Your logic enables you to believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Ancient Aliens, Bermuda Triangle Theorys, etc etc.
No. You can try (in another thread), I will then tell you what I am expecting from you so I would consider believing in these things.
I have given you proof that the evidence you’ve provided is not valid, which you have rejected because it does not conform to your needs and because it goes against your beliefs.Yeah...I don't remember that. I remember you stating things that contradict my proof without supporting it.
What exactly don’t you believe?I don't believe that the Catholic church is run by Satan for example . I don't believe that I can teleport myself or that someone can teleport. There are many things I don't believe.
Do you believe in Hinduism (people have experienced it and there are experts in Hinduism)? Do you believe in Islam (people have experienced it and there are experts in Islam)? Do you believe in Ancient Aliens (people believe it is true and there are experts)? Do you believe in astrology (people have experienced it and there are experts)? Do you believe in fortune telling (people have experienced it and there are experts)? No
Do you believe in magic (people have experienced it and there are experts)?
Depends on the form. But I would say yes.
(also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
Are you willing to accept that “God” does not exist and is not the cause of miracles, if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?
Of course! I am not dumb. It's like if you are asking me "are you willing to accept that men did not walk on the moon if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?" Of course I would! But I doubt you will find enough supported evidence.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could provide the same amount of quality evidence in support of the existence of "God" as can be provided for humans walking on the moon.
Any pictures? Any "God" rocks? Any reflective mirrors on the surface of "God" that we can use to bounce lasers off of?
Nope, all you got is what you were taught and how you feel about things.
In short : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God. I know what would make me accept every facts that I don't believe in.
Actually I do know what would make me accept that miracles are an act from “God” as a fact. I’ve explained to you
let's see if you explained something or if you just thew ideas without supporting them.
Wow. Maybe you can explain the difference between explaining something and throwing out ideas without supporting them?
Now you're just trolling me trying to get a reaction.
What I explain to you is the scientific method, don't get mad at me because you can't address the points.
first we need to detect “God” and make predictions about what to expect from “God” interacting with the natural world,
What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use?
Not sure why you are asking me, the "God" exists hypothesis isn't mine. Without any means of detecting "God" we have no way of knowing if "God" interacted with reality or if some other unknown variable was involved.
I really don't understand why that is a complicated concept for you.
Who will predict what to expect from God? You? The Pope? so many question without answers.
Whoever has formed the hypothesis will make the predictions based on their research and detection of "God". Those predictions will be able to be verified or falsified by anyone (assuming they have the means) using the necessary test procedures.
This is called the scientific method. How can you claim that the Vatican has used the scientific method if you can't recognize the basic steps of the scientific method?
then we can determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”.
How would you determine such thing?
Your question completely ignores the prior two steps. Once you've detected "God" and verified that "God" exists, and understand the behavior of "God" THEN .... you ..... can ...... identify ...... when ........."God".......has......interacted ..... with ....... reality.
That's it that's all you have to say? then allow me to say it again : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God
Thats all I needed to say. Here I'll say it again : I’ve explained to you that first we need to detect “God” and make predictions about what to expect from “God” interacting with the natural world, and then we can determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”. Since no evidence has been provided regarding the existence of “God”, I have no way of knowing that “God” was involved in the “miracles”.
I’ve reviewed the methods reported to be used by the Vatican and have found them to be flawed.
What was your source?
"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility."
One of the problems is that there is no peer-review process of the research done by the Catholic Church. The system is set up so that only those within the Catholic Church are the experts, which makes it a self review process. Self-review processes tend to ignore bias which favors the desired outcome. The peer-review process seeks to remove bias and ignores the desired outcome.
explain to me how a peer-review process for a miracle should work. Then tell me that it is not what is already being done.
That is a reasonable basic description of the peer review process.
This is not being done by the Catholic Church as only those within the Catholic Church review their claims. If you argue that only those in the Catholic Church are qualified to review their own claims then this is circular. It would be like if I got to determine my yearly pay raise instead of my boss. If the Pope declairs a miracle happend, is some bishop going to say, oh wait, I found this evidence which means you're wrong mister Pope.
So how do you know that “God” doesn’t cause bad things to happen to you? Like a test?
It's what Catholicism Christian religion taught me and what I've experienced so far.
So what if I was taught something different and what I was taught is what I've experienced so far?
I've been taught that there is no god or gods and what I've been taught fits exactly with the reality I've experienced so far. If your logic is rational then we are both right.
If bad things happening to us might be a test, how do we know that everything isn’t caused by “God”? Same reason, religion.
Okay, so whatever you've been told?
What if someone follows their conscience and they feel like “God” is involved, but then something bad happens?
Did it ever happen to you? If not, you are asking me "what if the impossible happen?"
Yeah a few times. What makes you think it is impossible? How would you know it's impossible if you have no means of detecting or predicting the nature of "God"?
What if it was a test?
A test from your conscience? why? I don't see any reason why your conscience would put you to a test by LYING to you.
Who says the conscience is lying? What if it didn't lie? What If "God" was involved and initiated the test to see how you handle the situation?
Look, the point is, how do you know anything about "God" if you have no supporting evidence regarding "God"?
From my perspective, you're just making things up based on how you feel and what you've been told.