Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

SevenPatch



    Posts: 710
  • Darwins +108/-4

That is your opinion about me. You are allowed to share it with us but it doesn't make it true. The truth is that my standards do not change much. (of course, I will believe what my mother tells me over someone I've never met and I hope, so would you.)

Your belief that “the truth is that your standards do not change much” is your opinion about yourself, your responses on these forums show that your opinion is inaccurate.

We need to identify the evidence for either.  Since a miracle is an act of “God”, then we need to find evidence for “God”.  Hmmm…. I think I see now where your mistake is, you think an act of “God” (aka a miracle) is evidence of “God”.

Now, you understand :)

I understand your error, unfortunately, you do not and seem to be refusing to, or are incapable of comprehending your error, which makes this discussion pointless as you have accepted beliefs based on logical fallacies and have no interest in correcting your errors.

Furthermore, don’t expect me to accept beliefs in the same way you do.  If “God” exists, I expect to have sufficient evidence before accepting “God’s” existence as opposed to mistakenly assuming “God’s” existence with insufficient logically fallacious evidence.


As I’ve said, the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown.  You are claiming if we don’t know something, that is evidence for “God”.  Yes, yes, I know it has to be a really amazing good thing to happen.  It doesn’t matter, scientists say, we don’t know the cause, the Vatican then declares miracle.  Unknown = Miracle.

No.

Well gee, thanks for the awesome response.  How about providing the information I’m looking for, namely how the Vatican determines that “God” was involved?  Seriously, how many times to I have to ask?  Oh wait , I know, I have to ask them right.  I have to do your work.  I’ve already looked and cannot find the information, and everything I have found leads me to the conclusion you are saying “No” to. 

Well …. I’m waiting ……  Anytime you want to support your assertions, be my guest and until then I have no choice but to conclude your responses are based on your confirmation bias.


I’ve already explained the problems with this logic.  See: Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians.  See any ancient culture for that matter.

No need to explain it again, it is not the logic I use. It is only the logic you want people to believe I use. But it is not. That's why I don't want you to judge me, let your counter argument speak for itself. Up until now, the way I understand your counter argument is the following phrase : "the way in which a miracle is determined to occur is if the cause is unknown" and that is not true. The cause is known. The cause is God as predicted by the theory.

Clearly you don’t understand my counter argument.  Your lack of understanding supports my earlier conclusions that you either can’t or won’t comprehend your errors. 

You continue to make claims without support, and I keep asking you to provide the source or evidence which supports the claim “God is the cause”. 

I think this will be my last reply to you regarding miracles. 

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.

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.


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.

Wow, seriously dude? 

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”.

SO

Miracles are the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracles.  You also claim that miracles are the evidence for the existence of “God” outside our minds.

SO

Miracles are the evidence that “God” was the cause of the miracles which prove the existence of “God” outside of our minds.

I think you might want to rethink your response to my request.  I’ll give you one more chance to provide the evidence that allows us to know that “God” was the cause.

How do you not see that your logic is circular?

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?

Ha!  Very funny, you’ve accidently said something that kind of makes sense for once.  Funnily enough, you probably have no clue what you just said and were just trying to mimic what I said.

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.  Actually I was going to do all of this but then I realized it wouldn’t matter if I did, you’re playing games and you’re a fraud.  You don’t care about the Higgs boson particle, you are using it as a device to justify your belief in miracles.  In your warped mind, you think If I accept the science behind the Higgs boson particle then you are justified in accepting miracles as evidence for “God”.  No, you are not justified, if you knew anything about science, the Higgs boson particle and the scientific method you would understand why you are not justified.

Your response is to dodge and avoid having to provide background information or any research that shows how anyone would know that “God” was the cause of miracles.

I’m not the one making claims here, you are.  I don’t care if you accept the science behind the Higgs boson particle.  I don’t accept that miracles exist because I have no evidence that “God” exists, so therefore “God” cannot act if there is no “God”.

Do you care if I don’t accept that miracles exist?   If you do, then you need to provide the sources of evidence that show that “God” was the cause.

Stop dodging and provide the evidence.


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.

How the fuck could it be proven wrong?  It can’t be proven wrong.  Do you have any idea how stupid your response is?  I’m going to assume you don’t, so let me explain.

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.

Ah but for some reason, you don’t believe me right?  Why don’t you believe me but you believe the Miracle of Lanciano story? 

CONFIRMATION BIAS!

You’re not even trying anymore.  You’ve just willfully given yourself over to ignorance and stupidity just to hold onto your preconceived beliefs.

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?

Come on!  Really?!?!?! Is something not being presented as evidence the only thing you have to conclude that it is not true?!?!?!?!?!  More evidence of your confirmation bias.

FYI, there are people who believe the Norse gods exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_neopaganism

Although, I can’t find that the Altuna Runestone is actually being presented as evidence.  Quite amazing though that if it were, would you then have to conclude that Thor exists?

I should send an e-mail to one of the groups who believe in the Norse gods, let them know all they got to do is start claiming things as evidence and they’ll have at least one person who will believe them.

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.


Me not knowing how to detect “God” does not mean I don’t know what would make me accept that a miracle was an act from “God”.  This is non sequitur logic.
Why? If say you don't know "how this planet surface looks" and then someone tells you how this planet surface looks. How could you say "that's not the way!" if you have no idea what would make you accept "how this planet surface looks"? You must have something to compare it to or accept the new information that is given to you.

Okay first of all, describing the surface of a planet would likely be an ordinary claim.  For instance someone could say the surface is sandy or rocky.  I only need ordinary evidence for ordinary claims.  “God” and miracles are extraordinary claims for which I need extraordinary evidence.  Evidence for how the planet surface looks could be provided.  You however continue to refuse to provide evidence regarding “God” and evidence that show’s “God” was the cause of what is claimed to be a miracle.

If someone claims that Thor was the cause of the Altuna Runestone then I want to see evidence which shows this is true.  The Altuna Runestone is not the evidence, it is the effect.  Thor is the claimed cause, I want to see the link between the claimed cause and the effect.

If someone claims that “God” was the cause of flesh and blood being present in a Catholic church then I want to see evidence which shows this is true.  The flesh and blood being present in a Catholic church is not the evidence, it is the effect.  “God” is the claimed cause, I want to see the link between the claimed cause and the effect.  Heck I want to see evidence that bread and wine actually changed to flesh and blood.  Where is the evidence for that?  At this point, it is more likely that Thor exists and carved the Altuna Runestone than this Miracle of Lanciano story.

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?

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?

Look, us humans are limited by our senses right?  So any determination we make is based on our senses and must be verified by our senses.  So, if “God” exists, and we are to verify that “God” actually exists, then the only way we could do that is through our senses right? 

This is the last time I’m going to say this, I DON”T KNOW HOW “GOD” WAS DETECTED!  I’M ASKING YOU HOW “GOD” WAS DETECTED!  YOU ARE DODGING MY REQUEST!

You see, the only thing I have is a claim that “God” was the cause.   If no one actually detects “God” then how do they know “God” was the cause?

Here is an example to help you understand my point of view:

My friend and I are sitting in the living room watching TV, when suddenly we hear a crash coming from the other room.  We are the only ones in the house so we are surprised by this loud noise.  We go to investigate and find that two books on a book shelf fell off the shelf onto the floor.  We wonder how this could have happened as no one was in the room and we cannot find any known reason why the books fell.  Since I don’t have any evidence to support any hypothesis I am left with not knowing the cause.  My friend however must know the cause, she cannot let it go until she knows the cause, so she proposes that a cat did it.  I tell her, “but there is no cat in the house, nor could a cat get into the house, also we did not see any cat in the area when we investigated the noise”.  Surprisingly she claims “The books having fell without any known cause is proof that a cat was the cause”.  I ask, “where is the evidence that this cat exists?”.  She answers “The books fell didn’t they?”  I respond “that makes no sense what-so-ever, just because we don’t know why or how the books fell doesn’t mean a cat was the cause.”  My friend responds “Of course we know why the books fell, the cat caused the books to fall”.  I ask again “what cat? Where is the evidence for this cat knocking over the books onto the floor?”  Again she responds “The books on the floor is the evidence”.  /facepalm


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.

AND YET AGAIN you fail to tell me how to detect “God”.  I swear, a discussion with you is worse than having teeth pulled.

SO, I should ALLOW myself to LEARN how to detect “God” huh. 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 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.

Source please.

The steps that the Catholic church takes are also the same than the scientific method.

Really dude?!?!  You took what I wrote and just claimed that is what happens without any justification for such a claim. 

I think you voluntary "skipped" some of them.

I did no such thing.  The 3 steps that I wrote down are what I have learned from reviewing the sources you provided and that I have found.  If you believe there are other steps that I have missed, please provide a quote from the sources that I missed or a new source which I have not seen yet.

It looks like the 3 steps that the Catholic Church use are only step 1 of the scientific method.

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)

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.  The fact that you and the Catholic Church are not using the scientific method is the problem.  The Catholic Church is going from “A” (not knowing the cause) to “Z” (“God” is the cause) without showing “B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y”.  WHERE THE FUCK IS “B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y”!  I CAN”T FIND IT!

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.

I'm not sure I get 4 and 5

I have no reason to believe you understand any of the steps or the scientific method.

4.   Use the verified information/data to determine if “God” was in fact the cause of events with no known causes.
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)

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.

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.

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.

LOL, so you think that there is a “God” and there is no “God” at the same time?

No, I think There is a God and you think that there is no God at the same time. No problemo.

Okay, fine.

Miracles are unsupported claims, and Catechism appears to be brainwashing material.
Well...that are strong claims. Let's our counter arguments speak from themselves, no need to support them with such claims :)

For fucks sake.  If you would provide any supporting evidence for even half, no a quarter, shit, any of your claims I wouldn’t have this fucked up desire to start pulling my own teeth out rather than interact with you.

Start providing sources or start retracting your claims.
Changed Change Reason Date
median "...believe without evidence, like you do." PRICELESS July 18, 2014, 12:48:54 AM
jaimehlers I predict that Lukvance will ignore most of what you wrote. July 17, 2014, 04:13:08 PM
nogodsforme Hold his feet to the fire. I need a break. July 17, 2014, 03:46:29 PM