one moment that they would have come to the conclusion that Yahweh did it?

Do you see that there might just be a connection between these "Inspectors of Miracles" all being catholic and all of them saying, "Yes, God, who is a Catholic, did it."?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #827 on: July 23, 2014, 07:35:13 PM »
I am not going to continue discussing the subject of this thread with Lukvance (I'm far too upset to be able to handle his usual equivocation tactics).  However, I've calmed down enough to be able to make one last rational appeal.  Not that I expect it to succeed, but it's worth a try.

Lukvance, you said earlier that I predicted almost exactly what you would have said in response to screwtape a few posts earlier.  Consider what that means for a moment.  For me to be able to do that, I must have read - and understood - your arguments well enough to be able to reproduce them.  More to the point, I wrote that post off-the-cuff, meaning that I wasn't referring to any of your posts when I wrote that, but instead was relying on memory.

If I could do that, then doesn't that suggest that other statements I've made about you, such as your degree of scientific knowledge, might also be reasonably accurate?  At the very least, you should not discount the probability that my statements about your scientific knowledge have real substance to them.  A big part, probably the biggest part of the reason I have been getting so frustrated is because your...I'll say inexperience with science, comes through loud and clear to me.  And yet, you act like you know it well enough not to need correction, even though particle physics is quite complicated and difficult to understand, even for someone like me who can read books by Stephen Hawking and follow what he's talking about, who can interpret physics articles for people who don't understand physics in a way that makes sense to them.

While I am hardly an expert in the field - it's not like I actually work as a physicist, let alone a particle physicist - I have read plenty about it, and I really like the field.  If my college had continued to offer a physics degree, instead of dropping it in favor of engineering physics, I might very well be working as a physicist today.  In this case, you're speaking to a subject which I know quite well, and every time I hear you try to talk about it, that knowledge tells me, "this person doesn't really understand the subject, he just knows some of the lingo and thinks that makes him knowledgeable."  Yet when I try to point it out, it simply bounces off of your attitude that you don't need correction on it, because you understand it well enough to make analogies regarding it.  The thing is, it's exactly that attitude which makes it evident that you don't understand it that well, especially to someone like me who does understand it well enough to make meaningful analogies about it if I choose.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #828 on: July 24, 2014, 08:00:07 AM »
jst,

Quote
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?

Science makes wrong predictions all the time.    Too true!!!  But upon review the predictions that do pan out are usually reproducible.  Within the theological (healing miracle) world nothing is reproducible that can be picked out from statistical noise.  A random number generator would yield the same outcome.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #829 on: July 24, 2014, 09:07:55 AM »
On the bright side, not all catholics are irrational. Here, for instance, is an article about a catholic ceremony in Spain, held every year for then benefit of newborn babies. I see no problem with this.  :P

https://news.vice.com/article/spain-held-its-annual-devil-baby-jumping-festival
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

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 #830 on: July 24, 2014, 11:42:54 AM »
Lukvance, you never responded to my response to you on the previous page. Please do so thank you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #831 on: July 24, 2014, 12:08:44 PM »
I feel at least a little bad for Luk and others who come here to debate because first, they have to debate a position which can't be backed up by evidence, and second, they have to take on multiple challengers, all of whom are quite versed in the subjects.

Still... it's pretty clear here that Catholic Miracles can be categorized as such when a certain level of scientific explanation fails, and then religious leaders feel that there's a theological explanation.

No/weak scientific evidence against?   Church leaders debate and agree that god might have had a reason?   = Miracle

At least Catholics have higher standards than most competing religions but it still comes down to God of the gaps.   

The thing for me that puts Luk in the worst position is that these miracles aren't things that are "clear" in any way...   a statue rolls its eyes?  a guy can supposedly fly?  a statue cries?   blood turns solid/liquid?

Even if it was supernatural, it's not guaranteed that the message there is, "What you guys are doing is right. Be THAT religion!"

Theology is still the study of these gaps... when something can't be explained, theology tries to step in and debate about it and come up with theories... but theology doesn't use the scientific method, it's done in a similar way to an editorial documentary.   People get together and decide on a good message based on the best assumptions they can make, and then present it.

Theology and science are as different as writing and math.   Math has set, correct answers, even across multiple languages.  Writing is subjective and while there are various objective ways to rate writing, no two people can really agree on the exact best writings or best ways to write.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #832 on: July 24, 2014, 12:36:39 PM »
I'm not sure, is this how you picture a discussion?
I'm sure that jaimehlers never pictured discussing anything with anyone quite so obtuse.

Quote
That's one way to look at it. It's a twisted way, it is one nevertheless.
Imagine, if I was to say : "For example, take the research at the LHC.
That is as far as anyone would need to read. As you have no idea whatsoever about the LHC, you feel that you can substitute reality with any fairytale that suits your purpose.

The Higgs Boson and LHC are the new "science term" that Christians feel that they can throw into any discussion as an Argument from IgnoranceWiki. And no one does ignorance like Catholics.

Quote
What did I say that allows you to affirm that? (since you base your claims on what I said)
I disagree. If they examined other cures explainable by science, they'd find that God was involved simply by prayer and that he did not directly act upon this world.
No, because they are all high ranking Catholics and they get paid a fortune, and they like the money and the status, so they all say, "Yes, that was God." If they had all been Jains or Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, New Age, or atheists, do you think for one moment that they would have come to the conclusion that Yahweh did it?

Do you see that there might just be a connection between these "Inspectors of Miracles" all being catholic and all of them saying, "Yes, God, who is a Catholic, did it."?
What is your counter argument here? Can you prove to us that it is not just your thoughts on the subject? Something you invented because you are running out of counter arguments?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #833 on: July 24, 2014, 01:54:47 PM »
Lukvance, you never responded to my response to you on the previous page. Please do so thank you.
Wow. I completely missed that one. Sorry. So much spam.
You say I have enough proof of your existence. You are right, I don't need more. And if I needed more I would search for it by any means available to me.
I gave you links to books, courses in theology, theology papers reviews...etc all of those correspond in parallel to your pictures and hangout calls. With what you are able to read here in the course of this discussion, you should have enough proof of the existence of God. But if needed more, I pointed you in the direction you could find more.
I am not right now agnostic about God, nor am I about HB. You ask me to prove to you that HB exist because you are agnostic about it but this is not the subject here. You should make your own mind about the existence or not of the HB. If you cannot I am able to use another analogy. Just tell me about something you are not agnostic about (meaning you know exist) as difficult as the HB to detect, invisible to the naked eyes, only detectable through its interaction with the world.
According to me, God is not supernatural. That is why I can compare his impact on the world and the HB
You say that there is no theory of God. I say there is one.
I gave you links to Theology courses where you can learn the theory of God. How do you support your claim?
You say "Someone could have a natural remission that was unseen or undetected (for example) and your credulous religionists would come along and say, "Aha! It's a miracle!" since they had no way to determine it was a naturally occurring event (i.e. - no appeal to a deity needed)" Maybe if you find at least one case like this one you might make it more credible. Right now I don't think it's right, it needs support more than your imagination.

You ask me to present you an hypothesis about the existence of God. I can't, I am not a theologian. You can find what you are looking for here : http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=existence+of+god

You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #834 on: July 24, 2014, 02:52:03 PM »
Lukvance,

Do you have any ability to provide evidence for the existence of “God” without equivocating what you refer to as evidence with evidence for other things accepted?

Do you think that it would be acceptable for a scientist, when having his evidence reviewed and criticized, to respond by saying “well my evidence is equivalent to the evidence for infrared light”?

Your tactics are very weak and disingenuous Lukvance.  For us, your equivocation is meaningless.  You claiming that what you’ve provided so far is as good as the evidence for the Higgs boson particle is empty. 

Your evidence should be able to stand on its own without having to rely on comparisons to evidence for other things.
"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

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #835 on: July 24, 2014, 03:01:28 PM »
You ask me to present you an hypothesis about the existence of God. I can't, I am not a theologian. You can find what you are looking for here : http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=existence+of+god

Can we charge on your credit card? You do realize that most of these essays cost money if you want the whole thing, don't you? Or are you as ignorant about money matters as you are about science?

There are a couple of free ones, but I want the juicy ones. Please advise how I could download "Saint Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs for the Existence of God", $29.95) for free. That would be a miracle and maybe I'd start believing.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #836 on: July 24, 2014, 03:23:27 PM »
No/weak scientific evidence against?   Church leaders debate and agree that god might have had a reason? = Miracle At least Catholics have higher standards than most competing religions but it still comes down to God of the gaps.
Are you doing this on purpose?
Is there a supported counter argument somewhere in here?

Quote
Theology is still the study of these gaps... when something can't be explained, theology tries to step in and debate about it and come up with theories... but theology doesn't use the scientific method, it's done in a similar way to an editorial documentary.   People get together and decide on a good message based on the best assumptions they can make, and then present it.

Theology and science are as different as writing and math.   Math has set, correct answers, even across multiple languages.  Writing is subjective and while there are various objective ways to rate writing, no two people can really agree on the exact best writings or best ways to write.
Alright, what allows you to affirm all that? I mean I'm glad you presented things as facts but can you back them up?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #837 on: July 24, 2014, 03:51:11 PM »
Lukvance,

Do you have any ability to provide evidence for the existence of “God” without equivocating what you refer to as evidence with evidence for other things accepted?

Do you think that it would be acceptable for a scientist, when having his evidence reviewed and criticized, to respond by saying “well my evidence is equivalent to the evidence for infrared light”?

Your tactics are very weak and disingenuous Lukvance.  For us, your equivocation is meaningless.  You claiming that what you’ve provided so far is as good as the evidence for the Higgs boson particle is empty. 

Your evidence should be able to stand on its own without having to rely on comparisons to evidence for other things.

I understand your point. And you would be right if I wasn't talking to people who do not want to learn about miracles on their own and allow themselves to criticize it without knowing anything about it. Scientists are not being criticized by music composers or even scientists from other field.

I have to relate to their lack of knowledge and use something similar that they know and understand. That way they might understand better how miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body.
I use the HB to underline how your counter arguments means nothing and are based on ignorance or my inability to convey ideas simply enough.

If I was to stay standing on it's own evidence of the existence of god I would simply say :
Evidence No.1 : Miracles.
It's the most accessible one I could find since it involve the direct interaction of God and this world.
The others where a little bit less accessible
Evidence No.2 : History of the resurrection of Christ.
Evidence No.3 : "Philosophical" proofs.
Evidence No.4 : "Testimonies"
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #838 on: July 24, 2014, 04:00:38 PM »
Can we charge on your credit card? You do realize that most of these essays cost money if you want the whole thing, don't you? Or are you as ignorant about money matters as you are about science?

There are a couple of free ones, but I want the juicy ones. Please advise how I could download "Saint Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs for the Existence of God", $29.95) for free. That would be a miracle and maybe I'd start believing.
After a quick search on the internet I found this : http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml
I'm sure that if you go deeper underground the internet you will be able to find what you want for free.
You're worth more than my time

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #839 on: July 24, 2014, 04:06:18 PM »
Lukvance, you never responded to my response to you on the previous page. Please do so thank you.
Wow. I completely missed that one. Sorry. So much spam.
You say I have enough proof of your existence. You are right, I don't need more. And if I needed more I would search for it by any means available to me.
I gave you links to books, courses in theology, theology papers reviews...etc all of those correspond in parallel to your pictures and hangout calls. With what you are able to read here in the course of this discussion, you should have enough proof of the existence of God. But if needed more, I pointed you in the direction you could find more.
I am not right now agnostic about God, nor am I about HB. You ask me to prove to you that HB exist because you are agnostic about it but this is not the subject here. You should make your own mind about the existence or not of the HB. If you cannot I am able to use another analogy. Just tell me about something you are not agnostic about (meaning you know exist) as difficult as the HB to detect, invisible to the naked eyes, only detectable through its interaction with the world.
According to me, God is not supernatural. That is why I can compare his impact on the world and the HB
You say that there is no theory of God. I say there is one.
I gave you links to Theology courses where you can learn the theory of God. How do you support your claim?
You say "Someone could have a natural remission that was unseen or undetected (for example) and your credulous religionists would come along and say, "Aha! It's a miracle!" since they had no way to determine it was a naturally occurring event (i.e. - no appeal to a deity needed)" Maybe if you find at least one case like this one you might make it more credible. Right now I don't think it's right, it needs support more than your imagination.

You ask me to present you an hypothesis about the existence of God. I can't, I am not a theologian. You can find what you are looking for here : http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=existence+of+god

Your bold claim is both 100% false and a false analogy - as if claims in books is enough to demonstrate the supernatural for an alleged "God" thing that you have yet to coherently define! As I said before, we have lots of examples of people typing on the internet. We have NO confirmed examples (of such type) of an alleged "God" doing anything. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it if you disagree (and you can start by defining the word "God" in a coherent way). The HB is irrelevant to this discussion b/c it is NOT a claim to the supernatural, nor have I claimed to know whether it is real. But you ARE claiming to know this supposed "God" thing (whatever that word means) is independently real. So your attempts to turn the tables is patently false.

Secondly, just because you CLAIM that "theology" pertains to any actual and/or independently real thing, doesn't mean that it does. These are just more CLAIMS by you which you have yet to back up. This is yet another reason why your reasoning is fallacious and circular. You are merely assuming that theology is based on a real "God" thing, etc. But you haven't shown that in any way that is anywhere close to me proving that I am a real person. Astrologers can claim their subject is based on "real" stuff too. Such claims do absolutely nothing without sufficient evidence. Thus far, you have NOT demonstrated that the cause of the occurrences of people getting better from illnesses is a "God" thing. And until you do you are spouting nothing but CLAIMS - just like every other religion or superstition on the planet.

Thirdly, if you were actually for real on this website you would actually go track down the alleged "God hypothesis" and present it here, instead of providing a website which restates your mere assertions about the ARGUMENTS for "God" earlier in this thread (of which I refuted and you did not respond). The Ontological, Teleological, Cosmological, etc arguments are not scientific hypotheses. They are just arguments! See, we can provide scientific hypotheses for independently existent things (such as of what is called Pluto, which have been confirmed by disinterested science) b/c we can go look up those hypotheses, by those who presented them, and present them here. Can you do that with your alleged "God" hypothesis? If so, do it! Thus far, you have NOT provided what is being asked for. You just keep CLAIMING that theological conclusions are scientific without actually backing up those claims.

Fourth and again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that "God exists as a separate entity". You merely SAYING that you have proved it doesn't mean that you have, especially since you have not been forthcoming with actual scientific evidence. I've taken theology and religion courses. They do not demonstrate a God! So your links do nothing to help you here. Now, you have first attempted to use a viciously circular argument, by trying to define "miracle" in such a way that assumes your alleged "God" exists (placing your conclusion inside your premises by saying that miracles are "God interacting in the world"). Then, once I noted this problem, you jumped ship and started talking about "events that happen at Lourdes" without defining what specific events you are even talking about. This is called OBFUSCATING and it fails miserably at meeting the challenge that you have set before you (as per the OP).

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR FALLACIOUS REASONING:

Quote
Miracles are the proof of the existence of God. The evidence that God is the cause of the miracle comes from your knowledge of God and what he can do and what he would do if he was to prove his existence using a miracle. From that knowledge you can conclude that it is indeed God who caused the event, we then call the event miracle.

Let's take your definition of miracle and replace it with the word "miracle" that you have used here.

Quote
God interacting with the world are the proof of the existence of God. The evidence that God is the cause of God interacting with the world comes from your knowledge of God and what he can do and what he would do if he was to prove his existence using God interacting with the world. From that knowledge you can conclude that it is indeed God who caused the event, we then call the event miracle.

Sorry, this reasoning is viciously circular - because you have placed your conclusion inside your premises, starting with your assumption of "God". This argument is therefore irrational and FALSE! Since you are attempting to argue that "God exists as a separate entity..." you cannot start with "God" (in any fashion) within your premises. 


Finally, have you actually read the claims of "The eucharistic miracle of Lanciano"? If you have then you should just present it here instead of stonewalling by giving dead links that don't go anywhere. Below is a summary of the claims made by your church regarding this ye old claim. It doesn't demonstrate a miracle occurred.


Quote
•Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

•During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.


•The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

•The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

•Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

•In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

•7The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

•The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

•The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

•The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

•In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

•The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

•The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

•In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

•In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

•The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

These statements, even if true, prove nothing but gullibility on the part of those who already want to believe in miracles. Even if there is real flesh and blood locked up somewhere it does not make it a divine occurrence! We know human beings make mistakes, lie, fabricate, and misinterpret stuff. Further, these claims are no different from bible miracle claims. It's the old, "Because he said so" fallacy, all the way down. You are mere ASSUMING that there must have been a "miracle" without applying any consistent skepticism (like you would with a salesman at your door). So you are practicing a double standard (hypocrisy). You simply do not know that these men are credible. You do not know the entirety of the circumstances that took place surrounding this extraordinary alleged event. And you do not have the data set to determine whether or not these claims are accurate to demonstrate that an alleged "God" did anything. You haven't even bothered to look at the other side of this claim, have you? Have you even slightly went out to search for criticisms of this miracle claim? See, science continuously searches for ways to disprove it's hypotheses. You do not have this with your church and/or theology. You have a fixed belief that is unwavering and that is the problem. It's called Confirmation Bias. If you disagree then, again, provide the actual evidence/arguments here that you think prove a "miracle" occurred back then.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 04:21:12 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #840 on: July 24, 2014, 04:15:40 PM »
And you would be right if I wasn't talking to people who do not want to learn about miracles on their own and allow themselves to criticize it without knowing anything about it.

How do you know that the people you are talking to don't want to learn about miracles on their own?  How do you know they are criticizing miracles without knowledge?

Scientists are not being criticized by music composers or even scientists from other field.

This is contrary to reality though.  Anyone can criticize the work of scientists and many scientists do in fact criticize scientists in different fields all the time.  Take proponents of Intelligent Design for example, some may specialize in engineering yet they criticize scientists who specialize in biology. 

You are free to read scientific papers and if you find a problem then you can let the scientist know.  They will respond if they agree or disagree and explain why.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 04:19:07 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