Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 15515 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #899 on: July 30, 2014, 08:57:59 AM »
Evidence of miracles seems to be a lack of explanation.  In other words, ignorance.  Ignorance is evidence of a miracle. 

Why did this guy get better?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did this woman have triplets?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did this kid survive the wreck?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

But why is it always ignorance about improbable healing and surviving?  Why is it never ignroance about unlikely sickness and death?  Why limit miracles that way?  There is so much ignorance.  You should not ignore that bounty, but use it to glorify god.

Why did this young, apparently healthy guy have a stroke?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did that airplane crash and kill everyone aboard?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did that woman develop a rare cancer?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

What is the full life cycle of a herring?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

How does a plasma TeeVee work?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Because there is ignorance literally everywhere, miracles are everywhere too.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

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 #900 on: July 30, 2014, 11:29:23 AM »
Lukvance, is the existence of the universe itself a miracle?
I don't know.
Well, do you believe it can only exist if god created it?
No. I believe that God is the "first cause" of everything and has no cause himself. This universe can be the consequence of another universe.
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 #901 on: July 30, 2014, 11:44:11 AM »
Median,
I am still calling claiming that theology "has not been demonstrated as being based on anything real or actual" a lie.
I shared with you a link towards a basic course in theology. By following that course you will learn why it is a lie.
The truth is : Theology is based on real and actual things.

Ps : I am not calling you a liar. I just underlined the falseness of the statement you made. Only one statement does not make you what you are, does it?
Regarding your accusation of lying, one statement by you makes you an accuser and that is the point. So retract it. I did not lie. Lying would imply that I had knowledge of what was true and deliberately said something contrary. I did not do that. So you are bearing false witness by accusing me of lying. How does it feel to bear false witness for your 'Jesus'?
I am not bearing false witness. I asked you a question (does one false statement makes you a liar?) could you answer it?

Please, don't try to change the subject by burring it in another one. The other one having no relation what so ever to the reality of a miracle.
I never claimed that Theology is based on a real God. I remember being really clear :
Theology is based on real and actual things.
Your counter argument :
WTF? You're calling me a liar now? I will be reporting your post because you have absolutely ZERO justification for calling me a liar and I resent that comment. It is not a lie whatsoever. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that theology is based on anything real or actual. That is the point of this thread!!!! If there is no God, then theology is based on FICTION!
fails for that reason.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #902 on: July 30, 2014, 11:48:15 AM »
screwtape, you forgot that only good things count as miracles. The fact that the malaria germ thinks killing someone with malaria is a good thing is immaterial. Only what people think counts.

Contradiction city: a young terrorist is about to set off a bomb at a summer festival and hurt hundreds of people. Instead, he has a rare stroke before he can set off the bomb. The bomb is found and defused. Was the stroke a miracle from god?

A stroke is never a miracle, because a stroke is a bad thing. God only does good things. God does not cause strokes. It was only a coincidence.

Cue the backpedaling and excuses in 3, 2, 1.
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 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 #903 on: July 30, 2014, 12:15:16 PM »
those who say "Yes, that it! We have a miracle by our Catholic god." are indeed all Catholic. (What a surprise!)
Could you give me an example of someone else that could say that? Or is it the impossible that you are asking for?
How does that affect the existence of God outside our body? Doesn't that affect only the choice of a specific God?

None of them are going to say, "I don't know why he got better either." or "Do you think it could have been Lord Vishnu who did it?"
I disagree. any of them can say "I don't know why he got better either" but why would they publish it? I mean could you imagine if every scientist looking at the proof of the existence of the Higgs Boson went and published a paper/statement saying "I don't know why we got this reading either" Wouldn't that be a waste of time since the proof fits the theory anyway?
We should read the theory if we don't know and not make our ignorance public.
Also we shouldn't do like Zola did : "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle." and become a "striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect."
Catholics believe that things they can't explain are miracles.
This sentence is a lie.
Miracles are magic.
unsupported assertion going against the knowledge of mankind.
Yahweh does magic
You are redefining magic?
The miracle was done by Yahweh.
Or at least God.

Quote
How do we know?
It fits the theory.
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 #904 on: July 30, 2014, 12:18:12 PM »
Evidence of miracles seems to be a lack of explanation.  In other words, ignorance.  Ignorance is evidence of a miracle. 

Why did this guy get better?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did this woman have triplets?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did this kid survive the wreck?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

But why is it always ignorance about improbable healing and surviving?  Why is it never ignroance about unlikely sickness and death?  Why limit miracles that way?  There is so much ignorance.  You should not ignore that bounty, but use it to glorify god.

Why did this young, apparently healthy guy have a stroke?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did that airplane crash and kill everyone aboard?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Why did that woman develop a rare cancer?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

What is the full life cycle of a herring?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

How does a plasma TeeVee work?  I dunno, I cannot explain it.  Miracle!

Because there is ignorance literally everywhere, miracles are everywhere too.
And
screwtape, you forgot that only good things count as miracles. The fact that the malaria germ thinks killing someone with malaria is a good thing is immaterial. Only what people think counts.

Contradiction city: a young terrorist is about to set off a bomb at a summer festival and hurt hundreds of people. Instead, he has a rare stroke before he can set off the bomb. The bomb is found and defused. Was the stroke a miracle from god?

A stroke is never a miracle, because a stroke is a bad thing. God only does good things. God does not cause strokes. It was only a coincidence.

Cue the backpedaling and excuses in 3, 2, 1.

Is that your counter argument? If not, why post that? You know it is not this kind of miracle that we are talking about don't you? Maybe I should dumb it down further if you don't understand that much?
You're worth more than my time

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #905 on: July 30, 2014, 12:47:45 PM »
Is that your counter argument?

It is not so much a counter argument as it is a different perspective on miracles for you to consider.

You know it is not this kind of miracle that we are talking about don't you?

and?  What is your point?  As far as I can tell there is no limit on the kind of miracles we are permitted to discuss. 

You have been talking about healing miracles and you have explained that they are classified as miracles because someone was ignorant as to the cause of the event and some elderly, virgin man wearing a dress said "Miracle!"  I simply made the logical extension that by those rules, other events could be classified as miracles, and thus further show the glory of god.  Do you have any answer for that?

Maybe I should dumb it down further if you don't understand that much?

Why are you implying I am dumb?  I've been pretty nice and not insulting.  So, why the attitude?

Think carefully before you post. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

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 #906 on: July 30, 2014, 12:52:14 PM »
Is that your counter argument?
It is not so much a counter argument as it is a different perspective on miracles for you to consider.
Then I guess you agree with my statement. Since you are ready to change the subject. Or are you trying to deviate from something you find difficult to argue against?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Darwins +544/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #907 on: July 30, 2014, 01:06:48 PM »
How is this related to proving the existence of God?
The very fact that you ask that question, speaks against the existence of a god of any sort.

It is also disturbing that the topic is not “proving the existence of God”, but Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Which is a different but related matter.

You have pushed for miracles to be seen as in some way, "proof of the existence of a god." and that there is one particular god and that he exists somewhere other than the mind.

I think that OAA made a statement that you had no choice but to agree with. You were embarrassed. You became aggressive and did not answer the question.

It struck me that you were beginning to see that gods are concepts and have no real existence. But more importantly, you understood that your beliefs and the truth are unrelated[1]. Because you do understand, you seem to have little choice but to accept that god does not exist outside the mind.

I hope this helps

As a second point, I do not see why you need carry this conversation on via PM: the thread will do fine.
 1. all humans suffer to a degree from this
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

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 #908 on: July 30, 2014, 01:31:27 PM »
Median,
I am still calling claiming that theology "has not been demonstrated as being based on anything real or actual" a lie.
I shared with you a link towards a basic course in theology. By following that course you will learn why it is a lie.
The truth is : Theology is based on real and actual things.

Ps : I am not calling you a liar. I just underlined the falseness of the statement you made. Only one statement does not make you what you are, does it?
Regarding your accusation of lying, one statement by you makes you an accuser and that is the point. So retract it. I did not lie. Lying would imply that I had knowledge of what was true and deliberately said something contrary. I did not do that. So you are bearing false witness by accusing me of lying. How does it feel to bear false witness for your 'Jesus'?
I am not bearing false witness. I asked you a question (does one false statement makes you a liar?) could you answer it?

Please, don't try to change the subject by burring it in another one. The other one having no relation what so ever to the reality of a miracle.
I never claimed that Theology is based on a real God. I remember being really clear :
Theology is based on real and actual things.
Your counter argument :
WTF? You're calling me a liar now? I will be reporting your post because you have absolutely ZERO justification for calling me a liar and I resent that comment. It is not a lie whatsoever. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that theology is based on anything real or actual. That is the point of this thread!!!! If there is no God, then theology is based on FICTION!
fails for that reason.

1. If you are willing to admit that theology is not based on a real "God" thing, then my previous point stands and you have not addressed it. Theology has not demonstrated a God. So theologians are in exactly the same position that you are! Neither they, nor you, have met the challenge of this OP, and that is the problem. Since neither of you have demonstrated that theology is based upon a real independently existing "God" thing you cannot claim that theology can determine whether a miracle ("God interacting with the world") occurred. Both you, and they, are assuming it. But you cannot assume it. You need to DEMONSTRATE that there is such an independently existing thing as "God" (after coherently defining that word) before you can claim that it interacts with the world. And I've already explained the 3 steps you need to go through in order to do that (coherently define, demonstrate, show interaction). So get to it.


2. Regarding my response on your accusation of lying, you did in fact accuse me of lying in #875. The context of that part of the discussion (which you started, btw) was pertaining to your claim that theology can determine whether "God interacted with the world" (i.e. - did a miracle). But that assumes that a God exists and interacts with the world. So again, you are begging the question and that is a logical fallacy. Theology (i.e. - "The study of God"; generally) has not demonstrated that there is such a thing as a real independently existing "God" thing. It merely assumes it, just like in the course you posted at Bible.org. So again, neither you nor they have demonstrated that theology is based upon a real "God" that exists independent of human imagination and I'm simply not going to tolerate your attempts to equivocate on terms.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 02:01:25 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

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 #909 on: July 30, 2014, 01:33:26 PM »
I think that OAA made a statement that you had no choice but to agree with. You were embarrassed. You became aggressive and did not answer the question.
What is the question you are talking about? Is it related to my statement about the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Or is it on another subject completely different that should be talked on another thread or in pm?
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 #910 on: July 30, 2014, 01:43:40 PM »
1. If you are willing to admit that theology is not based on a real "God" thing, then my previous point stands and you have not addressed it. Theology has not demonstrated a God. So theologians are in exactly the same position that you are! Neither they, nor you, have met the challenge of this OP, and that is the problem. Since neither of you have demonstrated that theology is based upon a real independently existing "God" thing you cannot claim that theology can determine whether a miracle ("God interacting with the world") occurred. Both you, and they, are assuming it. But you cannot assume it. You need to DEMONSTRATE that there is such an independently existing thing as "God" (after coherently defining that word) before you can claim that it interacts with the world. And I've already explained the 3 steps you need to go through in order to do that (coherently define, demonstrate, show interaction). So get to it.
And
Then I guess you agree with my statement.

which statement?  You have made many.  I disagree with most of them, but I want to be sure which one you are talking about.   

Since you are ready to change the subject.

The subject is miracles, their validity and how to tell when an even is miraculous, yes?  Then my contribution is not changing the subject.

Or are you trying to deviate from something you find difficult to argue against?

No, darling.  You've not said much that is difficult to argue against.



edited, after responses were posted:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough :
Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.
This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.
Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 09:28:09 AM by screwtape »
You're worth more than my time

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #911 on: July 30, 2014, 01:44:58 PM »
Then I guess you agree with my statement.

which statement?  You have made many.  I disagree with most of them, but I want to be sure which one you are talking about.   

Since you are ready to change the subject.

The subject is miracles, their validity and how to tell when an even is miraculous, yes?  Then my contribution is not changing the subject.

Or are you trying to deviate from something you find difficult to argue against?

No, darling.  You've not said much that is difficult to argue against.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

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 #912 on: July 30, 2014, 02:22:45 PM »

Maybe I wasn't clear enough :
Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.
This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.
Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

I've already responded to this claim and apparently your brain missed it. You do not have a theory! A theory is the highest point in science! It is the graduation point. It occurs AFTER certain hypotheses have been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties. But you do not have this for your alleged "God". You have pure assertions based upon ignorance. And that isn't even close an hypothesis - let alone a "theory". You have the same problem you had since the beginning: ignorance mixed with arrogance and credulity. You and your "theologians" assertions about what "fits" is insufficient to demonstrate that "God interacting with the world" has occurred - because again you have not demonstrated a coherent definition of that term, that such a 'thing' is real independently, or that 'it' actually does anything. So you still have all of your work ahead of you. Merely "analyzing these events" does not get you to "God did it" because (as has been mentioned to you a hundred times now) you have not eliminated other possibilities which requires less assumptions - nor have you provided an explanation. You (and your church) have merely appealed to a mystery in an attempt to solve a mystery, and that is the very definition of the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy. Anyone can claim that any alleged "supernatural" thing is the cause of anything. Yet without a mechanism, you have no explanatory power. "The African Witch Doctor healed me! He did a ceremony and I got better! Yay!" It proves nothing but credulity. Again, correlation does not equal causation. So it simply does not matter if anyone prays or not. Just b/c people pray and someone gets better, it does not logically follow that a "God interacted with the world" b/c it could also be the case that the person got better naturally, that a witch doctor did it, or that invisible magic pixies came along! So "It fits" is not sufficient to demonstrate independent existence or causation. Your assertion is an unwarranted conclusion because neither you, nor your church "theologians", have demonstrated that there is such a thing as "God" independent of human imagination.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Darwins +544/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #913 on: July 30, 2014, 03:02:57 PM »
I believe that God is the "first cause" of everything and has no cause himself.
How does that work then?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

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 #914 on: July 30, 2014, 03:20:53 PM »
I've already responded to this claim and apparently your brain missed it. You do not have a theory! A theory is the highest point in science! It is the graduation point. It occurs AFTER certain hypotheses have been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties. But you do not have this for your alleged "God".
Maybe you said it. Maybe I asked for someone more knowledgeable than you to support this claim. Any links?
I mean you've read all available Theological theories to assure me that NO hypotheses have EVER been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties?
I Shared with you links that contradict your affirmation. What do you offer beside your own imagination?
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 #915 on: July 30, 2014, 03:22:09 PM »
I believe that God is the "first cause" of everything and has no cause himself.
How does that work then?
I don't understand the question. How does what work? What do you mean by "work"?
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #916 on: July 30, 2014, 04:28:05 PM »
Talking about Marie Lemarchand. There is a good story surrounding her remission.

The famous novelist Zola, said before he came to Lourdes: "I only want to see a cut finger dipped in water and come out healed."
When he went to Lourdes he saw Marie Lemarchand suddenly cured of a hideous disease, a tuberculous suppurating ulcer of both cheeks, the nose and upper lip. Doctors present after the miracle testified to the presence of new skin on her face. Dr. Boissaric (President of the Medical Bureau) presented the cured girl to Zola, thinking that such evidence must overwhelm him.
"Behold the case of your dreams, Monsieur Zola," he said. "I do not want to look at her," said Zola, "she is still too ugly" (alluding to the red color of the new skin). "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle."

Well, I think I’ve found your source[1] for those quotes (currently it is the only place I can find quotes from Emile Zola and Dr. Gustave Boissarie.  The article is written by George Sim Johnston[2], a contributor for Crisis magazine.  His contributions to Crisis magazine are very clearly heavily biased in favor of the Catholic Church and against science.  A few of his other articles include claims that the Theory of Evolution is losing support in the scientific community and that the “Pill” is the cause of increased divorce rate in the United States.  His articles also very curiously are completely devoid of sources.  The magazine itself has very conservative overtones and it seems that most contributors fail to source claims.

Without proper reference to the original source I have no way of knowing if those quotes are legitimate or taken out of context.  Given the absurd and baseless claims from the author I have further reason to question the legitimacy of the quotes. 

Regarding Emile Zola[3], he was a French novelist who contributed to  the literary school of naturalism and helped develop theatrical naturalism.  By the time that he visited Lourdes in 1892 he was a well known play writer although he was obviously not a qualified scientist in any sense.  He was publically skeptical of the Lourdes miracles and viewed the local Catholic officials there as exploiting hope for a cure as a way to make money.  Of course he is no friend of the Catholic Church and obviously this is true today as well.  Zola is more well known for his defense of falsely accused French soldier Captain Alfred Dreyfus[4] as well as his contributions to naturalism.

Regarding Dr. Gustave Boissarie, I can’t find much information other than he was indeed the President of the Lourdes Medical Bureau[5].  In my opinion though, simply stating that he was President of a Medical Bureau is a bit deceptive.  The Lourdes Medical Bureau is the organization responsible for reviewing claimed miracles and transfer the possible miracles to the International Medical Committee of Lourdes.  While I’m sure that the personal working for both organizations are qualified medical doctors, the organizations themselves are not entirely independent parties separate from the Catholic Church.  Both organizations are comprised of both Catholic Church representatives and independent representatives in the medical field. 

Now, onto Marie Lemarchand.  Miraclehunter.com states that Marie suffered from severe pulmonary tuberculosis (Koch's bacillus + ) for two years while George Sim Johnston for the most part agrees stating that Marie suffered from an advanced stage of lupus, pulmonary tuberculosis, and leg ulcerations the size of an adult’s hand. 

Given the description of her symptoms, Lupus[6] might be a likely diagnosis today, although it is not really clear whether that was the diagnosis in 1892, although it could have been.  Today we know that Lupus can be caused by genetics, medication as well as non-systemic reasons.  None of these causes were known in 1892 as genetics were not a suspected cause until the 1950’s, the systemic nature of lupus was not firmly established until 1904[7].  Drug induced Lupus was probably not suspected until the mid 20th Century[8].  Even today though it is clear we know very little about the cause of Lupus.  We do know that symptoms of Lupus flare up and recede and it is possible for flares to be reduced.  In fact, in 1894 J.F. Payne reported various methods of treatment to reduce flares of Lupus and lessen their effects.  Prior to 1950, most patients diagnosed with Lupus did not live longer than 5 years, although it was possible for patients to live normal life spans especially with treatment and limited exposure to other diseases and illnesses.  Today with more advanced treatment, 80 to 90 percent of those diagnosed with Lupus live normal life spans.

The medical community in the 1890’s would not have been able to properly diagnose what type of Lupus Marie Lemarchand had and they certainly would not been able to determine that she had been cured as they did not know the causes of Lupus.  Additional information on Lupus[9]

Assuming that Marie Lemarchand did indeed suffer from Lupus (which is a reasonable assumption) then she would have certainly been susceptible to pulmonary tuberculosis[10].  Little was known about TB in 1892 and there was no known cure at the time.  It wasn’t even until 1869 that the disease was found to be contagious by Jean Antoine Villemin[11].  In 1882, Robert Koch identified the infectious agent.  Successful treatment of TB didn’t occur until 1944 with the use of an antibiotic.  Prior to 1944, many methods were tried, none were conclusive since the disease is not 100% fatal.  TB can recede and remain dormant for years and even never return while that person lives a normal lifespan and dies of other causes.  Given the results of a number of Sanatorium experiments, there are many examples of people recovering from TB and living normal lives with the disease remaining dormant.  Additional information on TB[12] [13]

The leg ulcerations were likely a symptom of Lupus, although they could have also been symptoms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (but that is not a claimed diagnosis).  Since the stories are semi-inconsistent it is difficult to determine what the actual diagnosis was.   It would be nice to review soft copies of the medical reports as that would be helpful in clearing up what Marie Lemarchard was actually diagnosed with.   Additionally, I can find no information about Marie Lemarchand and what her background was (who where her parents, where did she live, when was she born, when did she die, where is she buried, what was her families medical history, what was her medical history, etc etc). 

I also have to wonder, given the contagious nature of TB, how many people Marie Lemarchand infected during her pilgrimage to Lourdes.  It was 1892 and it is not clear how many people were aware that TB was contagious (given this information was only discovered 23 years earlier and the complete lack of standards at that time).  It wasn’t even until the beginning of the 20th century that governments started taking measures to reduce the spread of TB. 

We don’t have any way of knowing if her Lupus symptoms were systemic or not, or if she was taking some kind of treatment that led to Lupus which could have cured itself upon ceasing the treatment during the pilgrimage. There is little reason to believe that a miracle actually occurred, and given the current complete lack of means to determine if “God” was actually the cause we have even less reason to believe that a miracle actually occurred.


The attitude of Zola is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.

Wow those are some strong words for a man who risked his career, status and even his life to defend an innocent man and combat anti-Semitism perpetrated by his own country-men and even the Catholic Church itself (which the Catholic Church apologized for half a century later) under a corrupt government.     Especially considering there is no evidence that the quotes are legitimate or that the Marie Lemarchand story is true.  You might want to turn your gaze upon your beloved Catholic Church if you want to see what an attitude of mindless bigotry looks like and how the perversity of will can blind the intellect.

Sure : Instead of having Marie Lemarchand's face cured of a tuberculous suppurating ulcer of both cheeks, the nose and upper lip.
1. We would find some kind of marks or something indicating a plastic surgery.
2. We would find some kind of unknown treatment after effect if she was ever under a treatment for that kind of ulcer.
3. We would find that she lost her cheeks some days after. (like if it was an illusion)

I hope this gives you enough ideas to understand what is needed for me to doubt a miracle.

First of all, your analysis of the diagnosis is incorrect as pulmonary tuberculosis is lung related, and does not cause ulcers on the face.  Extrapulminary tuberculosis could be the cause of ulcers on the face however.  Although again, I can find no evidence of what her actual diagnosis was as it is not clear if the ulcers on her face were caused by EP TB or Lupus.

Secondly, your ideas are precisely what is needed for one to avoid ever having to doubt a miracle as they can’t possibly be proven. 

Your first idea to look for evidence of plastic surgery is absurd since it has yet to be proven that her skin was actually healed as opposed to the ulcer simply being removed and new skin growth appearing, which is a real possibility.  Additionally plastic surgery in 1892 was very limited and would have been easily detectable in contrast to natural flare ups and recovery which very easily could have been mistaken as being cured.

Your second idea to look for treatment aftereffects is also absurd since there was no known treatment for TB at the time.  It is also possible that successful treatment could have been accidently applied without realization and the trip to Lourdes prolonged discovery that could have helped countless others with real treatment rather than rest on wishful thinking.

Your third idea seems to imply that maybe her cure was a hoax.  This would be difficult to prove given the lack of evidence that it was even a miracle and that the case is over a hundred years old.  It could have been a hoax, she could have healed naturally or it could have been a miracle. 

Considering the lack of evidence, the case of Marie Lemarchand is not falsifiable and thus can’t be considered.  The lack of evidence is my first reason to doubt a miracle. 
 1. source: http://www.crisismagazine.com/1989/belief-and-unbelief-i-emile-zola-at-lourdes
 2. source: http://www.crisismagazine.com/author/johnston
 3. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Zola
 4. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair
 5. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
 6. source: http://www.lupus.org/answers/entry/what-is-lupus
 7. source: http://www.lupus.org/answers/entry/what-is-the-history-of-lupus
 8. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-induced_lupus_erythematosus
 9. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_lupus_erythematosus
 10. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis
 11. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tuberculosis
 12. source: http://globaltb.njms.rutgers.edu/tbhistory.htm
 13. source: http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/tuberculosis/
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 06:07:13 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline 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 #917 on: July 30, 2014, 04:48:58 PM »
I've already responded to this claim and apparently your brain missed it. You do not have a theory! A theory is the highest point in science! It is the graduation point. It occurs AFTER certain hypotheses have been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties. But you do not have this for your alleged "God".
Maybe you said it. Maybe I asked for someone more knowledgeable than you to support this claim. Any links?
I mean you've read all available Theological theories to assure me that NO hypotheses have EVER been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties?
I Shared with you links that contradict your affirmation. What do you offer beside your own imagination?

This another fallacious attempt by you to shift the burden of proof (which is a logical fallacy). How about you stop using your imagination in attempting to shirk off your burden. You are the one making the claims here regarding "theology" and "miracles" and thus the burden is on you to demonstrate your claims (right here and now - not just send us to other websites). Merely posting a link to a website of some theology classes doesn't cut it b/c you are talking to us, here, and now (and those sites do not "contradict" anything. They merely make CLAIMS anyway). If you can't demonstrate your claims here (in your own words) then why can't you just be honest enough to admit it instead of fallaciously attempting to turn the tables? Demonstrate the evidence and arguments that are presented by those other websites/classes in your own words.

Now, I am not "assuring" you of anything b/c I am not making the positive claims regarding alleged "miracles" or "theology" demonstrating an alleged "God". So you are also guilty of a strawman argument by misrepresenting my position. I do not accept your mere claim that there are "theology theories" (as claims/arguments are not theories). I do not accept your claim that "theology" proves that a "God" exists or that "miracles" ("God interacting in the world") occur - and since you are being challenged in this OP to demonstrate that "God exists as a separate entity" your work is still undone. And your asking for someone "more knowledgeable" is an ad hominem fallacy because it presumes I don't know the arguments attempted by theologians - when in fact I do (and they are fallacious - as I demonstrated early in this thread when you tried to post the standard arguments for God). Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on who makes them or where they come from. So again, YOU demonstrate the evidences/arguments here yourself. Stop sending us off to other websites to do your work for you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #918 on: July 30, 2014, 04:59:30 PM »
Lukvance, is the existence of the universe itself a miracle?
I don't know.
Well, do you believe it can only exist if god created it?
No. I believe that God is the "first cause" of everything and has no cause himself. This universe can be the consequence of another universe.

Well that's it then. You believe that without god nothing else can exist. You could rename your "first cause" to "the initial miracle" which means that there is nothing in existence that can't be considered a miracle at root level. Your scramble to search for miracles hither and thither is to contrast the rare/impossible with the common place, day to day consistent behaviour of the universe, which you also believe to be a miraculous existence anyway. Make the decision, either god isn't the "first cause" or there's no such thig as miracles. You can't have both.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

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 #919 on: July 30, 2014, 05:02:16 PM »
Yes, SevenPatch. That would do too. The lack of evidence can be one of the reason to make me doubt a miracle too.
The examples I gave you are just that, examples. They are there only to help understand what "kind" of evidence need to be presented so that I can start to doubt the legitimacy of a miracle.
I didn't look into the miracle itself like you did. Great work btw.
Unfortunately for me to think that there is a lack of evidence in this particular case, it would have to come from one of the "experts" who lived then. (would he be medical or theologian)
Maybe the case of Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre, the French nun who was cured of Parkinson's Disease in april 2005, is more recent and wouldn't lack evidence due to when it happen?
I've read some information about that miracle in the Beatification of Pope John Paul IIWiki page.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #920 on: July 30, 2014, 05:02:52 PM »
This case of Marie L. would definitely fit my scenario of a "miracle" that with additional scientific information (like a more specific or more accurate diagnosis) would be found not to be very miraculous at all.

I would also like to highlight SevenPatch's point that, if this woman indeed had TB, she probably infected many people while traveling to and from Lourdes who then suffered and died needlessly. No miracle cure for them, even if god cured Marie's face.

The research suggests that most sick people should stay home instead of venturing out to holy sites in search of miracle healings. Not only will they be far more likely to get better at home doing nothing at all, since the rate of miracles is lower than statistical chance, but they will be far less likely to infect other people with their diseases. Holy sites probably would not like to see the statistics on how many people got sicker after visiting their miracle places.[1]

Seriously, the idea of traveling far from home to a holy site when you are sick is so medieval, it predates germ theory. Sometimes I wanna punch a church.
 1. The sacred Ganges river, for example is one gigantic disease vector. Don't tell that to the people who make money running the holy sites, 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 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 #921 on: July 30, 2014, 05:08:58 PM »
Yes, SevenPatch. That would do too. The lack of evidence can be one of the reason to make me doubt a miracle too.
The examples I gave you are just that, examples. They are there only to help understand what "kind" of evidence need to be presented so that I can start to doubt the legitimacy of a miracle.
I didn't look into the miracle itself like you did. Great work btw.
Unfortunately for me to think that there is a lack of evidence in this particular case, it would have to come from one of the "experts" who lived then. (would he be medical or theologian)
Maybe the case of Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre, the French nun who was cured of Parkinson's Disease in april 2005, is more recent and wouldn't lack evidence due to when it happen?
I've read some information about that miracle in the Beatification of Pope John Paul IIWiki page.

This is another example of your shifting the burden of proof. We don't just believe there is evidence until someone shows there is not. We disbelieve claims until demonstrated true. So you keep going back to this irrational nonsense of "Oh, let's just believe it until it's proven false." and that is just bullshit hypocrisy because 1) we don't live our lives that way (we disbelieve until sufficient evidence comes in), and 2) it is unreliable for separating fact from fiction (i.e. - b/c believing in such claims prior to having sufficient evidence has generated exorbitant error) and 3) it leads to contradictory beliefs (such as, "I'm just going to believe in all religions until proven false." - when such are mutually exclusive). The time to accept that there is evidence for such claims is when evidence has come in, not before. So you should be admitting ignorance, not claiming there is evidence of "miracles".
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 05:15:04 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

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 #922 on: July 30, 2014, 05:18:00 PM »
I've already responded to this claim and apparently your brain missed it. You do not have a theory! A theory is the highest point in science! It is the graduation point. It occurs AFTER certain hypotheses have been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties. But you do not have this for your alleged "God".
Maybe you said it. Maybe I asked for someone more knowledgeable than you to support this claim. Any links?
I mean you've read all available Theological theories to assure me that NO hypotheses have EVER been vetted by independent, skeptical, and/or disagreeing parties?
I Shared with you links that contradict your affirmation. What do you offer beside your own imagination?

This another fallacious attempt by you to shift the burden of proof (which is a logical fallacy). How about you stop using your imagination in attempting to shirk off your burden. You are the one making the claims here regarding "theology" and "miracles" and thus the burden is on you to demonstrate your claims (right here and now - not just send us to other websites). Merely posting a link to a website of some theology classes doesn't cut it b/c you are talking to us, here, and now (and those sites do not "contradict" anything. They merely make CLAIMS anyway). If you can't demonstrate your claims here (in your own words) then why can't you just be honest enough to admit it instead of fallaciously attempting to turn the tables? Demonstrate the evidence and arguments that are presented by those other websites/classes in your own words.

Now, I am not "assuring" you of anything b/c I am not making the positive claims regarding alleged "miracles" or "theology" demonstrating an alleged "God". So you are also guilty of a strawman argument by misrepresenting my position. I do not accept your mere claim that there are "theology theories" (as claims/arguments are not theories). I do not accept your claim that "theology" proves that a "God" exists or that "miracles" ("God interacting in the world") occur - and since you are being challenged in this OP to demonstrate that "God exists as a separate entity" your work is still undone. And your asking for someone "more knowledgeable" is an ad hominem fallacy because it presumes I don't know the arguments attempted by theologians - when in fact I do (and they are fallacious - as I demonstrated early in this thread when you tried to post the standard arguments for God). Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on who makes them or where they come from. So again, YOU demonstrate the evidences/arguments here yourself. Stop sending us off to other websites to do your work for you.
I use websites and links because I am not as smart as these people whose claim I report here. If you disagree with them, you should talk with them. Until then saying NO! there is no proof! and doing nothing to look at the proof presented to you is going against the spirit of a discussion. PLUS you make assumption contradicting mine without supporting them (not even one link) proving by that fact that your counter argument is only in your head, it is not real an is unsupported.

I tell you "the car is red look at it!"
You tell me "NO! the car is not red and I won't look at it. You have to present me enough arguments right here and now by yourself proving me it's red without me looking at it. Don't tell me what I have to do! it's shifting the burden of proof!"
Then you tell again "ANYWAY the car cannot possibly be red because cars are not red, saying that a car is red is a fallacy because there is car in the definition of a red car. Plus I know what I am saying because I've been in a car and it wasn't red so asking for the opinion of a car builder is useless anyway!"

Please, present a supported counter argument after having enough knowledge to formulate one. Not one that you invented for the circumstances.
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #923 on: July 30, 2014, 05:29:35 PM »
Unfortunately for me to think that there is a lack of evidence in this particular case, it would have to come from one of the "experts" who lived then. (would he be medical or theologian)

Okay, first, those "experts" are dead.  Second, where is their documentation and reports?  Third and most importantly (besides they're dead), they didn't have the knowledge or understanding that we do today of the medical conditions they were investigating, that much is very clear and apparent.  Fourth, we know today that it is possible for people to survide without treatment of the potentially diagnosed conditions.

Am I to believe that a miracle occures whenever someone survives a disease or condition without treatment?

You know what would be REALLY really nice?  If there was actually a F$#cking way to detect "God" and determine if "God" actually interacted with reality instead of relying on looking for people who were healed without a known scientific reason.

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #924 on: July 30, 2014, 06:08:39 PM »
Lukvance, the cases of supposed miracles that you have presented all have some things in common that only a gullible or biased person would fall for.

1)They are all ambiguous enough conditions to be mis-diagnosed as something different.

Even with the best tests and instruments available today, you can get a false positive for cancer, AIDS, lupus, Parkinson's etc. Science is not based on absolutes, and I am constantly surprised that religious people think that it is. There are no illnesses or disease conditions where tests are 100% accurate every time.  Add in the possibility of mistakes, over-worked lab attendants, mixed up x-rays, contaminated samples, etc. No diagnosis is 100%.

"The doctor said she had cancer, therefore she had cancer. Now she does not have cancer, so it was a miracle." Sometimes people are diagnosed with cancer who do not have cancer. When tested later, no cancer-- a miracle! (But she never had cancer to begin with.) If you are going to accept as completely factual reports from 100 or more years ago when diagnostic tests were even less accurate than today, well, either bias or gullibility would have to be at work, and that is putting it very charitably.

2) They tend to be conditions that the medical literature has documented as sometimes, inexplicably, getting better without treatment.

Some people with cancer get better by themselves. It is rare, but it happens. If it only happened to saintly people, or people of certain religions or people who had prayed the rosary, there might be a correlation.

But it also happens to hateful, evil old child-molesting coots who smoke, drink, curse. There is a group of truck-stop prostitutes in Africa who have apparently developed resistance to AIDS--surely nobody deserves a miracle healing more, but they have not spent their lives in prayer, gone to church regularly, lived devout and holy lives--exactly the opposite!

Nobody knows why, but some people spontaneously get better from serious illnesses.

I am not saying that 1 and 2 above disprove the existence of miracle healings. There may be miracle healings. But until you control for the above possibilities, miracles are still in major doubt.

Here is what would go a long, long way towards proving the existence of miracle healings: An unambiguous, well-documented diagnosis of a serious medical condition that has no scientific evidence of getting better spontaneously. And, with no medical intervention, the condition is reversed or corrected.

There are many, many conditions that would fit this category: an amputated limb, conjoined twins, Down's syndrome, third degree burns requiring extensive skin grafts, severe autism, cleft palate, ectopic pregnancy, Alzheimer's, severed spinal cord paralysis-- just off the top of my head.[1]

The inspection of the evidence, medical records, etc have to be by a completely independent, secular committee of medical professionals, forensic experts and other scientists. That would be good evidence. It still would not prove the identity of who did the healing. But it would be a start.
 1. I saw a woman the other day who would be a perfect test case. She evidently was born with legs that curved outward at such an extreme angle that she cannot place her feet together. No treatment will fix her legs.
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.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1995
  • Darwins +83/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #925 on: July 30, 2014, 07:42:52 PM »
I see why this thread is tolerated, it demonstrates the irrational thinking processes of luk who is a believer.  the more he posts the more it demonstrates his irrational thought processes. it is like a case study into the mind of one who holds and defends that for which there is no justification, rigor, systematic evidenced based thought or critical thinking etc.

a great demo that could be used in any critical thinking course.
Signature goes here...

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 #926 on: July 30, 2014, 08:20:49 PM »
Okay, first, those "experts" are dead.  Second, where is their documentation and reports?  Third and most importantly (besides they're dead), they didn't have the knowledge or understanding that we do today of the medical conditions they were investigating, that much is very clear and apparent.  Fourth, we know today that it is possible for people to survide without treatment of the potentially diagnosed conditions.

Am I to believe that a miracle occures whenever someone survives a disease or condition without treatment?

You know what would be REALLY really nice?  If there was actually a F$#cking way to detect "God" and determine if "God" actually interacted with reality instead of relying on looking for people who were healed without a known scientific reason.
You mean like prayers and things alike?
Miracle happen everyday in a multitude of forms, the most visible ones are those I presented to you but you could go to the church next door and ask people how God "proved" them his existence. Each one has his own experience, each one is another proof of the existence of God. But hey you don't want to do anything either eh?
I understand that these testimonies are too far from science, that is why I use the miracles that are almost scientific proof of the existence of God.

Miracles do not occurs whenever someone survives a disease or condition without treatment, this is one event that should be looked at by experts before being claimed miracles.
For example in Sister Marie's case : The event would not have counted as a miracle if the cause was psychogenic and if the immediate physiological cure had not been judged to be definitive, total, and permanent, as well as directly attributable to his intercession.

About the documentation and support of old miracles, they are available at the Vatican library and some rare libraries that I don't know of. (that's what the miracle expert told me)
If we were to find another reason for the healing of the sick person than God, the event would have lost it's miracle status. That is not the case, even with our knowledge of science today, the event still stand as a miracle.
I don't know exactly who but I know that scientists today work everyday to look at the proofs of old events and make sure that they still have God's doing as their only possible explanation.
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 #927 on: July 30, 2014, 08:24:51 PM »
I use websites and links because I am not as smart as these people whose claim I report here. If you disagree with them, you should talk with them. Until then saying NO! there is no proof! and doing nothing to look at the proof presented to you is going against the spirit of a discussion. PLUS you make assumption contradicting mine without supporting them (not even one link) proving by that fact that your counter argument is only in your head, it is not real an is unsupported.

I tell you "the car is red look at it!"
You tell me "NO! the car is not red and I won't look at it. You have to present me enough arguments right here and now by yourself proving me it's red without me looking at it. Don't tell me what I have to do! it's shifting the burden of proof!"
Then you tell again "ANYWAY the car cannot possibly be red because cars are not red, saying that a car is red is a fallacy because there is car in the definition of a red car. Plus I know what I am saying because I've been in a car and it wasn't red so asking for the opinion of a car builder is useless anyway!"

Please, present a supported counter argument after having enough knowledge to formulate one. Not one that you invented for the circumstances.

You deserve a slap in the face for this reply. Once again you have misrepresented my position. I have NOT said, "The car is not red" (or "it was not a miracle"). That would be a positive claim and I have made no such thing regarding your claim of miracles. Again, the burden of proof is on you. What I said was that the time to believe a claim is after sufficient evidence has been presented and not before. If you had actually gone over the links you had provided you would be able to reproduce those claims here instead of continually trying to send us off site. Thus far, myself and others on this site have noted the fallacious reasoning being attempting by those behind the arguments on the websites you have posted. We have rebutted their attempts and you have responded with nothing but, "Go look at them! Go talk at them!" I'm not interested in talking with them. We are here talking to YOU and asking YOU to demonstrate the OP, as well as what sound reasons you have for believing in an independent alleged "God" thing.

Secondly, "smartness" has absolutely NOTHING to do with this - and you damn well know it. It doesn't take a theology degree to reproduce arguments made by theologians (I know this because I did it for years when I was a Christian apologist). And you even proved that at the beginning of this discussion by bringing up the Ontological, Teleological, Cosmological, Moral, and Design arguments. These theologians are in the exact same position that you are - neither they, nor you, have demonstrated that "God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains." Since that is what this OP is about, we are still waiting for you to do it without logically fallacious reasoning.

Third, my counter-arguments have in fact been supported. I have noted the continual fallacies you keep attempting to use. I have cited each specific fallacy (even using links!), noted why they are fallacious, what makes them fallacious (including examples), and why you should correct them. Would it matter at all that I also hold two degrees in Philosophy and that I am expert in critical thinking and fallacious reasoning?? NO-IT-WOULD-NOT! You know why? Because arguments stand or fall on their own merits - not on who makes them! So start putting forth your own reasons instead of trying to pass the buck off to someone else off site.

Last, you did not tell me to "look at the car". You told me to look at CLAIMS about the alleged car (i.e. - claims about the alleged "miracles" aka - "God interacting in the world"). So you have misrepresented the situation once again (strawman fallacy). You do not have a "miracle" or "God" (car) by which to examine as to whether or not it is "red". You have an unexplained phenomena with a CLAIM about "God interacting in the world" and that is the very claim we are challenging. Produce the "car" and not just claims about it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan