Okay, let’s review the evidence I have and what you seem to be implying you have regarding miracles.
SevenPatch has the following evidence:
A. Scientific evidence and conclusions that no known cause can explain the event that occurred.
Lukvance seems to be implying he has the following evidence:
A. Scientific evidence and conclusions that no known cause can explain the event that occurred.
B. Evidence that “God” is the cause of the event that occurred.
I don’t have evidence “B”, give me evidence “B”, show me where evidence “B” is. My conclusions so far are based on not having “B”. No “B” is the counter argument. In order for you to refute the counter argument, all you have to do is provide “B”.
DO NOT tell me that miracles are “B”, or this discussion will end and you will have proved that my points are valid.
B is not miracles. 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.
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.
Quit stonewalling and answer the questions.
Wow, seriously dude?
If you say we do know the cause and that cause was “God” then THAT is the evidence I would like to review. I would like to examine the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracle. You are looking at it. The evidence is the miracle.
Let me get this straight. Miracles are evidence that “God” was the cause of miracles which proves the existence of “God”.
Did you seriously just write “the evidence is the miracles”?
I asked you for evidence that “God” was the cause and you say “the evidence is the Miracles”.
Sorry, with your explanation on evidence previously in this post, I realize that I should have written "the evidence is in
the miracles" I understand that little word can make a whole lot of difference. Good thing you took time to explain further the bit about evidences.
Miracles are not evidence that it is God who made them. Miracles are evidence of the existence of God outside your body.
Again, with the Higgs boson, If I tell you "If you say we do know the cause (of what you see) and that cause was the Higgs Boson then THAT is the evidence I would like to review. I would like to examine the evidence that the Higgs Boson was the cause of what you are looking at." What would your reaction be? How is your reaction different than mine?[...]
My response would be to provide you with background information, links to the scientific research, results and data which (so far) verify the predictions made regarding the Higgs boson particle.
I can provide you links to theology courses and books and website if you want. You will then have the necessary background information to know it was indeed an act from God. See? Your reaction is not that different than mine.
Is the story legit though? Did a Basillian hieromonk say a prayer with doubt in his heart, at which point “God” turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood? Yes, it has yet to be proven wrong.
I have a rock in my back yard that was put there by aliens from another planet. What is that you say? You question the legitimacy of my story? Well of course it is true, it has yet to be proven wrong. GO AHEAD, I DARE YOU to prove that aliens from another planet didn’t put the rock in my back yard.
Give me enough time and I (or some rock expert or some alien expert) will prove you that the rock that you have was NOT put there by aliens from another planet.
I have no more reason to believe the Miracle of Lanciano is true than I do to believe that Thor went fishing for the serpent Jormungandr. You can go to Altuna, Sweeden to see the Altuna Runestone and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes. It is Thor’s own carvings. Is the Altuna Runestone presented as proof of the existence of Thor? The miracle of Lanciano is presented as proof of the existence of God. If not, why comparing the two?
There are over 900 footprints attributed to BigFoot and are presented as evidence for the existence of BigFoot. You can look up the locations of where the mold imprints of these footprints are displayed, go there and see with your own eyes. The footprints are evidence that BigFoot exists.
I understand that Altuna Runestone is not presented as proof of the existence of Thor. Now you shift to some other example. That's ok.
Big Foot footprints are presented as proof of the existence of Big foot? I remember reading an article about that and how these footprints where in fact made by kids with sticks and plastic feet. Are you sure you want to compare The miracle of Lanciano to Bigfoot footprints? Because I believe there are some trusty website
that I can find that will convince you that they are not proof of anything.
Why do you keep asking me for specific means of how to detect something I don’t know to exist? Do I ask you what specific means you would use to detect the existence of leprechauns or Santa Clause? You don’t have any reason to believe leprechauns or Santa Clause exist, so why would you know how to detect them?
Any means to detect “God” are, as long as it can be verified objectively (as opposed to subjectively), acceptable and would be the first step making me accept that miracles are an act from “God”. What means are you thinking of when you write this down? How are they different than the ones already in place?
Explain to me how they are detected and hwy they are detected that way. I will then have a specific mean that I would use to detect the existence of leprechauns or Santa Clause BEFORE telling you that your means are not working.
[...] Sounds like you want me to believe without evidence, like you do. No thanks, I’ll wait until I get the evidence. Anytime you’d like to share any such evidence what-so-ever, be my guest.
If you’re asking me if I know how to detect “God”, then no, I do not know how to detect “God”, if I did then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and I would be working on a scientific paper showing everyone how to detect “God”. Then allow yourself to learn how to detect God. People already wrote the paper for you.
Oh it wasn't so hard. You don't have to twist you mind that much. "allow yourself to learn how to detect God" simply means take some course in theology. Do you want me to redirect you to the University closest to you?
If someone (anyone) were to inform the world how to detect “God” and then ascertain “God’s” behavior and verify that “God” was the cause of certain events for which the cause was unknown (aka miracles), then I would be able to accept the fact that a miracle is an act from “God”. How is that not answering your question? Because my question is in two parts. The second part being "How is that different to what is already in place?" Someone already informed the world how to detect God and ascertain his behavior and verify that he is the cause of the event and this is the process used to determine if an event is a miracle.
I hope this will help you :http://education-portal.com/articles/5_Universities_Offering_Free_Theology_and_World_Religions_Courses_Online.html
It looks like the 3 steps that the Catholic Church use are only step 1 of the scientific method.Again, not knowing the cause of something is not the means to detect something. It only means that we need to figure out the unknown. That is the point of using the scientific method and step 1 of detecting that which is unknown. [...]
Here is how Miracles fit in the Scientific method :
1. Propose a means to detect “God” : You can find how to detect a miracle. (the 3 steps you talked about are a good start then there are others)
2. Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God” : We know what a miracle might look like and how it should behave. (for example, the cure must be permanent)Since when do acts of “God” behave? That is what a miracle is right? An act of “God”?
How do we know what an “act of God” might look like? Source please. Why must the cure be permanent? How do we know that “God’s” intention wasn’t just to cure the person temporarily so they might achieve something before they die? Source please.
3. Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God” : We do compare the event to what has been predicted.The cause of the event is unknown, Lukvance. We’re trying to prove that “God” is the cause of the event. If we can prove that “God” is the cause of the event, then we will know the cause was “God” and thus we can declare that a miracle (act of “God”) has occurred.
What I’m not getting from you or any searches that I’ve done is how we would know that “God’ is the cause. Comparing the event to what has been predicted would fall under step 4.
4. Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes. No, your understanding of the 5 steps is lacking. How about you describe in your own words what impact the discovery of the Higgs boson particle means to science? Then I’ll go into detail regarding the 5 steps.
5. Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” is the cause of any events with known causes.
To understand them better let's compare the scientific method you proposed and apply it to the Higgs Boson :
1. Propose a means to detect the Higgs Boson
2. Make predictions regarding the behavior of the Higgs Boson
3. Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect the Higgs Boson.
4. Use the verified information/data to determine if the Higgs Boson was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
5. Use the verified information/data to determine if the Higgs Boson is the cause of any events with known causes.
Could you give us examples of the equivalent for the Higgs Boson? (for step 4 and 5)
Beside the stonewalling for step 4 and 5 I believe that your study in theology will answer your counter arguments for the other steps.
Anyone should be able to verify that “God” was actually involved In these “miracles” assuming they have the means to perform the experiments and testing procedures. Currently the Catholic Church is the only body that makes the determination, and I cannot find any information on their methods In actually making the determination. I can only find the methods relating to determining if the cause is known or unknown. I see. You didn't have the following information : You and anyone are able to verify that God is involved in these miracles. They just have to study the subject (become theologians)
As you can see there are no difference between what you expect and what is already in place.
Why would I need to become a theologian just to read the information regarding their methods used to determine that “God” was the cause? Is the information secret? Why would the information be secret? I’m not a particle physicist yet I can read the information regarding the methods used to discover the Higgs boson particle. Information regarding the Higgs boson particle is free to all to review for themselves.
OMG! I had already told you about theologians. Look at that! I am smarter than I think I am haha. Since your post was so long I took time to answer each part when in fact the answer was already been given. Just maybe misunderstood.
What you might not have understood about theology is that it is where you learn how to determine that God is the cause. It is not a secret information, you can read books about theology and follow the courses that I've linked you.
I need to know the methods used by the Catholic Church to actually determine that “God” was the cause. The claim is never reviewed by non-Catholic parties. Non-Catholic parties only make the determination that the cause is unknown which in no way verifies that “God” was the cause. The claim is reviewed by non Catholic parties. What are you talking about? Everyone on earth have the capacity to review the claim. You understand that before you can claim that God is the cause, you have to know who God is (and isn't), right? For that there are schools where you can study God. Not all theologians are Catholics.
Source please that shows that non-Catholic Church personal reviewed the claims and also determined the cause to be “God” and that a miracle occurred.[/quote] The best would be that you review it yourself. That way you will be sure that the reviewing has been done correctly. If you want to read about the others reviewing, I think you will have to read books or go to the Vatican archives. Maybe with luck you can find a theological review online for the miracle you want to investigate. Something along the lines of that book
Wow, that was the longest reply I ever posted. I hope you will find your answers inside it.