Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Lukvance

    Emergency Room


    Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258

You’re welcome.  It describes your behavior and what you are suffering from.  You’re selectively remembering the discussion so far, ignoring the points.  I suppose though you could honestly be missing the responses, but they’ve been brought up in many different ways to attempt to help you understand yet without any success.  Additionally, you selectively believe things as long as it confirms your preconceptions.  For instance, you believe miracles are proof of god, yet the same quality of evidence for Big Foot or Ancient Aliens you would dismiss based on your own personal reasons rather than based on inaccurate or inconsequential evidence.
One thing you don’t seem to understand is that in the same way you don’t believe in Ancient Aliens for example is the same way I don’t believe miracles are an act of “God”.  I am consistent in my standards for sufficient evidence, you are not.  Your standards change based on your confirmation bias.
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.)

Quote
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 :)

Quote
If we want to actually prove that a miracle has occurred, then we need to detect “God” (yes I know, you keep asking me how to detect “God”, I’ll get into that later in this post).
Great. I hope you will then compare the way you think we could detect him and how we actually proceed to detect him today.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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. 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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
I’ll explain it again (based on the sources you have provided and that I have found).
Steps that the Catholic Church does:
1.   Scientifically determine that the cause is unknown
2.   Determine if “God” was prayed to
3.   Declare “God” was the cause.
Steps that would be using the Scientific method:
1.   Propose a means to detect “God”
2.   Make predictions regarding the behavior of “God”
3.   Test the predictions to verify or falsify the predictions and/or hypothesis for the proposed means to detect “God”.
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.
The steps that the Catholic church takes are also the same than the scientific method. I think you voluntary "skipped" some of them. 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)
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)
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.
I'm not sure I get 4 and 5
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)
Changed Change Reason Date
SevenPatch Continuing to dodge my request for evidence, put up or shut up July 17, 2014, 04:03:07 PM